The other kind of walkoff
The A’s made hay in July via a series of walkoff wins. It’s fitting that the team is capitalizing on a phenomenon coined by former Athletic Dennis Eckersley, almost karmic (I’d rather have won the ’88 WS). The A’s soccer brethren, the Earthquakes, have also gotten into the act, stringing together several winning and tying goals in the waning moments of numerous games this season. Let’s just say that the organization is no stranger to theatrics.
That comes in stark contrast to the neverending ballpark struggle, which has entered its 41st month according to our counter, but really has gone on for more than twice that long if you count back to when the Wolff/Fisher group took ownership. And if you believe Jayson Stark’s take coming out of the owners meetings this week, there’s no end in sight:
For about the 78th consecutive meeting of baseball’s problem-solving owners, there was no resolution this week of the A’s-Giants standoff. But if it wasn’t clear before now, it’s more obvious than ever that, in the words of one baseball official, that moving the A’s to San Jose is, most likely, “never going to happen.”
One sports attorney who has looked into this told Rumblings that the Giants have “a hell of a case” — centered around a document signed by the commissioner defining their territorial rights to include San Jose. And that’s critical, because any move by the A’s, or by the sport, to ignore or override those territorial rights could open a messy can of larvae for baseball.
How? Well, if the Giants’ territorial rights were suddenly deemed to no longer apply, it could set a precedent that might inspire some other team to attempt to move to New York or Southern California, by arguing the territorial rights of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers and Angels were no longer valid, either.
So if the A’s aren’t bound for San Jose, what is likely to happen to them? Behind the scenes, baseball people are predicting they’ll eventually have to give up on this battle and settle for a new, Pittsburgh-size park in Oakland — and then do their best to beat up on the Giants in interleague play.
Stark didn’t articulate how this ballpark would be paid for. It’s a legitimate question. Oakland isn’t alone here. Field of Schemes’ Neil deMause pointed out in a recent Slate article that Seattle is facing the same dilemma.
Stanford economist Roger Noll pegs the operating profits of a typical arena at somewhere between $20 and $30 million a year. That could be enough—barely—to pay off $400 million or so in arena debt. But then Hansen and his as-yet-unnamed investors will still need to put down a huge amount of money to purchase an NBA franchise to play there. If every penny of revenue is going to pay off construction debts, that will leave nothing to offer his moneymen as return on their investment. “The gross revenues of an NBA team in Seattle could not possibly be sufficient,” says Noll, to cover the costs of both building an arena and buying a team.
Replace Seattle with Oakland and “NBA team” with “Athletics” and you have the first half of our local quandary. The crux of the argument to keep the A’s in Oakland is that some sugar daddy ownership group (Don Knauss & Co.) will swoop in, buy the A’s from Wolff/Fisher ($500 million) and pay for a new ballpark ($500-600 million). Using deMause’s corollary, which we’ve espoused here repeatedly, how does this new ownership make money, or even prevent themselves from being buried in debt? Even in San Jose a $500 million ballpark will require tons of upfront commitments to ensure that Wolff/Fisher aren’t leveraged to the hilt.
Moreover, this ongoing stalemate does no one any favors except the Giants, who must love the status quo – except for that pesky drug suspension thing. If the other big market teams are truly afraid of breaking precedent, then the naysayers are right, there is no way to San Jose. We’ve never heard anything directly from any owner to confirm this, so it’s just more grist for the mill. Funny thing is that there are protections in the Major League Constitution to keep the two-team markets safe. From Doug Pappas’ old article dissection the Major League Rules (emphasis mine):
Under Rule 1(c), either league can move into a territory belonging to a club in the other league, so long as (a) 3/4 of the affected league’s teams consent; (b) the two parks are at least five air miles apart unless the two clubs mutually agree otherwise; (c) the newcomer pays the existing club $100,000 plus half of any previous indemnification to invade the territory; and (d) the move leaves no more than two clubs in the territory. This provision dates to late 1960, when it was adopted to establish the terms for the expansion Los Angeles Angels to play in the territory claimed by the Dodgers in 1958.
That leaves Boston and Philadelphia as the only “vulnerable” markets, and any move to either city would face just as many political and logistical obstacles as the A’s face going to San Jose, if not more. Even with that technicality out of the way, the big market owners may be looking at T-rights as sacrosanct and untouchable, nevermind the actual language.
Bringing us back to Stark’s blurb, what can Wolff do? He seems content to play the nice guy role among the owners and not push the matter. If the Giants are lined up looking to sue, the A’s can do the same. San Jose is putting together its own legal resources should a decision come down not in their favor. But there is one maneuver, one trump card that Wolff can play that we’ve only skirted around, and it’s fairly simple.
Wolff could refuse to negotiate a Coliseum lease extension.
Fitting that this last bit of “inaction” could finally force action. It worked for the Minnesota Vikings. It most certainly won’t get the kind of results Zygi Wilf got (a publicly financed stadium), but it would at least force the powers that be to act. It would absolutely burn the last bridge Wolff had with Oakland and would be the worst PR move ever on top of many other missteps, but as we’ve seen in the Vikings’ case, it’s practically standard operating procedure for owners looking to get new stadia. Oakland pols have bragged that the A’s have nowhere to play besides the Coliseum. Do they really want to make that bluff?
Wolff’s refusal would create a nightmare for MLB. MLB could proceed one of two ways, either A) rule once and for all on the T-rights matter and let the franchise move forward, or B) try to assume control of the A’s by alleging that Wolff was not acting as a proper caretaker of the franchise in the market. The A’s can’t be contracted through the rest of the current CBA. Two teams would have to be contracted as a matter of practice and the Rays are locked into their lease, making contraction impossible in the near term. If MLB rules for the Giants, then at least Wolff would be able to decide if he wants to build in Fremont or give up completely and sell the team. And if MLB rules for the A’s, then Wolff will have gotten what he wanted, although he had to be a dick to Selig and the Lodge to make it happen, and Selig would have to deal with the Giants’ legal onslaught.
Selig could try to buy Wolff’s silence by subsidizing an East Bay stadium (also unprecedented) or having the other owners buy out the Wolff/Fisher group, which won’t be cheap. Wolff/Fisher are in a strong position in that they don’t have to sell, at any price if they don’t like.
Now, if MLB were to try to wrest control of the A’s from Wolff, the league would land in litigation hell. Wolff could easily point to Selig’s committee’s 41 months with no plan or decision, and it would drag out for a long time. Unlike the McCourt-Dodgers fiasco, the Wolff/Fisher group are more than solvent (underneath it all A’s ownership is the 4th richest in baseball). T-rights would finally be dragged out into the open, in court. Meanwhile, MLB would have to step in and negotiate lease terms with Oakland/Alameda County for some unknown period. They can’t go around Wolff to negotiate a lease while he’s still the franchise’s control person, since he still has to sign on the line which is dotted. MLB can’t get an injunction on Wolff not doing something. Can they force him to negotiate a lease? We’ll see. Beyond the Bay Area, there will be at least one mayor who’ll look at the ending lease and make a play for the A’s, even if the resources aren’t there. Effectively the A’s would turn into the Expos, a team in limbo for an indeterminate period.
All of that’s possible from Wolff making a simple declaration. He doesn’t have to make it now. He could wait until the end of the 2013 season if he likes. The chaos would put a great toll on the franchise and the fanbase, and you’d have to wonder if, in the end, it’s worth it. Walking away from the lease could be the first domino. At least someone would be playing. We’ve been talking about post-2013 for a while now. The closer we get to that point without a resolution, the more likely someone’s going to make a move out of desperation. Often large bureaucratic organizations don’t make moves until things reach crisis mode. If Selig wanted to end his tenure without drama, this definitely wouldn’t be a way to do it.
re: But there is one maneuver, one trump card that Wolff can play that we’ve only skirted around, and it’s fairly simple.
Wolff could refuse to negotiate a Coliseum lease extension.
…I like your thinking here. He also could, say, negotiate an airtight 30-year lease to stay at the Coliseum, in all its football glory. Steep, steep penalties if MLB tries to contract the team…
Great summary ML–I do believe that LW/JF realize they have the trump card of the lease which is why he has been a good sport so far. One question I have for you is around the “mythical” gints lawsuit that seems to be bantered about even though an owner cannot sue MLB–so how would the gints pull this off and why supposedly is bs so afraid?
Second- I do disagree with you on you stating that LW has made many PR mistakes. Given that bs/mlb has forced him to be dragged through the mud on this I believe he has handled it incredibly well. I find it so ironic that the bay area media who is outraged about the A’s moving to SJ hasn’t uttered a negative word about the W’s going to SF or the Raiders to LA–both of which are highly likely.
btw–Doyel’s article on the gints being “Steroid Central” is right on mark–with today’s policy no team should be allowed to benefit from a cheater making a significant contribution—immediate impact should be the ncaa equivalent of no bowl games–team is prohibited from playing in the post season–tell me that wouldn’t by and large eliminate the issue in baseball–
It’s the nuclear option!
Call me naive, but I still can’t understand why no one grasps the difference between an intramarket move and an intermarket move. To this layman, moving the A’s within the Bay Area should have no bearing on a team trying to move into NY, LA, Chicago, Boston or Philly.
As always, great post.
I just realized that what’s strange, for me, about this whole situation is that every outcome/scenario seems unlikely. But, then, something has to happen eventually, right?
…
“Wolff could refuse to negotiate a Coliseum lease extension.”
I got chills reading that. Let’s do it, Lew! Time to stir the pot a little.
Interesting concept. As long as we are talking hypotheticals, here is alternative response by the MLB powers – They call Wolff’s bluff and schedule the 2012 season without the team. If there is nowhere for them to play, then they just don’t get to play. A nuclear response to the nuclear option.
*2013 season*
Then they’d have to come up with the money to pay Wolff for breach of contract as well as the money to pay the players salaries. Assuming the MLBPA doesn’t strike over the arbitrary loss of so many positions for their membership.
The Giants are bluffing 100% and Selig is buying their flawed arguments.
Regardless if the commissioner signed off on San Jose being in their territory years ago it is still a flimsy case as the whole Anti-Trust piece comes back into play….To forbid a competing business by geography goes against all American Business Values.
The beautiful part about America is anyone can setup shop anywhere regardless of the competition’s location.
The Giants cannot take two wrongs and expect it to be right. T-rights in itself are wrong and against the law. Baseball is not a game but a business and that has to come into this if they were to sue.
It would get real messy and in the end baseball would come in line with the NFL, NBA, and NHL who have all tried in vain for an AE but cannot get one because their franchises are deemed separate businesses and not teams playing a game.
Wolff I cannot believe has not gotten San Jose to sue in Anti-Trust court. They would have such a great case it would force Selig to do something….Or even force a vote amongst the owners.
It is more clear now than ever he will not issue a vote unless the Giants broker a deal with the A’s. The other owners as ML pointed out have never stated once openly they support the Giants.
While Reinsdorf in Chicago, Steinberg in Tampa Bay, and even Loria in Miami have all stated support for Wolff trying to get to San Jose.
It is so sad the Giants control this whole situation. It shows the cowardice that is Bud Selig who won’t help his old friend whom he put into this mess years ago.
@jgmj – How exactly does MLB schedule a 29-team league? Does every team take a series off every so often? Talk about nightmares. Then there’s the loss of around $200 million to the league annually for not having the 30th team play. Bad move.
@Otter – When men fail to reason, extreme measures start to look reasonable.
How does Stark go from San Jose being blocked to Oakland having a specific stadium design? The Giants defending their territorial rights has no bearing on the viability of Oakland, so the team is no closer to a new home anywhere.
More speculation posing as news. We’ve done this for years now.
Hypothetical B – Schedule the season as they normally would and let the ownership deal with how they will hold games within their territory but not at the Coliseum. There are many ways this thing can play out that don’t involve MLB handing down a decision on the move to SJ.
“When men fail to reason, extreme measures start to look reasonable.”
@jgmj – And if no arrangements can be made?
This should read 2 more years of debating..
@ ML – Exactly. You have a team and an ownership that is unable to play home games by there own choosing. That might warrant takeover by MLB.
@jgmj – How so? They’ve left their fate in the hands of the Commissioner and his panel. Hard to be punitive when Selig has been saying all this time, “I got this.”
Sigh….this is just getting ridiculous for an issue that is supposedly on the “front burner”. I wonder if at some point LW doesn’t get MLBP involved, since their’s an specific clause for the A’s in the CBA and without the additional revenues from a new stadium, the A’s salary will continually lag the league.
It’s about time for Wolff to dismiss this notion that Selig is his “friend.” Selig is a coward who will continue to do nothing about the A’s because he is too terrified of the Giants. I hope Wolff indeed does something antagonistic like let the lease expire and then dare MLB to take the team from him. Then; let the lawsuits fly.
“(a) 3/4 of the affected league’s teams consent;” Does this mean 3/4 of NL teams?
Hello from hot ass Anaheim! And enough is @#$%& enough! I had vowed to remain silent until we heard officially from MLB on San Jose; sure seemed like I sure thing in the spring. But the utter nonsense that has engulfed this story (from the Howard Terminal nonsense to this Jayson stark BS) is to much to bear. I can no longer remain silent.
This should have been very, very simple: MLB makes Santa Clara County a shared territory, allows the A’s San Jose, and compensates the Giants for any damages (even if all their bull shit about south Bay fanbase and revenue is just that…bull shit!). Heck, throw in guaranteed franchise value and yearly revenues to boot through 2017. Alas, we have come to this nonsense from Jayson stark. How in the hell did it ever come to this? I thought MLB, as Wolff himself alluded to, was a partnership? Anyhow, you all know where Larry Baer can rot!
Its time for Wolff to tell his “buddy” Selig (glad I don’t have friends like that) and the Giants @#$%& YOU! I’m (or Keith) going back to Fremont, building my Pac Commons or Warm Springs ballpark, rename them the San Jose A’s and market the hell out of Silicon Valley! The A’s become big market, become San Jose /Silicon Valley’s team and the Giants don’t get shit!
If it sounds like I’m pissed its BECAUSE I’M PISSED! please don’t delete RM, but I needed to get this out.
Now, off to the “Happiest place on Earth,” and I will be happy for my daughter. Go A’s and Go San Jose!
@David – In this case it means both leagues’ teams.
@TonyD – wassup? You pumped for this Raider Defense, or what!?
@ML – Yes, they have left their fate in MLB’s hands and Bud has been saying “I got this” for years. It’s a waiting game for the A’s and if they make the move of not renewing at the Coliseum, then the ball is in MLB’s court. It would be an extremely unpopular to everyone, basically alienating the ownership from the fans and other teams. Why wouldn’t MLB call Wolff’s bluff and force them to sleep in the bed they have just made? That could then provide the opportunity to legally oust an owner who has just taken a divisive and radical position and who also who has been a thorn in their side for years.
And then what happens? MLB becomes the owner of one of the teams until new owners can be found willing to plunk down $1 billion+ (for the team and stadium in Oakland)? Or does MLB sell the team to the highest bidders in some other part of the country?
all this talk of going nuclear and bluff calling makes sense form our (fan) perspective. But, in the real world – shit doesn’t work that way. Whichever way the wind ends up blowing, my bet is for no lawsuits, lots of smiles and profits for all!
@jgmj – The bed they made is “We got two extensions through 2013, that should be plenty of time for MLB to figure something out.” MLB doesn’t want the A’s at the Coliseum indefinitely, and the A’s certainly don’t either. So why should the A’s play at the Coliseum indefinitely because of Selig’s lack of wherewithal?
I don’t want the A’s moving to Kalamazoo (Is that Tiger’s territory?) as much as the rest of you, and who knows what the end result would be, but as far as MLB is concerned, they won’t have another owner who will be trying to challenge territorial rights.
@David- I agree because the nuclear option would be so costly to mlb–it will force them to figure out how to get SJ done once and for all–but it is the trump card that LW can/will/should play behind the scenes to get bs to do his job.
Stark’s thing is pretty lame, maybe not for the overall theme (because for all we know, it could be true) but for the details. Build a Pittsburgh sized stadium in Oakland? That’s what they were planning in SJ, anyway. Take territorial rights? There is a provision for that in MLB’s operating agreement… If it is exercised, how can that be grounds for a law suit?
.
Anyway, this shit is so old… But honestly, it makes sense from a monopoly’s perspective. Monopolies are not hungry businesses. They don’t take risks for greater reward. They try to keep things as is and milk more and more money from their advantage as they are the only game in “town.”
.
At this point, I don’t trust any news report we ever read about the thing and I don’t trust logic. I will agree with David, though. However this works out… All of these dudes will be much richer, it won’t play out in public and we won’t get any gory details.
I think I posted it here or maybe another website. LW’s best option is to have Congress introduce legislation changing MLB’s anit-trust exemption. That is the only way it will be changed. It’s prob one of the reason’s why you have not seen someone start a lawsuit. There was talk about challenging baseball’s anit-trust exemption when the Twins was on the contraction table a decade ago.
IHow would the MLBPA respond to Wolff-Fisher ignoring a Coliseum lease extension & effectively sidelining A’s players? LW probably wouldn’t get his annual 30 million bailout, but would still be expected to meet payroll, sounds like a major financial hit would come…I’m not a lawyer, yet the nuclear option sounds to me like a desperate hope of fans who wish to see the A’s only in San Jose.
@Ken – The revenue sharing check isn’t much of a factor since it doesn’t come until after the end of the season anyway. The point of the “nuclear option” is not to actually go through with it, it’s to force some sort of action by MLB. MLB has to have its schedule in place by late September. They have a lot to lose if one team isn’t on board. Every action or inaction has its own cost and consequences, it’s really about whether MLB has the balls to take care of it early.
@Mike2 – You’re talking about Congress. (summons Allen Iverson) Congress? We’re talking about Congress. Not the league, Congress.
One other thing – the Coliseum Authority (and by extension Oakland/Alameda County) might have to at some point offer lease terms to the A’s. This should be a given, but given the frosty relationship between the two, isn’t.
@Ken: Actually it sounds like a desperate option for everyone, not just the San Jose boosters. I would imagine the Oakland fans want it resolved as well.
The A’s (and SJ) need to just go ahead and sue MLB and the Giants.
@ML- I believe you already covered this but I don’t remember the answer- Oakland decides to build a new stadium at Coli- how does the location of that impact the current Ballpark?
@GoA’s – The original Coliseum City sketch showed what appeared to be a slight overlap in the footprints of the current Coliseum and the future Raiders’ stadium. That’s subject to change, and I figure it could be worked around if it got to that point.
Let me expand on my statement re: suing.
The antitrust exemption was issued by the courts, NOT Congress. As such, the courts can overturn it. They will find plenty of precedent about how do define “business” that they can use, and also cite the changed circumstances of MLB since the 1920′s to find that it no longer applies – and no court would uphold the exemption today. Not a single one.
MLB knows that, and the other owners know or will be told that. Therefore, should the A’s begin a lawsuit, MLB will get off their backsides to get a deal before a court gets to rule on it. THAT will be the timeline in which it will get done.
Jason Stark is not the foremost MLB expert, and his comments should be dismissed along with the pro-giant hacks, Jenkins, Bill Madden, Ostler, and Tim Kawakami.
@Marine Layer – Yes I was talking about Congress. Congress (Our Do Nothing Congress) is the only body that has the authority that can remove/revoke Baseball’s AT laws. Thanks to the Curtis Flood Act (1998) and the original 1922 Supreme court ruling. In 1922 the supreme court considered MLB as a sport and not a business this gave MLB the AT protection that it enjoyed for the next 50+ years. It is the main reason why you don’t see teams move more frequently in baseball as you would a sport like Hockey. It is also the only reason why you have not seen an Anti-Trust lawsuit filed against MLB. If that was the case the A’s would have been building a new stadium in San Jose by now.
Food for thought the A’s ownership has waited over 4 years on MLB decision to move the team, they can afford to make the cities of Oakland and San Jose and most important us (fans) wait another 14 months taking the nice guy approach to try and force MLB to decide what is best for the team and it’s fan base.
@ Mike2:
No, the courts can overturn the antitrust exemption. The Curt Llood act cut out an exception to it, but did not actually codify the AT exemption (commonly misunderstood).
Wolff can afford to play the waiting game, the A’s are not subject to a time limit with the MLB revenue sharing. There is no incentive for Wolff to refuse a new lease with Oakland. When the lease expires, the A’s will likely renegotiate a new lease with Oakland and the waiting game will continue. Wolff bought the A’s in ’05 for $170 mil.- now the team is likely worth over $400 mil or possibly even much or than that – a very good return on investment. The A’s are doing well under the current situation and have no need to do something drastic.
Also, one doesn’t need to be a legal wiz to know that the ATE is on wobbly ground. The current Tampa Bay owners group pierced it twice (that is why Selig likely awarded them the Rays franchise) – the A”s case is much stronger than theirs was. The Raiders (who have had more revenue problems than the A’s do) took on the mega-bucks NFL in court twice and won in both cases. The A’s should certainly be able to take on MLB and the giant’s mgt.’s “army of attorneys” if need be – sue MLB, and get the thing over with.
@David,
The only thing I’ll ever agree with you on…DEFENSE! (clap, clap) DEFENSE! (clap, clap). GO RAIDERS!
OT: MLB looking into replay systems: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8278062/major-league-baseball-test-two-experimental-replay-systems
Spot on Duffer. Let’s not forget the fact the A’s will get another $200M in annual revenue. Not too shabby for the A’s ownership. I think Ray Ratto said it best, A’s leadership wants to do a real estate deal, not own a baseball team.
@ethan- provide some facts to support your claim
@Ethan: Can you tell me where the A’s owners would be doing a real estate deal?
It would be kind of funny/ironic if the Raiders, the NFL, & Oakland were able to make a stadium deal that involved having to tear down the Coli. If they somehow do or even make headway for it, it would have an effect on any lease the A’s tried to get. Hell, it might be an incentive to not tie up the Coli with another tenant.