First of all, thanks to Englishmajor at AN for getting the interview together so quickly. She was responsible for getting the brief interview from earlier in the year. I never thought I’d be able to spend an hour on radio talking about this stuff. Thanks to Dave Iverson for smoothly segueing between the 49ers and A’s, and to Keven Guillory for the prep yesterday.
As for discussion, there’s plenty over at AN. Nate did the play-by-play. And now the audio links are up, including podcast and stream (below).
At some point, perhaps around the time of the release of the MLB panel’s report and San Jose EIR, I’d like to do a round table discussion that could be podcasted. We could have fans, architecture/planning experts, on to cover all of the issues and discuss next steps. Would you be interested in this?
On to the interview. I wasn’t initially aware that Andrew Zimbalist was going to be on. The fact that he was on was great. No matter what you may think of his recent stances regarding sports venues, he is still one of the preeminent experts in the area. When pressed by Iverson about what Santa Clara voters should focus on, Zimbalist demurred and rightly so. Voters should educate themselves on everything, not just a couple of pamphlets. I know that’s hard, but it’s worth it. I think I did my part to bring up the $330 million Stadium Authority issue, since it hasn’t been getting enough coverage.
I tried to stay within the framework of the questions asked. I didn’t come with any prepared notes or material, and I’m glad I didn’t because I wouldn’t have gotten to much of it. It’s amazing how quickly a radio hour can fly by.
One more thing. The guest in the 10 o’clock hour, bestselling author and incredibly good human being Greg Mortenson, almost couldn’t make it because of illness. Iverson joked that Chronicle writer John Cote and I might have to stick around. I was secretly wishing to keep going, even though Mortenson’s efforts to build schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan are far more admirable than anything I’ll ever do and are much more worthy of the hour. Send your lumps of coal…
Your thoughts on the KQED segment?
newballpark.org 
I was hoping the show was going to get a bit more nuts and bolts. Get down to brass tacks. And all other cliches that mean “get specific.”
There was not a lot of specifics about the Oakland sites, at least not informed specifics. The one caller who claimed using ED was a possibility and that the land was mostly public owned made me laugh out loud with his righteous indignation and disregard for reality. I would have liked to hear some follow up to that, pointing out it was false.
I wonder what comes next? Is it gonna be 6 weeks of silence?
I thought about replying to that caller (Hugh?), but I didn’t want to get into a debate there as I was conscious of the time. The boosters are really doing everyone a disservice by glossing over matters like these.
We’re entering a brief quiet period. It should crank up in January – though I should point out that I ended the interview saying I didn’t think the panel’s report would be ready by then. I’m not crossing my fingers.
You did great. It flew by… I forgot to mention, the Panel Pod Cast is an outstanding idea!
Great job ML
Though I agree with what you said at the end of the program regarding the release of panel’s report, I have to wonder why Delhums would come out and say the report would be out by January. I don’t think this is something he would make up. It seems reasonable to assume he was told by someone with MLB about when to expect something.
ML, I know you don’t like dealing in speculation, but one has to wonder if in fact the report will be release shortly, is it possible for the panel to come to a decision in favor of Oakland, when details about the 3 sites seem rather limited.
I don’t think there’s anything strategic to the release. The panel told numerous people that the report would be out at the All Star Break, then the end of the summer, now this. Chances are they’ll pull back again.
Very true.
It’s a matter of perspective, at least on Dellum’s part. In other words, think, “political cover”. I won’t pretend to know how this plays in his favor, but blanket statements usually have a specific goal in mind. This has been a “rush” job on the part of Oakland, with a wide net to boot considering the amount of proposals set forward. The Hail Mary has been tossed, so in keeping with the holiday season, we’ll soon know if there’s been an immaculate reception.
ML—So what will trigger the MLB panel to act? Their lack of decision a year into this reeks of the same indecision that goes on in Oakland—
Just because the process is slow doesn’t mean nothing’s happening. If we’ve learned anything from the past 4+ years, it’s that A’s ballpark situation is rather fluid thanks to the economy. It just so happens that the fluid we’re talking about is molasses.
Another thing – people on both sides can start flinging the past recriminations stuff, but it doesn’t really help. The only thing that matters is the numbers. If it pencils out it will happen.
If what pencils out—to LW/Fisher SJ has already penciled out and he is ready to go–his Chron interview wants to start immediately and try for a 2012 opening date (sure–optimistic)–so if he is footing the bill for the ballpark and he says he is ready to go all I can assume is that neither city is ready to go and therefore no need for MLB to make a decision-
Kind of agreeing with GoA’s. It is my belief that the committee and MLB have already made a decision; again, albeit behind closed doors and within “The Lodge” of MLB. As Steven Kettmann aluded to in his interview, Lew Wolff/A’s are already working on architectural drawings/site plans for Diridon South and are hinting like hell that San Jose will be the choice; hence the SanFranMag article. No way in hell do they do all of this unless they are completely detached from reality and MLB (which I’m sure they’re not). Where I disagree with GoA’s is that I believe SJ is ready to go, but needs to officially hear from MLB re: Territorial Rights to put the ballpark effort into full overdrive.
By the way R.M., great interview. And congrats Jeffrey! I noticed you’re now the editor-at-large. YEAH!
very well delivered RM
Well, here’s a scenario that I think many have thought but hasn’t expressed yet: What if MLB is using the revelation of these new Oakland sites as a cover to not push ahead on changing the territorial rules? Here is how I would explain the question: To say that the league brass is conservative is an understatement. They like to take things slowly. It has been 40 years since the introduction of the DH rule, and that’s only in place in the American League. Instant replay has only been introduced for controversial home run calls, and that’s after years of intense debate inside and outside the inner sanctum, when league like the NFL have long enthusiastically embraced it. It took them 30 years to relocate a franchise, and that’s after years of owning it to the point of being moribund.
To change the territorial rules after “only” over a decade after awarding one piece to a franchise may be too radical a change for them to go through. Whatever the merits may be for changing them, it’s one thing to desire something but another to convince those with the power to change it to do so. Weren’t the Giants going the St. Petersburg at one time but the league said “No”? Weren’t the A’s about to move to Denver or Toronto but didn’t pull the trigger?
Let’s factor in one thing that we haven’t thought about as much: The current owners of the franchises are old enough to see the Great Migration of teams all over the country during the 50s and 60s into the 70s. They have very specific memories of that time and have learned certain lessons from them. This also has to partly explain their reluctance on making a quick decision on the A’s relocation threat. Or maybe the A’s don’t really have any realistic destinations outside the Bay Area and the League is slowly figuring that out but they don’t want to give off that impression for fear of losing any leverage they have left with the cities.
As an outsider I can’t really give an informed opinion on the new Oakland sites. I suppose if I can find the time and money to fly 3,000 miles over and then go around those sites I could have a better idea. However, just from using the Google Earth, Bing and Mapquest programs I think the ballpark could work at either of those location. Road and train access seems to be good. Most of all, they’re in an urban location, which would be the ideal for siting new ballparks these days. So I wouldn’t mind if the A’s end up there. Well, it’s not up to me, anyway.
When was the last time a franchise was relocated in MLB? The Montreal Expos went out of existence. Unless the Oakland A’s want to call themselves the San Jose Prunes, then it’s not the same situation. MLB likes stability. I don’t blame them. Baseball is so much about tradition and history. look what’s happened in the NFL with teams and cities playing musical chairs. It’s outrageous.
Nav–good to see you took your med’s–you have gone from talking this morning about how Oakland was going to sue MLB to now talking about how you and MLB understand each other–its all about stability—personally I find nothing outrageous about teams moving to more favorable markets—it is what it is….since Oakland “stole” the A’s from KC in ’68 alot has changed in the world–holding a team hostage in a city where the leaders of that city treat the treasure like trash is not a good situation////better to adapt than be left behind.
Nav’s meds may make him easier to get along with, but they also cloud his brain so that he says things like: “When was the last time a franchise was relocated in MLB? The Montreal Expos went out of existence.”
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/
Like I said, the Washington Nationals are not the Montreal Expos. If Lew Wolff decides to extinguish the Oakland Athletics and start a new franchise in San Jose, then it would be the same as what happened to Montreal. What Lew Wolff is proposing is the relocation of the same team with the same name, the same colors, and the same uniforms. Now do you get it? It’s a relocation. We don’t have the Montreal Expos playing in Washington. We have the Washington Nationals playing in Washington. Again, can you please tell me when the last RELOCATION of the same franchise took place in MLB? I’m talking same club moniker..
This is ludicrous. By this logic the Philadelphia Athletics should have become the Kansas City Boxcars and the Kansas City Boxcars should have become the Oakland Container Ships…
I like the Oakland Rapid Transits!
You have to look at situations from different angles. There are different possible scenarios along with appropriate responses for each scenario. Also, I’ll refrain from insulting each of you personally.
Nav–tell you what–I’ll refrain from any personal insults if you refrain from your personal insults of Wolff and others involved in the A’s organization…deal?
As an aside, you have a wonderful “radio” voice ML. You truly may have missed your calling. I think you’re gong to be a much sought after celebrity within the next few weeks/month. And the modern media wonder why they’re rapidly approaching the point of irrelevance.
Excellent job.
Great Job ML. I also wished there was an extra hour of discussion. Looking forward to your podcast!
Go A’s, are you affiliated with the A’s organization? Lew Wolff is a public personality so criticism is to be expected. If Lew Wolff doesn’t want any personal criticism them he needs to be honest and up front with Oakland A’s fans. Lying and misrepresenting positions is very unbecoming. Lew Wolff needs to admit that he never gave Oakland a fair shot at keeping this team. Lew Wolff needs to admit that he made a half hearted attempt at competing for fans in the absolute center of the Bay Area. Lew Wolff needs to admit that he was pursuing territorial rights to San Jose even as he was claiming to wanting to build a ballpark in Oakland. Lew Wolff needs to admit that Oakland Athletic fans overwhelmingly want that ballpark built in Oakland and not San Jose. Also, Marine Layer, I agree with Jeff. You do have a great radio voice and you did a good job in the interview. Thank you for maintaining a semblance of impartiality. I know that you’re from San Jose and more often than not, this site teeters more to the South Bay viewpoint along with a sympathetic year to ownerships position. Having said that, I do think that you enjoy dissecting different possibilities and different sites with an open mind. The bottom line is that you enjoy this stuff.
One more thing, I see some of you go on SF Gate and attempt to run down Oakland as a city. Those attempts are really pathetic. It’s a good thing that those comments get a resounding thumbs down from people who know better.
You do the same thing to San Jose. In fact, you’ve been doing it for many months. You actually said San Jose’s downtown was nothing more than a few restaurants on Santa Clara Street next to a giant garage. It seems you fight ignorance with ignorance, like a real adult! Grow up, Glick.
You know there’s a San Jose troll who loves to pick on anything Oakland. He’s been doing it for months. I’ve just set him straight a few times. It’s been pure self-defense. I’ve never gone on ANY San Jose related stories and picked on the city at random as many people constantly do to Oakland.
Jeffrey, The Montreal Expos DID become the Washington Nationals. Same logic. The argument regarding names, colors and jerseys could be another legal consideration at Oakland’s disposal. The history and tradition established in Oakland isn’t necessarily transferable to San Jose. I certainly don’t identify with the Philadelphia A’s or Kansas City A’s. I’m only interested in the 4 World Series titles and many division titles won by the Oakland Athletics. The San Jose team would be entirely different and would have nothing to do with the three consecutive World Series titles in Oakland, the four game sweep of San Francisco by the OAKLAND Athlethics in 1989, Catfish Hunter, Rollie Fingers, Vida Blue, Rickey Henderson, Reggie Jackson, etc.
Nav,
I think your comments illustrate why there’s this problem with fans living in and around Oakland, and those that don’t.
For you, the A’s play in your town, and thus you view them as Oakland’s team. For others, the A’s play in the Bay Area, and view the team as belonging to the Bay Area. Any move within the Bay Area is generally viewed as being okay by those of us living outside of Oakland, because our loyalties lie with only the team, whereas your loyalties lie with both the team and the city.
For me, the four WS trophies along with the players you listed will forever be considered A’s, regardless of where the team is playing. One of the tasks facing the A’s should they move to San Jose would be to try and maintain their ties to their history in Oakland, KC and Philly. To wipe the slate clean would be a big mistake.
“loyalty” is a nonsense/fringe topic. People have “desires”. I think a preponderance of people living to the south “desire” a move south, and the further you move north, the less “desire”. Duh. Vacaville is a rapidly growing area with a strong biotech industry, in the shadow of both the North Bay and Sacramento. I wonder how the support profiles would shift if a new owner with a background in real estate development in that area told A’s fans that the economics worked best up there.
Great job yesterday, ML. One question though: Are the A’s under any obligation to follow the panel’s recommendation? If not, then wouldn’t the team continue to pursue San Jose anyway? Seems like if the team has decided on San Jose, and there’s nothing Oakland can do regardless of what the panel recommends. Now, if they are bound to the recommendation, and it turns out to be Oakland, then what does the MLB do with a team that doesn’t want to stay in its own city?
As I understand it, they are bound. I’ll cover this more in depth later today.
The panel recommendations will probably remain secret and be used by Selig to decide if he supports the move to San Jose, or supports the A’s re-engaging with Oakland. Whatever he wants will be sufficient to make the A’s do as directed. The commissioner has almost unlimited power in baseball, you pretty much have only the option to kick him out of office in order to object to anything he wants to do.
Here’s my take. A’s ownership, along with San Jose interests, are really emphasizing that they will abide by “what MLB wants to do.” My feeling, and I hope I’m wrong, is that this has already been determined and they’re putting on a show. Major League Baseball has been very reluctant to grant relocations to teams in the past. The Montreal Expos situation was more like a contraction and the team reappearing as the Washington Nationals. With an overwhelming number of Oakland A’s fans from throughout the Bay Area and Northern California signing a petition to keep the Oakland Athletics in Oakland, along with at least two very impressive sites in Oakland and political support from many influential politicians with support from the business community, a relocation out of Oakland will be seen as collusion by Bud Selig and his former College fraternity brother Lew Wolff along with San Jose political interest. Also FC, the fans supporting the A’s staying in Oakland come from throughout the Bay Area, Northern California and beyond. I’m afraid that you’re viewing this as a matter of convenience while most fans view this as a matter of history and tradition. That’s the difference between Oakland Athletic fans and “A’s” fans. You’re obviously not an Oakland Athletics fan, but just an A’s fan regardless of where they play. You don’t appreciate the history and tradition associated with Oakland and the A’s. Most fans understand this tradition. This is why the “Let’s Go Oakland” campaign has been so successful. Selig, Wolff and Fisher will ignore the wishes of the people at their own financial risk.
Also FC, Lew Wolff cant have his cake and eat it to. If you want the Oakland tradition, then stay in Oakland. Oakland’s tradition isn’t to be put on wheels and dragged all over the Bay Area or Northern California. It doesn’t work that way. San Jose will have to start from scratch.
Nav,
The whole point of my post was to point out that everyone views this situation differently, depending on their sitiuation. If we can appreciate where we all are coming from, then maybe there wouldn’t be this great divide.
You’d be surprised to know that it would actually take me longer to get to a ballpark in SJ than it currently takes me to get to the Coliseum, so convenience is not the issue. My preferring SJ is based on my assessment that that location offers the best chance for the A’s to succeed on the field, and in my book, that’s the bottomline. I’m not disregarding the history of the A’s. As I said in my previous post, it will be important for the A’s should they move to SJ to embrace their history in Oakland, KC and Philly. History however doesn’t necessarily translate to butts in the seats though, and we’re seeing that now at the Coliseum.
It’s interesting that you acknowledge that A’s fans come from all over the Bay Area, but yet you insist that the team is only Oakland’s. The team is a regional team, just like the Raider, Niners, Sharks and Giants. You don’t need to live in Oakland, SF or SJ to appreciate the history of those teams.
FC, This is a team based in Oakland which draws from the region.. The fans in the region have no problem supporting the team in Oakland and appreciate the history and tradition between the team and its hometown. When ever folks mention they want the team to remain in the “Bay Area” this usually means out of Oakland. We know that if given that option, ownership will leave Oakland. It’s in ownerships interests to emphasize the Bay Area and region since this makes it easier for them to attain their long held goal of abandoning Oakland. I choose not to give them that implied permission or that option. The “Bay Area” viewpoint is nothing more then implied permission and acceptance to ownership to do as they please in regards to the situation in Oakland. No, this “Bay Area” talk just isn’t good enough. Oakland is already in the Bay Area. As a matter of fact, Oakland sits at the very geographic and population center of the Bay Area. You don’t get more “Bay Area” than that.
“The fans in the region have no problem supporting the team in Oakland”
See: Attendance Records in Oakland
Nav,
“The fans in the region have no problem supporting the team in Oakland…”
You are correct, I have no problem supporting the team in Oakland, because that is currently where the team plays. My support would be just as strong if they were playing in SJ, Novato or Pleasanton. You on the otherhand have made it clear that you will only support the team if it plays in Oakland. Kind of ironic that you choose to take this attitude, but yet claim to be a loyal A’s fan. You really need to step out of your “Oakland Only” shoes and take a good look at the situation and what you are saying. On the one hand you say that the team draws from the region, then you turn around and accuse ownership of emphasizing the Bay Area and region in an effort to make it easier to abandon Oakland, Well, which is it? Fact is the A’s market to the entire Bay Area, because that IS their market, not just Oakland.
Zonis, The fans have no problem supporting a team in a new ballpark in Oakland with ownership committed to the community and committed to winning. We’ve already seen what a committed ownership in Oakland can do even in an older ballpark. Everyone talks about how wonderful the Oakland Coliseum was before Mount Davis, but they seem to forget that under Charlie Finley the place was empty and referred to as the Oakland “Mausoleum.” It took Walter Haas and a committed ownership to turn the Oakland Athletics into one of the more successful franchises in baseball during those years. Ever since Walter Haas the Oakland Athletics have been cursed with carpetbagger ownership with a one foot out the door mentality. how do you expect to gauge Oakland’s true potential with that type of ownership running the franchise?
“It took Walter Haas and a committed ownership to turn the Oakland Athletics into one of the more successful franchises in baseball during those years.”
By committed I assume you mean owners will to lose millions of dollars.
How much did he make in equity?
This is a good question and something that someone should research.
No one knows exactly how much equity he made because there was some fuzzy math regarding how much he sold the team for. Published reports show that Haas bought the A’s from Charlie Finley for $12.4 million. The team was supposedly sold to Schott/Hofmann for $95 million, though I’ve heard that the final price may have been much less.
For comparison, I should point out that Bob Lurie bought the Giants in ’76 for $8 million, then sold them in ’92 to Peter Magowan for $100 million.
In both cases, sale prices were considered less than what could be found in the open market because of a “hometown discount.”
Navigator,
I can respect the fact that you want the A’s to remain within Oakland city limits. But for crying out loud, why do you keep insisting that you speak for ALL A’s fans? You’ve been doing this ever since you appeared on this blog, and it’s getting pretty old my friend. Have you taken scientific polls to back up your claim? Probably not. You just like throwing out all of this “all A’s fans” crap and hope it sticks. Nav, once and for all, YOU DON’T SPEAK FOR ALL A’S FANS!
By the way, is it the A’s recent ownership’s fault that Mt. Davis destroyed the Coliseum or that condos were constructed at Uptown vs. a ballpark?