So it turns out Bud Selig isn’t Claude Rains after all. I had asked why MLB hadn’t simply requested that San Jose delay the vote, and it turns out that it took a weekend for them to make the call. From Mayor Reed’s office:
MLB President Bob DuPuy informed me today that Commissioner Selig has requested that the San Jose City Council refrain from placing a Downtown Ballpark Measure on the November 2010 ballot so that MLB’s special committee can complete its work. He also committed that, if a special election is required in the spring, MLB would help pay for it.
Mr. DuPuy also shared that he appreciated the amount of work the City has done and the level of excitement that the San Jose community has shown in attracting a Major League ballclub.
I informed Mr. DuPuy that I would consider the league’s request and talk with Lew Wolff. We also pledged to continue our conversation in the coming days.
How ’bout dem apples?
newballpark.org 
Well guess that pretty much confirms the rumor that MLB is trying to work the deal in Oakland….most likely with a public subsidy—my predicition—-looks like we will have the A’s at the Coli until they are sold in the next several years and they become the Seattle Supersonics of baseball–
@GoA’s – That’s not my read, but I’ll hold off on my thoughts until others chime in.
I’m not sure of that interpretation… MLB wouldn’t have any leverage if they told Reed to delay the vote unless they were implicitly offering a carrot.
I just want the committee to announce it’s decision already so we can stop speculating!
@bc–MLB has ultimate leverage–Mayor moves forward …but MLB is working on a deal to keep the team in Oakland…which would be announced before the SJ measure comes to vote…embarassing for MLB since they “led” SJ on to put together their effort…..at the end if MLB can keep it off the Nov ballot, complete the effort with Oakland, than they can always say that any SJ effort would have had to go to the voters—hope I am wrong and look forward to seeing others conclusions…
I have the opposite take of Go As. If San Jose puts the stadium on the ballot and it passes by 60%+,, the MLB (but especially the Giants) loose all leverage. How do you make the point that San Jose is the heart of your territory if 60%ish of the populace has gone on record disagreeing.
I bet Nukem is fighting really, really hard behind the scenes to stop this vote at all costs.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/07/26/daily51.html
Some interesting context
Pingback: Tweets that mention newballpark.org / new A's ballpark -- Topsy.com
It never ceases to amaze me how MLB continues to be successful despite itself.
I don’t think this is a death-knell for SJ, by any means. I don’t have much of a grasp of the situation, but this type of release at least signals that Selig and Reed are talking…if Reed goes ahead with the vote tomorrow regardless of the “request”, then we’ll know that those talks haven’t gone well and both Wolff and Reed remain pissed off.
But if they quietly submit to MLB and postpone the vote, you’ve got to think that Selig leaked some sort of info regarding the committee’s conclusion and that it might be favorable to SJ when all is said and done.
Selig’s request buys him more time to broker a deal with the Giants. Reed’s decision to put it on the November ballot was a shot across MLB’s bow to get this issue resolved. I think all of this pretty much assures us that we won’t hear anything from MLB before the end of this baseball season.
Here’s another possibility that should be brought into discussion: MLB does NOT want a repeat of the Tampa Bay situation. To review, St. Pete decided to build a stadium before knowing whether they’d get a team or not. They built the stadium and, during its construction, were used by the Chicago White Sox as leverage to get what they really wanted back in Chicago. Then the Giants were close to moving there before being stopped by MLB. That led to a threat of a lawsuit by vested interests in St. Pete. That was like showing the cross to Dracula for MLB does not want to be forced to open their books or have their precious antitrust exemption threatened by Congress.
Thus, the Devil Rays were born. I’m confident that a lot of owners today wish that never happened.
How could this relate to San Jose? Well, it is plausible that, should voters approve a stadium there and then MLB denies any baseball team not named the Giants the opportunity to move in, the city would have grounds for a lawsuit. I say “plausible” not “certainty” because MLB might be forced to mediate with SJ or might find other grounds to convince a judge to throw it out. Yet, the city going that route would put some media attention to antitrust once again. If one owner in Baltimore can make the commish perform all kinds on contortions to enable the Expos to move to Washington, imagine what a mid-size city with sizable wealth could do to the league.
So all of this stuff goes to show… This isn’t so simple as “They belong in Oakland” or “San Jose is a slam dunk.”
.
That said, it ain’t so complex that it should take 16 months, let alone the 20 it will probably take before anything is said by Bud.
I don’t know what to read into this. I’m hoping it goes in Oakland’s direction, but it shows you that don’t jump the gun with a ballot measure and mess with the good old boy’s of MLB.
The thing I can’t get my mind around is how the Wolff/Selig relationship isn’t heading off all this embarrassing public disagreement. I’ve always felt that Wolff is handling this exactly the way Selig wants him to, but now I’m not so sure. They don’t seem to be on the same page at all. This could all be a ruse, but I really don’t think so. It’s pretty clear what Wolff wants, but what Selig wants becomes more elusive to me every time he’s in the news.
My interpretation is the committee is not done with their findings, but it does looks good for San Jose since MLB is paying for the special election. One more step closer for San Jose.
just a caution on MLB paying for the special election…the key word here is “if a special election is required “…MLB will help pay….it won’t be required if they tell SJ thanks but no thanks….
I agree with Vince. If anything this shows two things in my opinion. One, the committee does need more time for whatever reason. And two, that MLB thinks enough of the SJ bid to date to offer to pay the cost of the special election that delaying will entail. Seems to me the only reason SJ would realistically delay is because some carrot has been dangled in front of them that would cause them to want to delay.
My opinion on this is pretty unchanged. Bud is trying to get a large public contribution from Oakland. I felt like that was part of the plan way back when i wrote about it on athleticsnation.com and I still do.
.
I don’t think it will work, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t saying (directly or through implication) “The A’s are leaving unless you put up some serious scratch towards building the stadium.”
.
He doesn’t want to initiative to move forward because if it does it will be harder to bilk Oakland. They will say, “San Jose isn’t willing to put up construction money, why should we?”
.
Of course, I have no direct knowledge of any of this but it fits my demented machinations.
@Dan, there is always the stick instead of the carrot. You know, the “If you move forward with this election you will not ever have a team” stick.
Jeff, the stick would be the ultimate backfire however and MLB knows it. If he pulls that, SJ can and should then sue challenging MLB’s anti-trust exemption (and they’d undoubtedly be backed by Wolff). And any challenge to the exemption would very likely succeed in either destroying or at the very least further erode the anti-trust exemption, just as every other challenge to date has done. The stick isn’t an option so it has to be the carrot.
Can’t wait to hear your thoughts Rhamesis,
Because in this instance, I have absolutely no take/read on this development. When I first read “Major press release from MLB,” I thought the day had finally come…bummer.
I think this looks good. MLB will pay for a special election in San Jose? Sounds like things might just be moving in San Jose’s direction…
It’s looking more and more like MLB will have two choices: Move to the lucrative South Bay market and make piles of money, or have the A’s leave the Bay Area and forever lose the support of thousands of heartbroken A’s fans.
We all know there’s no political will in Oakland to do anything for the A’s. There’s no site, there’s no money, there’s no will.
OK, I’ll try these angles,
MLB and the committee members are currently so bogged down by the Rangers sale that they CAN’T fully complete the Bay Area study yet (or sign off on it) and/or reach a settlement between the Giants, and they simply want SJ to hold off on the vote until everything can be completed (hence the “we’ll pay for the special election” stuff). OR, perhaps knowing that technically a vote isn’t necessary on a privately financed ballpark they are discouraging a vote period and perhaps will pay for any litigation that flies SJ’s way. Some day, some day…this war’s gonna end!
I think Selig is stalling until after the season is over. I have no idea which way he’s leaning, but the idea of a subsidy seems preposterous. Oakland just laid off 80 police officers a week after a major riot and San Jose only has enough redevelopment money to complete the land acquisitions/business relocations.
I wouldn’t automatically read anything positive about SJ into MLB’s offer to pay for a special election. That could just as easily be an empty offer if MLB doesn’t think it will ever come to that. I’m coming around to Jeffrey’s line of thinking. Maybe this is simply a delay tactic to see if they can squeeze blood from the Oakland turnip. But even if Oaktown can come up with a couple hundred million or so for construction there are still many hurdles to securing a site, which will bring even more delay. Looks like months and maybe a year more of uncertainty. On the bright side, if we’re going to get a nice new stadium in JLS or downtown SJ it will be worth the wait eventually. Eventually…
[i] SJ can and should then sue challenging MLB’s anti-trust exemption (and they’d undoubtedly be backed by Wolff). And any challenge to the exemption would very likely succeed in either destroying or at the very least further erode the anti-trust exemption, just as every other challenge to date has done. [/i]
.
I’m not aware that MLB’s anti-trust exemption has ever been eroded even one centimeter.
What are the examples?
I have no idea what to make of this, and eagerly await Vertig0’s take on it.
I think it is very possible that MLB basically put the whole A’s situation on hold for the Rangers, and have yet to resume it, and won’t until the Rangers sale, and that Selig essentially got a shock that the A’s still existed when San Jose motioned to put the issue on the ballot.
Otherwise, it could be possible that MLB is trying to work something out with public money from Oakland, but Oakland has no money.
Or perhaps MLB is close to a deal with the Giants and don’t want to deal with the vote until the details of that are settled.
All I would say is to don’t sell Oakland short.
Connie Mack, Free Agency is the biggest and most immediate example I can provide without even thinking about it.
I have no friggin’ clue what’s going on, but one thing I do know is that Nelson Cruz’ HR was painful. Somewhere Keith Ginter is laughing.
The news yesterday is so Selig can continue to “control” the process within MLB. He does not want rogue things going on such as a ballot measure unless he sees there is a point.
Offering to pay for the March election? Why? When San Jose wasn’t even going to pay for the one in November anyways. Not a good enough “carrot” MLB.
If Reed/Wolff delay this until March MLB must of told them something of value to make them do it. Otherwise why wait? San Jose may was well get as many things checked of the list as they can.
I say wait because the economy still is very bad and the SF 49ers showed patience can be rewarded in situations like this.
But I agree with Reed…..This will “win” easily in November and it is free so should he play politics with MLB who have been very “wishy-washy” to this point and delay? Or say “do what you gotta do and we are going to to do what we gotta do.”
I agree with the above statements that Oakland would need to pony up public money for this to keep the team. Why build privately in Oakland when you can do the same in a much larger city like San Jose? It is a no-brainer.