Monthly Archives: December 2010

12.12.10
by

As the developer turns


Maybe the thing that plagues Lew Wolff the most is an extraordinarily bad case of timing. Exhibit Z: The Merc’s John Woolfork reports that the City of San Jose is considering a second break for Wolff’s purchase of the Airport West (FMC) property, on which the future San Jose Earthquakes stadium would be built. Last year, Wolff and company were granted a $43 million discount, from $132 million to $89 million. The new break would involve extending the deadline to buy the land to 2015, with the option ($2-4 million) used to apply towards the purchase price.

If Wolff were only looking to build the Quakes stadium in San Jose, this would have been a done deal. However, I’ve speculated in the past that if both teams were to play in San Jose, the stadium deals would be linked. Forced to scramble for cash to help finance both projects, Wolff has to be looking at the Quakes’ funding mechanism as something to tap for Cisco Field. Making things more difficult is the value of Airport West, which multiple sources in the article indicate has dropped below the renegotiated $89 million price tag. It’s possible that Wolff pushed for the outright land purchase, but given the wasted investments in Fremont, he (or his partners) may be a bit gunshy.

The irony of these delays is that they affect the Cisco Field project. Wouldn’t $89 million be more than enough to buy the remaining Diridon ballpark parcels and fund area improvements? The City has halted future land purchases until MLB decides, which puts the onus back on Bud Selig and his panel. As this saga drags on, it only becomes more difficult and costly for all parties.

12.10.10
by

Put up or…

‘Tis the season to put up or shut up. We have a few examples at our disposal.

Robert Gammon reports that Oakland’s CEDA committee will examine the financing proposal for the $750,000 Victory Court ballpark EIR. The meeting is next Tuesday at 1:30 PM @ Oakland City Hall. If it is approved in committee, the City Council will vote on it the following Tuesday, December 21. There are three choices going forward:

  • Choose not to pay for the study. Gammon expects that the only dissenter on the committee will be Ignacio De La Fuente, with IDLF and Nancy Nadel the two members of the City Council who are opposed.
  • Authorize $350k for the initial traffic study. A complete traffic study hasn’t been completed in the JLS area for a decade, so the information could prove valuable for any number of future projects, including a ballpark.
  • Authorize all $750k. This should cover the complete EIR, including the traffic study.

LSA Associates, the Berkeley firm that did EIR work for both the Fremont and San Jose ballpark proposals, is doing this one as well if approved. Traffic study work is usually farmed out to a different set of consultants, that’s why it can be separated out.

In the unlikely event that either the CEDA committee or the City Council voted against the study funding, the message to MLB would be in effect a white flag. They could just authorize the traffic study and either wait until MLB renders a decision or ask MLB for some funding help. Previously I wrote that the latter was a good idea, however when I read that MLB has paid for all of the work up to this point, maybe that’s not such a good idea. Oakland may have to pay the whole $750k just to show that it has some skin in the game.

Over in TV land, if you are a Dish Network subscriber and a Sharks fan, someone on high doesn’t love you much. Yet another carriage squabble has occurred, this time between Dish and Comcast over CSN California. The dispute has viewers blaming both parties. Dish has always been the “budget” satellite alternative, with DirecTV having long been the true sports fan’s choice thanks in large part to its exclusive right to broadcast NFL Sunday Ticket. Hopefully they’ll get this resolved before the A’s season starts, or Dish loses a ton of subscribers.

Down south near the border, Escondido continues to struggle with authorizing $50 million for a new ballpark for the now homeless Padres AAA affiliate, formerly the Portland Beavers. The ballpark proposal is being fast-tracked so that it can be ready in time for the 2012 season (17 months from now), which sounds like a bad idea. Unlike Santa Clara, which at least had three years to study the 49ers stadium deal, the similarly sized Escondido is only getting a few months. $50 million in redevelopment funds would tap the agency’s budget for the next decade. Padres owner  Jeff Moorad is trying to buy the team, but the deal appears to be contingent upon getting the Escondido deal done. Portland is out of the question because PGE Park is being renovated for soccer. Tucson will be the interim home, though it’s possible Tucson could become the next long-term home. A MOU between the City and Moorad’s group is available here.

Speaking of fast-tracking, AEG’s Tim Leiweke is really pushing his vision of a retractable roof NFL stadium in downtown LA. The stadium, which would replace the West Hall of the LA Convention Center, would have “up to 72,000 fixed seats, 14,700 club seats and 40 field-level suites among its 218 skyboxes.” Apparently AEG isn’t demanding an ownership stake in whatever team moves there, though I’ll believe that when the ink is dry.

12.10.10
by

Raiders Coliseum: The impact

Back in October, a new plan for the Coliseum complex was unveiled, and it had no traces of the old multipurpose bowl. The feasibility study released then was careful not to show a specific opening date or year for the Raiders’ new stadium. Instead, a 48-month project timeline was given, with 15 months for EIR preparation and 30 months for construction. Although sharing a Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers remains an option, it’s clear that team CEO Amy Trask prefers to have the Raiders in their own digs.

To understand what the impact of the new stadium would be on the Coliseum complex, I did a quick-and-dirty Photoshop overlay to see how the current and future pieces fit together. First, the new plan as drawn up for the Raiders:

Now the overlay:

The overlay isn’t exact, but it’s close. The big reveal is that the footprints of the new stadium and the old Coliseum overlap slightly. That indicates that some part of the Coliseum would have to be torn down in order to complete the stadium. A precedent for this already exists in Cincinnati, where the outfield chunk of old Riverfront Stadium was removed to make way for Great American Ball Park. The yellow stripe running through the area is the easement for underground sewer interceptor, which can’t have permanent structures on it. While it appears that part of the new stadium sits on the easement, the stadium could be constructed in such a way that the interceptor would remain accessible. (If you’re asking why the A’s haven’t asked about doing something like this at the Coliseum, stop right there. They have asked.)

Assuming that the Raiders can get all of its ducks in a row (a big if), it’s possible that construction could start as early as mid-2012. Which means, of course, that the existing Coliseum would be affected. Significant portions of the original structure might have to be torn down. Hemmed in by the old stadium and the interceptor easement, the new stadium designers will have to be clever to design it in such a way that minimizes such impact. Since there’s no final site plan or stadium design, there’s plenty of time to sort all of this out.

The biggest issue is the timeline. The plans call for a severe reduction of available parking during and even after construction. Most of the old Coliseum would be replaced by a large public plaza leading to the BART bridge. For the A’s and Raiders’ 2012 and 2013 seasons, I’m guessing that parking would be reduced by 3,000 spaces or more, roughly 30% of the complex’s available spaces. A parking garage and additional surface parking obtained by buying nearby properties would help make up the shortfall, but most of those spaces wouldn’t be ready right away. Cutting into chunks of the Coliseum would probably remove parts of the upper deck that the A’s don’t use right now. On the other hand, the Raiders need those seats. Chances are that if part of the old stadium has to come down, the Raiders would play in a reduced capacity stadium for those two years (the Tennessee Titans played at Memphis’ Liberty Bowl and 40,000-seat Vanderbilt Stadium while what is now LP Field was being built). The iceplant between Gates B and C might have to go.

If construction couldn’t start until 2013 or later, the impacts to the A’s and Raiders could be fewer. The A’s should hopefully have something going somewhere, with the need to endure the transition lasting only one season. The Raiders could play at the Coliseum throughout the entire construction period. The Warriors? They’re screwed.

12.09.10
by

Thoughts on the Winter Meetings drama

First up, Carl Steward just posted his last Chin Music update from Orlando. It includes the following:

In the Internet age, you get websites trying to establish credibility for themselves by throwing things against the wall to see if they might stick. We had one this week when a site called Ballpark Digest, which I must confess I don’t patronize, put out a report hinting that the MLB panel that will recommend the A’s future home might be prepared to anoint Oakland soon as the preferable choice over San Jose.

My dilemma: Do I even report such hazy conjecture?  Having followed this story pretty closely and understanding how commissioner Bud Selig operates, there are not likely any leaks of what this panel might recommend — at least to this kind of outfit. Ultimately, I chose not to report it at all because, quite frankly, I didn’t want to even legitimize Ballpark Digest’s “scoop” by publishing info from their non-bylined story.

And it goes from there. Let’s get something straight. Ballpark Digest and this site are bloggers. Most of the time we don’t break news. Often bloggers are lazy. There are also bloggers and other internet media who have, thanks to long-established credibility, elevated themselves to true subject matter experts. Good examples of this are guys like Maury Brown at Biz of Baseball and Larry Coon, the NBA salary cap expert who is so good that the NBPA links to his stuff. I don’t claim that I’ll ever reach either Brown’s or Coon’s internet rockstar status. This blog is 80% focused on the A’s stadium saga, which limits its scope. I’m fine with that. It’s also a place for a healthy amount of conjecture, thanks largely to the vacuum that MLB has created. That’s also fine and largely necessary, as long as the conjecture is within reason.

Aside from those subject matter experts, there’s also the regular media, which is basically split into the print or video version and the blog or blog-like section. Both have different standards due to editorial control. Who knows, maybe MLB will rule in favor of Oakland in the coming weeks or months? I doubt the news will break thanks to a questionably-sourced rumor. Still, all of the media, including us, will have to give it its due. When it’s real, it helps elevate the internet as a legitimate news medium. When it’s as difficult to verify as yesterday’s news, it’s difficult to take us seriously.

One thing you’ll notice about this site is that there’s no hit counter. I don’t keep too much track of traffic, and I don’t publish so-called “click bait” pieces that are designed to bring in visitors but have little real substance. Most click bait is intentional, some isn’t. BD’s “story” isn’t even click bait, it’s just a simple piece of guesswork that had an incredible snowball effect. Since I don’t care too much about volume of traffic as opposed to quality of readership, there’s no pressure to write click bait. This site also isn’t particularly SEO-optimized, which is also not a big deal. If people really want to find out what’s going on, a simple Google or Yahoo search will lead to this blog fairly quickly. We’re trying to cover one narrow topic well, and I stand by everything that gets published here.

We try to make educated guesses. We do our best to dig up what we can. We have sources. Sometimes we hear things that are real, and sometimes we hear things that are meant to gin up support. We do our best to get multiple sources for all rumors. That means that sometimes we’ll be wrong, and other times we’ll be right. Most of the time it means we won’t publish it, at least not until we’ve done our checks.

So I read the previous post’s comments thread with a bit of bemused detachment. San Jose supporters were probably looking for bridges to jump off – bridges that don’t exist in SJ, thankfully. Oakland supporters hailed the news as if the A’s were going to the playoffs. The truth is simple: WE DON’T KNOW. What was everyone getting all excited about? Was it that whiff of hope, that glimmer of daylight? There’s nothing wrong with that, but as expected, many people took the whole thing waaaaaayyyyyyyy too far.

When news breaks, we’ll report it and analyze it. Honestly, I had no idea where to go with what happened yesterday, and readers here and elsewhere ran with it. I checked with three different sources and heard nothing to confirm it. Yet it was there, and some attention had to be paid to it so I took it at face value. That’s all this blog can do. Whatever happens, we’ll link to it (unless it gets ridiculously repetitive like certain columnists). But really folks, relax. Understand that MLB’s process is born of inertia. It’s slow. It doesn’t change direction quickly. It appears to be extremely thorough – it has to be after all this time. The good news is that I’m working on some upcoming stories that will lead into the Christmas break. When we find out what the actual decision is, we’ll cover it thoroughly. Then everyone will have a real reason to get excited or depressed. Until then, take it easy.

12.08.10
by

San Jose-AT&T quid pro quo

And this is where it gets messy and ugly. As mentioned in the comments thread for the Setting Oakland’s Table post, a land deal was struck between the City of San Jose and AT&T. However, it’s not quite the land deal you think. AT&T has been wanting to rezone some land near Santana Row for some time, with the company offering to consider selling its Diridon property if it got the rezoning green light. The Merc’s Scott Herhold has the grisly details.

One aspect of the AT&T transaction Tuesday night, however, made it different. AT&T also owns a key chunk of land in the path of the city’s planned A’s ballpark near the main train station. And there was plenty of council discussion about whether the fate of the two properties was entwined.

The charge of the folks who believed in this linkage, led by Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, who represents the area, is that AT&T dangled the ballpark area land before the city as the quid pro quo for allowing housing on the Santana Row lot.

This actually goes back further than just Santana Row. Long ago, the Diridon ballpark site was planned to have housing on it as part of a TOD plan, and AT&T stood to gain from a housing-related land sale there too. Cue the economic collapse, and new housing isn’t really worth much in that part of town right now. But the area right near Santana Row is still hot, so AT&T wants to cash in.

Councilman Oliverio is in a tough spot, because his district has both locales within it. And yes, he’s heard AT&T come-a-calling before:

One of the proposed exceptions that the Council denied in May 2008 on a 6-5 vote is back again with a different lobbyist. The same property owner also owns land where the proposed baseball stadium would be located. I met with the property owner representatives who said if the City would rezone this piece of land then they would consider selling the other piece of land to the City for baseball. I believe each rezoning should be judged on its own merits and not tied to a quid pro quo.

Lobbyists. Horsetrading. Desperation. That’s what the lure of major pro sports brings. AT&T knew it had the City over a barrel as long as San Jose didn’t exercise eminent domain, so this is the price. Oliverio wanted an office building along with housing as part of his general anti-rezoning stance, but he ended up casting one of the dissenting votes (8-3 passed). Apparently he wasn’t even invited to community-developer meetings to discuss the rezoning even though it’s in his district – which sounds insane. Who knows, maybe it’s all plausible deniability. Whatever it is, it’s disgusting.

Going back, all that talk of AT&T being in so tight with the Giants was baseless, though not for the reason I cited (parking, location). Strictly speaking, it was all about money. Some will rejoice in that it’s one more domino down. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

If there’s a lesson to be learned for landowners, it’s this: Hold out as long as you can. You’ll get a better deal.

12.08.10
by

Setting Oakland’s table

Update 12/8 17:23 – Susan Slusser has an update on the Ballpark Digest “report” and Lew Wolff’s reaction. Jane Lee filed something similar. From SuSlu’s update:

Ballpark Digest is reporting that the Major League Baseball committee investigating the A’s ballpark situation is favoring the new proposed site in Oakland; I am trying to determine the veracity of that, but there are no sources cited. The A’s have not heard that and – stop me oh oh oh stop me if you’ve heard this one before – team owner Lew Wolff told me in an e-mail, “Not to my knowledge. We have, as I have said when asked, exhausted all options in Oakland.”

If the A’s are not granted the territorial rights they want in San Jose, they are under no obligation to move to a site recommended by the committee. They can spend no money at all and stay at the Coliseum, or the owners can sell the team. I’m not sure there are many prospective buyers who believe the better market is in Oakland right now, either, but maybe Joe Lacob can take another look at the club and try to inject some of the enthusiasm he’s put into his new Warriors ownership. Lacob was part of a group that tried to buy the A’s when the Wolff group got them. I can state with certainty that the current group does not believe that the optimal market is in Oakland. It’s pretty obvious.

Note: When Lacob was interested in the A’s, he was going to partner with Billy Beane. When Peter Guber was interested, he was going to partner with Bob Piccinini. BTW, it’s wet and dreary today. I’ll go with SuSlu’s hint.

Update 12/8 11:15 – I asked Maury Brown, who is also at the winter meetings this week. His response?

RT Nothing. Owners meetings was last time @newballpark: Are you hearing anything regarding the A’s stadium situation this week?

Update 12/8 10:54 – Ballpark Digest (via The Drumbeat) has some juicy grist for the mill:

Indeed, the talk at the Winter Meetings is that an Oakland recommendation is now pretty much a done deal — with the additional spin (albeit accurate) that this proved the committee was right all along in waiting things out before making a recommendation.

Which is great, as long as MLB is setting Oakland up to succeed. Then again, they could be setting Oakland up to fail. At least The Town is getting a shot. This would also invert the situation in terms of how I perceived it: San Jose is the hedge, Oakland is the main option.

Robert Gammon does his best to equate Oakland’s stadium proposal to San Jose’s, but he misses a major, major point.

Before I get into that, there’s a bunch of good factual stuff.

  • Parking availability shouldn’t be a big issue because of the large inventory in downtown. Still, the City wants to build 2,500 spaces on site, which could prove problematic in that it triggers larger EIR impact for traffic and requires a large land acquisition, which could prove difficult.
  • Peerless Coffee doesn’t want to sell. Neither do its neighbors.
  • Among infrastructure upgrades, an extra lane from an 880 off-ramp (880 N to Oak St is my guess) would be needed.
  • A pedestrian bridge from JLS to Victory Court would also be needed. (Note – pedestrian bridges recently completed in Walnut Creek and Berkeley cost over $6 million)
  • 980 Park is being dismissed because of timeline/deadline issues, not site feasibility (this line by the City has been pretty constant).
  • “The league’s experts selected the Victory Court site as the most viable spot for a new ballpark.” That makes sense. Still doesn’t make sense why it took a year to get from four sites to one, when the number could’ve been two and whittled to one quickly.
  • Gammon projects which City Council members will be for and against the project, at least as far as the EIR funding is concerned.
  • As mentioned in the last post, the traffic study is moving forward. After that, it’s probably up to MLB.
  • Total price tag to make improvements and acquire land: $80-100 million. At A Better Oakland I speculated that $100 million would be a likely amount. The total could vary based the amount of land acquired, or the scale of certain land and infrastructure improvements.

The part I have to pick apart is this:

Under Oakland’s plan, the Central District of the city’s redevelopment agency would sell twenty- to thirty-year bonds to finance the land purchases and infrastructure upgrades. The bonds would then be paid back with property tax revenue generated by the ballpark and the surrounding planned development, which is to include housing, retail, and office space.

This is, of course, a classic TIF scenario. That’s not really a big deal procedurally since the site and surrounding area falls under one of two redevelopment districts. Gammon’s quick to equate what Oakland’s doing to what San Jose’s doing, but there’s a major difference, in that it’s $100 million of additional indebtedness to be incurred by the Oakland Redevelopment Agency. San Jose hasn’t had to raise any bonds and won’t have to raise any bonds for its project, so no additional debt there. If Wolff ponies up for the rest of the San Jose land, he may end up causing San Jose to forego a vote, the last remaining procedural hurdle. $20+ million for peace of mind and a green light from MLB? Not a bad investment.

While $100 million in RDA funds is not going to be up for voters to decide, it’s still not going to be a slam dunk politically. The big issue will be the cost of the land acquisitions and the possibility of eminent domain, which appears likely even in this early stage. If Oakland underestimates the amount needed to buy the properties, it will severely impact its ability to complete other parts of the project, whether it’s a parking garage or that pedestrian bridge. And given Peerless Coffee’s $30 million relocation estimate, acquisitions alone could break the bank. Legally, eminent domain proceedings can happen fairly quickly. Politically, they could prove difficult. And if Oakland lowballs as they did with Uptown? It could drag on for a while. Already another project in West Oakland is scaring landowners due to the potential use of eminent domain.

vc_with-buildings-sm

Not shown: Elevated Nimitz Freeway running through the area

Thankfully for Oakland, there’s a way to make it work within whatever the budget is. The easiest thing to do would be to scale things back a bit. This doesn’t mean that eminent domain can be ruled out, but it may be that Oakland won’t have to make lowball offers in an effort to stay under budget. It may even be able to pull off regular negotiations with affected landowners.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned anywhere is that Oakland doesn’t need to acquire the Peerless Coffee parcel, or really anything else between Oak and Fallon Streets. It may want to pick up pieces of land at the northwest and southwest corners (Oak & 5th, Oak @ UPRR) to create nice public plazas for a ballpark, but it doesn’t need to grab all 20 acres. If you look at the way I’ve placed and oriented the ballpark in the above image, the footprint is well removed from Fallon St. Reduce the amount of land needed and it suddenly becomes much more feasible. Sure, there will still be the need to relocate a triplex, some warehouses, a storage facility, the fire training site (already acquired), and East Bay Restaurant Supply, but that’s a lot better than having to slog through negotiations with a dozen or more different landowners.  You may recall that San Jose’s land acquisitions started with 20-22 acres and were reduced to 14 in the end. The smaller ballpark requirement, less parking needed, and budget constraints all contributed to that eventuality. This is what awaits Oakland, though Oakland will create for itself hard limits on what it can spend. In San Jose, they can sell a piece of land here or there to shore up the fund, or  even depend on an old man’s kindness. In Oakland they’ll need to get it exactly right, or else it’ll fall apart. Quick note: Based on the numbers in the latest ORA budget report, this project would raise total TIF debt from $440 million to $540 million, an increase of 23%.

What I don’t understand is exactly why MLB is having Oakland put together 20 acres in the first place. I wonder what would happen if Oakland went to MLB and said, “Okay, we love the idea, but we’d like to scale it down to make it more feasible.” Would MLB be flexible, or would it have a hard line? If, as I’ve discussed previously, Oakland is a hedge, MLB should be pretty flexible in its requirements. If they aren’t, I might be a little suspicious…

Gammon ends with this:

In other words, for the A’s to move to San Jose, the league must conclude that Oakland’s ballpark plan is unviable. At this point, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

“At this point.” Well, yeah. No one’s had to work out the hard stuff yet. Clock’s ticking…

12.07.10
by

Slick Willie strikes again

Matier and Ross report that the Oakland City Council met last week, around the time of the planning commission hearing, to figure out how much money to devote to the EIR. While they won’t authorize the full amount, they’ll at least move ahead with a traffic study, which according to comments at the hearing, is long overdue. Perhaps this is a good time for Oakland tell MLB to put up some money. After all, if MLB is encouraging Oakland’s efforts, why not put its money where its mouth is? $500k to help take care of the costs is a drop in the bucket for the Commissioner, and as alluded to earlier, a similar amount to what MLB is offering San Jose for that city’s special election.

But the juiciest piece of the day comes in the form of a bait-and-switch done to Jed York by Willie Brown. Apparently the two were supposed to meet for lunch at a San Francisco restaurant, but when York arrived the reservation wasn’t under Brown’s name. Instead it was under Dianne Feinstein’s name. Feinstein, who’s been in office longer than York has been alive, met with the 49ers scion and both explained their relative positions. York agreed to meet with Gavin Newsom, though it’s not known what if any headway was made.

Somehow, I wouldn’t expect Lew Wolff to get caught in such a situation.

12.06.10
by

Avoid the golden sombrero. Buy KTRB.

Over the weekend, Rich Lieberman posted an update on the KTRB sale that doesn’t move the ball forward much. At least he implores the team to buy the station, which I wholeheartedly agree with. For those that need a refresher, the A’s flagship station, KTRB-860 AM, went into receivership a few months ago as its owner, Pappas Broadcasting, continued to endure difficult bankruptcy proceedings. The A’s were a finalist to buy the station, but word was that they weren’t willing to overpay, whatever overpaying meant. Different figures were floated over the price of the station, Big Vinny believes it’s $12 million including debt.

The A’s have been able to forge solid TV and radio deals (CSN California and KTRB respectively), and they’ve gotten their feet wet having to organize programming since the station went into receiver during the last part of the regular season. They should by all rights be able to buy the station and turn it around.

Buying the station should be a complete no-brainer now that Billy Beane has struck out on three potential acquisitions. First it was Lance Berkman, who went to St. Louis. Then it was Adrian Beltre, who has now rejected the A’s twice. Now it’s Japanese pitcher Hisashi Iwakuma, for whom the A’s won the right to sign him by posting $19.1 million to his current team. The A’s had a 30-day negotiation period during which they could sign Iwakuma to a player contract, but the two sides were far apart on the money. That means that Iwakuma goes back to Japan and, if he performs well this upcoming season, will be a highly sought and even more highly paid free agent next winter (hello, Beltre).

Since the A’s are getting their $19.1 million back, why not make the big bid for the radio station? If the number truly is $12 million, it shouldn’t take much more than that to get the station’s transmitter issues resolved. There are scant few free agents worth eight figures per year at this point and possibly fewer who want to play in Oakland. That doesn’t mean giving up the free agent ghost, it just means shifting sights a bit lower with the hope that a few more 2 WAR guys makes up for not having a single 5 WAR guy.

Having a good radio station is part of a team’s media foundation. Owning a station that has good reception and programming will only increase the franchise’s value and revenue opportunities, so the move really is a no-brainer. Do the right thing, owners. Turn the page on this crappy hot stove period and get cracking on the radio station, because it’s a long-term investment that can really pay off. You know this. Buy KTRB.

12.06.10
by

Are you there Bud? It’s me, Jeffrey

Writing about and obsessing over the stadium saga is enough to make anyone lose their religion. Still, sometimes there’s a little glimmer that shows that even those on high are at least paying attention to us.

Our own editor-at-large took to sending a missive to one A. H. “Bud” Selig on Sunday, asking for some clarity on the situation. The letter was posted on Athletics Nation. Here’s the final plea:

On the eve of your organizations annual Winter Meetings I ask that you make the case for one of the two scenarios. If the local media is to be believed, your stadium panel has done a thorough and exhaustive search that has considered timing, financing, revenue impacts, traffic, political support, and even the height of light towers and the path of airplanes. There are no more angles to explore. No new rocks to turn over. It all comes down to you and your willingness to make either Bill Neukom or Lew Wolff, and their respective partners, miffed. Please do so at some point in the next two days so we can all move on from this unnecessary purgatory.

While it looks for the moment as if those prayers won’t get answered, at least Jeffrey got a reply from someone else in know, in this case Lew Wolff. For those who aren’t aware, Wolff reads AN and this blog (not so sure about all of the comments), mostly to get a read on how the fans are feeling about all matters Athletics – especially the ballpark stuff. Will we get some kind of judgment in the next week or ten? I have no clue. Regardless, it’s good to know that someone’s noticing the little guy. Kudos, Jeffrey, as always.

12.05.10
by

A big hedge

As part of Susan Slusser’s preview of next week’s owner’s meetings in Orlando, there’s a couple of paragraphs devoted to the stadium situation.

There has been speculation that Major League Baseball’s committee examining the A’s stadium might issue its findings during the meetings, but team owner Lew Wolff said that he does not believe that will be the case, though an announcement should come soon. “All we want is a yes or a no,” Wolff said of efforts to get approval for a stadium in San Jose.

So an announcement should come soon, but not next week. Calgon, take me away!

A year ago, I wrote about three options that MLB could pursue regarding the A’s. They could either A) approve a move south, B) deny the move, or C) give Oakland one more shot with a deadline. Given the recent news on Oakland’s front, such as it is (and the lack of news on MLB’s part), option C would appear to have been the choice, in retrospect. Whether Oakland is getting a full shot is unclear, they’ve gotten at the very least a year. Yet there are plenty of things that don’t seem to fit that make me wonder what the real endgame is here.

Earlier in the fall, there were murmurs of a pending decision, which South Bay boosters have held onto ever since. Wolff’s retreat from that position in Slusser’s piece indicates that something may have changed, but to what extent? Wolff has held firm to wanting a “yes or no” from Selig, while the boosters have framed the South Bay as a chance to “explore” the territory. MLB appears to be in communication with both San Jose and Oakland city governments, giving the whole affair the appearance of a horse race.

If you ask me, “horse race” is not the proper term. “Contingency plan” is much more apropos. I get the sense that with the economy the way it is, the difficulty in getting things done in California, the T-rights issue affecting San Jose, and the uncertainty regarding Oakland’s ability to pull a deal off, MLB may view a dual-track plan as the best course of action right now.

First, let’s understand what the Bay Area means to MLB from a historical context. If you read the blog post from before Thanksgiving, you might see the Bay Area as one big bag of fail. Couple that with the litany of failed attempts to get something built for the Giants, aborted attempts to move by both the Giants and A’s (Tampa Bay and Denver respectively), and a lengthy delay in getting the only new MLB ballpark in California built (PETCO), you might actually excuse MLB for not believing that any ballpark plan in the Bay Area was a sure thing. Frankly, I’d be cautious too.

And so it may be that MLB is going to approach the A’s solution in a manner that won’t satisfy boosters from either San Jose or Oakland. It’s highly possible that MLB will foster Oakland’s efforts, while granting Wolff his chance to “explore” the South Bay simultaneously. Those of you pro-Oakland folks will look at this and say that The Town will be screwed since San Jose is so far ahead in the process. Well, nothing stopped Oakland from starting this process a year or at worst six months ago, instead of now. The nice thing politically about the way Oakland has gone about this is that they haven’t had to spend any money or make any significant decisions. Now we’ve got IDLF demanding that MLB commit to Oakland before they spend money on an EIR, which probably got many a chuckle going in NYC and Milwaukee. MLB doesn’t have to commit to anything. In fact, they can turn it around and pay for some or all of the EIR, thereby forcing Oakland to start making some decisions.

As for San Jose, they’re not the undisputed winners, at least not yet. They’ll have one chance. That’s it. While Oakland officials have pointed to a 2015 opening day for a Victory Court ballpark, San Jose won’t have as long, with a 2014 opening looming instead. The 2013 end of the Coliseum lease makes this a necessity. There may also be some lingering disinterest in opening the T-rights can until San Jose is completely in the bag, which right now it isn’t at all. Political capital for Selig to get consensus from the owners may not happen until everything is signed, sealed, and delivered. Selig won’t move until he has that consensus. And as long as a referendum is the deciding factor, he may not want to push all of his chips towards San Jose.

Oakland, then, is a hedge. Suppose that MLB helps fund the EIR, just as they’ve promised to partly fund San Jose’s special election. Since it’s unlikely that Wolff would be involved in an Oakland ballpark, MLB could arrange an ownership change to Oakland interests once the ballpark deal was in place, probably by buying the team Expos-style. Knowing the position in which they sit, Oakland has to decide whether to move forward or not. There will be some who are clearly offended by being placed second in the process. They may ask to pull out of the running entirely. Or they could take advantage of the opportunity, following through on all of the necessary steps just in case San Jose blows up – just as Fremont and Coliseum North did. Is it a long shot? There’s no denying it. Over the last 15 years Oakland’s made missteps and had the deck stacked against them. Yet it still has a chance, however remote, of keeping the A’s. To not work with that would be the utmost display of spite and would give MLB every excuse to finalize the move to San Jose without the slightest tinge of regret.

For many who are wrapped up in civic identity, the A’s saga is a zero-sum game. For someone to win, the opponent has to lose. For the rest of us A’s fans, it’s not zero-sum at all. We just want the A’s to stay local and for the era of free agent sluggers spurning us to end. For different reasons, MLB probably has a similar view. They want 30 vital teams. Despite the occasional talk of contraction by tinfoil hatters out there, Selig doesn’t want the failure of two contracted teams on his resume. There’s a decent chance that if San Jose doesn’t work out, Oakland will get its chance, and if that doesn’t work out – well, someone’s been thinking about what might happen in that case.