Oakland’s Prevent Defense
No statement I have seen better exemplifies Oakland’s strategy than this quote by City Administrator Fred Blackwell from the SF Business Times:
“San Francisco has given the Warriors a waterfront offer that they could not refuse,” said Fred Blackwell, assistant city administrator, in a statement. “And in the end, we will leave a space for the Warriors after they have are exhausted from the CEQA litigation and cost increases required to be on the San Francisco Waterfront.”
Replace “Warriors” with “Athletics”, “San Francisco” with “San Jose”, and CEQA litigation/cost increases with territorial rights, and you have Oakland’s attitude towards the A’s in a nutshell. Oakland has had counsel from the Giants to fight the A’s efforts to move. It wouldn’t be surprising if they went back to that well again just to make things more difficult for the W’s. The difference is that the W’s don’t have a Byzantine league statute to fight.
It’s as if the City of Oakland has no choice. Almost 50 years ago a group of civic, business, and government leaders had the foresight to build what was then a state-of-the-art sports complex for a reasonable cost. It had parking and a future transit link in the plans. The stadium was built initially for football but was designed to accommodate baseball as well, better than any other multipurpose stadium ever. With the Coliseum complex, Oakland and Alameda County built up a 30-year lead over the rest of the Bay Area. Over time that lead was diminished as other cities struggled and eventually succeeded to build new venues. If the Warriors and A’s get their new digs, that 30-year lead will have vanished with only one team, the Raiders, struggling to hold on.
All this posturing makes it appear that Oakland has no choice but this strategy. That’s entirely wrong. They do have a choice. But it starts with making the toughest choice. Instead of this “fake it ’till you make it” strategy of sounding like they’re committed to all three teams, commit to one first and make that team a positive example that the other teams will be attracted to. The resources definitely aren’t there to make Coliseum City fly as a redone, three-team complex. Why would a private developer commit to the W’s part of Coliseum City if they know that a more lucrative play is available across the bay? Even a two-team plan is sketchy due to the logistical complications (phase-in, what to do with the old venues). For now it looks as though Oakland’s putting its arrows behind the Raiders, since there is some prep work being undertaken. Until either Oakland decides or has the decision made for them, they’ll continue with the “fake it” strategy of saying they have several ballpark sites when in actuality there’s zero consensus on one. That’s a shame because it leads to false hope. That’s what organizations like Save Oakland Sports and Let’s Go Oakland are hanging their hats on. Rooting for someone else to fail works from a schadenfreude standpoint, but it doesn’t get anything built. Longtime East Bay fans are about to find that out.
What evidence shows that the A’s are likely to leave the Bay Area?
Agreed with the above responses that having the teams doesn’t really do much for Oakland as it is (economically). That’s a fundamental part of why they all want to leave – they’re way out in a crappy part of town surrounded by freeway and ghetto. If they were near downtown, they would generate actual positive externalities for the city and would also not be in the rush to leave. Downtown Oakland is getting a lot better and will continue for reasons unrelated to professional sports. A nice waterfront baseball stadium would be a huge jolt of traffic though
i don’t see how sac is a realistic option for the a’s? what are they gonna do, expand raley field or build a new park? what wolff wants is sponsorships and is there even more sponsorship money if he stays in oak than compared if the a’s moved to sac? sac would be fourth on my list behind sj, oak, and fre if somehow that came back into focus. if it is indeed the last chance to keep the a’s in nocal, then okay but i think one of those other three options will get a deal done eventually. still think it’ll be sj unless mlb is too stupid not to get the deal done.
…
does this mean sac is also done with any new arena project no matter what the kings do which probably will move out of the city after the 2012/13 season. i don’t how likely is it the nba does expansion or if another team maybe like the grizz are sold, that sac would be the #1 destination especially if sea somehow gets the kings. is sac ahead of the likes of anaheim or even kansas city?
Anon, the Angels _average_ 92 wins per season since Moreno jacked the payroll up to the 100 million level. It’s not rocket science I’m throwing at you here, just some basic math. During the early part of the 2000s, the A’s and Angels were neck and neck in attendance, revenues, performance. The team that was sold to a guy with an open checkbook policy has increased dramatically in value, the other team has sunk to the bottom.
Sid, you make me miss TonyD. Why bash Oakland as a defense of Lew Wolff’s miserable performance at the helm of the A’s over the six seasons since he irrevocably divorced Oakland? He’s now two failed marriages past all that. The fact is attendance did actually go up a little last year over the previous season, despite the team’s disappointing performance. People got a little excited about Josh Willingham, Gio Gonzalez, and Jemile Weeks as a nucleus moving forward. And the next season is normally when you really capitalize on ticket sales off that sort of buzz. As usual though, this front office pulled the rug out from under us.
Regarding Guber being turned away by Selig in 2002, all I can think of is how similar a Howard Terminal dog and pony show might have been to the one we witnessed at 30-32.
Howard Terminal? Really? Only a year before what Guber is referencing Howard Terminal was rated as one of the least desirable sites in the East bay by HOK.
.
You grossly oversimplify the Angels situation, but whatever.
@TPS- So what you are saying is that all that Lew Wolff has to do is add another 100 million to the payroll and the A’s would thrive in the 45 year old venue? That’s all that it takes for massive corporate sponsorship, tarp off sell outs and and corporations fighting over the luxury boxes? Did you email LW?
Oh yeah, I forgot about the 3 billion dollar TV contract, sorry. Put that in the email too. Thanks.
a’s payroll under wolff in 2007 was 80 million, the highest in franchise history yet the a’s finished 76-86.
Jeffrey, I believe the primary knock on Howard Terminal was cost. It’s a similar problem at 30-32. There are way cheaper places to build than on a pier, but some people have a VISION that justifies their investment. Wolff had a vision north of the Coliseum, then another one in a field in Fremont, and currently one at South Diridon. Is Howard Terminal _really_ that much less valid a vision than any of those? Hearing the Warriors guys out there in a parking lot where the asphalt is bumpy and wavy from dilapidation, talking about spending half a billion dollars there, I was seeing it.
.
RC, I never said anything of the kind. Grow up. No one expects the A’s to be outperforming the Giants, Angels, or Rangers in attendance or revenues while playing at the Coliseum. But it would be nice to dip into some revenue sharing profits and maybe even a teensy sliver of the billions this ownership group is sitting on, stem the humiliation of irrelevancy, and try to put together a team that can hit it’s average weight, with some familiar names and faces in the heart of the batting order from one year to the next. I’m not asking the owners of the A’s to leapfrog over 29 teams in attendance and franchise value by next year. How about taking some steps to steadily move forward several notches the next couple seasons, instead of letting things drift in reverse. Payroll is just a key part of it though, not the whole issue. Public relations could be a little better. Let’s try an experiment and find some reading material by typing the following words into google: Wolff Bad Baseball Owners
@tps – I could see Howard Terminal. I think it’s more relevant now than it was several years ago due to the complications with other sites. It may be cost only half as much as Victory Court if it’s planned right and Matson is compensated properly. That doesn’t make it any less of a pipe dream. $500 million stadium + $125 million to prep site and surrounding area and untold costs of infrastructure improvements to be borne by the City of Oakland. Mayor Quan keeps talking about the City having money to get a site prepped. I can see how Coliseum City might work. But Howard Terminal? Is there a pot o’ gold there?
FWIW – Of the West Coast teams, only the Dodgers are among the leaders in OPS (#5). Everyone else is in the bottom 10. Maybe there’s something to it more than throwing money at it.
ML, I wasn’t actually proposing Howard Terminal, merely wondering if 8 or 9 years ago, Guber might have been able to see it like he was seeing at 30-32.
.
And I don’t wan’t to get too hung up on the payroll thing. It matters who you pay. Two guys with identical abilities, but one who’s a fan favorite from last year is worth more to a team than a new guy or a less popular guy. I’m just frustrated that we can frequently find a way to justify flushing large amounts of money on completely random non-producers like Ben Sheets, Jason Giambi, and Coco Crisp, but let reasonably priced ticket sellers like Gio Gonzalez, Frank Thomas, Carlos Gonzalez, or Josh Willingham leave at a point of high value to us.
.
There is an abundance of pitchers parks out west (Safeco, Petco, AT&T, Coliseum). But, even park adjusted stats have the west coast teams hitting poorly. By wRC+ the A’s move ahead of the Pirates into 29th. But the non-Dodgers group are all still in the bottom 10.