[Shams] The Sacramento Kings are hiring Houston Rockets assistant GM Monte McNair as new head of basketball operations, sources tell me and @sam_amick

This is where we are at right now, that we know of. My guess is a few of those others are gone too.

That is a sad sad front office.


Head Coach: Luke Walton

Assistants: Igor Kokoskov, Bob Beyer, Jesse Mermuys, Roy Rana, Bobby Jackson (assistant player development coach), Lindsey Harding (assistant coach/player development), Stacey Augmon (assistant coach/player development), Rico Hines (player development), Jonah Herscu (advance scout) and Will Scott (head video coordinator and player development coach)

Trainers: Pete Youngman (director of sports medicine), Manny Romero (head athletic trainer), Ramsey Nijem (head performance and strength coach), Aung Aye (manual therapist and assistant athletic trainer), Teena Murray (senior director of athlete health and performance)

Basketball Executives:

Joe Dumars — interim executive vice president of basketball operations
Ken Catanella — assistant general manager
Luke Bornn vice president of basketball strategy and analytics
Anthony McClish — director of basketball operations
Bill Pope — director of pro personnel
Greg Stratton — director of scouting
Ramsey was gone before last season.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I agree with a lot of this. One thing that may be relevant is Luke Bornn is no longer involved in day to day operations. He demoted himself and is an advisor now. His primary focus is a SPAC with Billy Beane and it looks like they're targeting the European relegation system.

One of my biggest criticisms of the Vlade led FO is they had one of the top analytics minds in the world working down the hall from them and they never levered it.

And the one thing about analytics is, the edge isn't in copying what everyone is doing. It is in exploiting what others are overlooking.

And if you're into Moneyball, I'd recommend reading Soccernomics.
As a closet A's fan, I'm not as content as hrdboild with the results. Yes, the A's find a way to remain relevant every year, but as an A's fan, we all know the chances of the A's winning the whole banana are slim and none. The A's have become a talent development factory for the rest of the league, and as an ex-player, it's very frustrating to watch. However, there's nothing wrong with the system in place to find that talent, and the NBA is a different animal than major league baseball.

The NBA has a salary cap that at least gives small market teams a chance to be competitive. No such animal in baseball. He who has the most money usually wins. So in that regard, if McNair can install a system that finds the talent, then I'm on board. Point being, I think a system like moneyball can work in the NBA much better than it does in baseball. At least in the final results dept, and I'm all about results. I watched that video with McNair and Bornn, and I liked Bornn's simple explanation of how analytics worked. It's not so much about finding talent, but separating out the talent you find.

It's well known that Vlade didn't have a lot of use for analytics, and that's no surprise. Vlade is old school, and hell, so am I. I've stated a thousand times that I put the eye test above everything else, and I still believe that. But when you get two players who both ring your bell, how do you choose between them? I think that's where analytics can help separate the two. So, like everyone else, I waiting with bated breath to see some of the first moves by McNair. I don't think that we can assume he'll try to create the Rockets 2.0. He just might have some idea's of his own on how to create a winner. At least I hope so..
 
As a closet A's fan, I'm not as content as hrdboild with the results. Yes, the A's find a way to remain relevant every year, but as an A's fan, we all know the chances of the A's winning the whole banana are slim and none. The A's have become a talent development factory for the rest of the league, and as an ex-player, it's very frustrating to watch. However, there's nothing wrong with the system in place to find that talent, and the NBA is a different animal than major league baseball.

The NBA has a salary cap that at least gives small market teams a chance to be competitive. No such animal in baseball. He who has the most money usually wins. So in that regard, if McNair can install a system that finds the talent, then I'm on board. Point being, I think a system like moneyball can work in the NBA much better than it does in baseball. At least in the final results dept, and I'm all about results. I watched that video with McNair and Bornn, and I liked Bornn's simple explanation of how analytics worked. It's not so much about finding talent, but separating out the talent you find.

It's well known that Vlade didn't have a lot of use for analytics, and that's no surprise. Vlade is old school, and hell, so am I. I've stated a thousand times that I put the eye test above everything else, and I still believe that. But when you get two players who both ring your bell, how do you choose between them? I think that's where analytics can help separate the two. So, like everyone else, I waiting with bated breath to see some of the first moves by McNair. I don't think that we can assume he'll try to create the Rockets 2.0. He just might have some idea's of his own on how to create a winner. At least I hope so..
I think sometimes lost in the discussion is that analytics can be used for more than just player evaluation (ie. Should I draft player a or b). Analytics when used fully also helps to dictate the idea style of play for the team and, more specifically how best use utilize individual players to extract the most value. Who knows if there will be big changes in the roster this offseason, but at the very least I would expect McNair to push Walton hard on how best to utilize his resources (hoping that means much more Buddy off ball catch and shoot).
 
I think sometimes lost in the discussion is that analytics can be used for more than just player evaluation (ie. Should I draft player a or b). Analytics when used fully also helps to dictate the idea style of play for the team and, more specifically how best use utilize individual players to extract the most value. Who knows if there will be big changes in the roster this offseason, but at the very least I would expect McNair to push Walton hard on how best to utilize his resources (hoping that means much more Buddy off ball catch and shoot).
And I would take it a step further and say analytics should also shape the team's strategy, which is where Hinkie decided to operate. He recognized that because there are only 5 players on the court, for your team, at any given time, star players would have a skewed impact on the team. And that the chances of getting a superstar where greatest within the top 5 picks, so dude decided to go on a full, extended tank job, which netted Simmons and Embid. Unfortunately, dude miscalculated his runway.
 
As a closet A's fan, I'm not as content as hrdboild with the results. Yes, the A's find a way to remain relevant every year, but as an A's fan, we all know the chances of the A's winning the whole banana are slim and none. The A's have become a talent development factory for the rest of the league, and as an ex-player, it's very frustrating to watch.
Not to totally derail the thread with A's talk, but I'm 100%with you re: the frustration. I'm a lifelong Dodgers fan. But I've always had a soft spot for the A's in the American League. I like to see them succeed.

I've said for many, many years I don't think they can be successful, long term, in today's MLB climate located in OAK. Now, an uber rich Billionaire owner could certainly change that, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

With the limits of the ownership they have and have had over the years, combined with their tiny footprint in the greater Bay Area, they just don't have the means to pay their players once they develop them into stars. We've seen that play out time and time again over the past 2 decades.

My argument for them relocating to SAC, aside from pure bias, is that they'd expand their footprint. Which is something they can never do while in the Greater Bay Area. They have the East Bay and that's it. They surrendered rights to San Jose a long, long time ago.

And while SAC is very largely a Giants town, that could change over time. They'd retain many of their East Bay fans and add many new ones in and around the SAC valley (just like the KINGS did when they moved to a largely Lakers/Warriors fan base in 1985). Young kids in the area would grow up with the A's as their local team AND they'd be able to capture more footprint with everything North of SAC and including Reno -- just as the KINGS have done.

IMO, the added TV footprint would go along way toward helping them to be able to spend for some of their own players. At least more so than they are able to in OAK. Their footprint in the Bay is too damned small. And like the Angels in SoCal with the Dodgers, they'll never be able to wrestle #1 from the Giants. But in SAC, they'd have a shot to convert younger fans and create new ones going forward.

Pipedream, I realize. But who knows. Perhaps one day.

I recently read that Nashville is trying to get a team and just had Justin Timberlake get on board. Perhaps that'd be a potential destination if this stadium deal doesn't go through. I'd really hate to see them leave CA, though. But I just don't see them being able to ever pay their players in OAK with such a small footprint and the Giants being right across the Bay.

Circling back to how analytics and moneyball relates to the KINGS, I'm also with you in not being content with the results.
 
Not to totally derail the thread with A's talk, but I'm 100%with you re: the frustration. I'm a lifelong Dodgers fan. But I've always had a soft spot for the A's in the American League. I like to see them succeed.

I've said for many, many years I don't think they can be successful, long term, in today's MLB climate located in OAK. Now, an uber rich Billionaire owner could certainly change that, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

With the limits of the ownership they have and have had over the years, combined with their tiny footprint in the greater Bay Area, they just don't have the means to pay their players once they develop them into stars. We've seen that play out time and time again over the past 2 decades.

My argument for them relocating to SAC, aside from pure bias, is that they'd expand their footprint. Which is something they can never do while in the Greater Bay Area. They have the East Bay and that's it. They surrendered rights to San Jose a long, long time ago.

And while SAC is very largely a Giants town, that could change over time. They'd retain many of their East Bay fans and add many new ones in and around the SAC valley (just like the KINGS did when they moved to a largely Lakers/Warriors fan base in 1985). Young kids in the area would grow up with the A's as their local team AND they'd be able to capture more footprint with everything North of SAC and including Reno -- just as the KINGS have done.

IMO, the added TV footprint would go along way toward helping them to be able to spend for some of their own players. At least more so than they are able to in OAK. Their footprint in the Bay is too damned small. And like the Angels in SoCal with the Dodgers, they'll never be able to wrestle #1 from the Giants. But in SAC, they'd have a shot to convert younger fans and create new ones going forward.

Pipedream, I realize. But who knows. Perhaps one day.

I recently read that Nashville is trying to get a team and just had Justin Timberlake get on board. Perhaps that'd be a potential destination if this stadium deal doesn't go through. I'd really hate to see them leave CA, though. But I just don't see them being able to ever pay their players in OAK with such a small footprint and the Giants being right across the Bay.

Circling back to how analytics and moneyball relates to the KINGS, I'm also with you in not being content with the results.
Your points are good, but assuming everything is true, it would make more sense for the A's to move to Portland, Vancouver (Canada), or Vegas. The reason is the A's are already in the Sac/Central Valley TV market. The only new thing they would be achieving is potentially having higher ticket volume for the first few years. Moving to Portland, Vancouver, or Vegas would give them higher ticket volume plus access to a new, comparable sized or larger TV market without having to compete against a Giant, who already dominates that market.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious what McNair has to say in his introductory news conference tomorrow. I'm sure it will be just a hello to meet and greet. But it will be interesting to see how he handles the spotlight.
 
Your points are good, but assuming everything is true, it would make more sense for the A's to move to Portland, Vancouver (Canada), or Vegas. The reason is the A's are already in the Sac/Central Valley TV market. The only new thing they would be achieving is potentially having higher ticket volume for the first few years. Moving to Portland, Vancouver, or Vegas would give them higher ticket volume plus access to a new, comparable sized or larger TV market without having to compete against a Giant, who already dominates that market.
They are in the SAC market, but not as the #1 team. That would change if they resided here. So there’s a lot more to gain than you believe.

Those other markets wouldn’t have a natural rival. Nothing like what SAC-SF would be like. If the KINGS and Warriors ever are good at the same time, you’ll see exactly what that’s like.

VAN couldn’t keep their NBA team, and is in Canada. Where players don’t wanna be for numerous reasons. So they aren’t a better destination. Also, SAC has historically been a huge baseball town. They’d be better supported in SAC over any of those locations IMO.
 
As a closet A's fan, I'm not as content as hrdboild with the results. Yes, the A's find a way to remain relevant every year, but as an A's fan, we all know the chances of the A's winning the whole banana are slim and none. The A's have become a talent development factory for the rest of the league, and as an ex-player, it's very frustrating to watch. However, there's nothing wrong with the system in place to find that talent, and the NBA is a different animal than major league baseball.

The NBA has a salary cap that at least gives small market teams a chance to be competitive. No such animal in baseball. He who has the most money usually wins. So in that regard, if McNair can install a system that finds the talent, then I'm on board. Point being, I think a system like moneyball can work in the NBA much better than it does in baseball. At least in the final results dept, and I'm all about results. I watched that video with McNair and Bornn, and I liked Bornn's simple explanation of how analytics worked. It's not so much about finding talent, but separating out the talent you find.

It's well known that Vlade didn't have a lot of use for analytics, and that's no surprise. Vlade is old school, and hell, so am I. I've stated a thousand times that I put the eye test above everything else, and I still believe that. But when you get two players who both ring your bell, how do you choose between them? I think that's where analytics can help separate the two. So, like everyone else, I waiting with bated breath to see some of the first moves by McNair. I don't think that we can assume he'll try to create the Rockets 2.0. He just might have some idea's of his own on how to create a winner. At least I hope so..
I should clarify that while I am happy with the A's front office, who are doing the best job possible with limited resources (it's hard to complain about back-to-back 97 win seasons after 3 years of completely turning over the roster since their previous 3 year playoff run), I think ownership has been holding the team back for decades by refusing to invest anything but the bare minimum in their product and then acting like it's everyone's fault but their own. The market is not the problem. When I was in grade school the A's spent as much money on players as anyone and sold out their football sized stadium annually. It's not like the East Bay has gotten smaller or poorer since the 80s.

And the A's do have an uber rich billionaire owner. John Fisher ranks 8th richest among MLB owners right now. They absolutely have the resources to build a privately financed waterfront stadium in Oakland right now just like the Giants ownership group did 20 years ago and they have the resources to pay their stars right now. Why they continue to act like they're a poor small market team, I have no idea. Also, the Giants had one and a half feet out the door before they built their beautiful new stadium in 2000 and look what they've done since. And the A's still have more World Series championships in Oakland than the Giants have in San Francisco. I'm not going to concede the entire Bay Area because of 20 years of terrible ownership.

Supposedly this is all going to happen in the near future -- new stadium, increased payroll, etc -- but the string of empty promises is so long now that I'll remain skeptical until the stadium is actually built. And I'll be pissed all over again if/when they let Matt Chapman and Matt Olson leave instead of paying market value for the two best best corner infielders in baseball. I don't think they need to move so much as they need a new owner who actually cares.

Something else that came up in that video, Luke Bornn made light of it but he was clearly frustrated that his analysis wasn't being taken seriously by any of the decision makers in Sacramento. All of the analytics in the world count for nothing if you don't have a GM and coach who are actually going to pay attention to them and understand that you need to think differently to find that competitive edge. It appears we have that now which is not nothing!
 
I should clarify that while I am happy with the A's front office, who are doing the best job possible with limited resources (it's hard to complain about back-to-back 97 win seasons after 3 years of completely turning over the roster since their previous 3 year playoff run), I think ownership has been holding the team back for decades by refusing to invest anything but the bare minimum in their product and then acting like it's everyone's fault but their own. The market is not the problem. When I was in grade school the A's spent as much money on players as anyone and sold out their football sized stadium annually. It's not like the East Bay has gotten smaller or poorer since the 80s.

And the A's do have an uber rich billionaire owner. John Fisher ranks 8th richest among MLB owners right now. They absolutely have the resources to build a privately financed waterfront stadium in Oakland right now just like the Giants ownership group did 20 years ago and they have the resources to pay their stars right now. Why they continue to act like they're a poor small market team, I have no idea. Also, the Giants had one and a half feet out the door before they built their beautiful new stadium in 2000 and look what they've done since. And the A's still have more World Series championships in Oakland than the Giants have in San Francisco. I'm not going to concede the entire Bay Area because of 20 years of terrible ownership.

Supposedly this is all going to happen in the near future -- new stadium, increased payroll, etc -- but the string of empty promises is so long now that I'll remain skeptical until the stadium is actually built. And I'll be pissed all over again if/when they let Matt Chapman and Matt Olson leave instead of paying market value for the two best best corner infielders in baseball. I don't think they need to move so much as they need a new owner who actually cares.

Something else that came up in that video, Luke Bornn made light of it but he was clearly frustrated that his analysis wasn't being taken seriously by any of the decision makers in Sacramento. All of the analytics in the world count for nothing if you don't have a GM and coach who are actually going to pay attention to them and understand that you need to think differently to find that competitive edge. It appears we have that now which is not nothing!
I always thought Bornn’s stuff would be really useful on the defensive side of the ball. It even seemed like it could help identify strong defensive amateur prospects, which in turn could identify “high IQ” amateur prospects. To me, usually if a prospect is markedly better at forcing opponents into bad shots, steals, deflections, etc., then they really read the game much better than their fellow amateurs.
 
The market is not the problem. When I was in grade school the A's spent as much money on players as anyone and sold out their football sized stadium annually. It's not like the East Bay has gotten smaller or poorer since the 80s.

And the A's do have an uber rich billionaire owner. John Fisher ranks 8th richest among MLB owners right now. They absolutely have the resources to build a privately financed waterfront stadium in Oakland right now just like the Giants ownership group did 20 years ago and they have the resources to pay their stars right now.
!
The market isn’t the problem, just the amount of territorial rights they own within that market. Which is a just a mere speck. And why they can’t get into San Jose. Their facility is the other elephant in the room.

The Giants dominate the market. Not just fan wise, but territorial rights wise. Which was my point in the beginning.

A rich Billionaire is still not going sink $$$ into a losing venture. The A’s can’t get the TV contract revenue the Giants can. They can’t generate near the same revenue the Giants can. Because they are at a huge disadvantage.

You mentioned the A’s from when you were in grade school. The MLB and the A’s don’t operate in that world anymore. A lot has changed. The A’s territorial rights for one.

However, if they moved out of the Bay to SAC, they’d have the SAC metro market as their territorial rights. And would build it out North and East over time as the KINGS were able to do from 1985 on.

The A’s securing a brand new stadium would certainly help revenue with tickets sales — but would they be able to sustain attendance as the Giants have done once the newness wears off? I don’t believe so.

Which bring us back to footprint and territorial rights again. I just believe the landscape is drastically tilted in such a way that their ability to generate the type of revenue (as the Bay’s distant #2 team) needed to pay and keep their players just isn’t there.

BTW, thanks for correcting me about the deeper pockets of the current ownership. I’d forgotten they were better off in that regard than the previous ownership groups.
 
Last edited:
The market isn’t the problem, just the amount of territorial rights they own within that market. Which is a just a mere speck. And why they can’t get into San Jose. Their facility is the other elephant in the room.

The Giants dominate the market. Not just fan wise, but territorial rights wise. Which was my point in the beginning.

A rich Billionaire is still not going sink $$$ into a losing venture. The A’s can’t get the TV contract revenue the Giants can. They can’t generate near the same revenue the Giants can. Because they are at a huge disadvantage.

You mentioned the A’s from when you were in grade school. The MLB and the A’s don’t operate in that world anymore. A lot has changed. The A’s territorial rights for one.

However, if they moved out of the Bay to SAC, they’d have the SAC metro market as their territorial rights. And would build it out North and East over time as the KINGS were able to do from 1985 on.

The A’s securing a brand new stadium would certainly help revenue with tickets sales — but would they be able to sustain attendance as the Giants have done once the newness wears off? I don’t believe so.

Which bring us back to footprint and territorial rights again. I just believe the landscape is drastically tilted in such a way that their ability to generate the type of revenue (as the Bay’s distant #2 team) needed to pay and keep their players just isn’t there.

BTW, thanks for correcting me about the deeper pockets of the current ownership. I’d forgotten they were better off in that regard than the previous ownership groups.
I haven't lived in the Bay Area for 30 years so really, it's no skin off my back at this point. I watch the games exclusively online through MLB.tv and I may be moving to West Virginia next year anyway so if the A's end up moving to say Nashville or something that may actually be better for my chances of making it to the ballpark once or twice a year. But I feel bad for those East Bay fans who within the last 12 months have already lost their football team and their basketball team. It's a different culture and a different attitude on that side of the bay and they shouldn't have to cross the bridge into the city and pay 3 times as much to watch an inferior team in a more sterile atmosphere. That's basically just making live baseball inaccessible for most of that fanbase. Not everything is about money.

Sacramento has some advantages as a market but is too far away to benefit their current fans and they'd be competing there too with the NBA and MLS. And I'm fine with the Oakland Coliseum staying the way it is -- teams in Chicago and Boston play in far older relics -- but I know the team isn't going to stick around forever without some new influx of revenue. They have some crazy plan to build an arcology inspired stadium and public park thingamajig next to the ocean with a gondola or something and it's so outlandishly weird in that "hey, why not?" sortof way that used to define California before Silicon Valley moved in and hoovered up the economy that I'm all for it. Like you said, the world I grew up in is gone but in 2020 in particular with everything else going on in the world, I still hold out some hope that human beings are capable of dreaming bigger than social media, marketing algorithms, and balance sheets.

What it comes down to really is that I'm 100% against teams abandoning their fans to chase down the almighty dollar and all things being equal, I'll root for a cheapskate Oakland A's team that still ekes out more than their share of division titles and playoff appearances before blowing it up every 4-5 years over a wealthy but soulless A's team anywhere else. What the A's have in Oakland is special and I seriously doubt it can be recreated anywhere else. They'd be the A's in name only, if they even keep that name. I understand this is what professional sports are. Teams move and get re-branded constantly. I assume based on your member name that you recall when the Kings moved to Sacramento from Kansas City. And we almost lost the Kings for exactly this reason. The owners saw dollar signs in bigger cities and argued for years that Sacramento was not a viable market for the NBA while sabotaging the city's attempts to keep it's lone professional sports franchise at every turn and yet here we are with a new downtown arena complete with solar paneled roof and plants growing out of it's walls, new urban development sprouting up all around it, and a terrible team that eventually will be less terrible! Because of that there's a chance kids growing up in Sacramento right now will get a chance to experience playoff basketball like we did oh so long ago.
 
The market isn’t the problem, just the amount of territorial rights they own within that market. Which is a just a mere speck. And why they can’t get into San Jose. Their facility is the other elephant in the room.

The Giants dominate the market. Not just fan wise, but territorial rights wise. Which was my point in the beginning.
.
Can you clarify on your Giants SJ territorial rights position? My understanding is the Giants will not allow the A's to build in SJ, but that's pretty much it. There is not a TV blackout in the SJ region. Cal Train makes things slightly easier for South Bay folks to attend Giants games, but it's not a game changer. If folks drive, its about the same or even easier to get to the Collsieum than to ATT park from the South Bay.
 
Can you clarify on your Giants SJ territorial rights position? My understanding is the Giants will not allow the A's to build in SJ, but that's pretty much it. There is not a TV blackout in the SJ region. Cal Train makes things slightly easier for South Bay folks to attend Giants games, but it's not a game changer. If folks drive, its about the same or even easier to get to the Collsieum than to ATT park from the South Bay.
Territorial rights allow a team exclusive rights to conduct business within a geographic area.

The Giants and A’s are the only 2-team market that doesn’t share the same counties. They split them.

The A's exclusive rights territory is Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

The Giants' exclusive rights territory is San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin counties. And, importantly, Santa Clara county. Which previously belonged to neither franchise.

The Giants were granted exclusive rights to Santa Clara county in the early-to-mid 90’s as they worked build a new stadium and remain in the Bay area versus relocating. The A’s and MLB approved to help them out. However the Giants have refused to surrender them back. Or share.

Not only do territorial rights provide exclusive rights to conduct business, turns out they factor into the value of the franchise. Fairly heavily. When the current Giants ownership bought the team, they contend they effectively bought those territorial rights along with it. Because surrendering or sharing now would devalue the franchise.

In short, the A’s couldn’t even set up a merchandise stand/store anywhere in Santa Clara w/o the Giants permission. It’s Giants country.

I can’t speak of how the TV stuff fits with territorial rights, but it doesn’t really matter. The A’s ability to do business in and around the Bay is more limited compared to the Giants. They own silicon valley. And the dollars that come along with it.
 
Territorial rights allow a team exclusive rights to conduct business within a geographic area.

The Giants and A’s are the only 2-team market that doesn’t share the same counties. They split them.

The A's exclusive rights territory is Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

The Giants' exclusive rights territory is San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin counties. And, importantly, Santa Clara county. Which previously belonged to neither franchise.

The Giants were granted exclusive rights to Santa Clara county in the early-to-mid 90’s as they worked build a new stadium and remain in the Bay area versus relocating. The A’s and MLB approved to help them out. However the Giants have refused to surrender them back. Or share.

Not only do territorial rights provide exclusive rights to conduct business, turns out they factor into the value of the franchise. Fairly heavily. When the current Giants ownership bought the team, they contend they effectively bought those territorial rights along with it. Because surrendering or sharing now would devalue the franchise.

In short, the A’s couldn’t even set up a merchandise stand/store anywhere in Santa Clara w/o the Giants permission. It’s Giants country.

I can’t speak of how the TV stuff fits with territorial rights, but it doesn’t really matter. The A’s ability to do business in and around the Bay is more limited compared to the Giants. They own silicon valley. And the dollars that come along with it.
E-commerce destroys much of the reasoning here. Neither the A's nor the Giants need physical retail outlets to sell tickets or merchandise. It may have been more of a thing in the 90s, but not now.

The TV money would be the larger issue if the A's were blacked out in the South Bay, but they're not. I guess this is my way of saying I think the Giants dominance has more to do with their on the field performance (three championships) and their off the field execution (ATT park) than bay area territorial rights.
 
E-commerce destroys much of the reasoning here. Neither the A's nor the Giants need physical retail outlets to sell tickets or merchandise. It may have been more of a thing in the 90s, but not now.

The TV money would be the larger issue if the A's were blacked out in the South Bay, but they're not. I guess this is my way of saying I think the Giants dominance has more to do with their on the field performance (three championships) and their off the field execution (ATT park) than bay area territorial rights.
I used merchandise as an example of territorial rights. Not an example of huge revenue loss. You’re missing the point.

Territorial rights plays a significant role here. You clearly also glossed over the part about it adding a lot of value to the franchise.

This isn’t a small thing. Which is precisely why the Giants won’t give it up. Think about it.

And the Giants had a stranglehold on the fan base well before they came close to winning a WS. You’re off on that.

Besides, the Giants ‘success on the field’ lasted 5 years. The A’s have clearly been the more successful franchise of the two since coming to OAK in 1968. But that success never put them above the Giants in terms of fan base in and around the Bay. And it’s only slanted further in the Giants favor the past 25 years.
 
Last edited: