Willingham signing hinges on stadium resolution
- 09.25.11, 00:03
- 72 Comments
Susan Slusser’s report on Josh Willingham’s status makes my last post look downright prophetic (I swear I had no idea). According to Willingham’s agent, Matt Sosnick, any kind of multiyear deal is completely dependent on whether or not the A’s get the green light to move to San Jose.
“We gave the A’s an idea of where we were, and we were told they have interest in bringing Josh back, but before they did anything, they want to see what happens with the stadium,” Sosnick said. “Josh and I both made it clear he’d like to stay, but at this point, I’m pretty sure he’ll test the free-agent market.
“We talked about a time frame, given that Billy would like Josh back, but it seems like Billy is sort of hamstrung right now.”
Now if you haven’t read the last post on the Moneyball script, read it now. And enjoy the symmetry.
Slusser also notes that if the A’s get that green light, they’ll reduce payroll and go into a full rebuilding mode. That would make sense, since Beane and Wolff/Fisher would probably want to time the opening of Cisco Field with a fully resurgent team, one that could maximize revenue. That probably means trading any or all of the cost-controlled young starters, Kurt Suzuki if he has any value left, and maybe even *gulp* Jemile Weeks. The moves wouldn’t have to happen right away, though I figure that Beane will spend some time trying to find a sucker to take Brian Fuentes’ $5 million for 2012. The moves are one more reason for the pro-Oakland folks to hate ownership, though I have to point out that if they were to build in Oakland they’d go through the same phase. If they were to stay in the Coliseum indefinitely, they’d have to keep payroll at the $70 million level in hopes of attracting more fans at the gate, though $70 million doesn’t get you more than scraps as we’ve seen over the last few years. Want to see how Taylor and Carter look with 500+ PAs? We might finally find out.
Thing is, such a hardline stance may not be necessary since several players may not be expected to re-sign with the A’s, and will have their money come off the books in the offseason. That includes $5.75 million for David DeJesus (despite the strange love affair with the guy) and $4.25 million for Hideki Matsui. Plus there’s the dead money of Kevin Kouzmanoff ($4.75 million) and Conor Jackson ($3.2 million). So even if they re-sign both Willingham and Coco Crisp, they can keep their payroll under $55 million while giving the kids precious playing time.
Without Willingham and Crisp, the payroll would be around $40 million, roughly the same amount as the 2002 Moneyball A’s. It would seem that signing both of those players might make sense in that both of them might yield something better in trade near next season’s trading deadline than the first round/sandwich picks the team would get for letting them walk. Beane’s argument is that without a resolution of the stadium situation, there can be no effective long-range planning, since there would be an endless cycle of building up and selling off. As more of the youngsters hit arbitration eligible years, Beane has to keep that in mind and plan accordingly. It’s a tough spot to be in.
…too bad some people insist that moving the team 35 miles south is the same as moving it to Mars. I could see it if Oakland had given the A’s decades of sellouts and helped the team whenever it needed, but the exact opposite is true – dead-last in attendance and city-imposed detriments and roadblocks for the A’s for years.
@pjk–is that what it takes for Oakland to be given a fair shot, decades of sellouts? What MLB team has given decades of sell-outs? None. The only one that stands out with near capacity crowds over a long period is maybe the Bosox. The Yanks didn’t really start packing them in until 8-10 years ago. In fact, the A’s outdrew the Yanks and Bosox from 89-92.
The LA Dodgers have been consistent very high draws for their entire history in LA. This is the first time in 50 years that the Angels drew more than the Dodgers, and the Angels have been very decent most years It just shows you what good ownership (Art Moreno) and bad ownership (the McCourts) can do to a team’s attendance.
But what do you say to the teams paying the luxury tax money to the A’s? “F you Yankees, Cubs, Angels, Red Sox, we’re pocketing it?!?” That doesn’t seem kosher to me at all, and not something those teams, some of whose people are already on record that they view the lux tax as undesirable “socialism,” will stand for IMO.
emp, it’s not considered pocketing it if the money goes into signing draft choices and player development. that’s how the Pirates got out of the doghouse.
@EN – You say, “You’re getting or will probably get hundreds of millions in tax breaks or a publicly financed venue. We aren’t. We need to scrape every penny to get right in order to build our own place and to properly build a team. We as owners aren’t just 30 franchises. We are one $7 billion business that is only as strong as its weakest link.”
@ML–But LW’s scraping those pennies while playing in Oakland, getting a sweetheart lease in Oakland, and big bucks in revenue sharing cuz you are the Oakland A’s. Put all that and some and make a new park in Oakland happen, keeping the great history and continunity of the Oakland A’s going instead of killing it off for SJ, which he’s had on his mind for at least 13 years.
@jk-usa – If he’s scraping to get something built in a place as rich as Silicon Valley, what chance does he have of getting it done in Oakland without massive public assistance? Slim and none.
JK ignores the status of the A’s attendance: Dead-last..Just listened to Wolff’s interview during the game today. He expects Selig to make a decision, apparently soon. Wolff is not convinced the deliberations from 20 years ago mean the Giants control Santa Clara County forever. He also is clearly frustrated with people who don’t think he made much of an effort to build within the A’s current territory and notes the blue ribbon committee, in 900-days-plus, has not come to him with anything he’s missed…
I’m aware of the dead last attendance. It sucks. He just hasn’t helped it any.
I was at a bachelor party in San Diego this past weekend. A San Jose city council member was part of the group and we discussed the A’s in detail.
What he told me was this:
1. ATT is being a “pain in the ass” and will not move unless forced to by eminent domain. Even re-zoning the land for ATT in West San Jose did not help the cause at all. In fact the city council in hindsight would have never agreed to it had they known ATT would still refuse to leave.
2. The city will not use eminent domain on ATT unless MLB gives the OK that the A’s can move to San Jose. Therefore this is not a “race” between OAK and SJ. San Jose like Oakland is in a holding pattern waiting for MLB to make a decision…..Two cities, same boat.
He told me that they cannot “justify” using eminent domain on ATT without MLB approval to move forward.
3. He stated to me their RDA is pretty much done and he “implied” to me Wolff will have to buy the last 2 parcels himself but would not out right say it when I tried to question him more on it. The city council knows full well that Wolff will pay for it because everyone knows it is a “drop in the ocean” of the overall cost of the stadium. He also mentioned SJ unlike most cities did not misuse their RDA funds and used it for several successful developments across the city.
4. He agrees with me Lew Wolff has some kind of “backdoor” deal with Selig as being a former lawyer he does not understand Wolff’s patience with the situation. The city has brought up an anti-trust lawsuit to Wolff and he has told the city “not to sue” and to let the process play out despite San Jose having an excellent case in anti-trust court, which he agreed with me is “solid”.
5. Without Wolff supporting an anti-trust lawsuit San Jose is stuck in mud and he is very pessimistic the A’s to San Jose will ever occur. Although he is still holding out some hope.
6. He also agreed San Jose is getting the “best ballpark deal” of any city in history of MLB. The city is not paying for anything outside of what they have so far. Diridon will be re-developed regardless of the ball park but not for several years to come. BART or High Speed rail would have to be within 3-5 years of being in San Jose.
I wanted to share this info with everyone as this is first hand info from a SJ city council member that is as recent as yesterday.
ML, if you are thinking that the A’s are having to scrape by in order to build a stadium, wouldn’t that agree with Ratto’s comments on funding being the real roadblock? I can’t believe that an ownership group unable to fully-fund a stadium if the situation required it would be OK’d.
@Sid–interesting stuff. Thank you. :)
@Sid – That’s huge news and politically prickly. That makes the referendum absolutely necessary, even if Wolff were to reimburse the city for the land costs. I hope you’re prepared for this to be the topic of a new post because it’s a scoop.
@Genaro – How many teams have recently had to go out of pocket to buy land for a ballpark? Especially when their revenue streams can’t provide much of a contribution? That’s the reality we’re dealing with.
I can’t refute the vast majority of recent deals cities/counties have made, but practically none have been made in CA. That had to be a part of the calculus in approving Fisher/Wolff and if it wasn’t, that’s a real shame.
Again, look at the shortsightedness of this whole affair; if what Sid is saying is valid, the City of San Jose just pulled the same maneuver that gave the Giants SCC. It’s completely amateur.
RAIDERS! Actually (technically) R.M., E.D. for the AT&T parcel doesn’t make a referendum absolutely necessary, since the muni code dealing with this makes no mention of E.D. (if what Sid stated is correct, AT&T are damn bastards for backing out of the quid pro quo for their re-zoned property). Again, going by the letter of the law of SJ Muni Code, a vote is only necessary if taxpayer funds go directly towards venue construction +5,000 seats. As for AT&T: E.D. their asses, sell the parcels to Wolff and get to building; no vote necessary! And again, if what Sid stated is correct, I don’t see why the council member is being pessimistic about the A’s moving to San Jose. No A.T. lawsuit will be necessary because Wolff knows exactly how this will play out in the end (Billy Beane news of the last few days anyone?). It’s amazing how cool and collective Wolff is being, while some SJ supporters are ready to run for the hills. Lewie has a “backdoor” deal with Buddy? Let the process play out? What more can you ask for? Good work Sid.
Sid, stellar journalism there, major kudos.
City of SJ pulled the same maneuver that gave the G’s SCC? Huhh? City of SJ “amateur?” Then what does that make Oakland and their effort (or complete lack thereof)?
Both times something was negotiated without a lapse/trigger/clear affirmation of what was given.
The City of SJ would not be the only amateurs, Oakland/Alameda Co., Wolff/Fisher, Selig; they have all handled the A’s situation with about as much grace as a bull in a china shop.
@Sid–you claim that LW and BS have a “backdoor” deal–the council member agrees with you—but then goes on to say he is pessimistic about the A’s going to SJ…gotta explain the logic there-
also–if there is a “deal” between LW and BS than why would anyone consider anti-trust and why is SJ stuck in the mud?
Ironic that your information directly conflicts with Columbo’s “insider” information that said LW was going to get what he wants…can only expect that some SJ councilman will have his tail between his legs once he hears you reported “the conversation….”
By the way, just a thought: perhaps AT&T wants to deal with the city on the final Diridon parcel, but perhaps they feel they’re not getting the deal that they want. I’d expect that when the “decision” becomes official, the city (with Wolff’s financial assistance) will truly work with AT&T to avoid having to use E.D. E.D. will only be used as the nuclear option.
@Tony D–in a recent interview LW did mention the “ED” word when talking about SJ–considering how frustrated I am with AT&T as the service provider on my iphone/ipad this only adds to my annoyance level–
Just as GoA’s says I was going to say if there is some kind of backdoor deal they truly feel is there. Why would they pessimistic unless someone is trying to angle at the unlikely dodgers to Lew story again.