Baseball San Jose’s Moneyball showing tonight

It’s probably too late for you to get a free ticket, but you can get $1 if you show up rocking either A’s or BBSJ gear at the wonderful Camera 12 in downtown San Jose tonight at 6:15 PM. If you haven’t seen Moneyball yet, now’s the time to atone for your insolence. If you have seen the film, you can start working on remembering some of the great snappy dialogue.

The actual time of the movie is 6:50, though you should get there early if you want to talk ballparks, A’s, etc. I’ll be there at 5:45 and will either hold court at Starbucks or Philz. If you see me, we can talk. No big whoop.

50 thoughts on “Baseball San Jose’s Moneyball showing tonight

  1. Is a new ballpark consistent with the “moneyball philosophy?”

  2. Depends on if the new ballpark leads to MOAR WALKS.

  3. In this context, the Moneyball philosophy is using statistical analysis to optimize revenues vs. the expense of building a stadium. The way it’s been described here, the answer is mostly yes.

  4. For all of you who haven’t seen Moneyball, you have to see it. Great acting! Not just a baseball movie. Scenes between Beane (Pitt) and his daughter are touching. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 94%

  5. Does it irritate anyone besides me that these are always A’s “home” games even though the other team is more popular in Japan than the A’s are?

  6. I said the same thing on another message board when this was first hinted at a few weeks back. It pisses me off too. But the majority of the responses on that board were that since the A’s don’t fill the Coliseum anyway who cares, it’s not much of a home stadium anyway, this’ll give them de-facto two opening day games to tack onto their attendance, etc… The prevailing opinion was that no on really cares.

  7. …Seems sensible. Take two home games away from the team that’s last in attendance and reschedule them for Japan, where the ballpark will be filled.

  8. So if I want talk about building a new ballpark in Oakland, I’ll be welcome right?

    A’s observer.

  9. @A’s observer – Absolutely.

  10. A’s Observer, not sure if you’ve noticed but we talk about building a ballpark in Oakland here on the site when there is reason to.

  11. @ML–uh, not so welcomed at times.
    @Jeffrey–but when the pro-SJ camp disagrees with us, they shoot us down cuz they think they’re always right, ridicule us/call us names, say we’re delusional, pipe dreamers, etc… That’s what pisses me off about this site.

  12. …we’re just waiting for the Oakland-only folks to tell us ow a ballpark in Oakland gets paid for, minus public dollars and corporate dollars, that’s all. “Crazy history” and “views” won’t pay the mortgage on a $500 mill ballpark.

  13. I just have a question. Let me preface this by saying that there has been much inertia in favor of an SJ decision lately. I see this largely because of Beane’s comments and Neukom’s ouster. However, all of these questions regarding financing for Oakland, etc. (no offense pjk), is it possible… just possible that we don’t really know? In other words, is it possible that Oakland has presented some sort of financing plan directly to MLB that we just don’t know about because it has not been revealed publicly? If I recall correctly it was either Quan or Kaplan who said that they are doing all of this under the radar. I’m not suggesting that they do, in fact, have a plan in place. All I’m saying is that comments regarding financing a park in Oakland might possibly be premature due to the fact that we really don’t know anything. If, and I do say If (not being accusatory here) someone has a line directly to Wolff, I can see where there would be pessimism toward an Oakland park. I say this because, here again, Quan, Kaplan, Brunner, or Boxer (I don’t know who) said they are dealing directly with MLB. In short, is it possible at all that we just don’t know anything about the EIR, the potential financing, the potential naming rights, etc. because it has not been revealed as of yet?

  14. One day, I hope Marine Layer realizes that everyone who comments on this board is actually just one person with severe psychological problems, a knack for forging internet footprints and a crap-ton of time on their hands.

  15. @Briggs—LOL. I wish I can you a “Like” on that one.

  16. @Briggs – I have two small male toddlers at home, a wife who doesn’t work, and over 500 clients. I can assure you I do not have a “crap-ton” of time on my hands.

  17. @Briggs – Athough I do have psychological problems. I’ll give you that.

  18. I work nights, no kids living at home anymore, am home most of the day, have a wife that does work, and I have more than a “crap-ton” of time on my hands than what I know what to do with. I obviuolsy have psychological problems, so yes, its me with the multiple alias’s running roughshod on this board!! Creating the jk-usa, TonyD and Anon posters was pretty hard work and I had to go off the deep end and some to do it!

  19. Columbo: With Oakland’s apparent commitment to spending no general funds on a ballpark and using its redevelopment funds to buy the Kaiser convention center, I’m at a loss as to how Oakland pays for a ballpark and infrastructure, etc. It looks like Oakland’s plan is – the city selects the site and lets the A’s take all the massive risks. Oakland gets a new ballpark, keeps the team and the owners get massive debt that they better hope they can pay, since it won’t be Oakland’s problem. Any wonder Wolff/Fischer don’t want to build there?.

  20. @pjk – I agree. I’m at a loss too. Logically it appears Oakland is hamstrung for funding. All I’m suggesting is… is it possible that we just don’t know what’s happening behind the scenes, i.e. beyond our logical conclusions. Hey, I would submit to you that it would be near impossible for Oakland to finance a stadium on its own. I’m not disputing that. I’m just raising the possibility that there might be something beyond our sound logic here. For instance, what if Clorox is in the running for naming rights and we just don’t know because it’s being discussed outside the media? What if they’ve gotten 40 or 50 corporations to commit to luxury suites? You can use your logic and say “what corporations” and I’m not saying you’d be wrong. I’m simply saying I’m content to avoid arbitrary conclusions when I simply don’t know. It’s one thing if they’re giving us a timeline of events and minutes of meetings. One can conclude that we haven’t heard anything because there is nothing to report like many on here do, in fact, believe. I’m content to wait and see what the report actually turns out to be when it’s brought to the public. If it says Oakland’s plan sucks, well, then it is what it is and we have no choice but to live with it.

  21. Ml, IS Tyler Durden?!

  22. Columbo,
    Respectfully, even if your scenario was reality regarding Clorox naming rights and 40-50 suite buyers, that still would barely scratch the mega-cost of the project. Take Cisco’s naming rights ($120 million) and suites secured for the Niners stadium ($175 million), totaling a little under $200 million. That still leaves almost $250 million outstanding. Where’s that money going to come from? Layoff more OPD and close more Oakland schools? Now add in the mega-cost of land acquisitions, business relocations, site remediation, infrasfrucute improvements (one BART station a half mile away wont be enough). You see where I’m coming from? Lastly, if such a grand plan existed, why on Earth keep it a secret? There would be absolutely no reason to. Oakland is free of any territorial restriction and could build excitement now for the team and a ballpark. Taking the financial/economic reality into account, plus the fact that we aren’t hearing squat from Oakland, tells me one you know the way to San Jose? Not slamming your opinion or the city of Oakland, just dealing with the situation at hand. That is all.

  23. @ML–lol..
    Just heard that the big announcemnt tomorrow from From Susan Slusser’s twitter: “For those many people asking, tomorrow’s “press conference” is just Beane’s normal season wrap-up with the media, nothing more.”
    And the waiting continues….

  24. To all, anyone:

    There is someone on this site with direct ties to ownership; it’s Marine Layer. He got a face to face interview with Lew Wolff and his son as I recall.

    Re: Oakland. Who knows? I doubt there is a plan but who knows. Why plan for something that ownership want? Why would Oakland prepare a detailed financial plan when the owners have already rejected Oakland as viable?

    Re: San Jose – for all the pro San Jose boosters. Where is the plan? On which website does it reside? Who prepared it? The City, the team, Cisco, Lew Wolff, somebody on this board?

    Show everyone on the board the plan because all I hear everytime the word Oakland is mentioned is that there is no plan (this indeed is true) but where is the San Jose plan?

    To JK USA: you’re right.

    A’s observer

  25. @A’s Observer–there was a rumor awhile back of maybe MLB floating Oakland a $100 million dollar loan to help acquire the site. Better that than give $100 mill to the Giants for TR’s I’d say. Too bad MLB wasn’t like the NFL on helping with the money for new stadiums.

  26. San Jose’s plan? San Jose already has been very public with its ballpark property acquisitions, its need to still acquire the ATT property and its completed EIR. A naming rights deal is in place. Oakland? Complete and total silence on an EIR process that has dragged on almost a year now, no property acquisitions, no naming rights sponsor. San Jose – its horse is a few lengths from the finish line. Oakland – its horse is still in the barn.

  27. @Tony – The Oakland schools don’t get any money from the city of Oakland. All of the money for (all) the public schools in California, come from State and Federal funding. Property owners (like me) pay Parcel Taxes, that help augment the state/federal funding.

  28. @A’s observer – I figured out how the Fremont deal would work well before anyone else on the outside. I have an idea as to how SJ would work and I’ve written about it, but I have no inside info. Why does Oakland need to show a plan and SJ does not? Because Oakland faces significant doubts as to how it can work there. That doesn’t really exist in SJ. The only doubt on SJ’s side is its ability to overcome T-rights, and that’s all within the purview of MLB. It may seem like an unfair fight, and it probably is. It’s unfair on many levels: Oakland shouldn’t be viewed as a place to poor to build a ballpark, and San Jose shouldn’t have T-rights held over its head. Yet that’s where both cities sit. And there’s very little either can do about it.

  29. @pkj – Where’s the plan online? Who can i ask to send me a copy of SJ’s plan? Is there pdf I can get on my flash drive? Where?

  30. …yes, Oakland schools funding is separate from municipal funding. But the second Oakland proposes ballpark funding, we’ll hear loud shouts of :”They’re closing the schools and they want to pay for a ballpark? What!!?” Perception becomes reality.

  31. Plan online? What for? San Jose’s plan and deliberations have been very public for all to see. What do you want – San Jose to provide some sort of city-approved google search results on its ballpark efforts? Oakland – complete silence on its ballpark “plan.” Not a word since the EIR was begun last year.

  32. @A’s Observer – I agree with most of what you said except “indeed” there is no plan. How would you know that? I’m not being hostile. I’m serious. How would you know that there is no plan unless you have inside information? I’m under the impression that Oakland has dealt directly with MLB outside the media.

    @TonyD – I don’t get your math. Please elaborate. “Why keep it a secret?” Well, this is just a guess, but I don’t think they want current ownership to have access to the information being discussed. Re: “Where is the rest coming from?” AT&T, I believe, had 60% of the cost in the form of a loan. Chase Manhattan if I’m not mistaken. Loan rates are quite low right now by the way.

  33. @pjk – I’ll that as a no.

    There was word from Oakland. Boxer and Quan, both said the city is working directly with MLB. Boxer, also said that they wouldn’t be sharing the work with Wolff. I believe that quote is somewhere on this site.

  34. We’re back at the this circular discussion again…./facepalm
    Can we just merge San Jose and Oakland and call it San Joakland? (okay that just sounds a bit strange)….

    @eb – nice one with the tyler durden reference! /thumsbup

  35. @Anon – I understand this is mostly a pro-SJ site. I have no problem with that. Circular discussion, facepalm, Oakland has no money, Oakland has no corporations, Oakland has no fanbase, etc. etc. etc. Please answer a question. If, again a big If, Oakland has a naming rights sponsor, corporations for luxury suites, a bank loan, MLB loan, whatever, what makes you think the A’s couldn’t thrive in Oakland? Understand I’m not trying to start problems here. I’m just trying to understand why, if Oakland has been dealing directly with MLB without the media, pro-SJ folks continually make assumptions. Do you have inside information that we don’t know about? Has LW contacted you and told you a decision has already been made in favor of SJ? If so then that changes everything and we were all jerked around. Simply put, if you have inside information as to how this will turn out (not speculation), then the pro-Oakland crowd was Punk’d.

  36. @ Columbo,
    Cisco Field costs $450 million (roughly). Naming rights from Cisco $120 million. Recent suite sales for Niners stadium (which would dwarf anything coming out of Oakland) at $175 million. That would leave over $259 million more for the entire project. Safe to assume a hypothetical Clorox naming rights wouldn’t come close to $120 million, and Oakland suite sales would be way south of $175 million. Where would Oakland get the other $250-300 million for the ballpark? You mention the private financing of AT&T Park, yet private financing won’t work in Oakland (lack of corporate support). Again, the rest of the money for actual ballpark construction and everything else mentioned in my previous post? Do you see the math now? As for some of the other posters: so tempted to respond, but again, I’m not bringing my work home.

  37. @ Columbo
    Have you even bothered reading Wolffs interview or anything ML has presented over the past couple of years? Even the beloved Al Davis thinks Oakland is a “depressed area.” Again, its not about being pro-SJ, its about being pro-reality and dealing with the situation at hand. Nothing more to say about this: until the next topic..

  38. @ Columbo – I enjoy these rationale (for once) discussions. Your basis of argument is contingent on a lot of big ifs that is all conjecture at this point: If, Oakland has been communicating with MLB, without Wolf, who owns the team. If Oakland had already completed the EIR, after almost a year without a hint on its status. If Oakland has proven public financing, when the RAiders PSL debacle is still fresh on peoples mind. If Oakland has corporate support, when no one has stepped up to publicly state as such. Those are all big ifs for such a large project. But, if somehow the stars all align (which coincidentally will happen in 2012) and VC does pull through and somehow, someway there is both public support and some financing behind it, I would be all for it without a doubt. In terms if it will last, thats a loaded question. My thoughts on the matter are that if somehow ownership is not handicapped with private financing and they have positive revenue generation that is somewhat double of what they currently have (they’ll need to, because MLB welfare will be gone theoretically), and can continually field a strong team with a mixture of youth and FAs, then yes, they can thrive. But then again those are big ifs all contingent on a grand slam scenario that hasn’t even eeked out a bunt yet to date. Yes, we are all speculating on the same info at this point, however we do have facts that support the SJ side in terms of financing, land, eir, etc. As ML pointed out, the only problem with it now is the TR, which is much more easily resolved than all of the issues faced by Oakland (IMHO).

  39. @Columbo “If, again a big If, Oakland has a naming rights sponsor, corporations for luxury suites, a bank loan, MLB loan, whatever, what makes you think the A’s couldn’t thrive in Oakland? Understand I’m not trying to start problems here. I’m just trying to understand why, if Oakland has been dealing directly with MLB without the media, pro-SJ folks continually make assumptions. Do you have inside information that we don’t know about?”
    I do not have inside information, but am more than comfortable forming my opinion based on available public information. All it takes is a rudimentary understanding of modern baseball economics, the relative demographics and geographies of the different parts of the Bay Area and the location of AT&T Park for me to believe – to a near certainty – that Oakland does not have the items you listed.
    There’s a big difference between “theoretically possible” and “in any way plausible.” The idea that Oakland’s politicians are negotiating an economically viable deal that would make A’s ownership rich but are keeping it secret from that same ownership (even though it cannot possibly happen without their cooperation) is about as plausible as the idea that Casey Anthony tried to disguise an accidental death as a homicide in order to avoid getting in trouble. When an idea flies in the face of all evidence and logic, it’s a pretty safe bet it’s not true.

  40. OT: Can you believe it? Dan Johnson for the Rays?

  41. OT: one of the greatest nights in MLB history. Go Rays and Go Cardinals..AND GO A’S!

  42. Unbelieveable!! the bosox are a close 2nd in most hated teams in my book–next to the gints–gotta love it

  43. @ Columbo – we answered all your questions you asked, even one that theoretically wouldn’t happen. You haven’t provided any credible evidence to even suggest Oakland has any kind of plan whatsoever. Can you provide some sort of realistic plan that Oakland could execute to that could actually come to fruition?
    @ Tony – WOW! Redonkulous! 3 Wild Cards on the last game of the season with Dan MF Johnson, Mr. sun tan in his eyes himself! WOW!

  44. It was pretty exciting watching the Rays come back, but it was pretty depressing looking at a half-empty stadium in St Pete. I hope they get better fan support in the playoffs.

  45. tampa bay sports teams as a whole seems to have a hard time attracting fans to their sports venues. the bucs for example haven’t had a soldout since 2009 so that means they didn’t sell out any of their games last season when they were 10-6 and one of the best young and surprising teams in the league and even this season where there should be high expectations they didn’t sell out their first home game.

    unlike the rays, the bucs can’t blame the piss poor facility as the bucs venue is one of the best in the nfl while the rays maybe the worst.

  46. As far as I know, the “BRC” asked Oakland to come up with a plan to acquire land and move businesses. While I wasn’t in any meetings with the City or the committe it was consistently reported that the “BRC” asked for that level of detail from Oakland, Fremont and San Jose and not a plan for paying for stadium construction.
    In other words, if what was reported is correct (and I believe it is correct) Oakland presented a plan including what the BRC asked for. That plan may not be feasible depending on how the whole RDA thing shakes out.

  47. The Moneyball movie was fine and dandy and having the premiere in the Town was very cool, but we need some more significant positive Oakland news coming up soon. Don’t really care for the Game ratings, the A’s playing in Japan or how Wolff is shrinking the Quake’s new digs yet again.

    • @all – I’ve deleted all comments spawning from Jeffrey’s comment about the panel and Doug Boxer due to the confusion it could cause. Instead, Jeffrey is putting together a more comprehensive post for tomorrow.

      @jk-usa – Based on what we’ve heard today, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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