Truth & Rumors > MLB

Posey adding to San Francisco-Oakland enmity

Views
13021
Comments
11

08:12 AM ET 04.01 | Forgive A's fans for not celebrating Buster Posey's deal. Oakland hasn't signed a star home-grown player to a deal well beyond arbitration years since Eric Chavez got a six-year, $66 million deal in 2004. Since then, the team has focused on trying to get a new stadium in San Jose. ... The team opposing that proposed A's move to San Jose is ... the Giants, who hold territorial rights to the area. "It's more than mildly ironic that the Giants granted a single player a contract that exceeds the A's entire payroll by a factor of three," San Jose City Councilman Sam Liccardo said. "It makes a mockery of the idea that Major League Baseball should protect the Giants from financial competition from a substantially less wealthy ballclub."

San Francisco Chronicle

Buster Posey, Getty Images Buster Posey, Getty Images
April 1, 2013  08:46 AM ET

Only in sports would free enterprise be curtailed. Open up all markets to any team that thinks it can compete within that geographical area. And then lets see who the last team standing is. Or, maybe the surprise may be that most teams will be quite content to stay where they are.

April 1, 2013  10:47 AM ET

That "substantially less wealthy ballclub" has made it's own bed. Oakland ownership is cheap and continues to put out an inferior product, both on the field and in the stands. Go to an A's game at the Coliseum and you'll see (and taste) what I am talking about. And don't tell me about last season, the A's caught lightning in a bottle. I wish the A's owners would sell the team to someone who actually cares about winning and putting out a superior product.

April 1, 2013  11:29 AM ET

Good lord. Now socialism is creeping into baseball. Let's just focus on the fact that one team is relatively wealthy and one is relatively poor, but not focus on the decisions that led them to be rich or poor.

April 1, 2013  12:39 PM ET

Shocking they would gather that quote from a San Jose City Council member.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the A's move to San Jose or San Juan, PR.

Go Giants!

April 1, 2013  01:23 PM ET
QUOTE(#1):

Only in sports would free enterprise be curtailed. Open up all markets to any team that thinks it can compete within that geographical area. And then lets see who the last team standing is. Or, maybe the surprise may be that most teams will be quite content to stay where they are.

Only in sports? Have you been sleeping since the election of the present president?

April 1, 2013  01:26 PM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Only in sports? Have you been sleeping since the election of the present president?

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr *deep breath* urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

April 1, 2013  05:52 PM ET

Okay, Sis the Jose mayor worried about all that money might not reach his pockets....?

April 1, 2013  08:07 PM ET

"It's more than mildly ironic that the Giants granted a single player a contract that exceeds the A's entire payroll by a factor of three," San Jose City Councilman Sam Liccardo said"

logic of a politician. Its not like he gets $167 mil. in one season.

April 1, 2013  08:24 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

That "substantially less wealthy ballclub" has made it's own bed. Oakland ownership is cheap and continues to put out an inferior product, both on the field and in the stands. Go to an A's game at the Coliseum and you'll see (and taste) what I am talking about. And don't tell me about last season, the A's caught lightning in a bottle. I wish the A's owners would sell the team to someone who actually cares about winning and putting out a superior product.

^^^
THIS

April 2, 2013  02:01 AM ET

Before we blame the A's, remember that the rights to San Jose originally belonged to the A's. They gave them to the Giants when the Giants were thinking of moving south. Thus the old adage that "no good deed goes unpunished" holds here. The Giants are being ridiculous in saying they own the rights to San Jose. Unfortunately, the empty suit known as Bud Selig will not make a decision on this as long as he is commissioner.

 
April 2, 2013  02:16 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

"It's more than mildly ironic that the Giants granted a single player a contract that exceeds the A's entire payroll by a factor of three," San Jose City Councilman Sam Liccardo said"logic of a politician. Its not like he gets $167 mil. in one season.

Exactly what I was thinking. What a spin job.

Like wwj alluded to earlier, the overall socialistic attitude of the A's is bad enough but the way they're trying to publicly garner support through skewed numerical comparisons is completely over the top.

Politics at it's best. Or worst, rather.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Clippers, Warriors exchange barbs
    Views
    801
    Comments
    436
  2. 2
    Time to penalize NHL's perennial losers?
    Views
    1065
    Comments
    273
  3. 3
    Report: Raiders to release Terrelle Pryor on Monday
    Views
    1353
    Comments
    59
  4. 4
    Will NFL owners blackball Donald Trump?
    Views
    1173
    Comments
    55
  5. 5
    Packers lovers have own dating site
    Views
    1050
    Comments
    45

SI.com

SI Photos