Update 10:57 AM – Link to the archived interview here. MP3 download here.

Prior to FanFest, Lew Wolff is making the media rounds again. Friday’s Chronicle has decent length discussion between Wolff and John Shea about both on-field and off-field issues. There isn’t anything new on the business side other than Wolff’s admission that the team actually made $370,000 post-revenue sharing in 2011 thanks to the World Series going seven games. Wolff can thank fellow St. Louis-area native David Freese for that.

Wolff’s scheduled one-on-ones with fans are going to be interesting. I see why he’s doing this, but I don’t expect much to come of it. Maybe if he convinces a few fans regarding the earnestness of his effort it’ll be worth it. It just seems like people on one side or another have such ingrained opinions that it’s a futile task.

Later this morning, Wolff will be on The Game with The Rise Guys at 9:15, probably talking about FanFest, Johnny Gomes, Bartolo Colon, and maybe Manny Ramirez.

—-

Quick note about FanFest – I expect to be there at 9. Jeffrey should be there around 11. I will be tweeting throughout, so pay attention to the @newballpark feed for updates from FanFest.

Here’s a curious nugget: the San Jose Earthquakes have changed the date and venue of their March 18 home game against the hated Houston Dynamo to March 17 (St. Patrick’s Day) at AT&T Park. The match will be the undercard of a tuneup match between the Mexico and Senegal under-23 (Olympic) national teams. Previously the Quakes had doubleheader arrangement when Mexico and Iceland played at the Coliseum in 2008. Presumably the Quakes have the first game so that there won’t be the lingering image of Mexican fans leaving the stadium during the MLS match. That day pulled in 45,000 in attendance, over four times the capacity of Buck Shaw Stadium.

In the somewhat distant past such a game would be held at the Coliseum, but it’ll be played across the bay instead. Considering the Giants and A’s generally do nothing together other than appear at the compulsory media day before the baseball season begins, it’s a move out of nowhere. AT&T Park doesn’t have 45,000 seats and at least a thousand or more have terrible sightlines for soccer (LF corner upper deck), so it’s not as if they’ll outsell a game in Oakland. However, the tickets could be priced higher and find a very willing audience at a nicer venue. I don’t know what the revenue split is for a date like this with so many stakeholders, but I figure the Giants should be able to clear $200,000 just for hosting if they get $5 a ticket, plus probably all of the concessions revenue. With two weeks between the event and the Bay Bridge Series, that’s plenty of time to get the field in good condition.

According to the Stanford University sports calendar, there are no events that could conflict with the staging of a game at Stanford Stadium. The Stanford women’s basketball team is a powerhouse as usual, so they can be expected to host the first and second round of the women’s NCAA tournament at Maples Pavilion that weekend. The Quakes are playing a match against the L.A. Galaxy at Stanford on June 30, and I’ll be sure to attend then. Why not have the Dynamo/Mexico-Senegal event at Stanford? Maybe the NCAA tournament rules. Maybe the university and City of Palo Alto didn’t want an overly rowdy St. Paddy’s day crowd.

Does this event mean a thawing in the relationship between A’s ownership and Giants ownership? Hard to say. The ballpark business unit of the Giants could say it’s working independently from the team and in conjunction with the Quakes, who are also an autonomous unit within the Wolff/Fisher group. It’s been over 20 years since the last trade between the A’s and Giants (Darren Lewis for Ernest Riles, not counting the Adam Pettyjohn “deal”). At the very least it’s a sign that the two ownership groups can work together on something business-related. That can’t be a bad thing.

(Hat tip to Dan for pointing out the scheduling change.)

Last night I caught much of the Oakland City Council/Redevelopment Agency special session, which was held to discuss the impending shutdown of ORA and CEDA, the City’s economic development arm. Plenty of angry citizens and city employees were on hand to voice their displeasure with the 105 layoffs and cutbacks to numerous programs and nonprofits. It was an alternately sad and angry meeting, and the presence of Occupy Oakland protestors didn’t help advance the discourse.

The Council passed a resolution in support of SB 659 (Padilla), a bill requesting a two month “stay of execution” of RDAs. It appears to be symbolic, as numerous legislators have said that it’s unlikely that the bill will make it out of committee and Governor Brown would reject it if it ever landed on his desk.

Of the Mayor and City Council, only Councilmember Libby Schaaf actually pegged the situation down cold. She said that the City Council was in denial about the future of redevelopment. Mayor Jean Quan tried to deflect any criticism early on by saying that the City had set aside the $40 million “ransom” payment and was planning to move forward with reduced scope redevelopment, as many other cities and counties were. Quan also mentioned that the City had heard in November (probably around the time of the oral arguments) that there was a possibility that RDAs throughout the state would be shuttered. Puzzlingly, the Mayor and Council did not make any contingency plans at that point or at any other time through the end of the year.

Worse, Quan has had limited discussions with the public employees unions about the impact. Today on KQED’s Forum, host Michael Krasny asked about those limited and belated discussions. Quan replied that she made a call to a union rep the night the Supreme Court’s decision to shutter RDAs was handed down, plus one meeting last Saturday and one other meeting between City Administrator Deanna Santana and SEIU on the 9th. That’s it. Things really got testy at the session when Councilmember Nancy Nadel asked Santana if she would be willing to take a paycut from her $278,000 salary. Santana didn’t answer directly and said she’d have to consult her attorney. To the City’s credit, they already done 10% across the board cuts in the last budget cycle. Unfortunately, that didn’t take into account the redevelopment shutdown. Now, just as last year, the City is looking at three different budget scenarios and will vote on one to put forward including redevelopment shutdown-related impacts. It’s also in a special kind of flux as it has 450 redevelopment projects that it is waiting for the State to determine whether some or all of them can move forward.

Callers on Forum echoed many of the sentiments of commenters at the session last night. The City was late to react, took things for granted, had their heads in the sand, etc. And that’s where it gets me. There is a clear pattern of behavior here. On three very disparate issues: Occupy Oakland, the budget post-redevelopment, and the state of the sports franchises, the City has routinely and consistently been late to react and lacking in its planning efforts. It has also waffled on occasion, something directly related to confusion that comes from the lack of planning. That is simply pathetic. Oakland needs clearer, more focused leadership now more than ever. Its residents deserve that. Forget the sports franchises for a moment. There are life and death, real quality-of-life issues at stake here. Hiding and not having an ongoing dialogue with your employees and constituents is thoroughly inexcusable.

During the radio interview, Quan was quick to mention Oakland’s place on the NY Times’ 2012 45 Places to Go list. Which is great, one of the mayor’s jobs is to sell the city every chance she gets. At no time during that hour or during the session last night did the fates of the sports franchises come up. No surprise there. When people say that Oakland has more important things to do than worry about pro sports, there is substance to that argument. That’s not a sign of weakness. That’s an acknowledgement of reality.

—

P.S. San Jose voted Tuesday to shutter its own redevelopment agency. The lion’s share of cuts that needed to be made were done six months ago.

Today I and a half-dozen other bloggers got our info package via email from A’s Media Relations and Broadcasting coordinator Adam Loberstein. We’ll have the 1 PM hour dedicated a press conference with several A’s players and prospects. Here’s the schedule for FanFest on Sunday, January 29:

1:00 p.m.          Blogger/Interview Room Opens

1:15-1:30 p.m.   A’s Manager Bob Melvin

1:30-1:45 p.m.   Shortstop Cliff Pennington and pitcher Brandon McCarthy

1:45-2:00 p.m.   Outfielders Josh Reddick and Seth Smith

Smith replaced pitcher Brad Peacock. Maybe I’ll ask the OFs which one will kneecap the other first to get more PAs (I keed!). Because of this part of the event, I’d like to put the meetup between 11 and noon, inside the East entrance to Oracle Arena. I will be arriving at 9 to set up early and get a feel for the event. Plus, as BANG’s Joe Stiglich notes, Lew Wolff will be around from 9 to 10:30 throughout the event to answer fan questions via one-on-ones. Sign ups will occur from 9 to 10:30. Now that should be interesting, and well worth getting there early to watch.

Please comment with the following:

• Questions for Melvin or the players
• Whether or not the meetup time works for you, suggestions if it doesn’t
• Whether or not you’re up for anything after FanFest, including a tailgate

The best thing to come out of this is that if this event goes well, it’ll be the first in a series of blogger events throughout the season. Now that sounds great and is something to look forward to.

Today the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that Moneyball was nominated for six Oscars. The film received four nominations in roughly the same categories that it received Golden Globe nominations:

• Best Picture
• Best Adapted Screenplay
• Best Actor: Brad Pitt
• Best Supporting Actor: Jonah Hill

Unfortunately, Moneyball didn’t win at the Globes, though that could be chalked up to the Hollywood Foreign Press not caring much about an American film about an American sport like baseball, instead favoring The Descendants, Hugo, and The Artist. The latter two films were set in Europe or were produced outside of Hollywood. That’s not to say that those movies aren’t deserving, far from it. All three of those films are more deserving of Best Picture than Moneyball.

The other two nominations were technical: Editing and Sound Mixing. While not as showy as Hugo and The Artist, I think Moneyball has a shot at both of those awards. Real footage of the 2002 season was seamlessly integrated into the film, and the sounds of the game are better and more realistic than in any other sports film I’ve seen/heard.

Deleted scenes

• Billy Tells Art: Play Bradford – Ambivalent. Leaving the scene in would’ve shed light on Mike Magnante’s issues, which weren’t covered in great depth in the movie. On the other hand, Beane comes off as mean, calculating, and unsympathetic. That’s probably not what they were going for, even if there’s some truth to it.
• Tara and Billy Dinner – Was this the only deleted scene featuring Kathryn Morris? I knew going into Opening Day that her scenes were left on the cutting room floor. As much as I like Morris as an actress, it’s better that the character of Tara Beane is not in in the film. Some obsessives on the big screen do better with a good wife as emotional support. The Moneyball Beane is not one of them.
• Peter Offered GM Job – Should’ve left it in. Another great bit of repartee between the two leads. Plus it’s closer to the actual truth.

Billy Beane: Re-Inventing the Game – Part epilogue, part Cliffs Notes version of Moneyball the book. More for the casual/non-A’s fan. A’s fans know this inside and out. Still good to have quotes from Michael Lewis, Aaron Sorkin, Beane. Plus props to the unseen Paul DePodesta. Includes a jarring, unwelcome interview with Alex Rodriguez, who arrogantly touts his “character”.

Drafting The Team – Emphasizes that many actual/former ballplayers were cast in player roles. Nice interviews with Stephen Bishop (David Justice) and Ken Medlock (Grady Fuson).

Moneyball – Playing the Game – My favorite featurette in the package. Covers set design, costumes, and cinematography. I really loved Wally Pfister’s (Christopher Nolan’s go-to cinematographer) explanation of how and why he shot the movie the way it was shot with lots of shadow and on film instead of digital video. When the A’s finally leave the Coliseum for a new ballpark somewhere, Moneyball will always be a reminder of how good the Coliseum could be.

Adapting Moneyball – A little back-and-forth among the team of screenwriters and the producer Rachael Horovitz. Watch it and read Roger Ebert’s recent blog post, which has a little inside baseball about how the script(s) came together.

The notable feature missing from the package is a commentary track, whether from the director or actors. The featurettes are a good substitute, but I really wanted a commentary to get a lot of the small details. That’s okay, maybe there’ll be a collector’s edition down the road. If the A’s hadn’t won a World Series in my lifetime, I might feel a little more bitter about how the 2002 season ended. But think about it for a second. One of our favorite teams of all time was documented in a bestselling, critically acclaimed book and a lovingly crafted movie adaptation. We’ll have that forever. How many teams get to have that? Nick Hornby’s Fever Pitch was a great memoir of his lifelong love of the Arsenal soccer club. The British film adaptation was not bad, though it strayed far from the book. The American adaptation was so terrible that the miracle of the Red Sox finally winning couldn’t salvage it. No, I don’t expect Moneyball to win the Best Picture Oscar. Is it the best baseball movie of all time? Most definitely. And that’s good enough for me.

—

P.S. – As of yesterday, Moneyball has made $106 million in domestic and foreign box office revenue. Someday the A’s payroll might actually approach that number.

As usual, we’re in a quiet period leaving the January winter meetings and a month before pitchers and catchers report. At least we have FanFest coming up this weekend. Speaking of FanFest, if folks would like to meetup at FanFest, I think we can meet just inside whichever entrance they use, probably the Plaza Club entrance (lower) or East entrance (upper). I’d love to meet at a great restaurant or bar within walking distance, but… you know the problem there.

Now the news:

• The Merc’s Tracy Seipel has a roundup of effect the shuttering of redevelopment will have on numerous South Bay redevelopment agencies, including San Jose’s. As has been written previously, SJRA has been winding down over the last year or so, making the shutdown less painful and abrupt than it is for other cities, many of whom are trying to extend the deadline from February 1 to April 15. While San Jose remains in an good position with regard to getting its planning and preparation together on a ballpark, its ability to acquire additional land for the ballpark is gone, leaving A’s ownership to take care of the rest.
• Also in the Merc, columnist Scott Herhold makes the political calculation that if San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed continues to be aggressive if pushing for a pension reform referendum, he may find a lot of enemies of the ballpark in the form of public employee unions. Personally I know a few who are already opposed and are blaming the ballpark effort, so this is no joke. The simple fact of the matter is that with the unions providing givebacks and lower projected costs leading to a smaller budget deficit, the City is not in the kind of fiscal state of emergency that requires such drastic action on the Mayor’s part. Cooler heads should prevail.
• St. Petersburg pols think a light rail system connecting their city with Tampa could help jumpstart attendance.
• Apparently there is a Florida law which dictates that any stadia built with some amount of public funds requires those facilities to be used as homeless shelters when games aren’t being played. This includes huge football stadia, domes like Tropicana Field, even spring training ballparks. Now two legislators are trying to enforce that provision, which until now has remained dormant.
• Chron’s Leah Garchik has an entertaining account of 49er fans being stuck on a bus in gridlock for three hours even though it was only going within city limits.
• Added 12:07 PM – Lawrence Berkeley Lab has picked the site for its second campus: Richmond. The land was already owned by UC, so LBL needed to be bowled over to pick a different site in Oakland, Alameda, or Emeryville. In the end, that apparently didn’t happen. Sites proposed by Oakland included the Zhone property across 880 from the Coliseum, and the Oak-to-Ninth site east of Jack London Square.
• Added 8:30 PM – The City of Oakland released a proposal that would layoff only 105 full-time employees as part of the redevelopment shutdown. That figure would be slightly more than half of the 200 layoffs that were expected.
• Added 11:35 PM – The Santa Clara County Registrar confirmed that the 4,500 signatures gathered in a petition effort for a new referendum were good. This sets up a situation where the City Council, which has been firmly pro-stadium, will probably reject the petition effort, setting up a court battle. The interesting new twist to this saga is that the current Mayor is Jamie Matthews, a staunch opponent of the stadium plan. Matthews, who replaced Pat Mahan (proponent) last year, was merely a dissenting vote on the Council when the original vote passed in June 2010. Matthews seems emboldened enough now to turn the stadium effort into a real war. Correction 1/25 9:00 PM – Councilmember Jamie McLeod is a dissenter, not Jamie Matthews, who has been a longtime supporter of the stadium plan.

More if/as it comes.

Two weeks ago, we laid out the possibilities for the A’s as a team-in-limbo at the Coliseum for 2014. In today’s Trib, reporter Angela Woodall got comments from principals from Alameda County and Oakland, the A’s and Raiders. Try as I might to find a proper analogy for this increasingly awkward situation, I simply can’t. So we’ll go with the comments instead.

A’s President Mike Crowley said he sent what he considered a fair lease extension proposal in June that was met with a “convoluted” response from the Coliseum Joint Powers Authority, which oversees the municipally owned complex.

“So that ended that conversation pretty quickly,” he said. “If we can’t work something out here, we’ll have to find somewhere else to play.

“There are not many options. But we have time. We’re here in 2012, and we’re here in 2013.”

Always eager to open mouth and insert foot, Ignacio De La Fuente “contributes” to the discussion:

“The reality is they’re the ones who have a timeline, not us,” said De La Fuente, referring to the 2013 deadline and the lack of alternatives to the O.co Coliseum in the Bay Area.

That’s strange. The A’s are the only ones with a timeline? Didn’t MLB want the A’s playing in a new venue by 2015? Comments like that and Mayor Jean Quan’s suggestion that Victory Court could be acquired and entitled by November 2014 (making a 2015 opening impossible) aren’t going to convince MLB that Oakland is really serious about this. Couple that with the ongoing discussions with the Raiders, and you get the sense that the A’s aren’t exactly the highest item on the priority list among the Oakland-based sports franchises.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Oakland has little incentive to renew the lease at terms similar to what the teams are paying now. Both teams pay around $1 million each season with some additional revenue thrown in for good measure, not nearly enough to take care of the $20 million in debt service (equally split between Oakland and Alameda County), not to mention the $500k in field conversion costs. The Coliseum Authority is right to angle for more money to cover debt service and costs, but they can’t get too aggressive. If they try to hike the rent to $5 million or more, the A’s will have to consider whether that’s a good deal as opposed to the opportunity cost of improving an existing stadium somewhere else. They’ve already done it at Buck Shaw, adding 3,500 seats and improving the facilities for $4 million. My guess at this point is $3 million for either the A’s or Raiders for 2014, and an option year if new stadium complications arise. That’s a fair amount given the market conditions, which are favorable for Oakland in the short term but not favorable in the long term.

The Raiders are a factor in this as well. Movement in the direction of a new stadium somewhere as opposed to improving the existing Coliseum makes temporarily sharing the Coliseum less impactful for the Raiders. At least the Raiders have an existing NFL stadium option should talks sour with the Coliseum Authority: Candlestick Park. In 2010 the 49ers extended their lease at The ‘Stick through 2014, allowing for a smooth transition to Santa Clara if all of the funding lines up properly. Coliseum City would displace both teams for at least two years (perhaps on a staggered schedule), making it even more difficult to accommodate the A’s and Raiders sufficiently.

Several Oakland officials, including former City Attorney John Russo, have said that the A’s have misrepresented themselves and their intentions when getting the last two extensions signed in 2007 and 2010. That argument never held water to me, because there was always a termination fee that the A’s had to pay if they left Alameda County. If that isn’t an acknowledgement of the situation, I don’t know what is. The Raiders have a similar clause in their lease, yet they aren’t getting vilified nearly as much for talking to/about Santa Clara and Los Angeles. I suppose it all comes down to what the parties care about – getting a deal done as opposed to having good optics about potential deals. If both teams leave Oakland, optics won’t matter one iota and the chickens, in the form of voters, will come home to roost. Then again, maybe not? I suspect there is a large percentage of the populace in Oakland that will be thankful that the City didn’t get screwed Mt. Davis-style all over again. That day of reckoning is drawing closer.

Today I did an TV interview on Get Real with Brian Stuckey, a show produced out of CreaTV San Jose. CreaTV is a non-profit to whom Comcast has farmed out all of their public access programming for much of the South Bay. The segment will air January 30 on Comcast channel 15 with a web stream simulcast, so my ugly mug won’t show up until then. I doubt anything will have fundamentally changed by then, but you never know.

On to the news.

• Matier and Ross report that nothing official happened on the A’s-to-San Jose front. That’s true at least when it comes to making a decision or coming to a compromise plan. We set those expectations going into the owners meetings. Yet background work did occur, including the presentation to the executive committee and Selig’s statement that the A’s are now on the front burner. Write that off all you want, it’s movement that wasn’t happening six, nine, twelve months ago. Remember that as incalcitrant the Giants are, there’s always the threat of binding arbitration to force the Giants’ hand. Commissioner Selig won’t give San Jose a greenlight for a vote (for either MLB owners or the city referendum) unless the Giants drop their lawsuit, making the legal action the last real weapon in the Giants’ arsenal to block the A’s efforts.
• While the Giants are doing everything possible to stop A’s ownership, they’re actively encouraging new arena deals. We all know about their overtures towards the Warriors. Yesterday, Larry Baer gave a pep talk to Sacramento civic leaders pushing for a new downtown Kings arena. Baer said that after four defeats at the ballot box, the effort to get a ballpark going was “worth the fight.” I imagine that Lew Wolff feels the exact same way, Larry.

“It can be done, don’t give up,” Baer said. “You must persevere, you must exercise patience, you must have strong leadership in the private and public sector.”

When a man’s right, he’s right.

• While the Oakland-only crowd was eager to jump on a graf in the M&R report, they buried the lead: Thanks to the death of redevelopment, the City of Oakland will have to cut 200 jobs and hand out 1,500 pink slips. The Mayor and City Council may also have to take huge cuts in pay on top of cuts already taken last year. How does this affect San Jose? Not that much, since as of the end of 2011 there were only about 10-12 people left in SJRA, with budget cuts and changes already enacted. Not that San Jose actually anticipated the change. SJRA’s fiscal issues forced it shut down early.
• Less than three months from the opening of the Marlins Ballpark in Miami, and there’s no solution for funding transit options that can bring fans from downtown or the nearest Metrorail (BART-like) station.
• The Cubs are replacing their right field bleacher section with a Green Monster Seats-style party deck, fronted by one of those new-fangled LED scoreboards.
• Santa Clara’s City Attorney declared a petition effort by 49er stadium opponents illegal. That doesn’t mean the opponents can’t sue. We’ll see if they have the resources to sue for the right. We’ve seen this happen before.

On a lighter note – since Jeffrey and I will both be at FanFest, would any readers like to do a meetup? Not exactly sure of where we could do it, we can talk through the details.

Update 8:54 PM – Doug Boxer sent me a note saying that the Let’s Go Oakland website is now back up properly with the graphics and style sheets in tow. Apparently some servers were moved recently and… you know what can happen when you move servers.

Friday while I was doing some site maintenance, I did my occasional check of the links in the sidebar. When I clicked on the Let’s Go Oakland website I saw this:

Something's missing here.

What happened to the colorful background graphic? The Facebook link? The petition form still seems to work, so it’s not as if the site is broken. I don’t get it. Can someone explain what happened?

I frequently look to San Diego for inspiration, whether for the weather, the beer, my brother’s wonderful Rottweiler, Jojo, or major league baseball. No, I’m not saying that the Padres are baseball’s model franchise. Instead, San Diego – the market – is a good comparison to the way the A’s are situated in the Bay Area. Consider the following:

• With a population of 3 million, San Diego is slightly larger than the East Bay’s population.
• The gross metropolitan product (GMP) of San Diego is slightly larger than that of the South Bay. (The East Bay is considered part of the San Francisco region from a Census perspective).
• San Diego has a broad economy, from the military and government services to healthcare to technology.

San Diego will never be able to have a large share of the Southern California television and radio market because of the presence of the two Los Angeles teams. That hasn’t stopped the team from inking a 20-year TV deal with Fox Sports, worth $25-30 million per year. It pales in comparison to the Angels’ new deal and the upcoming Dodgers’ deal, but it’s still a major improvement over the $15 million per year the Padres were getting from broadcast station Cox-4. The deal starts in April.

Of course, this is MLB, where any snag that can be hit will be hit. Commissioner Bud Selig tabled the sale of the Pads from John Moores to Jeff Moorad as other owners raised numerous questions about financing that weren’t satisfactorily answered. Both Selig and Moorad say the snag won’t jeopardize the sale. It sounds like Moorad will take Jim Crane’s recently vacated hot seat, as the sale gets dragged on for several more weeks or months while outgoing majority owner John Moores stews.

According to this summary from Gaslamp Ball, Moorad has all of his money lined up, including the last $100 million of cash in escrow. That’s somewhat impressive, given that Moorad was given an unusual five-year phase-in plan to acquire all of the team. Moorad sold his minority stake in the Diamondbacks, got Bob Piccinini and others (many of whom are Modesto based) in a 12-member investor group, and seemingly got the money three years ahead of schedule. Yet there remain questions about what debt instruments Moorad used to raise the capital, and perhaps additional questions about where some of that TV money is going to go when the Padres start getting paid (some of it may go to pay down debt instead of the team). All of this harkens back to the McCourt debacle, where Frank kept borrowing against the team and related properties to fund an extravagant lifestyle for him and his ex-wife. With new debt rules in places thanks to the new CBA, Moorad’s group may be Exhibit A in ensuring that teams, especially mid-markets, stay true.

A decade ago, Piccinini-Dolich group experienced similar troubles when trying to buy the A’s. They brought in numerous new partners over several months, trying to appease Selig and the owners. Whether you believe they were shafted or there were lingering unanswered questions about how the group would finance and run the team, their bid was denied. Though it’s interesting to consider for a moment that with the makeup of the Padres’ investor group and Moorad’s place as the managing partner, it’s not hard to see that had things turned out differently, Moorad might be the A’s owner now, perhaps phasing out Dolich over time. Would the group have been so steadfast to stay in Oakland, or would Piccinini have become a Ken Hofmann-like weak supporter of the East Bay? Would Moorad, smelling the money in the South Bay, have gotten his agent juices flowing again and pushed for San Jose? We’ll never know. If you want to see how the Piccinini group would’ve operated the A’s with limited resources (like those in San Diego), all you need to do is see what Moorad does in the future with the Padres.