A's and Giants Sharing AT&T- Could it Happen?

[Anubis2051]

Ok, so I was washing my car today and this idea popped into my head. We all know that the A's desperately need a new baseball-only facility, however their stadium deals keep on falling through. We also know that just across the bay is one of the best ballparks in the nation. So why don't the A's become the tenants of the Giants for the time being until they can procure their own ballpark? It offers benefits for both teams, with the A's being able to maintain the Oakland name for the time being, as well as be in an area that is still accessible to their fan base, and the giants would be able to make back some cash. I know this sounds crazy, but do you guys think there is any merit to the idea?

[DiggerODell]

Ok, so I was washing my car today and this idea popped into my head. We all know that the A's desperately need a new baseball-only facility, however their stadium deals keep on falling through. We also know that just across the bay is one of the best ballparks in the nation. So why don't the A's become the tenants of the Giants for the time being until they can procure their own ballpark? It offers benefits for both teams, with the A's being able to maintain the Oakland name for the time being, as well as be in an area that is still accessible to their fan base, and the giants would be able to make back some cash. I know this sounds crazy, but do you guys think there is any merit to the idea?

Not crazy. I could live with it.

And would it not be even more funny, if Barry Bonds signed with the A's? I would travel and buy a ticket, I garontee!

[DiggerODell]

More and more I think about it, the more I like it! I just hope those wino's out in the bay area come up with a solution have as good

[Dodgeboy]

While I commend you for thinking outside the box... it probably won't work.

1: The A's have a cheap lease at the coliseum, the Giants would likely charge more, or at least the same - no benefit for the A's

2: The Giants would still keep the suite/concession/extra $$$ - no benefit for the A's

3: If they're moving to San Fran, they might as well move to San Jose (which they will do)

The whole point of getting a new stadium is the "extra" revenue sources (suites, club levels, etc) that older facilities don't have. The bottom line is the "bottom line". Things like better sightlines, open concourses, etc are just side benefits.

[DiggerODell]

While I commend you for thinking outside the box... it probably won't work.

1: The A's have a cheap lease at the coliseum, the Giants would likely charge more, or at least the same - no benefit for the A's

2: The Giants would still keep the suite/concession/extra $$$ - no benefit for the A's

3: If they're moving to San Fran, they might as well move to San Jose (which they will do)

The whole point of getting a new stadium is the "extra" revenue sources (suites, club levels, etc) that older facilities don't have. The bottom line is the "bottom line". Things like better sightlines, open concourses, etc are just side benefits.

I hate that when that happens. Somebody logical comes along. Well said and your probably correct. I just hope, at minimum, they stay put as close as San Jose.

[Dodgeboy]

I hate that when that happens. Somebody logical comes along. Well said and your probably correct. I just hope, at minimum, they stay put as close as San Jose.

Sorry :sorry:

But yes, I'm sure they'll stay in the Bay area. The owner has business ties in San Jose after all.

[DiggerODell]

Sorry :sorry:

But yes, I'm sure they'll stay in the Bay area. The owner has business ties in San Jose after all.

It's all good. I grew up out there, haven't lived there for 30 years so I don't always stay abreast of what the latest news is on the ball teams and such. I catch most of what I need (or don't wan't to know, or just plain ignore) here on BBF.

[Yankeefan3783]

Unlikely to happen, but not a bad idea.

[sc132]

How bout a nice little trade between Oakland and San Francisco. Oakland A's move in with the Giants and San Francisco 49ers move in to a renovated football only Coliseum with the Raiders. There, I just saved them all more then a billion dollars.

[DiggerODell]

How bout a nice little trade between Oakland and San Francisco. Oakland A's move in with the Giants and San Francisco 49ers move in to a renovated football only Coliseum with the Raiders. There, I just saved them all more then a billion dollars.

I refer to what yankeefan say's . . . probably won't happen, but not a half bad idea :clapping

[aqib]

The Giants have a huge debt service bill on that park every year so it would make sense for them to flat out rent it to the As for 81 home games. The downside would be they lose revenue from casual fan/fan of baseball in general who may not particularly care about either team but likes going to ball games (say transplant from another area) might just as easily go to an As game instead of a Giants game. Like when I first moved to Cleveland I started going to Indians games just because I like baseball and its a great park. If I lived in the Bay area I would go to a Giants game.

Now not knowing the BAy area how far is AT&T from the whatever the A's stadium is called?

[DiggerODell]

Now not knowing the BAy area how far is AT&T from the whatever the A's stadium is called?

Best I can recollect, about 10-12 mile drive, but about 3 miles as the crow flies. It's right across the drink. Oh, and it's called the Oakland-Alameda Coliseum (or? it was . . ha!)

[sc132]

Best I can recollect, about 10-12 mile drive, but about 3 miles as the crow flies. It's right across the drink. Oh, and it's called the Oakland-Alameda Coliseum (or? it was . . ha!)

Yup, DiggerODell's got it about right. It's usually less then a 30 minute drive barring traffic of course. To the proposed location in San Jose its about 50 miles give or take.

[Anubis2051]

Yup, DiggerODell's got it about right. It's usually less then a 30 minute drive barring traffic of course. To the proposed location in San Jose its about 50 miles give or take.

Hows mass transit from Oakland to SF though? would it be doable?

[DiggerODell]

Hows mass transit from Oakland to SF though? would it be doable?

BART, Bay Bridge (there's always swimming for the die-hards)

I'm not sure if it's "doable" for 30-40k per game from Oakland. They'd have to do a study on it and that would suck bucks and 10 years down the drain.

[mandrake]

Even though I deep down feel the A's should come back east, I will stick to the topic. I really like the idea that the SF ballpark will have all of the baseball games, (A's and Giants) and the Oakland Stadium would have all of the football (49ers and Raiders). It really sounds like it would work. The Niner fans only have to go over to the East Bay 8 times a year; and downtown SF (my relatives instructed me NOT to call it 'Frisco) would have another 81 games. The A's may not sell out the joint, but even their ill-fated proposal for a new stadium only had 32,000 seats , so whatever they draw in SF would be an improvement.
Candlestick, or whatever they call it now, is the worst NFL stadium. To replace it and the Oakland Coliseum would cost 1.5 BILLION or more. The alternative to make SF baseball and Oakland football is a win-win for all.

Is there any talk of actually doing this????

[aqib]

Even though I deep down feel the A's should come back east, I will stick to the topic. I really like the idea that the SF ballpark will have all of the baseball games, (A's and Giants) and the Oakland Stadium would have all of the football (49ers and Raiders). It really sounds like it would work. The Niner fans only have to go over to the East Bay 8 times a year; and downtown SF (my relatives instructed me NOT to call it 'Frisco) would have another 81 games. The A's may not sell out the joint, but even their ill-fated proposal for a new stadium only had 32,000 seats , so whatever they draw in SF would be an improvement.
Candlestick, or whatever they call it now, is the worst NFL stadium. To replace it and the Oakland Coliseum would cost 1.5 BILLION or more. The alternative to make SF baseball and Oakland football is a win-win for all.

Is there any talk of actually doing this????


I do recall the NFL Commish encouraging the teams to work together on a stadium. I think the cost will have come down with the economic climate but good luck getting it financed these days.

IIRC the Raiders signed a 15 year lease when they moved back to Oakland. If thats true that would make this the final season.

[Paul W]

in a word, NO. think contraction or a move...

[Paul W]

Even though I deep down feel the A's should come back east, I will stick to the topic. I really like the idea that the SF ballpark will have all of the baseball games, (A's and Giants) and the Oakland Stadium would have all of the football (49ers and Raiders). It really sounds like it would work.

where will the a's go "back east"? all of the eastern seabord markets are saturated or are too small (like the east bay).
even with advances in grass/soil development, the giants park field will be a mess after 180 games a season, seen pix of shea after 2 years of two clubs?
the fields need time to breath and for maintance, just ask any groundskeeper.
the reason why 2 team football stadiums work is because they are not in use on a daily basis. besides, the 'niners will go to the east bay when hell freezes over, the politicians won't let it happen, they've been fighting santa clara so far.

[mandrake]

where will the a's go "back east"? all of the eastern seabord markets are saturated or are too small (like the east bay).
even with advances in grass/soil development, the giants park field will be a mess after 180 games a season, seen pix of shea after 2 years of two clubs?
the fields need time to breath and for maintance, just ask any groundskeeper.
the reason why 2 team football stadiums work is because they are not in use on a daily basis. besides, the 'niners will go to the east bay when hell freezes over, the politicians won't let it happen, they've been fighting santa clara so far.

Well, there are other threads about moving the A's back to Philly or Jersey, so I won't go into that.

As for Shea looking like crap in 1974-1975, there were a few huge factors all happening at the same time:

The Mets were beginning a long slide down. Mrs Payson was sick and died in '75. Her family let the place and the team rot.

NYC was broke in 1975, and they had no money for upkeep.

The Jets were still not able to play home games until October. They were already putting out feelers about relocating. They tried exhibition games at YS in 1976 and Giants Stadium in 1977 (also one NFL game vs Colts in Sept '77).

The Giants could not put their fans through a 3rd year of New Haven, so they moved in too.

So 1974 had 3 teams; 1975 had 4 teams; in a Stadium nobody was spending money to upkeep.

[Paul W]

go to a game, find the head groundskeeper and ask him if a 2 baseball team park will wear down any field. to do it on a permanent basis is also a strain on the league scheduling.
btw - i lived in ny in '74-'75 and attended many games @ shea for both baseball clubs, i saw what happened first hand and i know about the lack of upkeep. i saw the field level seating splintering and falling apart due to lack of maintenance. i've also been to the yale bowl, which was falling apart well into the 1990's. i already had all of your points in mind when i was making my point.

[mandrake]

go to a game, find the head groundskeeper and ask him if a 2 baseball team park will wear down any field. to do it on a permanent basis is also a strain on the league scheduling.
btw - i lived in ny in '74-'75 and attended many games @ shea for both baseball clubs, i saw what happened first hand and i know about the lack of upkeep. i saw the field level seating splintering and falling apart due to lack of maintenance. i've also been to the yale bowl, which was falling apart well into the 1990's. i already had all of your points in mind when i was making my point.

Cardinals/Browns in St Louis until 1953. A's/Phillies in Philly 1938-1953. Giants/Yankees in 1913-1922. All played baseball together.

Football destroys natural grass much more than baseball. The meadowlands tried grass but it failed a few seasons back.

The Yale Bowl was a dump even when the Jets and Giants played there in 1969. Fred Dryer claims his cleats went through the locker room floor before the game.

Mets and Yankees, White Sox and Cubs, and A's and Giants, all work on schedules where they do not conflict 95% of the time.

Come back to Philly, A's .:waving

[Paul W]

of course there's no conflict, the have their own places...
but because of the nature of the current division setup, 2 clubs playing home games in the same city on the same day is inevitable. not to mention the effect this could have on playoff scheduling.
i stood on the meadowlands "tray grass" field, it was a flawed idea from the start.
the only reason that st. louis had 1 ballpark was because the browns ownership was so threadbare that they could never have afforded there own place. in the 1920's baseball had a 154 game schedule with more off days, so it worked. ever seen pix of sportsmans park field late in the season during that period?
the yankees left the polo grounds because of a dispute over sunday home dates. the giants owned the building and set the # of lucrative sunday home dates for them and left few for their tenants.
again, the northeast corridor markets are saturated.

[DrBear]

the only reason that st. louis had 1 ballpark was because the browns ownership was so threadbare that they could never have afforded there own place.
Actually, the Browns were the owners of Sportsman's Park and the Cards were the tenants until Bill Veeck had to sell to Anheuser-Busch in 1953 to keep the Browns afloat.

[redv]

The East Coast can't handle its latest team even with a new park. The Nats have every advantage possible and aren't drawing much better than the A's.

Dream on, you guys have enough teams out there. A's could end up anywhere in the Bay or even up in Sac.

I think all 30 teams are stuck where they are period, with the economic situation.

[Anubis2051]

The East Coast can't handle its latest team even with a new park. The Nats have every advantage possible and aren't drawing much better than the A's.

Dream on, you guys have enough teams out there. A's could end up anywhere in the Bay or even up in Sac.

I think all 30 teams are stuck where they are period, with the economic situation.

I don't know, canada could always be a viable option, as could New Orleans. Both have stadiums capable of baseball, and while they may not be the best in the world, if a team is really that desperate...besides, the novelty of MLB in the city would last at least a few years, at which point the team could secure a new stadium, be it in the relocated city, or somewhere else, possibly even the vacated city.

[redv]

I don't know, canada could always be a viable option, as could New Orleans. Both have stadiums capable of baseball, and while they may not be the best in the world, if a team is really that desperate...besides, the novelty of MLB in the city would last at least a few years, at which point the team could secure a new stadium, be it in the relocated city, or somewhere else, possibly even the vacated city.

What is out there isn't any better though... The Superdome and B.C. Place are worse for baseball than the Colesium are. If the argument to move the team is to get better revenue via suites and all that crap, there is no *better* existing alternative out there. Teams are no longer in the position where they can demand stadiums and threaten to move if they don't get them. Local and state governments don't have the money to back them anymore.

Beane made some moves to compete THIS year and hopefully shows casual fans he isn't all about trading off the big names and that there is a method to his madness.

The sharing ATT park idea isn't half bad, but the Giants control the parking, concessions, shops, etc and the A's would likely lose money by moving there.

[Paul W]

washington is a bad baseball town. the o's already have most of the Potomac area sewn up and it's hot as hell during the summer.

[aqib]

The minor league stadium in Portland has a current seating capacity only 320 seats below Oakland's average attendance last year. It can be expanded for a few years to 30K or so until the economy allows for a real stadium.

[Chevy114]

Not to be too logical, but the only pray we have of this happening is if they renovate their current digs or build a new one in the same spot and rent out at&t for 2 years ala the yankees at shea or the chicacgo bears at U of I.

[Anubis2051]

Not to be too logical, but the only pray we have of this happening is if they renovate their current digs or build a new one in the same spot and rent out at&t for 2 years ala the yankees at shea or the chicacgo bears at U of I.

or if they get fed up with having to deal with sub par facilities, and deal with the raiders being the "superior" franchise and ask the Giants to move in with them.

[Chevy114]

A lot of teams have put their time in sub par facilities i.e. the angles, twins, and marlins. So I can see why the A's would be pissed, but jumping into something hasty is not going to solve their problems as a whole. Or as my dad always says don't try to solve a problem with a problem.