Playing Nice in San Jose: A Baseball Territory Story

Special thanks to sportswriter, Murray Chass, for clearly stating what needed to be said about the battle for territorial rights for northern California MLB teams (Oakland As and San Francisco Giants) in his New Year’s Day post (WHILE SAN JOSE STAYS ELUSIVE, BEANE BAGS TRADES).

The Oakland Athletics have been trying to get a new home. They have their eyes on San Jose now (at one time, Fremont was the target). The problem is, the 2010 World Champion San Francisco Giants say San Jose is theirs and are fighting tooth and nail to keep the A’s out.

No doubt, both teams could benefit from the plethora of companies that make their headquarters in Silicon Valley. Mr. Chass wrote:

The Giants’ position on San Jose is untenable. Although they have refused to acknowledge it, San Jose is part of their constitutionally (baseball) protected area because Walter Haas Jr., the A’s owner, agreed to cede it to them in 1990 before which both teams shared the territory.

Haas made his magnanimous gesture because the Giants were struggling in San Francisco, as the A’s are now in Oakland, and wanted to move to Santa Clara. Now the Giants selfishly hold tightly to the territory, refusing even to concede that they have no legitimate right to it.

.

It’s true. The A’s played nicely to keep the Giants from moving out of state (destination Florida).

And because that A’s played nicely, PacBell/SBC/AT&T ballpark became a reality as the Giants left the chill of Candlestick behind.

The land grab now by the Giants seems rather greedy. If they shared territories before, they should share again.

Again, special thanks to Mr. Chass for raising the issue. Let’s hope the commissioner, Bud Selig and his “Blue Ribbon Committee” make the decision soon so the business of Athletics baseball can move forward. The holding pattern is killing them.

It’s time for the Giants to play nice.

Note: Borrowed this image from the Right From The Start Organization.

###

untenable

un·ten·a·ble   [uhn-ten-uh-buhl] adjective
1. incapable of being defended, as an argument, thesis, etc.; indefensible.

Read more about the issue here.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0

Enjoyed this read? Want more ponderables?

Sign up to our mailing list!

Our weekly DragonBustR Reader will provide you with a nice snapshot of what’s new and ponderable at Jedemi. Plus, you will get updates on The Jedemi Chronicles (Trilogy & Series).

 

Comments

  1. Check out this story. Puts the A’s situation in perspective:
    http://www.mercurynews.com/mark-purdy/ci_19706861

Speak Your Mind

*