Billy says…

Billy Beane was on The Rise Guys show this morning and said this:

It’s well documented that we’re in a state of flux as it relates to: Are we staying in Oakland? Are we moving this team at some point down the line? That is going to go into our short and long-term planning, and we do expect to have some clarity about this situation very soon. That will have an impact on which way we go.

At the end of the interview Mark Kreidler asked for more clarification on what Beane said about the stadium situation. Beane’s response:

It probably sounds like Groundhog Day and I don’t want to be Pollyannish, but I think we’ve gotten to a point now where all the information is in, we’re at a critical point, and I don’t necessarily have any information. I just think we’re gonna get it very soon and it’ll be great for us. Once again, a decision’s most important because whether we stay in Oakland or go somewhere else, it’ll be important for the planning of this franchise and right now that hasn’t been the case the last couple of years.

Sounds like progress, and that he’s not exactly hearing bad things. He didn’t directly address talk of him possibly moving to the Cubs’ front office other than to say, “Man, you guys read too many papers.”

Link to the audio is up.

78 thoughts on “Billy says…

  1. I’d assume that the earliest that “very soon” would be is after the World Series. Doesn’t MLB not like any other story going on during the post-season?

  2. Maybe MLB, seeing how Oakland has delivered zip on its EIR despite a pledge to fast-track it, is ready to give San Jose a chance. (That and the fact that Oakland’s efforts have not included any intentions to provide public financing to compensate for the lack of corporate dollars needed for the project.) . Or, maybe Selig will formally turn down San Jose and we can start wondering where the franchise will wind up.

  3. Interesting–Beane’s comment following Neukom’s exit and Melvin’s contract. Winter meetings issue.

  4. Day 1000 of the BRC is Dec. 10th, a couple days after the winter meetings. If no decision is reached at the meetings I plan to celebrate in style. I have no idea what that means yet. Unfortunately, the meetings are in Dallas so I don’t think I’ll be crashing the party there. If anyone has any ideas or wants to join the fun let me know.

  5. Sounds promising (for those of us who support a move to SJ).
    By far, the scenario that Beane would be most likely to characterize as “great for us” is a move to SJ.
    That is, unless he’s aware of some secret big spender willing to spend $500m of his own money on a new stadium in Oakland.

  6. This is somewhat related. From Ken Rosenthal’s article on Moneyball:

    Joe Girardi replaced Torre before the 2008 season. The Yankees won the World Series in ’09. And today, they are among the most aggressive teams on the statistical side, with more than 20 people working on analytics, according to Cashman. The A’s, by contrast, employ one such person — “and he has a host of other duties,” Beane says.

    One person?? ONE??? Is that because we’re poor? Seems like a pretty extreme place to cut resources.

  7. “It’ll be great for us.” Hmmm? Don’t want to sound to San Joseish, but major public financing for an A’s ballpark in Oakland would be great for them as well. We shall see.

  8. @john–i know when Schott/Hoffman took over from the Haas family, not just player payroll but the front office’s budget was slashed big time, so that doesn’t surprise me at all. A 15 year ticket manager (all Haas years) I knew was let go. Can’t forget HOF’er Lon Simmons too was canned.
    20 people for the Yanks working the analytics is kind for ridiculous, but when you got oodles of cash, what the hec.

  9. Tony, what public financing would be forthcoming from a city that is near broke and can’t even get the EIR done on time.

  10. @Dan,
    Excellent question. I don’t have an answer.

  11. Did anyone catch Glen and Ray interviewing BB during tonight’s game. Maybe I’m reading too much into this, or maybe I heard wrong, but I thought BB said “we’ve been told” that we should hear something very shortly.

  12. @fc,
    I think you’re hearing loud and clear brah! “we’ve been told” would pretty much go with what was stated on The Rise Guys Show.

  13. I read it that way too…so if Selig has been forced to make a decision, are the options limited to yes or no on San Jose or are there other issues involved as well?

  14. Not to get too speculative, but the length of Melvin’s contract is interesting. Through 2014 would bring him right up to where a new stadium might open.

  15. probably over simplifying here but the easiest “decision” that Selig could make is that the Bay Area is shared territory—consistent with all other 2 team markets—and this avoids him advocating SJ over Oakland—its then up to the A’s to figure out where they want to build–

  16. From two different BB interviews, the indication is very strong that a decision is imminent.

    There is no way BS can leave the A’s reeling in their current untenable situation, and continue to make them a non-competitive welfare recipient. So I see it going one of three ways:

    1. BS opens SJ to the A’s, really the obvious choice. Everyone knows the Giants T-rights stance is complete BS – the market has always been shared (both teams draw from all over the Bay Area and NorCal), and the T-rights were never paid for, and were contingent on the Giants building in SCCo, and all other two team markets are completely shared, and there is no way the MLB can keep a two team market divided, where one team gets 6 counties (and the wealthiest ones) while the other gets only 2 counties. Also, from statements form media types (like Peter Gammons and others), MLB owners are pretty much unanimously in favor of letting the A’s into SJ.

    2. Some other fantastic plan is proposed, that involves the Giants paying off for their T-rights, money from MLB, and some other economic plan from private investment, to build in Oakland or some other east bay spot.

    3. For well covered reasons – contraction is out, as is probably relocation out of the Bay Area (unless there is a clandestine effort from very deep pocketed investor(s) from SA or Portland or Charlotte).

    Looking at all of this, I say option 1 is the most likely.

    Of course, I’m biased, I tend to be an optimist, and I may be guilty of wishful thinking.

    But it really sounds like we’re finally, finally, going to get an answer. Being left in limbo has been the worst thing.

  17. @jeff-a Clandestine activity is hard to keep clandestine these days. I would think if SA or some other big city were involved in this, we’d know by now.

    Wolff’s positioned himself to win either way in this case. Either he gets his true wish, a ballpark in San Jose, or gets a free ballpark built for him in Oakland since he’s said he won’t spend money there. I highly doubt the Giants + MLB + Oakland will throw $400M+ at Wolff when, like you said, a cheaper solution is so obvious.

  18. @Jeff-Athletic- Your logic is sound but Selig’s is not and I am assuming the not logical thing will occur in this situation.

    Purdy is stating in his article that the A’s can use the Giants ownership change as leverage. I do not think so at all. The other owners do what Selig tells them, unless he calls for a vote on T-rights or anything nothing happens.

    Selig does not like 29-1 or 28-2 votes, much less 25-5. He wants it 30-0, or 29-0 with 1 abstaining. He wants perfection amongst the owners which for the most part he has succeeded except for this issue in the Bay Area.

    The Giants ownership change is a separate issue and Selig is too much of a coward to “mix it up”. He is trying to move the A’s but the Dodgers and Mets are killing him right now…

  19. @cuppingmaster

    I consider the clandestine rich investor(s) from other cities thing an extreme long shot.

    I also consider the second option, where T-rights money comes from the Giants, and MLB puts in money, and other private investment and/or Oakland money, to be an even more extreme long shot.

    I consider contraction an impossibility, due to paying out hundreds of millions of dollars, and ensuing Players Union lawsuit.

    The only real possibilities on Selig’s decision are keep the status quo, or A’s to SJ.

    I know Selig and MLB and all the other owners don’t like the status quo, as it keeps the A’s as a $30 million a year welfare recipient. Everyone, except for the Giants, wants the A’s to be profitable on it’s own.

  20. This does sound like good news.Perhaps this will be settled as suggested by others by the end of the year.I doubt they will be moving too far away..I can find nothing in the news that suggest that Portland or Charlotte are Actively interested in becoming a Major League City.San Antonio has the Alamo dome, but other than tidbit, there is no such talk there either. Las Vegas, awhile back said they were in discussions with an AL team to move, but that, the team later declined. Now Vegas is focusing on an Arena and Soccer/Football stadium(one of the current proposals).I’m beginning to think that it will be San Jose. I’ve had a feeling for awhile now that Oakland is more interested in keeping the Raiders. If the A’s are awarded SJ, then Oakland will go full tilt for keeping the Raiders. The Raiders situation has added a kink in this already complex situation all along.Not blaming them, but all these factors have added to this Bay Area stadium quagmire. I know it is up to Selig, but at the end of the day, he’ll say they had no choice but SJ.
    Personally I would love to see a VC stadium, but don’t see it happening.

  21. Hopefully, the other owners understand the Giants’ flat-out naked greed and selfishness in trying to keep San Jose from ever having Major League Baseball. Giving the Giants two of the top 15 largest cities in the country as their personal “territory?” What other team has that? The Giants have had Santa Clara County for nearly 20 years but they really do expect to hold onto it until, well, the end of the world. Ridiculous. As for Oakland, I’d love to see a new ballpark there to maintain the A’s tradition since 1968. But there simply is no way to make it viable – Oakland has no money to spend on a ballpark and the owners would lose their shirts if they built it. If Oakland was prepared to spend general funds (which would be necessary) on a ballpark, we’d know about it by now…

  22. @Robo “I’ve had a feeling for awhile now that Oakland is more interested in keeping the Raiders.”
    At first glance, Oakland’s favoring the Raiders over the A’s seems irrational: An MLB team is potentially a much greater asset to a city than an NFL team.
    On further scrutiny, however, the choice may be rational for two reasons: (1) Because of the dramatically different economic structures of the two leagues, an NFL team is viable in Oakland while an MLB team is not; and (2) the Raiders actually want to be in Oakland, while the A’s don’t.
    Of course, (1) and (2) are closely related points.

  23. with what’s happening down in santa clara with already the ground breaking ceremony of the parking structure a few months back and now the niners buying into great america, i think there’s a very good chance of that stadium getting built now and eventually the raiders will join in the process.

  24. @letsgoa’s–i think you’re right on this one. Not crazy about the locale, but it’s probably gonna happen.

  25. I really hope the MLB decision is coming soon. Don’t think I can take another offseason with no resolution.

  26. it’s gonna be sad to see those two huge structures at the coliseum complex renovated in the mid 90s costing probably over 400+ million combined and not see one pro team playing in any of them.

  27. It has been mentioned that Quan and co. do not want to reveal steps of the EIR (or what is left of this process) to the media while in progress. That means that we will hear something last minute about it before MLB makes a decision; especially if that decision happens at the end of the season, which would mark about 10 months since Oakland announced the birth (for lack of a better word) of their EIR draft. Since Oakland hasn’t mentioned anything about calling it quits, we can only guess that they are keeping all plans behind closed doors. If there is any optimism, the BRC liked Victory Court the best among Oakland’s three proposals. With BART already near that site, and no where near Dierdon for at least 7(?) more years, we will see how that factors in. I agree with others that if Oakland hasn’t been strongly considered as a contender in keeping the team, that MLB would have said yes to SJ months ago. Finally, if Selig hates any votes short of annonymous, and the Giants end up the only ones opposed, what will that tell us?

  28. @davidl,
    Respectfully, what the hell have you been smoking? By the way, love all your “facts” about Oakland, VC, and the BRC. Since you’re apparently in the know, how does everything get paid for in Oakland? (Let me guess, its a secret)

  29. Beane suggests that all the information is in, yet Oakland has not finished their EIR.
    MLB has probably made a decision already and is just waiting for a few things to fall in to place,
    This has probably been brought up before, but once the EIR is complete, MLB would have to spend a considerable amount of time going over it, which would further delay a decision.This coupled w/no financing plan can’t be a positive from MLB’s point of view.

  30. My sense is that Oakland leaders will try to further stall by releasing EIR in mid- November and asserting that they need more time to assess financials- if BB is correct and they have been told a decision is near than it can’t be a positive for Oakland as they have nothing to go on at this point- while BS may move at a snails pace it doesn’t mean he is ok with Oakland doing the same-

  31. With all due respect to the city of Oakland, I believe we’re at the point where their EIR is completely irrelevant. By all indications a decision by the “BRC” has been made and we are just waiting for certain things/events to fall in place: final land acquisitions at Diridon, compensation package for Giants, Wolff’s equity for financing to come together, season to end, etc. And despite what Davidl stated, the complete opposite is probably true: the fact that we haven’t heard officially from the “BRC” actually bodes well for SJ, not broke-a$$ Oakland.

  32. @TonyD–Uh, last time I heard your beloved SJ is broke-a$$ too. Kind of embarassing for such a rich, suburban city with low crime. Still has to pass a vote, and citizens are pissed that city services have been cut. Not a slam dunk there, bro.

  33. Just a reminder for the strawmen here: SJ has nearly all the land in place, Lew Wolff could buy the rest, EIR way complete, no vote necessary under most private financing scenarios, corporate support at the ready, I could go on and on. Any questions?

  34. So LW/JF will use their money to help buy land in SJ, but not for Oakland? Sounds kind of duchey to me. I thought MLB doesn’t like that? They have to squeeze every dollar out of every city to get their balparks to make themsekves as rich as possible.

  35. I mean “douchey”

  36. Just like they squeezed every dollar out of the city of SF to make then PacBell Park happen? Oh, that’s right, it was privately financed by the Giants. Kind of like what Lew Wolff wants to do in SJ. (On a serious note, I truly hope one day some of you wake up to the economic reality of the current situation. Privately financed = corporate support. Enough said.)

  37. @TonyD Just one question. Will the Raiders take down the Jets this weekend? will be sold out.

  38. @jk–important to understand that if LW buys the land in SJ it isn’t a gift to the city of SJ–it will need to pencil out financially meaning he has an expectation of getting a return on that investment–as anyone else would expect—what he has said all along is he cannot generate the necessary revenues to support this level of private investment for a ballpark in Oakland—how you can hold this against him I have no idea—identify one other owner of a sports franchise who has donated a professional stadium/ballpark to a community–there are none–

  39. @GoA’s While that may be true, the original plan was to not buy the land. Sounds like he’s being forced into this as a result of the time constraints in place due to MLB’s inaction.

  40. The one positive to all this delay is that construction cost will continue to decline, given the tanking economy.

  41. @gojohn10– I agree–and I am sure it is impacting the financials for the ballpark–meaning he is having to figure out additional revenue streams etc—but bottom line–he expects that he will recoup his investment—and that is the crux of the debate between Oakland and SJ–

  42. …same old story. Wolff is made to look like a bad guy for not wanting to lose his shirt on a privately funded ballpark in Oakland……just got back from “Moneyball.” Definitely worth it if you’re an A’s fan to take the day off to see it. I won’t spoil it for anybody by divulging the movie details. Not sure if this movie will beat the injured dolphin movie for top Box Office receipts for the weekend but there’s a real good chance Brad Pitt gets an Oscar nomination.

  43. @gojohn10 “Will the Raiders take down the Jets this weekend? will be sold out.”
    I’ll be there, with bells on.

  44. @pjk–i’ll check out Moneyball ths weekend sometime. Boxoffice Mojo predicts it should take the number one slot for the weekend over the Lion King and the Dolphin flck. Maybe high teens to 20 mill for the weekend they think.

  45. …Be aware: Moneyball is 2 hours long and it’s probably not something kids would get much out of. “Angels in the Outfield” it’s not, although it was filmed in the same place.

  46. As a pro-Oak guy I am extremely dismayed right now. I just spoke with who can only be described as a person of knowledge. I will not, under any circumstances, reveal the source so please don’t ask. We were talking about the Raiders and I asked if he knew anything about the A’s situation and he said LW is going to get what he wants. I asked how he knew and his response was not the usual stuff we read on this board about no corporate base, etc. He said Oakland is too built up for a new stadium and that is the main reason. He is not, by any means an A’s insider, so I’m not buying his comments 100% just yet. My only glimmer of hope is that he kept referring to Downtown Oakland and, when I mentioned JLS, a.k.a. VC, which arguably is not really DT Oak, he replied that this was not what he was referring to. He reiterated that there will be no DT Oak ballpark period because there is no room anywhere. His position was that MLB wants a downtown ballpark and Oakland doesn’t have the space for one. Take it for what it’s worth. I’m bummed if this is true but I’m hoping that he is wrong. He’s been wrong before.

  47. It s/b Columbo, not Columboe.

  48. What Lew wants is to go to San Jose. That would be good for all of us A’s fans who want the A’s to stay in the Bay Area. Why do Oakland-only folks act like San Jose is on a different continent than Oakland instead of 30 miles away? Call them the Golden State A’s in San Jose if that makes the Oakland-only folks feel better. They can keep calling them the Oakland A’s if they want. I’m not as interested in getting the name “San Jose” on the road jerseys as I am in keeping the team here. FWIW, the A’s don’t even identify their city on the hats. Columbo – you can still go to lots of A’s games if they wind up in San Jose. I hope the A’s for a few years even have shuttle buses from the Coliseum parking lo to the San Jose ballpark.

  49. @pjk – If this is true, I’m just going to miss the good old days. The SJ folks can point to attendance, whatever, but I will always remember my grade school and high school days as the time that the A’s were the team. The G’s were nothing during that time, which gives me much pleasure by the way. Everyone was an A’s fan. It’s just sad to me that this team is in the position it’s in. If it was 1990 right now and someone told me the A’s would be in the position they are in now I would have thought they were nuts. On the other hand, there must have been someone back in the late 1950’s in New York about my age feeling the same way about the Dodgers or Giants. I grew up about 10 minutes south of the Coliseum and it’s going to be sad if they are no longer part of the area. Whatever. I can’t dwell on something out of my control.

  50. … The A’s status in Oakland has been in question for several decades now. There was talk of them moving to Denver in the 1970s, even. They had a few years in the late 80s and 90s where attendance was great but for the most part attendance has been unsatisfactory. If we can move them a whole 30 miles away and keep them in the Bay Area, that is a victory for all of us. The 49ers look like they are moving a whole 30 miles away, too. Very few people (except Diane Feinstein) are viewing that as a total abandonment by the team….FWIW, 1990 was essentially before the wave of new ballparks got built, before PacBell Park opened and before the duly elected officials of Oakland and Alameda County turned a nice baseball park into an inadequate football stadium.

  51. @pjk – I know what you’re saying. However, I’m talking about being in the moment. It’s easy to look at all the stats now and say Oakland was “in question.” I’m just trying to say that, when I was a teenager, the A’s were THE TEAM. I wore my A’s gear proudly and so did many others. When I was this age I didn’t know the first thing about baseball economics, revenues, blah, blah, blah. All I knew at that time was they were winning and the stadium was filled constantly. This is purely an emotional thing with me. Maybe I should feel lucky that I was a part of that, which I definitely do. It’s just hard to see how low this franchise has sank into oblivion from those days. I don’t know the first thing about you other than you appear to be pro-SJ. You may very well have grown up in SJ or Pennsylvania for all I know. For a guy who grew up with the A’s being the top dogs was very special and it’s just hard to see what they have become. You can point to Haas being charitable and all those other arguing points. I get it. But one thing that cannot be argued is that the OAKLAND A’S were, albeit for a short period of time, the powerhouse in MLB and I was lucky enough to be a part of it.

  52. re: I wore my A’s gear proudly and so did many others.
    …You can still wear it all now….FWIW, I grew up in New Jersey. The nearest MLB stadiums were about 60-70 miles and at least two expensive toll bridges away, requiring travel to another state. Compare that to the 30-35-mile trek from the current Coliseum to the new San Jose ballpark, if it gets built. One highway, two counties, no bridges.

  53. @ pjk – wow, that’s one hell of a trek for a ballgame. Crossing another state as well. That sucks. Without knowing for certain it looks like SJ is happening. Now that I live on the peninsula it would probably be equidistant to Diridon and the present Coliseum, maybe a bit further. I go to about 5-6 Sharks games per year so what difference will it make? While the early 2000’s were great, no doubt, the late 80’s/early 90’s were simply awesome. For those who weren’t around during those days I cannot describe what it was like to cut school mid-day and attend a 12:35 game in the middle of the season and see 30,000 fans in the seats while the A’s were kicking everyone’s ass. Remember, this was pre-Mt. Daivs so the ballpark was beautiful, at least to me. I just hope that, wherever they eventually end up, we can see a repeat of that somehow, someway.

  54. …when I moved here, the A’s were defending champions. The games I’d go to on Saturdays were filled to the brim and A’s fans were criticized by Giants fans as shallow and more devoted to dot racing than baseball. But it was just a few years before that – in Reggie Jackson’s last season – that I’d visit the Bay Area and the ballpark was mostly empty. It has returned to that status, only now with the best ballpark in the majors just 20 minutes away….

  55. AT&T is not the best park in the majors except in terms of view …the concourses are too narrow and the fans in the view level are way too high. Pittsburgh is better, for one. Cisco Field, with its tight dimensions, would also probably be better.

  56. …yes, the ATT concourses are narrow. I visited the Rangers’ ballpark and the concourses were so wide you could drive a Mack truck through them. Surprised me after having seen the narrow ATT hallways.

  57. I agree with you on SF and Pittsburgh. I’ve been to PNC twice (got family out there) and it’s awesome.
    There’s another movie that came out today that shows some ballpark action besides Moneyball and it just happens to be PNC in Pittsburgh. The previews of Abduction show the werewolf guy from Twilight, Taylor Lautner, running around being chased at PNC Park. The movie got a 4% appoval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, whereas Moneyball got a 94%.
    Here’s a clip of the PNC action, skip to the 1:20 mark and save 1 minute of your life. The show looks pretty bad.

  58. agreed about pnc being the best mlb park. you wanna talk bout the best pure baseball park to watch a game and from everything i’ve read pnc is the best and is exactly the type of no gimmick park i’d want the a’s to get although i don’t know how well that rf wall would be looked upon if/when cisco field gets built.

    as for at&t, they are built on one of the smallest parcels i believe out of any of the newer parks so of course the concourses isn’t gonna be as wide as that of the rangers park which is built out in the middle of nowhere essentially where there are no restrictions of how the park was built. i give at&t having maybe the best view out of any park beyond the of wall right up there with pnc but the park itself isn’t anything special than really any of the other parks built by the company hok which changed its name.

  59. Like they say, everything’s big in Texas. Haven’t been to either park in Texas yet. Went to the Astrodome over 30 years ago and it was kind of trippy, but not a very good baseball experience compared to other parks I’ve been to..

  60. @Tony: such questions as the one you directed at me are not necessary, thank you. I don’t say things such as that to you when I disagree with you; I bite my tongue, and offer my own thoughts. If you say “I completely disagree”, that is much more respectful, and we can turn your feedback into conversation. Pardon the etiquette lecture, yet let’s share better wording of respect together, can we?

  61. As for your other question, Tony, about how things get paid for in Oakland; I don’t think I have the right answer. All I know about financial topics, is that SJ & Oakland both have serious budget deficits (duh, right?) that are hurting both. If SJ’s deficit grows, I can’t even predict what other cuts that city will make, and a possibly negative impact. As for Oakland, it can’t get much worse, yet somehow, more companies are being drawn in from across the Bay, and housing is still being built; hopefully tax revenue grows somehow.

  62. if the decision is made during later this year, anybody with more knowledge about the whole sj project can come up with some sort of timeline possibly in 2012? i keep hearing this 2015 opening day so if that were to happen the a’s would need to start the groundbreaking sometime in late 2012 or early 2013?

  63. @letsgoa’s: you may be correct on the dates. However, it seems as if it would be hard to open a park by 2015 the way Chuck Reed and any other SJ officials keep delaying the vote. If I recall, it will definitely not happen in 2011 (Nov), and maybe not until mid-2012. We don’t know yet if all the land will re acquired. Until Oakland says “we surrender” realistically, that city will not be ignored by MLB. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, if Oakland wasn’t in the running to keep the team, it would be SJ talk all the way, with only territorial rights fighting left.

  64. Any yes, here I go again: no vote necessary in SJ under all private financing schemes, Lew Wolff would buy the rest (or all) of the land if necessary, Oakland will be ignored by MLB/A’s unless they can identify financing for the land acquisitions, business relocations, infrastructure improvements, and actual ballpark construction. Remember, private financing = corporate support. Any further questions?

  65. @letsgoas,
    I’m thinking groundbreaking by late next year or early 2013. And no, MLB will not wait for Oakland, regardless of EIR or if they don’t raise a white flag (haven’t they had that flag raised for over 16 years now?).

  66. @TonyD–i beleive MLB is waiting for the EIR, and no, Oakland hasn’t raised the white flag for 16 years, but the carpetbagger ownerships have.

  67. …Oakland is dragging its feet on the EIR, most likely because there’s no good news in it. Oakland had plenty of time to get its act together and chose not to. Good thing we have an owner like Lew Wolff, who has been patient in trying to keep the A’s in the Bay Area when some other owner would have bailed by now and sold the team to somebody who’d relocate it far away.

  68. @pjk–I don’t mind discussing this with you, but TonyD is beyond help with his SJ blinders on.
    Okay, it’s an independent company who does the EIR and they present the results to Oakland, right? So do you think they’re done with EIR and Oakland does it like the results, or can it be that they are still working on it and it’s just taking longer than normal? What if the results turn out good, MLB should take a serious look at it, right?

  69. @jk-usa – EIRs are written by certain firms, but the scope, pace, and release dates are dictated by their clients, in this case a city. If there’s a real sense of urgency, as was the case with the America’s Cup/SF Waterfront project, the draft can be done very quickly. That doesn’t appear to be happening with Oakland. And this is supposed to be the “easy” part. Much of the material for the draft should’ve been made ready in that lost year of site evaluation from Winter 2009 to Winter 2010.

  70. Pot calling kettle black? I LOVE IT! Good night all.

  71. @TonyD—Good night.
    Let’s Go Oakland!!.

  72. No mention in recent press releases about the “negotiator” that Oakland hired. There is no way they will be paying so much money to someone for so long if they felt that there was no chance to finish the EIR. It would be interesting to know if that person is still working between Oakland and MLB.

  73. @DavidL–from the Chron back in March:

    Oakland officials are quietly paying a prominent Denver attorney about $450 an hour to help in their bid to save the A’s.
    Attorney Paul Jacobs was a major player when Denver secured the Rockies baseball expansion team in the early 1990s. He was also the lead negotiator for San Diego in the talks that led to Petco Park being built for the Padres a few years back.
    He has been working on cash-strapped Oakland’s behalf since November, having been brought in by the City Council, which is largely keeping mum on the subject.
    “I’m not getting into what anyone is doing or not doing,” Councilwoman Jane Brunner said Friday. “We have been answering questions from Major League Baseball for two years, and we haven’t been doing this in the media.”

  74. …Oakland can save the A’s very easily – by agreeing to build a new ballpark. So far, we’ve seen no intention on Oakland’s behalf to do that. Oakland wants the ballpark for free.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.