Day of Reckoning 1: Next Monday?
- 02.08.10, 14:50
- 142 Comments
According to East Bay Express scribe Robert Gammon, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums spilled the beans on the date of the MLB panel’s forthcoming report. Monday is the big day, apparently. That jibes with what I had heard privately. Update: Gammon reports that the report will be delayed a week (Matthew Artz reported the same last week).
Over at the A’s Drumbeat, Vlae Kershner is laying odds. For entertainment purposes only, of course.
Longtime broadcaster Amaury Pi-Gonzalez, a longtime Fremont resident, doesn’t think his city has the mindset to get a ballpark deal done.
Let’s keep all of this in perspective. One city will “win” this recommendation, but will have a long way to go towards having/keeping the A’s. The others will be DFA’ed for all intents.
I can see the executive order coming…
I hope you went to dinner in a central location close to the foodbase, celebrating tradition and history, and rewarding the restaurant for loyalty.
.
The delusions keep escalating.
How was Philly made whole again with a new MLB franchise?
How did MLB expand to Oakland?
Why is it that you’re OK with Oakland stealing another city’s team and moving it more than halfway across the country, but you’re not OK with someone moving the A’s 45 miles within the same market?
.
Why don’t you run for office somewhere on the platform of nonsense that you’ve been spouting here?
Nav, God bless your little heart. I think you are completely crazy but I have to admit you’ve given me many a laugh on this board. Like the time you argued that its actually the SF-Oak-Berkeley Bay Area and that San Jose wasn’t part of it. Or like when you said downtown San Jose’s sole homicide meant the whole area was unsafe for a ballpark. And now a letter to Obama. Hahaha. Priceless!
“– green and gold were colors that were brought to Oakland from KC–they didn’t originate in Oakland–”
.
Better yet, they were completely owner-specific. Charley Finley was an Irishman, hence the green. I guess the gold was something he was seeking, but really never found in great quantity in KC or Oaktown.
.
Was, not is.
And that was a long time ago.
Are you really so incapable of reading comprehension, or are you doing this just to piss everyone off? Of course, these two choices assume that you are of sound mind, and you keep giving us reasons to believe otherwise.
.
Give it up, nav. History has passed you by, the ferry has sailed, and the train has left the station. All your rants, half truths, flat-out-lies, and irrelevant red herrings won’t change the situation, no matter how many times you keep repeating them.
.
Finally, a realistic and constructive proposal.
Please do that.
Send a copy to all the potential GOP presidential candidates as well.
Let’s not forget the argument that the Coli neighborhood is comparable to Fenway or Wrigleyville because (a) if you’re willing to drive a mile or two after the game you can shop luxury cars, and (b) you can visit Northern California’s most profitable In N’ Out Burger.
Finally the humorous and jovial Connie Mack that I love. You were sounding a little bitter in your previous posts. First of all, President Obama was about ten years old when the Oakland Athlethics were winning three consecutive World Series titles. He lived in Hawaii at the time and the Oakland Athlethics were one of the few teams he was able to watch consistently on television because of the proximity to the West Coast. These were the young formative years of the President’s life. I became an Oakland A’s fan at precisely the same period of time. We’re about the same age so I understand how these formative years can influence someone’s lifetime affinity for a sports team. The fact that the Oakland Athlethics were so dominant and successful during that time, should tell you that there’s a very good chance that President Obama has a soft spot in his heart for the Oakland Athletics.
Connie,
Philadelphia was made whole with the Phillies and Kansas City was made whole with the Royals. Also, Oakland built the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum without any guarantees of getting a team from anywhere. San Jose on the other hand has been conspiring with Lew Wolff and who knows who else, to get the team to commit to leave Oakland before they BUILD anything. San Jose should have built a ML ballpark without a commitment years ago just like Oakland did before the A’s and Warriors came to town. You all get excited about EIRs but that’s pocket change compared to what Oakland did back in the 60s.
Pacifico,
It’s good that we can laugh some times. Let’s not take ourselves so seriously all the time.
Speaking of homicides, unfortunately there was one yesterday in an abandoned church just across from the proposed ballpark at the Diridon site. It’s sad, that this stuff can happen anywhere.
I have it from reliable sources that Marine Layer went to dinner at Francesco’s in the “absolute center of the Bay Area” last night.
Even better idea LS! Off topic: Tim Brown not being a first ballot Hall of Famer is a travesty!
Why not buy a Lexus and enjoy a good burger after the game?
For good burgers, go to Hegen Burger (if it is still open) before In n Out.
Holy crap – is it just me, or is anyone else shocked by Nav’s age? By his behavior, I honestly pictured a late teenager.
and Madera is very near the ” absolute center ” of California . So I say Lew, move the A’s to Fresno, and you will draw equally from the entire state !!
and Madera is very near the ” absolute center ” of California . So I say Lew, move the A’s to Fresno, and you will geographically draw equally from the entire state !!
Lemmiwinks… epic
I was thinking the same thing. Of course, he refuses to meet anyone at an A’s game so they could sit and chat and drink a beer, so we really can’t be certain.
And I hope the restaurant you went to the night before didn’t yell at the current restaurant to get their own customers and to stop stealing theirs.
The Phillies predate the A’s in Philadelphia by almost 20 years (1883 vs. 1901.) What the hell are you talking about?
.
Better yet, the population center of the country is located very close to Kansas City.
I say move the A’s back to KC (history! tradition!), and have 300 million people as the fanbase!
Bravo!!
Clearly, 300 Million people is enough to support 2 teams
They already have the Royals. Why don’t we just leave the A’s in Oakland where they belong?
Because Oakland cant build them a ballpark, nor provide the infrastructure necessary for a privately financed one, nav.
That’s why…
plrraz, no city alone can build a new ballpark for the A’s anywhere in the Bay Area and Oakland’s city government has already made it very clear that the city will be able to provide infrastructure improvements for a privately financed one.
Because Oakland has a long history of not supporting the team, despite consistent on-field success and repeated world championships, even in years when it had what was then considered one of the better venues in baseball, and even in years when it had “owner love.” Because with the construction of AT&T Park, the prospect of adequate support in Oakland has only gotten worse. Because the East Bay as a region does not have the corporate base required to support the premium seat sales necessary to fund a privately-financed ballpark.
No, OA, they have NOT :
“made it very clear that the city will be able to provide infrastructure improvements for a privately financed one.”
They HAVE thrown out a bunch of sites at the last minute, in desparation, after doing NOTHING for the past fifteen years, except bring back the Raiders.
No, OA, they have NOT :
“made it very clear that the city will be able to provide infrastructure improvements for a privately financed one.”
They HAVE thrown out a bunch of sites at the last minute, in desparation, after doing NOTHING for the past fifteen years, except bring back the Raiders.
The Giants astroturf group, “Stand for San Jose,” which is really “Stand for the Giants assinine territorial rights”, has been noticeably silent recently, Maybe Selig ordered the Giants to stop the nonsense while all this gets hammered out.
Dellums says he’s been told the panel will submit their findigs/suggestions in one week. WTF! Can it be this hard to make a decision?
Interesting quote from the Matthew Artz report:
“(Fremont Mayor) Wasserman said a major developer told the city than the NUMMI site “isn’t worth two cents,” right now, because no developer would take on such a gargantuan project in this market. So the property would have to be parceled out, which the city doesn’t want to do.”
At this point I am just hoping the report mentions the A’s!
TEASE! Not happening today: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2010/02/08/breaking-news-report-on-as-move-delayed
I remember channel 44 and Monte Moore! Those were the days! Green and gold are the colors you see when you look out at the hills surrounding the bay area. They should remain the A’s colors regardless of which (bay area) city we land in.
A refresher: let’s remember why the committee wasn’t formed in the first place; “to thoroughly analyze all of the ballpark proposals that have been made to date, the current situation in Oakland, and the prospects of obtaining a ballpark in any of the communities located in Oakland’s territory.” It was NOT formed, as currently reported by the East Bay media, after receiving a letter from Dellums asking the league to take another look at possible ballpark sites in Oakland. Funny how San Jose wasn’t mentioned initially, yet MLB has already met with SJ Pols three times. Just saying.
Please, please! DO NOT call yourself an A’s fan if you choose to support only one stadium which most of you seem to only support the San Jose site. You cannot call yourself an A’s fan by doing so. If you are truly an A’s fan you would support any site regardless of the city and what they are doing in order to obtain the A’s.
I support all three cities and their endeavor to get the A’s moving out of a crumbling coliseum. I support Oakland’s sites, Fremont’s site, and San Jose’s site. I just want the A’s to have a new stadium in which to play in with their newly acquired players. All these sites that have been proposed as the A’s new home all look good, and is suitable for a new stadium. I’ll let the city and their citizens decide whether or not they approve of that stadium, but do not speak for them.
So let me repeat, DO NOT by any means, call yourself an A’s fan if you solely choose a side (city) and their endeavor.
TAF–A’s fan—season tix holder—and yes–I support the San Jose site–I want a new ballpark in my lifetime and 15 years and zero progress other than 2 potential sites, and a $20M/year hangover from the last remodel of the Coli tells me Oakland doesn’t have the leadership or resources to get it done—-so PLEASE—don’t tell me I’m not an A’s fan because I support a ballpark in San Jose–because they have the best chance of actually getting it done-
I was reading the Biz of Baseball yesterday and came across something interesting. Here is an excerpt from Maury Brown’s latest chat:
1:32
[Comment From Anthony Salazar]
“Where do you see the Oakland A’s in a few years? They need a new stadium, the question mark has been where. Oakland waterfront, Oakland downtown, San Jose, etc…it’s another political hot topic, and factor in the territory rights of the Giants in Santa Clara County. Man, I wish they’d get it settled already.”
1:36
“I wish they’d get it settled too, Anthony. If you’re Lew Wolff, you want San Jose, unless Oakland makes a waterfront location highly tempting (read: little to no ownership investment). The key to the A’s relo is the Giants, and I think if Bud had his druthers, he’d give Santa Clara Co. back to the A’s. It was their’s to begin with, after all. Problem is, you run into the “Angelos factor” which we saw with the relo of the Expos to DC. I think the Giants would sue to make it stop given the lucrative business and fan base in the region.”
It has been discussed elsewhere that the Giants can’t sue if the commissioner decides to open up the South bay for the A’s. Is Maury unaware of that point or does he know something we don’t? Usually I’d bet on the latter.
I love Twitter… Maury Brown is answering my questions via Twitter right now.
I meant “was formed,” not “wasn’t. Oops!
GJ10,
For all the knowledge Maury possesses of MLB and its “biz,” this is a case of “intellectual laziness” (Jeffrey, 2009?). For the umpteenth time, the Giants can’t sue MLB! Maury knows this! And this supposed “lucrative business and fan base in the region”? That likes getting thrown out a lot despite the evidence against such a notion. Again, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group poll of 2009 has blown the “lucrative business” idea out of the water, and “fan base” remains a huge mystery. Why this continued assumption that the relatively few Giants season-ticket holders from SJ/SC would all of a sudden become SJ A’s season-ticket holders is beyond me.
For the record, Maury was an ardent backer of the Giants territorial rights back in the early 2000′s, as he was a huge supporter of bringing MLB to his town of Portland, Oregon (nothing wrong with that). The hope? Giants/MLB would keep A’s out of San Jose, nothing would happen in Oakland/East Bay, and your A’s would relocate out of the Bay Area and become the Portland Athletics; the SF Giants dream come true!
Yo… not sure if he is wrong or not. In the post I put on AN it includes the specific language in the MLB Constitution which indicates teams must submit to the Commissioner for arbitration of any dispute. Maybe Rayburn’s Son or Bartleby (I think they are both attorneys) can provide a bit of color.
And on Maury’s website they wrote a long piece about the Orioles being appeased by Bud Selig despite the fact that they couldn’t sue the league and thus had no leverage.
I will say this, in another piece I wrote on AN I basically said the same thing Maury is saying… For the Oakland waterfront to be a slamdunk I imagine MLB is expecting them to do more than they would expect out of San Jose. In other words, they want Oakland to offer public financing, even if that hasn’t been stated expressly.
Either way… This drama is a bore. Time to hear about the future in a less tea leafy kind of way… C’mon Bud make something happen for crying out loud..
While anyone can file a lawsuit, I think the Giants are very unlikely to win one (or even get past summary judgment), for the following reasons:.
- The MLB constitution requires arbitration by the Commissioner as the sole and final dispute resolution mechanism. It also bars teams from suing each other or the league. Considered together with the antitrust exemption, these provisions are likely to be enforced.
- The MLB Constitution is a contract. However, it expressly provides it may be amended by 3/4 owner vote. Exercising a right expressly conferred by a contract is not a breach of that contract.
To provide an example:
Case 1: A manufacturer enters a contract with a distributor guaranteeing supply of goods for five years. In year two, manufacturer stops supplying goods. This is a breach of contract.
Case 2: A manufacturer enters a contract with a distributor guaranteeing supply of goods for five years. The contract contains a clause allowing either party to terminate on thirty days written notice. In year two, manufacturer sends distributor a letter terminating the contract. Thirty days later, manufacturer stops accepting new orders and shipping product. This is not a breach of contract; the manufacturer has exercised its express rights under the contract.
Amending the MLB Constitution to change territorial rights would be similar to Case 2: The league would be exercising its express rights under the contract, not breaching the contract.
Bear in mind, the MLB Constitution specifically states a team can be involuntarily CONTRACTED by 3/4 vote. The Giants would be hard pressed to argue they didn’t understand their territorial rights could be altered.
- Even if the Giants were somehow able to get in court, stay in court, and establish a claim (all significant hurdles), their presumptive remedy would be money damages, NOT specific performance (i.e. a court order preventing MLB from changing territories). In other words, a court would require them to prove economic loss and would award them only the amount of that economic loss. This can be problematic, as such damages are speculative and difficult to prove. Recall, the Raiders sued Oakland/Alameda County for over $1 billion – the incremental amount they claimed they would have made had all PSLs been sold as they were promised. The Court only awarded something like $30 million. Basically, the Court said “Yeah, it’s possible you COULD have made an extra billion, but its pretty speculative. We’re only convinced the amount you’ve proven you WOULD have made is around $30 million, so that’s all we’re going to give you.” This may have been a moral victory, but considering the Raiders probably spent tens of millions in legal fees, it was a crushing defeat from a business perspective. If you knew that was going to be the outcome going in, no way you bring that lawsuit.
As noted above, the Giants would face major hurdles the Raiders didn’t face in order to even get to that point. Since the best they could most likely get is money (and probably not even that), and since MLB will probably negotiate a compensation package anyway, I think the Giants will put their energy and resources into negotiating with MLB rather than suing. In so doing they avoid a lot of legal costs, ill will with the other owners, and probably come out better than they would in court.
Jeffrey,
Here’s a line from the on-line piece “National Pride: Baseball returns to Washington” by Sarah Kellog, illustrating why the Orioles were appeased by MLB.
“(Peter) Angelos didn’t have any legal authority to fight it (Expos move to DC)” says Zimbalist, “He was just huffing and puffing. Baseball didn’t want a disgruntled owner, so they made a deal with him.” Sounds like somone we know out of SF. So anyhow, I stand by my claim that Maury is wrong.
Sorry Jeffrey, I confess that I don’t know how to post links here. Search the story by Kellog; it’s an interesting read on the Expos/Orioles/Nationals saga. It also gives insight to the workings of Irwin Raij, member of the current MLB Bay Area committee.
bartleby–great post as usual–just curious—say that MLB upheld territorial rights prohibiting the A’s from a potential move to SJ—what realistic recourse, if any, would the city of SJ have against the gints considering there was no compensation for acquiring said rights?
If the Giants do go so far as to file a lawsuit, I believe it will be a bluff intended as a negotiating tactic rather than something they plan to press to a conclusion.
GoA’s,
Sadly, off the top of my head I can’t think of a solid theory San Jose could use to bring a claim against MLB or the Giants. The normal go-to claim would be antitrust, but here MLB is shielded by its antitrust exemption. (Although I will caveat, I am not an antitrust expert). Notwithstanding what Navigator thinks, neither San Jose nor Oakland has any legal entitlement to an MLB team.