End of 2010 news

To celebrate the holiday season, the Marlins have sent out a virtual greeting card showing a time-lapse of the construction of their new ballpark. It’s scheduled to open in 2012. Impressive, right? Maybe not when you take a look at this cross-section (via Autodesk/Hunt-Moss), in which all of the luxury suites have been stuffed behind the plate:

Craig Calcaterra thinks Oakland is wasting $750k on the EIR study. His rationale at the end may be more spot on than you might think.

Jeff Moorad and partners finally completed their purchase of the Portland Beavers. The team will play in Tucson for at least the 2011 season, with the idea of playing in Escondido as soon as 2012.

The San Diego Reader’s business/finance writer, Don Bauder, considers Petco Park a failure and considers it a cautionary tale for those who may want a downtown SD football stadium for the Chargers.

At Biz of Baseball, Maury Brown has a slew of new articles:

Lancaster is adding solar panels to its ballpark, which will make it 98% self-powered.

The ballpark for the now relocated Omaha Storm Chasers (Royals) is already having the team move in, even though construction started only in August. Called Werner Park, the new digs are expected to open in April.

31 thoughts on “End of 2010 news

  1. Good point by Craig Calcaterra. Regardless of MLB’s delayed ruling, the A’s are in a better position now than they were at this point last season when only San Jose was actively pursuing them.

  2. re: This environmental study will simply be used by the A’s as leverage to extract a little something extra out of San Jose.

    …just get San Jose to a position where it is permitted to be the home of the A’s and we’ll worry about concessions to A’s ownership later.

  3. I’m still confused about the perception that the Giants would somehow to be compensated by MLB and/or the A’s. If the A’s are allowed San Jose, it really comes down to whether the Bay Area is shared. If not, then it’s a matter of how is the East Bay assigned. That’s important ground to cover if MLB grants the A’s SCCo and the ballpark projects falls somehow falls through. Would the A’s be restricted to opening up negotiations with Oakland? This whole thing has been discussed to death and the discussion can’t really progress until we know how MLB will proceed.

  4. Funny comment in the Craig Calcaterra article when a reader questioned whether there were kickbacks involved with the decision to go ahead with a VC EIR, another reader responds: “As part of the firm that is conducting the [VC] study, I promise you they’re not getting anything back from us. We’re going to hoard every cent of that money before concluding that the Victory Court stadium is a bad idea.”

  5. that second comment from the Calcaterra article, is hardly credible. do you think a serious lawyer would make a foolish public comment like that?

  6. I read that comment too. It is actually from a blogger. Clicks his name and it takes you to “Baseball on a Budget” or something like that

  7. Well, back in ole HOK study days for a new A’s ballpark, the Laney College athletic field (merely a bad golf slice from the VC site) was deemed not viable for a ballpark. Who knows, maybe “the guy” knows what he’s talking about (or maybe he works for Mr. Grunwald).
    Oakland/VC meant to light a fire under SJ’s feet to get moving?…sounds reasonable to me.

  8. “Light a fire under SJ’s feet”? 24 hours ago you were preaching Patience, Take A Deep Breath, and assuring your minions that everything was proceeding according to plan.

    You ARE getting nervous, aren’t you, Tony? 2011 is going to be fun!

  9. @gojohn–cute card, I like it–and it still says Oakland Athletics. Lets keep it that way for a lonnnng time to come.

  10. Rob,
    I’ll never win with you will I…oh well. Nervous? Nope! Why should I be? I will give you this (again); 2011 is going to be awesome!

  11. Reading previous threads that have now been shut down, I feel the need to educate some of the newbies here, especially when it comes to the “precedence” nonsense:
    1) The Bay Area is currently a two-team MLB market (has been since 1968), with both teams separated by roughly 15 miles. If, or when, the A’s relocate to San Jose, guess what…the Bay Area will STILL be a two-team MLB market, albeit with both teams now being separated by roughly 40 miles and located in the regions two largest cities.
    2) How and the hell is this scenario possibly setting up a “precedent” for some of the other two-team markets becoming three-team markets (LA, Chi, NY)?! And which team would move to one of the other shared markets? I know people talk about the Rays and NorNJ, but even that wouldn’t come close to resembling what’s going on here in the Bay. Besides the Ray’s and A’s, all the other teams are set with their ballparks and markets; no one’s going anywhere anytime soon.
    3) Heck, MLB created a two-team market in an area roughly the same population size as the Bay Area; Baltimore-Washington DC Metro. And they had to relocate a team 1,000 miles from the north to do it. Yet somehow the other owners would balk at allowing the A’s to move further from the Giants within the same metro?
    4) Did I mention that territorial rights, both geographic and television, have been altered in the past when it was in the best interest of MLB? Allowing SCCo./SJ the A’s won’t be some earth-shattering event as some here portray.
    By the way, interesting that parking and traffic are cited as reasons that Petco Park attendance is in decline (cough! Victory Court, cough!).

  12. Hi everyone,

    The comment on Hardball Talk was just meant as a joke. I’m a regular reader of HBT, and as ML has successfully discovered, I do work as a transportation engineer for Fehr & Peers and I imagine we will be trying to get a piece of the EIR action. Sorry to everyone who took it seriously, and hopefully I didn’t create too big of a stir.

    Thanks,
    Dan

    PS Excellent detective work by David for outing me as someone who is not only not a lawyer, but also not credible (just kidding).

  13. @ML – Thanks. You’d think that as I leave smart-ass comments all over the interwebs, I’d learn that sometimes there are consequences. At least I was able to catch this one before I get fired.

  14. Nice detective work ML. Sorry, Dan, if you get fired . Adding “Petco Park a failure” to “Greinke means ducats”, I come away with this: stadiums don’t put butts in seats. Or when they do, it’s usually for the wrong reason – as in phone booth park, where I’ve seen no love or even basic understanding of the sport. Stadiums are just seats. Players and teams put butts in seats. Particularly players you grow to love and root for, those whose uniforms aren’t instantly obsolete.

  15. I am confused on what would be gained from pitting Oakland vs. San Jose?

    In both cases each city has announced they will not publicly subsidize the stadium itself but will only use redevelopment funds for the land acquisition and transportation issues.

    Oakland’s site needs a lot of work and will need a substantial amount of $$ for it to be ready. San Jose is pretty much ready to go outside of a welding station that needs to be moved.

    Each city has a broke general fund and are cutting city services just to survive the budget year.

    Outside of land/transportation issues and what not the ballpark itself needs to be privately financed and San Jose because of SVLG can get it done with out a public subsidy for the stadium itself.

    MLB has to realize privately financing the stadium itself in Oakland is not feasible because of the lack of a corporate base in the city.

    2 years BS? Ann Killion said it the best on Chronicle Live “I have no faith in Bud Selig and I am not sure if the A’s will ever be allowed to move to San Jose”.

    • I am confused on what would be gained from pitting Oakland vs. San Jose?In both cases each city has announced they will not publicly subsidize the stadium itself but will only use redevelopment funds for the land acquisition and transportation issues. Oakland’s site needs a lot of work and will need a substantial amount of $$ for it to be ready. San Jose is pretty much ready to go outside of a welding station that needs to be moved.Each city has a broke general fund and are cutting city services just to survive the budget year.Outside of land/transportation issues and what not the ballpark itself needs to be privately financed and San Jose because of SVLG can get it done with out a public subsidy for the stadium itself.MLB has to realize privately financing the stadium itself in Oakland is not feasible because of the lack of a corporate base in the city.2 years BS? Ann Killion said it the best on Chronicle Live “I have no faith in Bud Selig and I am not sure if the A’s will ever be allowed to move to San Jose”.

      Ann Killion!? Are you serious Sid!? The lady who once said the A’s should trade Barry Zito to the Giants for T-Rights to San Jose!? R.M., perhaps you could do a thread on why so many don’t have “faith” in Bud Selig. I know some like to gripe about the All Star Game that ended in a tie and some point to the steriod era; but outside of those two circumstances why the “no faith” in Selig? Just curious…Merry Christmas!

  16. @Dan So that’s a traffic engineer’s sense of humor. You should be fired, and Fehr & Peers, who I thought were reputable traffic engineers, should be cut from the EIR team. Totally unprofessional!

    • @Jerry – Have you ever read an EIR traffic study, let alone an EIR? If you have, you probably wouldn’t have flown off the handle as you have. The traffic consultant doesn’t rule yea or nay on a project. They gather information, give it to the EIR consultant, who presents it to the City. It’s the City’s responsibility to determine if the project passes muster. Good god man, get a grip.

  17. @ML — I’ve read more traffic studies and EIR’s than you can imagine, having worked as a professional planner for my entire career. I know exactly how the process works, I know that his comment has no bearing on the actual document or the project, but someone who is or purports to be the EIR consultant or sub on a project who goes on a public website on an extremely sensitive issue and makes that kind of statement is an ass. And if your comment on that is “well done,” then I think you’re the one losing your grip.

  18. @Jerry – I read his comment and knew not to take it seriously. Was there any real harm? Of course not. My “well done” comment refers to him coming on here and explaining himself. You and I both know that what he said will have no material effect on the process. I suggest you lighten up and get a sense of humor. Happy f@*(&^! Holidays.

  19. The San Diego Reader article completely misses the point. The Padres have been able to dramatically increase stadium revenue while keeping attendance level, nearly doubling their franchise revenue. The City, meanwhile, got a huge boost in development for what had been a marginal section of downtown, a la AT&T Park. In what sense can Petco be considered a failure?

    Attendance is not the endgame, revenue is. Attendance figures taken in isolation are completely meaningless. Which team is healthier, the one which can achieve 27,000 attendance in a new park with much of that attendance coming from suites and club seats, or the one which gets there through massive ticket discounting? And is it even slightly realistic to expect a city the size of San Diego to sustain better than 27K attendance over the long haul regardless of where the ballpark is located?

    I also question the assertion that traffic and parking is significantly worse at Petco than at Qualcomm or that it is significantly impacting attendance. My own experience and simple logic suggests that traffic at Petco is better than Qualcomm on the weekend, worse on the weeknights. Also, like Candlestick, access at Qualcomm was horrible, while Petco offers the possibility of downtown workers strolling over to a game after work.

    The author may well be right that the Chargers aren’t all that interested in downtown San Diego, but the reasons have nothing to do with the Padres experience.

  20. @Tony D. – You can’t be serious about Selig. Wow.

  21. Again, three words: “San Jose A’s”. If kissing Selig’s butt is what it takes to make that happen, then Tony’s puckering up

  22. @Tony- I think most people Pro-Oak or Pro-SJ would agree Bud Selig is something that is better “unsaid”.

    Did you see him when he got interrogated by congress? Wow…

  23. re: “I have no faith in Bud Selig and I am not sure if the A’s will ever be allowed to move to San Jose”.

    …The time may be approaching for San Jose to take this whole mess to the courts. San Jose is forever forbidden from pursuing major league baseball based on MLB”s idiotic policies. Some judge somewhere should want to hear about this.

  24. @Dan

    Heh, I’m sure someone at City Hall will see your comment, and maybe your employer too? Really not smart, actually.

  25. Merry Christmas!! OK, so I deserve the grilling I took over the Selig/faith stuff. My real issue I guess is that many don’t have “faith” in the man because they claim (when it comes to this “BRC” study) that “he can’t make a decision” or “he won’t stand up to Neukom/Giants” without any evidence whatsover supporting such garbage. Instead of arguing our faith in the man, perhaps it would be better to debate how he will be remembered when he finally hangs it up: The roid/ASG tie game commisioner or the new ballpark/rebirth of National Pastime/increased revenue commisioner?

    R.M., perhaps a better future thread should be this: Have Rob do an essay on why he feels a major American city should be banned from pursuing our National Pastime, and why it’s so wrong for any municipality to pursue MLB. Last I check, San Jose was located in the land of freedom US of A!…not North Korea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s