Future Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson has been hired in a “goodwill capacity” for the 2009 season. While nothing would tickle me more than to have Rickey as a 1B/3B/bench coach, this is at least a good start. Yes, I would like to see him don an A’s uniform one last time if that’s at all possible.

Continuing their expansion into radio, the A’s have also announced that they’ve inked a five-year (!) deal with the Spanish Beisbol Network. All 162 games will be broadcast on two stations locally, KDIA-1640 and KDYA-1190. It’s a very big deal as this breadth of coverage of the A’s season on Spanish radio is unprecedented. Veteran broadcaster Amaury Pi-Gonzalez will handle the play-by-play duties, with the color man to be announced at a later date. Interestingly, Pi-Gonzalez’s last gig was with the Angels in 2007.

The MTC has approved shuffling $91 million of local transporation funds from the Dumbarton Rail project to the Warm Springs BART extension. It’s yet another crucial step towards the eventual raping and pillaging of South Fremont due to BART’s criminal element full extension to San Jose.

And so it begins. Two stories, one from the AP and another by MLB.com reporter Barry M. Bloom, start off in familiar territory. Commissioner Selig wants resolution of the Fremont situation, as stated in his December letter, and if Fremont falls through the A’s “may begin to discuss a ballpark with other communities.”

If this were your standard procedural cop show, Selig would be filling the role of bad cop while Wolff is the good cop. Wolff remains committed to making Fremont work, though opposition on different fronts remains daunting.

Bloom’s article goes further, as in further south in Santa Clara County. He broaches the prickly subject that is territorial rights and sheds a bit of light on the process:

Thus, if the A’s want to move into Santa Clara County, it would be a decision made by the Commissioner and not by the Giants, who were ceded the rights to Santa Clara County during a ballpark vote there about 20 years ago. The vote failed, but the Giants have maintained those territorial rights ever since.

“What we’ve done, I think, is open up a door for the A’s that’s been closed,” said Wolff on Wednesday, the first day of this week’s two days of owners’ meetings here. “My priority really is Fremont. Other communities are all over us now because of this letter, but I’m not listening to them yet. I don’t want to start this process all over again.”

It would appear rather convenient, then, that San Jose (presumably one of those “other communities”) has a completed and certified EIR which makes the process there much less painful than what’s transpired so far in Fremont. Wolff is careful not to point blame at Fremont’s city council.

Curiously, Bloom’s article is headlined “Door opens for A’s in Santa Clara.” Is that an inference to a ballpark deal being possible in the city of Santa Clara? We don’t know yet. Bloom only refers to Santa Clara County, not the city. There are some in Santa Clara who believe that it’s possible for both a 49ers stadium and an A’s ballpark to fit side-by-side near Great America. Santa Clara has to worry about the Niners’ situation first before imposing any new concepts on its citizens. FWIW, I don’t think there’s enough room for the Niners, A’s, and the theme park to operate in the same sandbox. Two of them, yes.

What is Lew going to say at the Chamber breakfast event on February 11? Sometimes I think Lew’s playing this like Andy Dufresne at Shawshank, everyday carving out bits of stone wall unbeknownst to the guards and the warden, then distributing them in the prison yard.

Matier and Ross report that the Niners, should their efforts to get a stadium in Santa Clara falter or slip, are prepared to re-up at the ‘Stick for 5, 10, or even 15 years.

Candlestick Park still works reasonably well as a barebones football stadium. No seats are insanely high. Other that a few obstructed view seats, it’s a decent place to watch a game and can generate some serious noise. With the Giants gone, the 49ers don’t have to worry about linemen struggling through muck caused by the baseball infield (drought helps too).

Despite those positives, the ‘Stick is the oldest pro stadium in the Bay Area and it shows. Escalators are frequently in a state of disrepair. The team facilities have been mediocre since the 80’s. Concourses are cramped. Breezes whip through there as if the stadium were located on Tierra del Fuego. There are no club seats. The luxury suites are a bit dated. And it’s a real pain to get from the press box down to the field or locker rooms.

The plan, then, is to do a major remodel:

Already, the team is working up designs for a new club area with premium seating that could be introduced the season after next.

But there may be more to it than that. Lang confirmed that the Niners are looking at the possibility of a major remodel of the ‘Stick – an option they had previously rejected as far too costly.

“We are running the numbers again because things have changed,” Lang said. It seems that with the economic downturn, rehabbing the stadium might not be as expensive as once thought.

In December, new team President Jed York met with Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Sophie Maxwell and hinted that – depending on the outcome of their efforts in Santa Clara – he might come back to the city in three to six months to talk about a Candlestick rehab.

Dufty said he was under the impression they weren’t talking about the kind of massive makeover that Chicago’s Soldier Field got, “but something that might be north of $100 million.”

In other words, the kind of fix-up that could keep the stadium operating for an extra 15 years – long enough to pay for itself and carry the Niners through their last lease extension option.

We’ve seen this kind of remodel before. It’s called Mt. Davis. To be fair, Mt. Davis was the construction of a completely separate, three-deck grandstand with nearly 100 suites. A ‘Stick revamp need not be so extensive. It would pretty simple to remove the pullout stands on the east side and the old rightfield line sections that are no longer in use. In their place could be an extensive club seating tier (or two) plus a lounge/restaurant/atrium area.

If the Niners and SF do it right, they could correct one of the weird quirks of the old girl. The odd oval shape of the seating bowl created a situation in which no seat is lined up parallel to either sideline or end line, and few seats are properly angled at the center of the field. In the remodel, the field could be properly lined up parallel to the western side of the bowl. Then the club seats could also be built in the same parallel manner.

The problem? Who’s going to pay for it?

It’s not on the calendar yet, but I have confirmed that Lew Wolff will speak at a San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce event in February. The specifics:

A’s and Earthquakes: Plans for 2009?
with Lew Wolff
Wednesday, February 11, 7:30-9:30 AM
@ Adobe Systems
Park Conference Room
345 Park Ave., San Jose

Online registration will be available shortly, and will be open until February 6.

Speculate away.

I’m confirming a big piece of San Jose-related news today. In preparation for that, here’s a clip of San Jose’s Municipal Code (link dead) related to building sports facilities within the city limits:

4.95.010 Prohibition of the use of tax dollars to build a sports facility
The city of San José may participate in the building of a sports facility using tax dollars only after obtaining a majority vote of the voters of the city of San José approving such expenditure.

A “sports facility” for the purpose of this chapter is to be any structure designed to seat more than five thousand people at any one time for the purpose of viewing a sporting or recreational event.

“Tax dollars” for the purposes of this chapter include, without limitation, any commitment to fund wholly or in part said facility with general fund monies, redevelopment fund monies, bonds, loans, special assessments or any other indebtedness guaranteed by city property, taxing authority or revenues.

Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the city from allowing the construction of a sports facility funded by private investment.

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this chapter and application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

More later.

Effects from the economic crisis are hitting everyone, including wealthy team owners. Bruce Ratner has been forced to scale back value engineer his Brooklyn arena vision. The Yankees are looking for $370 million to “finish” New Yankee Stadium. Locally, talks of the Niners and Raiders teaming up to get a stadium done together may have started up.

Wait a minute. Haven’t we heard that last rumor before? Indeed we have, about this time last year. And we’re going to continue to hear this every year as both teams’ seasons end unceremonious early while their stadium destinies hang in the balance. We have no idea if there are any substantive discussions. We don’t know what it will take for the two teams to arrive at a proper compromise. Finally, we have no clue which muncipality out there would be interested in playing matchmaker, though I suspect that certain Santa Clara pols might be. The stadium architect may also have to play intermediary, as 360 architecture’s George Heinlein did with the New Meadowlands Stadium. Sure, it makes sense. It’s not, however, without its issues. As long as LA remains a tantalizing option for both teams (and the Bolts, Jags, and Vikes) there may be little progress on this front.

The plan is to enact a “Neighborhood Protection Plan” that works in a two-way manner. Not only does it prevent stadium users from driving from the stadium area to the residential area, it also prevents anyone from using back roads into the residential area from parking and then walking to the stadium area. The plan is helped by the street grid, in which there are limited access points to the Weibel neighborhood on the opposite side of 680 (so named because of the area elementary school). It remains to be seen how residents will react to the plan and the additional inconvenience that may come with it.

Some residents south of the stadium site (Warm Springs/Mission) are more concerned about the single north-south artery between 680 and 880, Warm Springs Blvd., being clogged on game days. Only the traffic study will have any real answers, as it will probably take into account situations in which normal traffic flows and signaling can be compared with gameday situations in which police will be called upon to control traffic.

What next? We’re about a month away from the next City Council meeting to review the plan. Until then, stay tuned.

I received a note this morning from Jim Pappas, KTRB’s VP and GM. The station has FCC and FAA approval to construct a new transmitter in Sonoma County. The 50,000-watt facility would seriously augment coverage in the North Bay and Sacramento. By now you’ve seen the existing coverage map:

The new Sonoma Daytime transmitter map (exclusive of existing transmitter) looks like this:

Much better, right? It is a Daytime transmitter, and Nighttime operation is in the works as well, though it would come later (application with the FCC already on file). For those who believe in miracles, don’t expect the transmitter to be ready in time for Opening Day. It’s not like building a skyscraper in terms of complexity, but it’s still quite tall and requires proper preparation and testing. Maybe before the end of the season. The deal between the A’s and KTRB is only for one season, but this gives you an indication of where both parties would like the relationship to go. Both want to be serious Bay Area radio players, and they want to do it together.

This is where you come in. Construction of the transmitter is wholly dependent on approval by Sonoma County’s Board of Zoning Adjustments. KTRB is ready to build pending approval. The transmitter has not yet come up for review by the BZA. When it does, KTRB will draft to request fan support. I’ll post it here. The board usually meets twice a month, and like the EIR process in Fremont, it is open to public comment. You can go to the meeting at 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA, 95403, or send written comments to that address.

In a move that should delight listeners all over the bay, the A’s are moving to 50,000-watt KTRB-AM 860. KTRB’s transmitter is located in the Diablo Range east of Sunol, which is a big improvement over the three transmitter locations it used two years ago. Check out the maps below for a better idea of the service area.

Day:

Night:

See any difference there? I don’t. That’s a good thing for both the A’s and A’s fans.

KTRB’s programming is a mishmash of talk, with high profile slots taken by syndicated conservative hosts such as Glenn Beck and Neal Boortz. Bay Area veteran Ron Barr has his sportstalk show in the 7-10 slot, which would be pre-empted by most of the A’s weeknight games and related pregame and postgame shows. Ironically, the partnership with KTRB is the first time in years that the A’s will be on a station with compatible sports programming.

Readers, I’d much appreciate if you could at some point during the day flip on your AM radios and tune to 860. Then drop a comment and let me know how the signal comes in, specifying your location. Thanks.

ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reports that the Raiders are in talks to sell at least 10% of team to a group of LA-based investors. As usual, Raider management has steadfastly denied the rumor.

The real issue here is that of controlling interest of the team, which has been in Al Davis’s hands for more than three decades. It’s difficult to see Davis as a figurehead given his penchant for meddling in everything from personnel moves and gameplans to stadium deals, even with his somewhat advanced age and health concerns.

Unfortunately for Davis, he doesn’t hold many cards. The chances of Davis getting a stadium deal in the LA area without ceding control are slim. The NFL’s G3 loan program has dried up and talk of a new fund has been tabled as the league bundles up for a cold economic winter. There are no Irwindales out there willing to give him a fat check, and the only stadium deal on the horizon is Ed Roski’s plan in City of Industry, which would be privately financed. Roski, according to the LA Times, is quietly pursuing a team. Couple that with Roger Goodell’s curious December visit to Oakland, and it would appear that something is happening behind the scenes.

While Roski and his SoCal cohorts get their affairs in order, talks continue between the Raiders, Oakland, and the Coliseum Authority. Of course, if Davis needed a cash infusion to keep the team going, how would he have the cash needed to get a Coliseum revamp or new stadium started?

Our two local NFL teams are in a similar position economically. They won’t admit it, but either would love the other to leave posthaste as it would help crystallize support for their own local stadium efforts. Yet they must both look at Roski’s vision and see dollar signs. Both ownership groups want to hold on with a death grip, but may not be able to in order to move or even get a stadium deal done locally without ceding control. And both teams have been woefully mismanaged over the past decade. There’s a race here, but I’m not sure what it’s for.

The AL champion Tampa Rays, in conjunction with a coalition called “A Baseball Community,” released a two-part study (PDF: Part I/Part II) on seven possible future ballpark sites. The sites, all within St. Petersburg city limits, range from the downtown waterfront site upon which the Rays had previously planned a new ballpark to a 250-acre inactive landfill curiously named “Toytown.” A map is available showing all seven sites:

• Tropicana Field – The sacrificial lamb, development of the current ballpark site has been offered up as a way to help pay for a new ballpark at Al Lang Field. A new concept has a ballpark co-existing with planned surrounding mixed-use development.
• Al Lang Field/Progress Energy Park – Concept rushed through during the spring, then quickly abandoned. Surprisingly, this site has the smallest population within a 30-minute drive of itself, only 539,312. That’s less than the combined population of Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda. Or Fresno-Clovis. And that doesn’t even include all of the communities within 30 minutes.
• Derby Lane – An old dog track and kennel. Biggest issue is that it’s furthest removed from I-275, though it is close to Tampa by virtue of another bridge spanning Tampa Bay.
• Airco Golf Course – Has already been discounted due to its proximity to the St. Pete-Clearwater airport.
• Sod Farm – Developer Tarpon Ridge bought the site from the City in hopes of building a massive mixed-use development. The land remains undeveloped and could project to have the highest infrastructure costs.
• Carillon Town Center – May be in the best position right now. It also is part of a large-scale development plan but already has infrastructure in place. It’s right off I-275 and is at the western approach to the Howard Franklin bridge, which means it’s the closest to Tampa. The built-out nature of the complex provides fewer opportunities for ancillary development.
• Toytown – Landfill ceased activity in 1983 and closed completely in 1991. Leachate seeped into the water table in the mid-80’s, this was controlled shortly thereafter. This site, just south of Carillon along I-275, appears to have the greatest amount of potential. Part of this is due to the incredibly low land cost: $10 million for 250 acres. However, anyone who buys it will be responsible for the massive remediation cost that will be required before a single pile can be driven. Hunters Point or O29, anyone?

The report is worth the read and could be considered an executive summary-type synopsis of what we normally see in California in our EIR/EIS documents.

Population is the real eyebrow-raiser here. The Carillon site has twice the in-radius population as Al Lang. Still, at 1.2 million, there remains a question of sustainability in the market. To put that in perspective, even that total is less than the population of Alameda County (1.45 million) and further less than Santa Clara County (1.7 million). Going with a smaller, cheaper ballpark regardless of site is a good move there.