Warriors moving to San Francisco – how will the team change?

Bay Area Sports Guy May 21, 2012

Adam Lauridsen doesn’t just run an extremely popular and well-respected blog about the Golden State Warriors, he’s also a lawyer. From what I’ve been told, he’s an extremely bright and capable lawyer, someone who wouldn’t report something just to get attention. So when he tweeted the following on Sunday afternoon, people took notice:

Marcus Thompson II reports that while the Warriors aren’t denying Lauridsen’s report and will almost certainly end up in San Francisco, the proposed arena at Piers 30/32 isn’t set in stone … so to speak.

The Warriors, according to league sources, had preliminary discussions with the San Francisco Giants. But those discussions didn’t pan out as, according to one source, the two sides clashed over how much control the Giants would have.

The Warriors could still end up part of the $1.6 billion Mission Rock project, which was unveiled April 4. The 27-acre plan—which will develop the land south of AT&T Park—isn’t scheduled to break ground for three years. Plus, the aforementioned site on The Embarcadero, isn’t without issues. Parking for a new arena there would be scarce, not to mention the potential traffic headache could be enough to scare off the city officials who would have to approve the plans.

One source with periphery knowledge of the negotiations said don’t be surprised if the Warriors agreed to the deal for an arena on Piers 30 and 32 as a message to the Giants. With years worth of bureaucracy awaiting both projects, plenty time exists for the two sides to work on a deal and change directions.

But let’s assume the Embarcadero arena plan comes to fruition. In the first of a three-part installment, here are four things that will change about the franchise.

1. National media attention will increase.

Like how baseball players who have nothing left to prove in the minors but can’t quite cut it in the Majors are known as “Four-A” players, the Warriors have inhabited an imaginary zone in between the NBDL and NBA in the minds of many for a very long time. Most people around the country have no idea where Oakland is or what it’s like. More pointedly, the United States doesn’t care about the Warriors. A new arena will give the NBA and the companies who cover it a wealth of new stories to cover. The NBA’s spotlight is on the Celtics, Knicks, Lakers and Bulls, and will remain that way for the most part — but the Warriors’ move to San Francisco will garner more attention than anything the franchise has done since 1975 (besides the Latrell Sprewell choking incident).

2. The Warriors will get an All-Star Game very quickly.

The new arena will be close to hotels, restaurants and bars. It will be pretty, plush and sparkly. Waterfront views and the Bay Bridge would replace HWY 880 and the pedestrian bridge to the BART station. David Stern and Adam Silver can nosh with Joe Lacob and Peter Guber at Boulevard, then head to the arena. Lacob has probably already made a reservation for four in 2018.

3. Free agents will be easier to sign.

There’s no such thing as a good “shooter’s arena.” The San Francisco Giants may have trouble enticing sluggers to come hit at AT&T Park, but the Warriors won’t have that problem. On the contrary, the opportunity to live in a luxury condo on the Embarcadero within walking distance to a brand new arena in San Francisco will appeal to some NBA players. Remember, Baron Davis lived in San Francisco when he played here. The “cool factor” is incredibly important to many NBA players, and driving to the Coliseum complex just isn’t all that cool.

It’ll help the Warriors’ chances of luring impact free agents if they start winning between now and 2017, though. That certainly isn’t a given considering this team’s past.

4. The team’s name will change.

Any frequent radio listener has heard the commercial for a certain casino where the guy talks about how he rooted for the Warriors when “they were the San Francisco Warriors.” That’s coming back. Whether the Warriors switch back to the throwbacks that say “The City” or go with a slightly tweaked version of those hardwood classics remains to be seen, but “Golden State Warriors” will vanish.

Stay tuned for Part 2 and Part 3, where we’ll explore four things that will change about the Bay Area and four ways Warriors fans will change.

About the Author

Otherwise known as Steve Berman (no, not the guy from the Eminem skits), BASG started Bay Area Sports Guy in January of 2008 with the help of his then-girlfriend (now wife). Since then he's covered college football for CSN Bay Area, gained media access to the Giants, Warriors and 49ers, and built Bay Area Sports Guy into the No. 1 independent Bay Area sports blog. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

24 comments

Newest | Oldest

Martina

The new ownership group did not over pay by $150M to buy the Warriors and keep them in Oakland. Despite the fact that the team should have been the Oakland Warriors ever since they moved across the bay, I think that the team should be re-named the San Francisco Warriors - just as they were when they moved here in 1963. "Golden State" is a hokey marketing attempt, and is a stupid name. It's got to be Oakland or San Francisco, but not "Golden State"

Otis Byrd III

These are some great pieces BASG. I guess I'll address each point in these 3 articles about the Warriors and what them moving to San Francisco would mean. 1. I totally agree with that. The Warriors would probably get more nationally televised games if/when they move to San Francisco (I guess we have to say this until it becomes official). Hasn't anyone noticed that whenever the Warriors do have nationally televised games, and the game is at Oracle, they usually show San Francisco more than they do Oakland? Even on the Warriors CSN Bay Area telecasts, they normally show the Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco, when the Warriors are playing at Oracle. Also, when the Warriors have a TNT game, when the telecast goes to a break, the city that they put down as their location is San Francisco, and not Oakland. It will say San Francisco, CA, and then it shows the Warriors against who they are playing. I think it's a new thing that TNT does now. Show the location of the game that they are showing, and the matchup going into a break in the telecast. Also, if/when the Warriors move to San Francisco and change their name, people from outside the Bay Area will stop asking, "Where is Golden State?" or stop sounding awkward when they say something to the effect of, "at Golden State tonight", or "this team (insert team name here) is playing at Golden State". LOL 2. I totally agree about the All-Star Game. The Warriors would probably get an All-Star Game bid probably a year or two after the new San Francisco arena is opened. 3. I agree on the free agent thing. Even though the Warriors aren't a real free agent destination yet, them moving to San Francisco could help things, as well as winning of course. Plus, as BASG said, Baron lived in San Francisco when he was a Warrior. I think David Lee lives in the city during the season. 4. I think so. It would make sense for the Warriors to change their name to the "San Francisco Warriors". The thing is, would they receive backlash from the Warriors fans in Oakland and the rest of the East Bay because of that? I would still keep the Golden State Warriors name, even though I would love for them to change their name to San Francisco Warriors. It would be cool if they brought back the "The City" jerseys or those San Francisco Warriors throwbacks the Warriors wore on Hardwood Classics Nights a few seasons ago. Both of those jerseys are sick!

Tru

Also, while the Raiders have been historically bad, they are still "high profile." They have one of the largest fan bases in the NFL. Sorry, if I'm coming across as defensive, but I'm SICK of seeing the East Bay and Oakland get the shaft.

BASG

Most of the Raiders' home games were blacked out here for years until 2011. Mark Davis himself said "Los Angeles is a possibility." http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2012/01/10/mark-davis-post-presser-los-angeles-is-a-possibility-wherever-is-a-possibility/ I'm not against Oakland at all. I certainly don't think SF is much safer, especially walking around here as often as I do. I lived in the East Bay for 5 years, I've spent a lot of time in Oakland and I've had a lot of fun there. But Oakland is losing this battle due to reasons beyond our control as citizens. I'm not trying to bash the place, but I won't pretend that professional sports decision-makers and the nation at large think highly of Oakland, either. I'm writing about what I think will change with the Warriors' impending move, not what I hope will boost Oakland's reputation.

Tru

The Raiders had a horrible situation with non-lifetime PSLs, followed by a HISTORICAL losing stretch. Unlike the 49ers who, smartly I might add, found ways to get unused tickets bought through corporations, charity and local tv stationsduring their losing years. Al thought it best to stay blacked out which further hurt the franchise. Even with the blackouts, the Raiders are still up there with the Cowboys, Packers, Steelers in terms of national recognition and large fan bases.

Dangelo

I've lived in the east bay for over 30 years, far east bay, as in other side of Caldecott. Over the years when talking with clients and business associates from across the country, sometimes I'm asked where I live and I'd say 15 miles east of Oakland. More often than not, they'll ask where is Oakland? Now to make it simple, I just say 25 miles east of SF and 50 miles north of silicon valley, and they get it the first time.

Tru

Oakland, because of its proxy to SF, is like Brooklyn. People usually know of it, but the geographic details are fuzzy. Although, during a trip to Ireland I told the locals I was from Oakland and they knew it was the Bay Area. Go figure.

John Sports

Great analogy about Brooklyn Tru, but the sad fact is Oakland / East Bay will always be the Red Headed Step-child to SF. But that doesn't mean we need to accept it. We can still support out Teams and hope for the best. I think the unfortunate part is most people nowadays care to much about the cache of their respected Teams than the Team / game itself. Example I went to Coke-Slide park Friday night and was met with a Giants fan who had to explain to me how "The Panda was single handily going to destroy the A's"... I told him he was on the DL, and was greeted with a very confused look. Luckily I sat with some real Giant fans and had a good time being ribbed. But this is a dying breed and moves like this will eventually kill the sport as we know it.

Tru

"Most people around the country have no idea where Oakland is or what it’s like." Are you serious?! The Raiders and A's won championships in the Town and were high profile teams. The Black Panther's history is taught in every High School text book. Famous music acts and a ton of famous actors are from Oakland. It's not New York or Chicago, but your description is without merit.

John Sports

If one keeps making statements like this eventually people start to believe it, hence the stupid quote about Oakland. The same thing has happened to the STINKIN A's ownership, when they keep repeating that Oakland is a small market and we can't survive here. Disgusting way to run a team. These JERKS should just tell the truth....We don't care about the fans or the people of Oakland, we only care about making more money. Hell I think I could respect that more than the constant Oakland BASHING.

BASG

"Were" high profile teams. Do you really think billionaire owners care about the Black Panthers, musicians or actors? It doesn't matter what cultural significance Oakland holds to these guys, they're looking for the glamour arena in the glamour city. I like Oakland, but I'm talking about national perception, and people outside Northern California think that (1) we're about 30 miles from the Oregon border and (2) San Francisco dominates the region in every way. Even the most strident Oakland supporter can't argue that the city is dealing with a major problem in terms of perception ... even here.

Tru

You said "most people" don't know where Oakland is or what it's like. So I pointed out just some of the cultural and historical significance that Oakland has presented to the nation. Yes, Oakland struggles from a perception issue, just like SF does in some parts of the country. Oakland has put money into refurbishing the Arena, has provided loud and loyal fans and has been the Warrior's home for 40 years. Apparently that's not enough. It's sickening. I also disagree with your point about SF being "cooler" than Oakland. You're telling me that most NBA players, who are usually African American, are going to relate better to SF than Oakland? Even if the move happens, most of the players will still live in the suburbs, somewhere else. Winning is what brings in players.

Tru

I don't expect the average person to think about Oakland much. I don't think about Seattle, Kansas City, Pittsburgh much, but I know where they're located and what they have contributed to the national cultural scene. Something you claimed most don't know about Oakland. I also don't think players live near the Coliseum, I agree they live in the nice areas, the Oakland hills, Blackhawk, wherever they'll STILL be living if they go to SF. Because SF has nightclubs doesn't mean free agents will come here. If that was the case, they'd come to Oakland and just cross the bridge to go clubbing. The "cool" factor of SF (which is debatable) isn't going to be a determining factor in getting free agents. It's going to take an established player to thrive here and winning to follow for players to come, that's true wherever you play the game.

BASG

I don't blame you for being upset about the Warriors leaving. You aren't alone. I'm just stating what Oakland and Oracle represent to an extremely rich, pampered group of people: NBA owners and players. And regardless of the cultural and historical significance you mentioned, the average American isn't thinking about Oakland all that much. The average millionaire/billionaire? Even less. Do you really think players are living near the Coliseum because of the demographics? This isn't a race question, it's a money question. Trust me, the only time the players see that arena is when they drive there. Afterward, they speed off in their luxury vehicles to whatever safe neighborhoods they call home.

Tru

The warriors have been in Oakland the longest (40 years!) Philadelphia the second longest and SF the least amount. The East Bay is the Warriors true home and the fans have been nothing but loyal. All that losing and the fans in Oakland have been hardcore and present. These owners are weasels, especially if they go against their "it's a Bay Area team" claim and rename the Warriors SF.

John Sports

Tru, Isn't it funny how Oakland attracts the worst ownership groups, If you combined the A's group with the Warriors group, you end up with one HUGE bag of shit.

Jeff

Only in the recent era. But the warriors will always suck.

Otis Byrd III

Well, let's hope that's not the case. I'm sure the Warriors will turn it around hopefully sooner rather than later. If the Clippers can turn it around, I'm sure and I hope the Warriors can turn it around.

noah

When the A's and Ws have moved, that leaves just the Raiders. Considering the Raiders atrocious attendance, wouldn't it be better to get rid of them, too, and replace the entire thing with a mall/housing situation a la the Pruneyard in Campbell or a larger version of Bay Street in Emeryville?

Tru

The Raiders sold out all last year, were always sold out before they left and have drawn better since coming back than they did in LA. Nice try.

SGL

So I guess that means Teatro Zinzanni isn't coming back?

Dangelo

An arena on SF's waterfront will probably be booked 360 days a year. How SF went this long without one is astounding. . As far as name is concerned, how about the San Francisco Warriors of Golden State?

Otis Byrd III

As far as what the Warriors name will be if/when they move back to San Francisco, I'm sure it would be tempting for them to change it "San Francisco Warriors", and it would be cool if the Warriors went back to the San Francisco Warriors name, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Warriors keep the Golden State Warriors name. The Warriors are already receiving some backlash with their intentions to move back to San Francisco. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep the name so that they won't lose fans, specifically the Warrior fans in the East Bay. Coming up with a new name is hard though. One of the new names that I heard which I kind of liked was, the "San Francisco Bay Warriors". I think that actually wouldn't be a bad new name for the Warriors, but would East Bay Warrior fans be cool with that name? That name makes the most sense because they would be in San Francisco, and they would still represent the Bay Area, and not just San Francisco, if East Bay Warrior fans have a problem with that name. LOL.

Otis Byrd III

Yeah, it's unbelievable how there hasn't really been a real state of the art arena here in San Francisco. I agree that should this new Warriors arena here in San Francisco be built, it probably will be booked for a lot of the regular calendar year. Of course with the Warriors games, possible college basketball games such as USF or maybe even Cal or St. Mary's (I'm sure those schools will want to play some games there), concerts, as well as some conventions like they have at Moscone Center, this arena probably would be booked. The possibilities could be endless as far as events go. This arena could be Northern California's version of Staples Center! Damon Bruce made a good point and stated that maybe the Sharks would want to move up to San Francisco to play in the new arena. That would be interesting, even though the Sharks have a good thing going in San Jose. I'm sure the Sharks wouldn't mind playing in the city though, should they have the chance/opportunity to share the new arena with the Warriors. Hopefully this new arena gets built.