Oakland City Councilman says the A’s could move to San Antonio or Montreal

49 Comments

When we last left the Oakland A’s Coliseum drama, it appeared as though the lease will finally be approved over the objections of many on City Council. The reason? Last week Bud Selig gave the A’s permission to leave Oakland if they want to, which apparently scared some Oakland officials.

Seems like a bluff to me. Just being allowed to leave is not the issue; approval to actually go someplace where a viable baseball team could actually operate is a way bigger issue, and nothing reported last week suggested the existence of any such place. Where ya gonna go, Athletics?

Someone on the Oakland City Council thinks they have a place in mind:

Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid says he doesn’t believe the A’s are bluffing in their threat to leave the city if they don’t get a 10-year lease extension at the Coliseum, and he pointed to a pair of possible destinations — Montreal and San Antonio, Texas.

Reid said that was the word he got from the Coliseum Authority negotiators who have been working for the past 14 months to try to reach an A’s lease extension.

“They have options,’’ Reid said.

Montreal presents a crumbling stadium and market which were utterly neglected by Major League Baseball for years. Which is exactly what they have in Oakland right now, so why pay Allied Vans extra on top of that?

San Antonio could theoretically work someday, but at the moment there is only a football stadium they use for occasional exhibition games with a 280-foot porch in right field. Because of weather in the dog days of summer which can only be described as “AHHHHHHGGHHH!!!! THIS IS HORRIBLE,” the San Antonio A’s would need a new domed or retractable roof stadium. Did I mention that, currently, there is no appetite to give the Double-A San Antonio Missions a new park? I’ve been to their current one. If that’s any gauge, no one down there is all that prepared to give the A’s a billion bucks for a new park.

Sorry, I think those are bluffs. And I will continue to believe that unless and until Major League Baseball says the A’s can move to San Jose or gives them approval to go to a place that has already demonstrated a desire to build the A’s a new park.

Zack Cozart thinks the way the Rays have been using Sergio Romo is bad for baseball

Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
6 Comments

The Rays started Sergio Romo on back-to-back days and if that sounds weird to you, you’re not alone. Romo, of course, was the star closer for the Giants for a while, helping them win the World Series in 2012 and ’14. He’s been a full-time reliever dating back to 2006, when he was at Single-A.

In an effort to prevent lefty Ryan Yarbrough from facing the righty-heavy top of the Angels’ lineup (Zack Cozart, Mike Trout, Justin Upton), Romo started Saturday’s game, pitching the first inning before giving way to Yarbrough in the second. Romo struck out the side, in fact. The Rays went on to win 5-3.

The Rays did it again on Sunday afternoon, starting Romo. This time, he got four outs before giving way to Matt Andriese. Romo walked two without giving up a hit while striking out three. The Angels managed to win 5-2 however.

Despite Sunday’s win, Cozart wasn’t a happy camper with the way the Rays used Romo. Via Fabian Ardaya of The Athletic, Cozart said, “It was weird … It’s bad for baseball, in my opinion … It’s spring training. That’s the best way to explain it.”

It’s difficult to see merit in Cozart’s argument. It’s not like the Rays were making excessive amounts of pitching changes; they used five on Saturday and four on Sunday. The games lasted three hours and three hours, 15 minutes, respectively. The average game time is exactly three hours so far this season. I’m having trouble wondering how else Cozart might mean the strategy is bad for baseball.

It seems like the real issue is that Cozart is afraid of the sport changing around him. The Rays, like most small market teams, have to find their edges in slight ways. The Rays aren’t doing this blindly; the strategy makes sense based on their opponents’ starting lineup. The idea of valuing on-base percentage was scoffed at. Shifting was scoffed at and now every team employs them to some degree. Who knows if starting a reliever for the first three or four outs will become a trend, but it’s shortsighted to write it off at first glance.