Is Brian Sabean "out-GM-ing" Billy Beane This Offseason?

[rogue9]

They're in virtually the same market. I would argue that the A's are only considered small market cause they don't put butts in seats. And as I have said before, I think thats due to their "rotating roster". I think the A's are simply misers with their money, and the only reason they are not ridiculed for that is because they have a GM who can work under that condition.

As I have said before, living in the Bay area, you hardly see anyone sporting A's gear, or meet any die hard A's fans that did not witness the A's teams sporting Reggie Jackson (their Bonds, so to speak). Thats the height of their popularity with the fan base. And thats all despite them being so successful in recent years as you pointed out above. There is a reason for that.

On the other hand there are crap loads of Giants fans of all ages, all over the bay area and northern CA. Theres a reason for that too. And its not just Bonds. There have been many player reasons to be a Giants fan since the late 80s. Clark, Williams, Rueter, Schmidt, Kent, Meuller, and now Cain and Lincecum to name a few that have/will stick around. When there are exciting players to follow, and your are pretty sure they'll stick, thats what keeps fans interested. Then you add Bonds and you get a new ball park as well.

Most A's fans I meet are not happy with how they have performed, despite being "successful". While Giants fans are not satisfied, we at least know the Giants aren't afraid to spend money. Whether its spent wrong doesn't always matter if it draws fan's attention and interest.

So while the A's may be successfull win/loss wise, I don't think I would count them completely successful as a franchise in recent years.

[filihok]

So while the A's may be successfull win/loss wise, I don't think I would count them completely successful as a franchise in recent years.

There are two ways to be successful as a MLB franchise.

1) win games/championships
2) make money

we can see the data for the first one

but the second is under strict wraps

Could well be that the Oakland A's are quite successful doing exactly what they are doing

[HoustonGM]

The Giants also have a more memorable "history". They have more iconic Hall of Fame players. They've been in San Francisco since 1958, and were in New York before that, two cities with great sports histories.

The A's have a sort of "fractured" identity. The first half of their history they spent in Philadelphia, and then they spent a decade or so in Kansas City before moving to Oakland in 1968.

Historically, you think of great players of the Giants, and you automatically include guys that played for the New York team, like Christy Mathewson. When you think of the A's, how many people think of the legendary Philadelphia A's players like Lefty Grove?

This sort of identity also goes a long way to establishing a fan base.

[etothep]

If you think San Fran & Oakland are comparable cities, then I know you haven't visited the Bay area

[Wassit3]

If you think San Fran & Oakland are comparable cities, then I know you haven't visited the Bay area

my thoughts exactly from having lived there on two different ocassions...

[Pavelb1]

The Giants also have a more memorable "history". They have more iconic Hall of Fame players. They've been in San Francisco since 1958, and were in New York before that, two cities with great sports histories.

The A's have a sort of "fractured" identity. The first half of their history they spent in Philadelphia, and then they spent a decade or so in Kansas City before moving to Oakland in 1968.

Historically, you think of great players of the Giants, and you automatically include guys that played for the New York team, like Christy Mathewson. When you think of the A's, how many people think of the legendary Philadelphia A's players like Lefty Grove?

This sort of identity also goes a long way to establishing a fan base.

I think of the 70's team that won three WS in a row and later of the bash brothers.

[HoustonGM]

I'm not saying they don't have any iconic players or what not. I'm just saying that the Giants have more, and are more recognizable on the national landscape.

[Pavelb1]

I'm not saying they don't have any iconic players or what not. I'm just saying that the Giants have more, and are more recognizable on the national landscape.

I could argue that, but since the context is in establishing a fan base, I'll interject what we all know, that the A's are probably more famous than any other team for constantly destroying their fan base.

[ragecage]

The Giants also have a more memorable "history". They have more iconic Hall of Fame players. They've been in San Francisco since 1958, and were in New York before that, two cities with great sports histories.

The A's have a sort of "fractured" identity. The first half of their history they spent in Philadelphia, and then they spent a decade or so in Kansas City before moving to Oakland in 1968.

Historically, you think of great players of the Giants, and you automatically include guys that played for the New York team, like Christy Mathewson. When you think of the A's, how many people think of the legendary Philadelphia A's players like Lefty Grove?

This sort of identity also goes a long way to establishing a fan base.

I am one of them, I think of Lefty as well as Eddie Collins, Frank Baker, Cheif Bender, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane, Catfish Hunter, Reggie Jackson, and others. But I wont argue the fact there isnt many of us fans out there.

[ragecage]

I live about 5 hours away from Oakland. I went to my first Oakland game a couple years ago and its not an enjoyable experience. There are bums at the corner begging for money a block away from the park. You really dont have the sense of security you go like going to a Giants game, or a Niners game for that matter.

I think that has a lot to the lack of fans going to Oakland games. It just seems like Oakland is a ghetto team. I think whenever they can move to Freemont, this will change a ton and they will get more fans showing up.

[BINGLEBOP]

There are bums at the corner begging for money a block away from the park.

I would venture a guess that you will find this with any stadium, especially the ones located in a large city. "Bums" in Minneapolis beg for money on the same block as the Metrodome is located, on multiple sides of it. So that's nothing new as far as I'm concerned.

[KowboyKoop]

I can agree with the sentiment that Beane is overrated, but he's clearly an above-average GM and most likely one of the top 5 in the game. I'm not going to go into huge detail about that, but I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

Also, I haven't read the thread all the way through, but if ANYBODY is trying to say Sabean > Beane, then they are either a stone-cold homer or just a stone-cold idiot. There is simply no way Sabean is better.

[Pavelb1]

I would venture a guess that you will find this with any stadium, especially the ones located in a large city. "Bums" in Minneapolis beg for money on the same block as the Metrodome is located, on multiple sides of it. So that's nothing new as far as I'm concerned.

Kauffman is located in a sports complex, so there arn't any 'bums a block away'.

Tropicana also doesn't have a bum problem.

I got the impression there wasn't one with Ameriquest too, but I've only been there once.

[rogue9]

If you think San Fran & Oakland are comparable cities, then I know you haven't visited the Bay area

So, the only people going to Giants games live in San Fran, and the only to A's live in Oakland? Give me a break. What I meant was that they are both in the same northern CA market. I live a couple of hours from either one.

My point was, they are so close together they are drawing fans from the same areas. Therefore, if the A's had a better stadium, in a less crappy area, and kept players long enough to hold fan interest, they would have no problem being able to spend the same money that the Giants do. They are the kind of franchise they choose to be is basically what I am saying.

I am sure the A's are very profitable. But like HGM pointed out, what is their legacy? The 70s championships for the most part and thats about it. But thats besides the point. I am talking about now. The A's have a revolving door when it comes to players, I don't see how any fan can be more than casually interested in that, unless you are intrigued by what the A's did 30 years ago. Basically, unless you're a hard core A's fan, its hard to be really behind your team if you're uncertain whether they will keep the players you enjoy watching.

Thats my opinion and observation anyways.

[HoustonGM]

I am sure the A's are very profitable. But like HGM pointed out, what is their legacy? The 70s championships for the most part and thats about it. But thats besides the point.

Their lack of a "legacy" isn't really their fault. It's just the way history has played out, and is more due to their movement from Philadelphia to Kansas City to Oakland, 1 large media market (but before there was a real "media market") and 2 small media markets, compared to the Giants splitting their history between two large media markets. The Athletics franchise has 9 World Championships, 15 pennants, and 23 playoff appearances, which is equal or better than the Giants and their 5 World Championships, 20 pennants, and 24 playoff appearances.

San Francisco and Oakland may both be "northern California", but let's not kid ourselves, the overall market size of San Francisco is larger than that of Oakland. San Francisco routinely is roughly top 10 in the majors in revenue, while Oakland is bottom 10/bottom 5. Yes, some of that is because of attendance which is affected by the lack of a "team image" that you allude to, but it's not all of it. Oakland and San Francisco may share some location, but San Francisco has a relatively large advantage over Oakland in terms of overall market size.