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to New York or Southern California, by arguing the territorial rights of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers and Angels were no longer valid, either.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.
@Ethan – Please. You’re a real estate guy. Educate us.
Nam Turk has it right. First, in regard to TR/SJ, I think it is plausible to believe the ‘Lodge’ may be paranoid about changing TR in any way. Though not likely given the obvious special circumstances to a move to SJ, those who live in an ivory tower (like the Lodge) can become disconnected from the reality on the ground. But then, second, Stark takes no move to SJ allowed and says the A’s must build in Oakland. IMHO this is what makes his article suspect. Given LW’s statements about Oakland and his very real attempt to move to Fremont, remaining in Oakland is absolutely NO WHERE near Stark’s assertion of it must be Oakland.
So why would someone make a ‘no move allowed to SJ’ equals ‘the A’s must stay in Oakland’ given the obvious untruth of it? Either (1) Stark is just a parroting, lazy writer who does not do his homework and/or (2) he is an Oakland water carrier and/or (3) he was fed Giants propaganda and ate it up like a piece of cake.
Is he a lazy, idiotic writer? Sadly this is ALWAYS possible. Is he an Oakland water carrier and believes the A’s belong in Oakland no matter the reality (like a Monte Poole)? I don’t see that connection. Is he doing the Giants bidding (wittingly or unwittingly)? Let me answer that one this way: If one is to believe a stadium in SJ would hurt the Giants (and the Giants vociferously claim this is true), one then has to believe a Fremont stadium for the San Jose A’s will also hurt the Giants (though to a lesser degree than a downtown SJ site). So short of the A’s leaving the Bay Area altogether, the VERY best outcome for the Giants is for the A’s to have a stadium as far from SCC as possible.
While not conclusive, it is oddly coincidental that Stark brought up none of the obvious special circumstances of Oakland moving to SJ (versus a team invading a market), made an absolute connection of ‘no SJ’ move to it has to be Oakland, his story describes the best possible outcome for the Giants, and it is a fact the Giants are playing a subterfuge PR game with TR. Again, not conclusive but very suspicious. If a handful of months from now the A’s are given the permission from MLB to move to SJ (not a negotiated settlement), Stark can and should be labeled a con artist writer.
The A’s if nothing works out in the Bay Area have either Sacramento, or Salt Lake City. Since there are no AL teams based in the MT Zone, the A’s can establish a new home in SLC to be tied with the Utah Jazz and the Miller family can help build and restore order in Utah to have the A’s be in a new rivalry with the Diamondbacks and Rockies during Interleague Play!!! There must and needs to be an AL Team in the MT Zone.
Yes I have a real estate license but more importantly for this blog, I am a baseball fan who lives in Oakland. I had season tickets for the A’s when I lived in San Francisco. I decided not to renew for two reasons: Fremont and dismantling of the 2006 team. I am sorry but since Lew Wolff has been the owner of the A’s his emphasis has been moving the team and doing a real estate deal. He has not concentrated on being a baseball owner.
First year after he gets the team he dismantles a team that made a deep run in the playoffs. He gives Billy Beane ownership therefore having a GM who’s not accountable to build a winner. His disinterest in Oakland is so extreme he makes excuses the A’s can’t win because they are in Oakland (even though Oakland is only behind New York and St. Louis when it comes to trophies). Now that the A’s are in position to make a playoff run, the team does nothing at the trade deadline. In fact they trade a player that is no worse to what they have playing now to shed some salary. One thing the A’s owners have that Wally Haas, a great baseball owner, never had is a fat (I mean fat) revenue stream from TV deals.
Last time I checked you buy a baseball team to win championships, not make a real estate deal. I also understand the limitations of having the poorest attendance figures in MLB. But the sports biz is about winning the entertainment dollar. If you keep winning the fans will come, you will sell a lot more hats if you keep winning, and corporations love winners too. Yes it is hard epecially for the A’s. I am just saying the owners need to show they care since they bought the team in 2006. Based on the projected market value of the franchise, an additional $200M annual income, the team’s success this year, and the fact they are not going to San Jose anytime soon, Lew needs to go for it. Show us Oakland “haters/dreamers” wrong, show us you are a baseball owner not just a real estate developer.
Duffer writes “”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.”"
Totally agree. It is of benefit to the A’s and Oakland for the A’s to play as many games in the Coli as possible. When there isn’t a benefit to either side for a change, occam’s razor says the situation will not change. For the A;s, I wouldn’t bet 2 pennies on LW trying the “nuclear” option (or their moving temporarily to another venue). If LW was that kind of owner, he would have already pulled out the heavy weapons in the fight for SJ. LW will live and die as a good member of the ‘Lodge’. For Oakland’s side, they are going to turn down several million in $$$ from the A’s playing games in the Coli out of hurt feelings? That lacks pragmatism that even a Politician can’t deny…… and they would get tarred and feathered (eventually) by the media if they were to make a decision like that. If I were Oakland, I would ask for a bump in fees. The A’s/LW will pay more as it is in their interest to remain at the Coli until the new park is done.
I also agree that LW can wait and it doesn’t really hurt him/the A’s. However, I believe everyone in A’s management has a string desire to get moving on a new stadium. I suspect it is more than $$$ to these guys…..and the frustration of not having a new stadium will bubble over eventually (and maybe not too far down the line). I do not believe that will be the nuclear option…..I do believe it will be in the form of a forced vote by MLB or an ATE lawsuit (with SJ the front man for it).
@Ethan – First of all, you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve written now twice. The A’s are not going to make an extra $200 million annual income from anything. They could get $40 million more as a result of new national TV money. Trouble is that every other team will too, so it doesn’t change the financial fundamentals for the team. Plus it doesn’t kick in until 2014. Overall they still get a pittance compared to the other big market teams in the league.
You’re right about one thing. Wolff has been very focused on the stadium issue and the business side of franchise, perhaps to a fault. He also isn’t meddling much with the personnel situation and he lets Billy Beane do his job. Haas didn’t have fat TV revenue. Then again, neither did the Yankees or Red Sox. Now they do. Do you know that the Angels make as much money just from TV as the A’s make from all sources of revenue? That is the big difference between 20 years ago and today. That’s the reality. Teams compete with what they have. Low revenue teams have less room for error. The Angels, even with all of their money and talent, and 1.5 games behind the A’s at the moment.
I’m puzzled by this demand that the A’s win and the fans will come. Yes they did. Once. In A’s history. Then they left as quickly as they came. Wally Haas still owned the team while the fans left and there was nothing he could do about it. The strike hurt baseball. Haas was losing money and couldn’t keep up with the changing economic reality, so he had Sandy Alderson trade Canseco, Rickey, Eck, and Big Mac while letting Stew go in free agency. And just around the corner was the Coliseum Authority luring the Raiders back to the Coliseum, killing the stadium for baseball. Haas built this empire, only to sell it when he realized that he couldn’t sustain it. The Raiders comeback deal was struck only three months before he died. That brought on the awful mid-late 90′s, which begat the Moneyball era, which dipped to more rebuilding fits and starts, which brings us to today.
It’s funny how so many only remember the glory days yet don’t remember the awful, slow dismantling. I do. It’s cyclical. It’s how low revenue teams have to operate. Sometimes they can load up on draft picks who develop properly, stay healthy, and become franchise cornerstones (Big 3, Giambi, Miggy, Bash Brothers). Sometimes they become busts (Van Poppel, Karsay, Grieve, Crosby, Prieto, the lost Chavez years). That’s how the game works. Demand winning? That’s some sense of entitlement. If only it were that easy.
Any chance that Oakland’s meeting with NFL went well. They do find a way to build a stadium. Say sorry A’s our media game that we care is over. We’re not building you a stadium and thankfully your lease is up because we’re tearing down the Coli for the Raiders new digs. So renewing a lease or not may not even be up to the A’s. Once that lease is up Oakland owes them nothing.
Ethan writes “”He has not concentrated on being a baseball owner. “.
So what does a baseball owner do in your view? What should an owner be doing/what LW should be doing during work hours?
BB runs the on field operation and by most accounts runs it well for a low revenue team. Doesn’t that leave the owner to tend mostly to the business side? And when a team is revenue poor compared to almost the entire league and said team plays in arguably the worst venue in the entire league, what do you think an owner should be make one his top priorities?
Fyi, LW wants a new stadium. That is plainly clear. It is utter nonsense to say he really “wants to do a land deal” as you can have no idea if there are ulterior motives. Further, your revisionist history and over emotional positions lend even less credence to your opinions. Bottom line, you don’t like that the A’s are trying to move to a venue out of Oakland and you are holding that against them. Ok, it’s every fan’s right to like or dislike a team for whatever reason they want. Hell, I even understand why that would cause bad feelings. But then trying to take those hard feelings and turn it to some logical stand of valor is laughable, utterly transparent and easily refuted.
The old rule 1(c) is obsolete. There is no longer a blanket restriction on number of teams in one market. And with adoption of the MLB Constitution, the AL and NL ceased to exist as separate legal entities. So there are no circumstances in which 3/4 of “NL owners” have to vote for something along with a majority of AL owners. MLB is a single league now, and the AL and NL are legally no different from divisions, like the NFL’s two conferences.
@Simon,
So if the rule is obsolete, who else is gonna move if the A’s are allowed to relocate 35 miles within their existing region (Bay Area)? I’ve read some silly account’s over the past month stating an A’s move to San Jose could then mean the Indians moving to Boston, the Royals moving to Chicago, the Pirates moving to LA, etc. Really? Its not as if the Giants at one time tried to relocate to San Jose themselves, thus moving further from the A’s and creating the existing territorial exclusivity to said city. What was done can (and should) be undone WITHOUT affecting other markets.
“They can tell me where I can’t build, but they can’t tell me where to build” = Fremont. Pac Commons or Warm Springs probably represents a “in case of fire, break glass” option in the event MLB remains stupid on this issue. So yes, TW nailed it: MLB saying no to San Jose doesn’t mean yes to Oakland. Give up Cisco namings rights, Silicon Valley corporate support and disposable income of South Bay because the Giants want to be assholes? Don’t think so!
I really dislike how hardworking local Journalists get libeled on this blog, when certain articles they publish don’t connect the dots, the way some people like. Most of the venom toward Wolff has toned down considerably. What hasn’t lost its edge is: Quan-hating, Oakland POL-hating, Ocuppy-hating and knee-jerk attacks on local media.
.
Stark must be in the Giants’ back pocket? I’m sure at some point he wrote the opposite and the haters – cheered him. smh …
I’m still trying to figure out what real estate deal @ethan says Wolff is trying to do in San Jose. Other than the land the ballpark is going on, what is there?
.
The last time I can remember Wolff wanting to do real estate was in Fremont, where it was to help pay for the ballpark. Now we hear that a real estate developer is showing up to the Oakland meetings where building rights will need to be sold… and even though that’s the same thing Wolff wanted to do, they aren’t painted as the bad guys like Wolff is.
@david,
After years of being at this, lets just agree that ALL journalist who write about this (including the so-called haters who are pro-SJ) are speaking from their rear. Nothing should matter from hear on out unless it comes directly from Selig or MLB.
BTW RM, my last comment still isn’t showing up. Not inflaming at all and no profanity. Is it become I’m in Anaheim?
@Tony D. – Yes. The automatic spam filter can be “overprotective” at times, which means I have to correct it once in a while.
Thanks RM,
FWIW, the retail businesses down here with parking seem to coexist nicely near Angels Stadium. Pac Commons can still work out if push came to shove. Off to see Mickey, behave yourselves all!
I really don’t see the need to hate on Jayson Stark over his A’s blip on the ESPN article. From how i read “Behind the scenes, baseball people are predicting…” , he sounds like he spoke to some team’s legal counsel and staff – probably not the Giants – and passed along their insights/opinions. This wasn’t a full blown 3 page piece on the A’s situation, he’s just getting the quick hits from the meeting.
.
I’m curious if Wolff pulls this nuclear option, if MLB has the option of just putting them on the road for every game, or would this violate the contract?
.
As far as finding people to invest $1B into a takeover IF Wolff even sold it, I don’t think it’d be to hard. The valuation of baseball franchises have exploded along with media rights and perhaps purchasing a stake in a franchise is safer than stock investment options.
.
I want this over as much as the next fan, but if the MLB owners won’t give LW what he needs to build a successful franchise, then do what cha gotta do.
But no other team in MLB has “territorial rights”, teams feasibly could move to NYC right now. In fact, Brooklyn has sent out feelers to the Rays & A’s brass asking them if they saw BK as an option. That official has no idea what he’s talking about and is probably just another Giants shill.
@PL – All teams have clearly defined territories. The NY teams share the five boroughs plus suburbs in NJ and CT. It’s set enough that when the Mets wanted to have a minor league team in Brooklyn, it had to strike a deal with the Yankees so that they could have their own minor league team nearby in Staten Island. What makes the Bay Area unique is that broader territory is not shared, it’s gerrymandered along county lines.
I’ve posted this link before. I think any A’s fan would want to review pages 208-230. There’s some baseball history earlier in the piece, as well. The inference is inescapable: Haas’s heirs did not want to continue subsidizing the A’s, so when he was wrappiing up his affairs, at the end of his life, he put the team up for sale. Here’s a couple of free tickets for the first 5 callers:
.
“Lage: But the team brings so much to the community.
.
“Haas: Yes, baseball is important in the community. That’s why I bought the team: it helps economically, it helps the pride of a community. It’s an extremely nearly vital asset for Oakland. So I felt that it was an important thing to do to save the team, and now I think it’s an important thing to keep it in Oakland. As you know, we’ve offered the team for sale at a bargain price if they keep it in
Oakland. At the moment, there seem to be two legitimate offers, which frankly is two more than I expected.
.
“Lage: You weren’t that confident about finding a local buyer?
.
“Haas: No, I wasn’t sure with the uncertainty of baseball, but it looks like they’re legitimate. That would, of course, please me no end, if not only was I able to keep it fifteen years ago, but also to
keep the team in Oakland now for an indefinite period.
.
“Lage: What will happen if these two offers don’t work out?
.
“Haas: Then we have the right to sell the team elsewhere, for probably a lot more money. There are always people who want to buy teams. I just hope it doesn’t get to that. There’s quite a lot of money
involved. I’d rather keep it in Oakland.”
—————————————————————————
.
Haas: “My involvement with the A’s, although less [that with Levis], was also bringing an institution that was in trouble to the heights, and recognition and respect.”
.
http://www.archive.org/stream/levistraussco00haasrich/levistraussco00haasrich_djvu.txt
David: Hardworking local journalist? Jayson Stark lives in Philly and works for ESPN, hardly local. Besides, he’s a columnist and opinion spreader and therefore it’s reasonable people who disagree might spout back. Particularly when the reporter throws out anonymous and unsourced quotes it’s hard to take him very seriously. The only thing the reactions show is the bias of the person reacting. In this case pro-Oakland folks cheered, pro-San Jose folks booed and the rest of us, who live in the Bay Area, follow the A’s and don’t really care which town they play in but just want a decision to be made just groaned because the upshot is that until someone with authority to act, acts, it’s all just speculation and noise.
@Baynativeguy I think David was speaking about the hate on here for Poole, M & R, Ratto, Kawakami, Ostler, and basically anyone who isn’t Mark Purdy.
…The problem with these local absolutely-no-way-to-San-Jose local columnists is they just hate on Wolff and never offer a serious solution to the problems of: a, finding an adequate site in Oakland, and b. paying for it (except the usual John-Fischer-is-rich-and-should-donate-a-ballpark plan). They also only want to look at a brief period of good attendance for the A’s while ignoring decades and decades of poor attendance. These writers are useful dupes of the Giants but are far to proud to realize it.
Yes I know the Angels have a huge TV deal and make more revenue than the A’s alone from it. Their on the field winning and inept ownership (McCourt) and financial uncertainty of the their cross town rival created a windfall for the Angels via a Fox Sports TV deal. That is how they signed Albert Puljos. Yes ownership and their public persona does impact the organization when it comes to revenue and building a winner.
BTW Billy Beane is vastly overrated when it comes to baseball operations. Look at the on field success between Oakland and Tampa Bay, the two low revenue darlings with stadium issues, the last decade. Who has the better on field resume? What Billy Beane move has had sustained success since 2006? The Holiday trade? He does a good job at avoiding 100 loss seasons though.
Regarding real estate deal, Lew Wolff as reported by ML the A’s will buy the remaining land parcels for San Jose’s proposed site if he gets approval by MLB to move there. He will have to do this because of the death of the redevelopment agencies. Buying real estate is a real esate deal. Hey Lew Wolff owns some great real estate in downtown SJ, no wonder he wants to buy more real estate for a stadium. In addition there is huge corporate partnership potential in SJ. His problem is he can’t build a baseball stadium in San Jose because of the territorial rights which was the fact when he bought the team. Sometimes life ain’t fair and things don’t make sense. But rules are rules and it appears nobody at the Lodge is fired up on changing them and give the A’s San Jose for whatever reason. We hear of the Lodge’s unhappiness of Oakland’s participation in revenue sharing, yet they will not give the green (and gold) light a change in territorial rights. Speaking of emotional, the San Jose folks get really emotional about the TRs and it lessens the credence of your opinions.
Hey Lew can continue to pursue his San Jose dream but publicly saying he has no plan B and the continued rebuilding process on the field is not good PR. Yes he wants a new stadium but only in San Jose. That is obvious. There are a lot more of people like me out there who share these views. Most go to Giant games, instead I am an Oakland A’s fan who comes and voices my opinion on ML’s blog. I love the debate but refrain from the hate.
Wait, you’re seriously going to compare the success of the Rays vs. the A’s after “earning” top 5 picks year in and year out from tanking so much? Seriously? /facepalm
Speaking of emotional, the San Jose folks get really emotional about the TRs and it lessens the credence of your opinions.
You must be new to this blog, as the only rationale on the pro-Oakland side is emotion and pride itself. Their is no logic involved in their support, unless you can discuss how Oakland be a viable option and compete with corporate dollars and guarantee attendance (particularly STH) that it hasn’t demonstrated for the past 44 years of the franchise.
So you’re asking Gnats fans of their opinions on the A’s? That’s um…interesting. Debate typically has merits on logic, facts, and data points. Most of your arguments are based on speculation, emotion, and generally disdain for ownership. If you speak trying to appeal by civic pride (a la Lakeshore), I can understand the sentiment, but if go off on wild insinuations and illogical conclusions, don’t be surprised to get called out on it.
The pro-Giants shills lose their credibility when they claim that the Giants have always been the long-time bay area and San Jose fanbase favorite. (We know that’s false – Lurie thought so much of the giants bay area and San Jose fanbase that he gave up on it and attempted to sell the team to the current Tampa Bay Rays owners group) Even the local SF police chief at that time joked about the giants situation. When asked about the safety about going to the Stick for Giants night games – he said “go to A’s games instead”. Where was the so called “strong support from the south bay” then? Contrary to what the Giants shill’s claim – at least 50% of San Jose residents were A’s fans in those days.
These local giants shills also lose their credibility when they support the Giants ownership’s claim that the A’s are intruding into Giants territory by moving 40 miles further away from SF. (This must be a first in professional sports – where in a two team fanbase situation – one team opposes the other team moving further (40 miles) further away from it – very bizzare and comical) I’m sorry – anyone, including the Giants shills, who supports that concept is foolish.
@Ethan – Give Beane 10 straight Top-8 draft picks (of which 9 are Top-6 including four #1′s) and he could do better than the Rays. The Rays were putrid for the first decade of their existence. It’s pretty easy to play armchair GM, isn’t it?
@Ethan,
You’d get emotional to if Oakland was banned from obtaining MLB. Just release the chains and may the best town win re a new A’s ballpark. (Relying on a territorial restriction to “hopefully” win a ruling from MLB is quite pathetic)
“”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”"
It’s at best inaccurate and that is quantifiable. When you put in writing something so easily refuted, you are either a lazy, incompetent writer or you are a shill (and should be called a such). I doubt even pro Oakland folks believe that all they need is SJ to be ruled off limits for the A’s to remain in Oakland. For instance, pragmatism says IF SJ/SCC are that valuable, having an A’s stadium on the SCC border (southern Fremont) is arguably optimal for the “San Jose A’s”. With that said, I agree with the poster who said all columns need to be ignored unless it quotes BS or MLB (though if Peter Gammons speaks out based on his inside source, I would give that credence).
Side note on someone saying “Monte Poole” et al being attacked because they aren’t Mark Purdy, yep that’s right. Monte Poole’s writing has been so factually inaccurate as well as biased, he SHOULD be called on it!
@TW,
Just my opinion, but I’d add Ken Rosenthal to Gammons re MLB insider credibility. And no, it’s not just because he stated in May that MLB was focused on getting the A’s San Jose. Mostly has to do with his work on the MLB Network and the access he gets to franchises (much like Gammons). Now, if Rosenthal comes out with a Jayson Stark-like piece, I will personally give up on the A’s moving to San Jose proper…and begin focusing on getting them to Mission San Jose!
BTW RM,
wouldn’t it be awesome if MLB agreed to subsidize an East Bay ballpark and it went to a Pac Commons or Warm Springs yard, literally the doorstep of San Jose, Silicon Valley.
It would be awesome…and unprecedented. MLB% publicly funded ballparks, not MLB-funded ballparks.
…MLB wants100% publicly funded
ML if you are going to make the excuses for Billy Beane, I will say the Rays were an expansion team that plays in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox. What first round pick in the last 10 years has panned out for the A’s? Richie Robnett? Cliff Penington? James Simmons? Ok the jury is still out on Jemilie Weeks. Nick Swisher had some success but he was traded. Yeah its easy to play armchair GM and easy to say the Rays have had much more on field success the past decade. The best move Billy Beane recently made is the hiring of Bob Melvin.
Anon, I am referring to the casual baseball fan who goes to Giant games rather than A’s games. One reason is the ballpark but more importantly the Giants are drawing because they finally won a trophy and have continued to stay in contention since. Now I will remind you of some data and merit. SJ belongs to the Giants, not the A’s, because of territorial rights. None of us wrote the rules but “thems” the rules and Bud Selig and the Lodge are in no hurry change them. Yes it is illogical but so is this season’s playoff run. Isn’t baseball a funny game? Now please refer me to my speculation!!!
Before you go on about Oakland is weak and I am “out there”. Let’s enjoy the win tonight, 30,000 fans showed up for a Cleveland game on a non fireworks game (ok I will acknowledge it is a special movie night), and the team is only a half game out of a post season berth on August 18th. Great job Lew Wolff! Great job Billy Beane! I don’t disdain either of you, I just think you can do better.
Tony D, interesting thought. Would MLB make any $$$ assistance contingent on it being within Oakland city limits?
First, I highly doubt MLB will do anything for the A’s except, maybe, guarantees that help secure lower % loans — unless the help is a ‘we’re sorry’ payoff for the SJ no vote. But does anyone believe MLB will kick in some serious $$$ — along the lines of 75 to 100million? Considering the price tag of a new stadium, that is the kind of $$$ help that will make a difference.
Second, if MLB was to tie any help with building a stadium to it must be within the city limits of Oakland, LW would, justifiably, throw a fit. LW would/should think “so the Giants get their way and the lions share of the bay area remains theirs. Now MLB is pushing me around within my own lesser TR area”?
IMHO, if this ‘No to SJ’ payoff (as unlikely as it is) in the form of stadium $$$ help occurred, it would have to be for anywhere within their bay area TR. The stadium then ending up in Oakland would be up to Oakland to get their act together. It would also allow LW a better bargaining position with Oakland (or Fremont or wherever).
@Ethan – The A’s picked in the high-20′s throughout much of the decade. The yields for those picks are generally low, anyone who follows the draft knows that. Seriously, look at any first round from 2002 through 2007. The pickings are very slim. 2 or 3 All-Stars and handful of starting quality guys out of 60 players. You want cornerstones? Suck hard for a while and pile up Top-10 picks. Worked for the Rays. Worked for the Giants and now the Nats. It’ll probably work for Houston in the future. The draft can be a crapshoot. It’s much harder when you don’t have access to blue chip players in the Top-10.
@TW / Tony D. / pjk – Come on. For the price of building a ballpark in Oakland, MLB could buy the A’s, move them, get some other city to pay $$$ for a ballpark, and sell the franchise for a profit.
@Ethan,
You do realize why San Jose “belongs” to the Giants, do you? Drive around the South Bay sometime…no AT&T Park in sight! Pss..it’s 40 miles up the road in some smaller town named after a saint. The Giants territory was changed/altered to allow their move to San Jose; it should be altered again to allow the A’s access to San Jose. Again, what was done can and should be undone. Very, very simple (at least it should be).
@RM,
just messing around with the subsidizing ballpark thing. It will never happen. At least if Wolff (Lew and Keith)going are forced to stay in their territory, they won’t have to worry about any indemnification for the Giants…not one penny. That in itself could be viewed as a nice “subsidy” for staying in your territory: enjoy the riches of San Jose and Silicon Valley from Fremont without having to pay the Giants squat. One more day with Mickey, wish me luck…
I don’t get the whole “Oh, Giants have a really good case” thing because they have some sort of signed evidence. So what – the bottom line has always been “can Selig/Wolff get 75% of owners to sign off on this SJ plan?” I would imagine whatever Selig signed isn’t legally actionable; in fact, owners agree NOT to sue. If either team (or someone on their behalf) sues, they then break the rules anyway and all bets are off.
It’s funny – if the Giants sued and broke the “no litigation” rule, why wouldn’t the A’s say “well, why should we play by the rules if they aren’t going to? Start building!”
ml totally disagree with you on the draft and player development when it comes to the A’s vs. Rays. James Shields was not a top 10 pick. I think I know the draft well from a player development perspective. I certainly don’t know it well from the statistical success rate of first round picks. I think we can agree the A’s drafts have been below average since 2006. Let’s do the Angels vs. A’s comparison on player development since they draft lower than the A’s every year. Hey scouts and minor league coaches are cheap investments. Hire a few more of them. Use some of that $40M that is coming in two years.
Tony D it has been at minimum 41 months, so it must not be that simple. Hey it would have been done, even I will concede this to the pro San Jose fans. Cisco would likely come online this next season. But it did not happen and not anytime soon. Time to focus on the baseball side of things. Remember Oakland has more World Series trophies than Los Angeles, San Francisco, Baltimore, Philadelphia, the whole state of Texas, and Boston despite lousy attendance. Baseball is a funny game!
@Ethan, if you’re disagreeing with the draft and player development thing, it shows you don’t have a grasp on the realities of baseball.
.
Beane does so well with what little he has that the team continually gets middle of the road picks. Some people argue they should just tank on purpose for a few years just so they can get the high draft picks.
@Ethan: yet despite all the World Series the A’s have won (most of them a long time ago) they still don’t attract the love that say the Cubs, Red Sox or Dodgers have attracted. Yes baseball is a funny game, an unfair one too. Maybe it’s taken 41 months not so much due to the complexity of the issues but just because no one in MLB cares that much? I’ll bet if a similar issue involved the Cubs or the Red Sox that MLB would’ve tripped over itself to set things right.
I disagree with you on Billy Beane does so well. The A’s have historically been at a disadvantage when it comes to revenue, yet they they have won championships, an impressive amount. I have to admit this is one reason why the A’s have always endeared me.
Since Mr. Wolff has taken over what is their winning percentage (2007-2011)? The answer is .471. Tampa Bay? .536. Doesn’t Tampa Bay play at least 30 games a season against revenue titans, the Red Sox and Yankees? Post season appearances Tampa Bay 3, Oakland A’s 0. Anybody want more data? (I kid, I kid).
I will finally give you all some speculation. The A’s don’t want to tank for a reason. They don’t want to deal with Scott Boras and the huge salaries he commands for his clients. Again this is pure speculation but something to think about when questioning the A’s approach to the baseball business.
Scott Boras has publicly stated that the A’s should move to SJ so that they can compete
lets not kid ourselves. A’s to san jose is not going to happen at this point. ever since don knauss emerged ive been pretty confident that howard terminal would be once again evaluated. sure enough, it was and is now the #1 site.
with regards to the raiders, i have no doubt that they will stay in oakland and build at the current coliseum site. imo, i dont want a new stadium, they should just spend a small amount of money to slightly renovate the coliseum. this would keep ticket prices cheap, and would continue to bring more fans from the north bay and san francisco who will have no reason to go to 49ers games. the only thing that irks me is quans proposal for a dome stadium. in all seriousness, that could be the single DUMBEST thing i have ever heard in my life.
Baynative’s post=Speculation. I will speculate on his speculation. Perhaps the Lodge is very scared about the POSSIBILITY of the Cubs and Red Sox being in the same position as the A’s if San Jose is granted to the A’s. Thus LW and Bud Selig don’t have the 75% approval for a move to San Jose. Ok now this is some more speculation.
@ACV,
Fremont Pac Commons or Warm Springs would happen WAY before Howard Terminal. What was that again about they can’t tell me where to build? Sorry. Now, back on over to the DLand …
Ethan: well of course it’s speculation, 99% of the comments on here are!
. I imagine if someone is really “in the know” (assuming there’s anything to know) they’re not going to be here jabbering about it like the rest of us.
Another speculative reason is that Wolff has not forced the issue but has taken a patient, hands off approach. It would be interesting to see what happens if that changed.
Ethan: nice cherry picking. You start *AFTER* the A’s have their playoff run and right when the Rays began theirs. That’s not a fair evaluation. At all. That’s about as fair as me choosing July 2012 to refute your claim and makes about as much sense.
.
As for the SJ stadium issue. Reasons it’s taken so long:
.
1) MLB doesn’t care *that* much about the A’s, especially when they’re still making money and having varied success.
2) MLB doesn’t like team’s paying for their own stadium and the longer they delay the likelihood another city might pay for it.
3) They have their doubts about SJ they want cleared up before overturning T-Rights (the legality of the property rights, etc.)
4) There’s still a possibility (however small) that Oakland might finally have something worth pursuing.
5) Lots of potential legal action available depending on their decision (from both sides and independents) and they want to make sure they have all their ducks in a row over each possibility.
6) Determining fair compensation values for both team’s depending on their decision.
7) MLB’s hope of Deus Ex Machina to get them out of all this mess.
8) All of the above and more.
.
Just looking at those possibilities shows how complicated the issue is and that a ruling one way or the other is pushing down the first in a very, complex series of dominoes that will fall very fast and be completely out of MLB’s control. From that perspective, it’s quite understandable why it’s taken this long and why it’ll still take even longer before a decision will be made. I’m also sure that at times it really has been a tentative “Yes” and a tentative “No” inside the lodge for SJ and why until Selig steps up and sends out a legitimate press release about it, nothing is final.
@Ethan,
Those scenarios of rampant franchise relocations if the A’s are allowed to move 35 FURTHER within their own region is pure strawman logic. Stop with that nonsense! MLB might be stupid collectively on this whole issue, but they’re not that stupid: they realize the Bay Area is already a two-team market and they can probably read a map re SJ’s distance from SF/OAK.