News for 3/9/12

Feels like we need this since the week has been dominated by the PR war.

  • The A’s announced today that they will have a private entrance for season ticket holders. The terms are that you’ll need the credential from your season ticket book along with your ticket to use the entrance. In addition, for any extra tickets you buy for a particular game, those holding the extra tickets won’t be able to use the entrance. It seems like this was done to reward STH during bobblehead and other high-demand giveaway games, though the FAQ emphasizes that distribution of giveaways will be proportional. The entrance will be next door to Ticket Services.
  • Jeff Moorad withdrew his application to become the “control person” of the Padres, leaving John Moores as the control person for the time being. The move is considered a procedural one, with the need to consummate a TV deal between the Padres and the new Fox Sports San Diego channel first. Moorad’s deal to acquire the team from Moores was constructed so that Moorad could stretch the timeline out to four years if necessary, though his intent was to acquire controlling interest sooner than that. MLB had raised concerns that Moorad might take a lot of the Fox money upfront and use it to buy out Moores or to pay down debt, instead of putting it into the franchise (the McCourt-Dodgers TV problem). It’s a smart move by MLB, because if the rumor had some merit it could’ve sapped some $10 milion per year in revenue from the team. Now the Padres are Exhibit A in how to pull off a sale that puts the team on the best financial footing. If anything, it looks like Moorad was putting the cart before the horse. And this article from the SD Union-Tribune sheds light on the group of owners set in opposition to Moorad. There’s a big difference between that and the supposed foment against T-rights changes that Lew Wolff faces.
  • In Miami, the 5,700+ parking spaces at the Marlins ballpark are proving to be a logistical nightmare, not like we didn’t see that coming. The suggestion: buy pre-paid parking or else you’re taking your chances finding a spot on someone’s lawn.
  • As he is wont to do, Peter Hartlaub went into the archives and found a concept for a huge, multipurpose stadium on what looks like Laney College. The year: 1960. 80,000 for football and 48,000 for baseball? Not without a lot of Astroturf.
  • MLS Commissioner Don Garber really wants a stadium and team somewhere in the five four boroughs of New York City. Sorry, Staten Island.
  • Bruce Jenkins has a few words about the A’s-Giants tete-a-tete. Surprisingly, he wants the Giants crushed and calls them bullies. Sounds good to me.
  • There’s a movement afoot to get rid of the television blackout once and for all.
  • Robert Gammon considers Coliseum City the last, best chance to retain Oakland’s teams. Sad then, that Oakland’s announcement was drowned out by the A’s-Giants drama. There was a press conference on Wednesday, though no representatives for the three teams showed up to provide support.
  • Tim Kawakami thinks Joe Lacob and Peter Guber should announce where they intend to settle by next year sometime. That might be a little premature. If the Giants were to build an arena in time for the 2017-18 NBA season, they wouldn’t have to break ground until summer 2015. That puts EIR and related prep work at the beginning of 2014. Even then, if there were some snags the Coliseum Authority isn’t going to say no to a year-to-year lease, since the debt service on Oracle Arena runs through 2027.
  • BTW – Yoenis Cespedes is expected to play his first MLB game ever on TV tomorrow against the Reds (CSNCA, Noon). Don’t miss it.

One more thing about the Giants’ press release: They implied that Wolff/Fisher got a no-San Jose discount when the A’s were purchased for $172 million in 2005. What then, do they say about Arte Moreno, who bought the Angels for $185 million in 2003? He didn’t have any territorial restrictions that called for a discount, and that was for a much larger market. Weak sauce Gigantes. Maybe if some of The Game’s and KNBR’s radio talent actually did some fact-checking they’d know this stuff.

Added 2:50 PM – The field is almost done!

103 thoughts on “News for 3/9/12

  1. With as much uncertainty surrounding the Coliseum City idea at the moment, wouldn’t it be the best political move by the Raiders and Warriors to not fully endorse it until all of the financing scenarios are put in place? The Raiders have made it known that Oakland is their first option, but at this point the idea is still not fleshed out enough to fully get behind and other areas are still a possibility. The Warriors are still playing SF vs. Oakland, so while they could sign on, it wouldn’t be wise to say yes to anything at this point. The A’s, well, it will take new ownership for anything in Oakland to happen, I imagine. I think the teams want something concrete and more mature before they commit. It’s on Oakland to get that done.

  2. The fresh paint on the concrete walls of the new STH entrance is a nice touch. It’d be nice if they could do that with the rest of the Coliseum.

  3. Love Bruce Jenkins! Now that’s what I’m talking about! No black and white, distorted, biased view of the weeks past drama…just the plain old truth.

  4. @ eb – but wouldn’t you want some kind of endorsement from your supposed tenants or at least some kind of presence? On the flip side, if what you say is true that CC isn’t even remotely concrete for teams to entertain, then why even have a press conference on it at all? Anyhow, I hope at least one of teams stay, but my money would be on the W’s and not the A’s or Raiders.

  5. re: BJ’s article: WOW! This is coming from a well respected veteran SF writer too! O.o

    “What I’d like to see: The Giants get absolutely crushed. Territorial rights removed, and not a cent in financial compensation. The A’s should be in San Jose. The Giants won’t lose South Bay fans who have devoted years of passion to the team. And they’ll always own the Bay Area, so the corporate-sponsorship hits won’t sink the ship. Crushed, I say. Bully-style arrogance is so unbecoming.”

    Read more:

  6. @Anon Not concrete enough to publicly pledge their full backing. I’m quite certain both teams are certainly entertaining the idea, and in the Raiders case, would love it to come to fruition. The writing seems to be on the wall for a SC share with the 49ers and I’m pretty sure that while LA is intriguing, they (plus the NFL) probably don’t want the negative press from being the only team to screw a region (bay area) twice in it’s history. Plus, what I’m reading seems to indicate San Diego is being pressed by the Farmer Field peeps.But at this point the whole Bay Area sports landscape is a little wonky and unsettled, so who knows.

  7. Crazy thought here as I read more into this whole recent press release extravaganza on TR’s between the A’s and Gnats. Could the leak or Madden plant actually emanate from the A’s? Yes, sounds crazy but think about it. If you want a key item to surface (that the MLB meeting records denote that SC rights were contingent on a move) and you want to expedite things that have been going on at a glacial pace, how do you rile things up? Easy, take the same writer who months ago said the A’s were going to SJ, have him do a complete 180 on that notion, and then throw out a delayed press release on the matter, irritating the Gnats and exposing their true ahole form, while making it the hot topic for everyone so the commish gets off his arse and does something while being viewed as the innocent victim in all of this. A bit wild, but after ~1100 days of waiting, what else could you do to break the status quo of continual purgatory? Just a thought, even as wild and remote as it is….

  8. The 1960 Oakland Coliseum renderings are a great find. I love the optimism emitting from stadium concept/renderings/etc. It’s great seeing the old girl with new eyes.

  9. @ML On the Marlins: How is this any different than going to games at the old Orange Bowl? I used to go to the Orange Bowl game every year, and I don’t remember parking being a particularly big deal. It was a given you would be parking on someone’s lawn, but seemingly everyone in the neighborhood was selling parking this way, so not a big problem.
    If anything, I would think the situation would be better for the Marlins because of lower capacity and availability of trolleys.

  10. @ eb – at least we agree on something after all. My bet is ont he Raiders sharing SC as well, with the second option moving to LA. Do you know when their lease is up on the Coliseum and if they’re in anyway on the hook for the millions the city has to pay on the bonds for Mt. Davis? I’d at least like them to stay until that is paid off given what the city has done to accomodate them…

  11. One thing I was thinking about was the value of the South Bay market. The Giants have said it’s 43% of their base, that it’s priceless, yada yada yada. Some have speculated that their have negotiations going on about compensation, and that the Giants have said some astronomical amount (I’ve heard $250,000 theorized). It’s all speculation, of course. But lets say there is some actual meat here. This begs the question then, in response to such a huge amount, maybe Selig and/or the A’s came back with “well, are you willing to pay that much to keep the A’s out of SJ?”. I could see that as somewhat realistic – Bud could be saying “I have enough votes” and saying to the Giants that if the South Bay is worth that much to them, and they never paid for it in the first place, then telling them to pay up if they want to keep it. It’s fair.
    So then it becomes a proposition to both clubs – either receive a big windfall to not have what you claim you want or need, or pay out big bucks to get what you want.
    If such a scenario transpired, the Giants could pay up, and then the A’s could build at Coliseum city , with upwards of half of it paid for by the Giants finally paying up for their T-rights, and then the rest of it is more financially viable (even in Oakland).
    But if it goes the other way, the Giants get their big payout, pay off the stadium mortgage, and then they’re set.
    Win-win either way.

  12. Just looked at the pics of the season ticket holder entrance. They should do that throughout the stadium, only make it modular panels (so it could have Raiders stuff for Raider games, and thus have the Raiders help pay for it). It looks just so much better and happier and more pleasant than the drab, dirty, gray concrete. Make the venue more pleasant, and more fans will keep coming to games.
    And I’m not buying the argument that Wolff/Fisher should not have to spend money on this venue because they’re trying to get the ballpark in SJ, so why spend on the current venue. Cisco field, if it happens, is at least 3 to 4 years away. They owe it to their fans to make the fan experience as pleasant as possible. It can only help attendance, and at the very least give a more positive impression about the franchise. And it really would not cost that much money.
    Lew and John …. just do it!! 🙂

  13. @bartleby – 81 games per year, 60 of those on weeknights, as opposed to 6 college football games per year. It’s gonna be brutal.

  14. @Anon Don’t mean to poop on our love fest, but what I was getting at is the Raiders really don’t seem to want SC. Most of the signs seem to indicate the Raiders in Oakland and if that doesn’t happen, anywhere else is an option, excluding a shared scenario. Believe me, I’d take SC over LA, but I don’t think the Raiders want to go that route.

  15. Pictures of Marlins Park on Stadiumpage (link on the right) really illustrate how snug the new stadium is with the surrounding neighborhood. Totally worth checking out for ballpark geeks.

  16. @ML “81 games per year, 60 of those on weeknights, as opposed to 6 college football games per year. It’s gonna be brutal.”
    I understand how that impacts traffic differently, and how that puts more strain on the neighbors. But I’m not seeing what that has to do with the parking situation. Parking capacity remains the same for any given game, right? So looked at for a single game, how can 37,000 people be having more difficulty parking than 80,000 used to?

    • @bartleby – Constantly having to deal with accessibility problems will wear at fans’ enthusiasm for the venue. Maybe not for the season ticket or suite holders, but for casual fans who are expected to come 5-10 times per year? It could be critical. If it wasn’t important, there’d be no need for TPMPs like the ones SJ has for the Sharks and SF has for the Giants.

      Added to original post – Kawakami blog post about W’s, Cespedes debut.

  17. @ML I have a hunch the situation will get much better as fans get more familiar with it. Maybe you have extra problems right now because the Orange Bowl has been defunct for a while and people forgot how to deal with it, or they just assume more garage/parking lot was built and so they’re clogging things up driving around looking for it.
    But I have to think if the situation was manageable to get 80,000 people in and out of there for a football game without those garages, the situation will work out for the 37,000 (max) attending Marlins games. When you count the neighborhood lawn parking, there’s more than enough spaces once people are conditioned to just jump on those right away rather than driving around looking for something that’s not there.
    I went to the Orange Bowl game four years in a row in the mid to late ’80s, and don’t remember sitting in traffic or having trouble parking. OTOH, I went to a Monday Night Dolphins game at Dolphin Stadium a few years ago, and it took me almost an hour to get off the freeway and get parked.
    Also, didn’t you post that there’s transit about a mile a way? I assume a lot more people will start riding it. It’s kind of pathetic that most Americans don’t consider a mile to be walking distance.
    I have to assume this is what Marlins’ ownership expects will happen. It would be financial suicide for them to go forward with the project then lose half their attendance because of parking issues.

  18. @ eb – don’t worry cupcakes, as a Niners fan I wouldn’t want the Raiders either and i agree with you that they would of done gone to SC long ago but are holding out to see what Oakland and LA can do for them.

  19. Same thing happened with AT&T Park. When it was built, the media was wringing their hands saying there wasn’t enough parking, assuming that the same commute patterns would apply as at other MLB venues. This terrified customers enough that they rode transit in unprecedented volume. Now you’ve got the Giants looking to build stuff on their parking lots because they have excess parking.

    • @bartleby – AT&T has great public transit options. Marlins Ballpark is dismal in that regard. They’re relying on a new shuttle to provide much of the last mile service. That’s just poor planning.

  20. @eb It’s kind of bizarre that the Raiders don’t seem to want to be in SC. Here you have the A’s going all out to gain access to the Silicon Valley corporate market, and yet the Raiders seem indifferent. I guess that’s what massive TV contracts and generous league revenue will do for you.
    It does look like the ship has sailed for the Raiders to gain a stake in the SC stadium, but I still think it’s likely they’ll be there for at least a few years on an interim basis. It’ll be annoying to go to games, because without the Raiders having a stake, I imagine everything will be all maroon and gold. (Bleah).

  21. @ Bartleby: “Also, didn’t you post that there’s transit about a mile a way? I assume a lot more people will start riding it. It’s kind of pathetic that most Americans don’t consider a mile to be walking distance.”


    Can’t forget about the heat and the rain. If you’re traveling with kids in tow, it’s not as attractive an option.

  22. @ML If Miami Metrolink is truly only a mile away, that’s not much different than the distance of BART from AT&T. I realize AT&T has Caltrain and Muni, but Caltrain doesn’t help East Bay folks and Muni is a nuisance transfer. I have to think a lot of East Bay fans are still riding BART to Giants games.

    • @bartleby – Transfer from BART to Muni within the station to a different platform for $2, or walk just under a mile for free – as Briggs said, humidity, heat, and rain-free. Based on my reading of the Diridon EIRs, the conventional wisdom is that 3/4 mile is pretty much the max that people are willing to walk. That’s a big reason why people pay for the convenience of Muni. Your experience at the Orange Bowl may have been pleasant, but as we all say about watching just one game, “Small Sample Size”. I’m sure Miami will come up with ways to manage the situation with experience. That said, you’d have to be crazy not to acknowledge that they’ve done a terrible job planning for this.

  23. “Can’t forget about the heat and the rain. If you’re traveling with kids in tow, it’s not as attractive an option.”
    Very true. Even so, my basic point stands. The parking inventory at the Orange Bowl was unconventional, as it consisted mostly of people’s lawns. But there was still plenty of parking.

  24. According to Google Maps, the distance from Marlins Ballpark to Metrolink is 0.9 miles walking By way of comparison, the distance from Oracle Arena to BART is 0.5 miles.

  25. RM,
    during the storm of last week, the Purdy piece mentioned that “owners and investors in both franchises have scheduled their own separate meetings in Arizona the weekend of March 17 and 18.” Might we hear something then?

    • @Tony – I wouldn’t bet on it. It’s a good opportunity for both complete ownership groups to get an audience with Selig, who has a home down there. Purdy and I were chatting on Twitter last night. Maybe we’ll have something to talk about when we have our cup of coffee in a couple weeks.

  26. @Bartleby: Metrorail also looks like it covers a much smaller area than BART does, which means that more families would more than likely have to drive to Miami Park. BART is great because it covers such a large amount of cities/space.

    Metrorail seems to me more like a bus system on a rail; heck, even the fares are locked in at $2.00 a ride (unlike BART, which varies depending on your trip length).

  27. I eagerly await the day I can get some beers at Trials and walk to an A’s game.

  28. That proto-Coliseum definitely is an interesting find. It is obviously a product of the times, looking like a cross between Shea Stadium (main bowl layout), Riverfront Stadium (style of construction), and the actual Coliseum (light standards and bleachers). Definitely would have been a better location than the current Coliseum and might have had a better chance at being a longer term home or jumping off point for a new ballpark (like Busch Stadium II was for Busch Stadium III in St. Louis).

  29. I’m not seeing how the proto-Coliseum could have been a decent venue for football (especially considering that the Raiders existed and there was no baseball team in play). I guess they could have added stands in RF a la Candlestick but that would have been crappy and ruined the baseball vibe.
    Re: the Orange Bowl, I can see parking not being a problem on weekends, when the neighbors are probably off work and happy to make $50-100 parking cars (depending on how big your lawn is). During the week, that’s a different story. Even when the Dolphins and Hurricanes played there, those games were almost all on weekends, so baseball would be quite a change in that respect.

    • I’m not seeing how the proto-Coliseum could have been a decent venue for football (especially considering that the Raiders existed and there was no baseball team in play).


      My guess is that the picture was intended to attract a MLB team, so why not depict the Oakland Coliseum a great looking baseball venue.

  30. @bartleby “It’ll be annoying to go to games, because without the Raiders having a stake, I imagine everything will be all maroon and gold. (Bleah)”
    When I think of the shared stadium idea, I always think about the massive amount of rent a cops they’d have to put around any statues erected for either team. After games they’d be decorated with mustaches, uni brows, phallic shapes, and god knows what else.

  31. It looks like the proto-Coliseum might have been one of those stadiums with a massive movable grandstand like Riverfront, Shea, Three Rivers, etc… all had If that’s the case then it would have been an odd football venue that was partially “incomplete” like Shea before the Jets left. That said, the one thing I don’t understand is how it went from 80,000 to 48,000 between football and baseball. No other multipurpose stadium before or since had such a radical difference between the capacities. And I don’t see anything about that stadium that would make 2/5ths of the seats un-usable during the conversion.

  32. @Dan: My guess is the 80,000 capacity is after enclosing the place, similar to how Shea Stadium estimated it could seat 100,000 if closed. The Coliseum is the last of its kind. I’ll miss it when it’s gone.

  33. RM,
    if we have something REAL to talk about in a couple of weeks, I ain’t drinking coffee in the morning 😉
    Also, saw that the $900 million for the BART to San Jose project is a go. Lastly, will anyone miss all that foul territory? Other than pitchers of course.

  34. eb, you just made me spit water everywhere. LOL… An army of Paul Blart’s protecting the Joe Montana (or Jim Plunkett) statue. Priceless… Only in the Bay Area…

  35. Holy Crap?!?!?!?! Who wrote that column and put Bruce’s name on it? Well, actually… Reading the hyperbole about Bumgarner (I get it, he is good but he is not Tim Lincecum), it’s Bruce. Wow…

  36. @Jefferey Right? If someone puts angry eyebrows on Jim Otto, the Montana statue would be winding up to throw a spray painted dong soon after. Madness.

    BTW, is it sad I’m really excited to see Yoenis Cespedes tomorrow? How awesome would it be if the A’s had a legitimate superstar?

  37. @ eb: Nope! I’m pretty stoked, too. If he turns out to be a great player then damn, what an awesome contract.

  38. I wrote a song about Yeonis already. That’s sad.

  39. sj councilman who could be one who leads the charge in challenging mlb’s anti trust exemption was on townsend’s show about an hour ago.

    didn’t say much that we haven’t already heard. the park wouldn’t be in his district in downtown but his district would def see a huge benefit if a park were built and 81 home games along with all the other possible events that a downtown sj park could draw since a ton of restaurants/bars are located in his district.

    said if the a’s could be profittable in oakland they’d be fine with that but they aren’t and townsend later brought up the only way the a’s made a profit last year was because of the welfare check they get from mlb. he pointed out that if the a’s don’t move to sj it’s likely they move out of the bay area entirely.

  40. Gotta record it first 🙂

  41. Good for Santa Clara I guess. But 1.2 billion dollars for a stadium!?! This is getting nuts.

  42. that niners stadium better be one of the best and most state of the art venues in all of world because in terms of design, it doesn’t look all that inspiring of a venue. when you compare that the niners will spend more on their stadium than any other franchise other than what the nyg/nyj have with metlife which cost over 1.5 billion it’s amazing how much bang dal got out of building that structure.

  43. @ ML – I agree and am a bit astonished. Do you have a list of current NFL stadium lease rates (I couldn’t find much on google)? I guess I’m too spoiled by the $1m / year rates for the A’s.

  44. @ ML – 1 more question regarding the Niner’s new stadium. If the Raiders move to SC as well, who gets to collect their lease payment? The Niners or Santa Clara?

    • @Anon – No, I don’t have a list of leases. Keep in mind that as impressive as $30 million/year sounds, debt service could be $50-60 million per year based on interest.

      The Raiders would be paying rent to the Stadium Authority. The 49ers would negotiate the terms.

  45. Let’s say a big-pockets investor who desperately wants into MLB makes inquiries in buying the A’s and investing in the Coliseum Center project, even if doesn’t seem to pencil out. What would the A’s and MLB’s reaction be?

  46. @BC,
    Why are you trying to get the war of words going again?

  47. I’m not. I’m asking a question that may or may not be hypothetical. (how’s that for cryptic?)

    • @bc – The reaction would obviously be, “Show me the money”.

      The inner workings of how people become team owners are not conducive to some guy wanting to make a big splash (Mark Cuban). Selig and the rest of The Lodge seem to prefer that if someone’s interested, they should either start by going in with a minority share of an existing group somewhere, or team up with someone with whom baseball is comfortable. Plus, as we’ve seen from what’s happened with recent sales, baseball is making an effort to screen out guys who don’t have the money, so if someone on Monday comes up with a pie-in-the-sky proposition and he’s not able to fund it, Selig can make him twist in the wind for months, even years (Jim Crane), or drop him very quickly.

  48. Thanks, ML. I would see it adding to the anti-SJ pressure on Selig, though, we have at least two teams that will point to any alternative to San Jose and say ‘you see’.

  49. Anyway, back on Earth; Cisco Field WILL be the house that Yoenis built! Nice moon shot!

  50. TonyD: I don’t think there will be any Cisco Field. Selig doesn’t have the votes and the Giants won’t negotiate. What will happen is Wolff will sell the team back to MLB, which will keep it in Oakland until investors from another part of the country buy and move the team. I was optimistic 2 months ago. Not anymore. It’s obvious A’s-to-San Jose is going nowhere and the Giants couldn’t care less who they upset with this. Add to that Bay Area media folks who think backing the Giants in this will keep the A’s in Oakland (It won’t).

  51. By the way, much, MUCH easier to just deal SCCO, reverting it back to shared status than to force Wolff to accept a buyout from some unicorn-flying zillionaire wannabe owner.

  52. Pjk,
    Will you just stop with the nonsense! Geez!!

  53. (Here goes another thread…)

  54. RM,
    Going back to your last post, I don’t believe Selig could force any team to sell just because some guy off the street wants to own a MLB team: “Hi, I’m Warren Buffet and I want to buy the Yankees from the Steinbrenners.” He definitely wouldn’t do it to someone he’s known for years and who he personally brought into the league. Its amazing some of the scenarios now popping up just to maintain the Giants selfish status quo and to keep the A’s out of San Jose. Lot of crow will be consumed by many on here in due time.

  55. ML-thanks for hard work compiling all these stories- I read every one!

  56. @ML “Transfer from BART to Muni within the station to a different platform for $2, or walk just under a mile for free – as Briggs said, humidity, heat, and rain-free.”
    I’m not sure the Miami perspective is exactly the same as the Bay Area perspective. Coastal Californians are spoiled. When you live somewhere like Miami, I think you tend to just take the heat and humidity for granted and just deal with it.
    I spent about five weeks in Singapore on business. It is always ungodly humid, and the temperature typically stays over 80 degrees (at least) well into the evening. I suffered for about a week, then got used to it. It doesn’t stop people from walking around, playing tennis or cricket or whatever.
    I’m not saying it’s not a factor, it clearly is. I’m just saying the Bay Area reaction of “A mile in the heat! I’d never do that!” is probably stronger than the Miami reaction.
    “Based on my reading of the Diridon EIRs, the conventional wisdom is that 3/4 mile is pretty much the max that people are willing to walk. That’s a big reason why people pay for the convenience of Muni.”
    Probably true, but everything is relative. If the parking situation remains bad enough, people will adjust their concept of what’s an acceptable walk. (For myself, I’d never stand around waiting to get sardined into a Muni car rather than walk a mile anymore than I’d wait for an elevator to take me down from the 2nd floor.)
    “Your experience at the Orange Bowl may have been pleasant, but as we all say about watching just one game, “Small Sample Size”.
    Not one game, three separate games in three different years. Maybe not a huge sample size, but on the other hand parking supply and crowd size remained pretty constant, so I do think it was pretty representative.
    “I’m sure Miami will come up with ways to manage the situation with experience. That said, you’d have to be crazy not to acknowledge that they’ve done a terrible job planning for this.”
    I’ll reserve judgment on that. If we’re reading media articles in three months that say “traffic has been a hideous nightmare for the last three months,” than yes. But I think there’s a good chance that won’t be the case.
    I’m guessing the thinking went like this: “We used to get up to 80,000 people in and out of here fairly readily for Dolphins, Hurricanes and Orange Bowl game. On paper, it looked like there was no parking, but this was deceptive because it’s a poor neighborhood and virtually everyone sold space on their lawn (which also had the effect of dispersing traffic before and after games rather than having people wait in a giant line to get in or out of a giant lot, as at Dolphin Stadium today).”
    “Now, we’re looking at getting less than half as many people in and out of there. We’ll have the benefit of a giant garage and a reasonably close Metrorail station that wasn’t there before. The neighborhood is still poor, and the fact that there will be enough games for the locals to pay their mortgages based on parking money should ensure adequate supply.”
    ‘m not ready to say this line of thinking is faulty based on some early hiccups likely caused by people driving around looking for giant lots that aren’t there. Once people understand they’re going to need to park on someone’s lawn, I suspect the whole thing will run fairly smoothly.
    I do agree, however, that the Marlins could have done a better job publicizing the situation and advising their customers.

  57. @Brian “Re: the Orange Bowl, I can see parking not being a problem on weekends, when the neighbors are probably off work and happy to make $50-100 parking cars (depending on how big your lawn is). During the week, that’s a different story. Even when the Dolphins and Hurricanes played there, those games were almost all on weekends, so baseball would be quite a change in that respect.”
    The Orange Bowl neighborhood was poor in the ’80s when I went to Orange Bowl games, and from what I can tell on Google Maps and Zillow it looks about the same today. If you figure Marlins neighbors can probably get $20 or $25 per car, at least 5 cars per game, 81 games per year to park cars on their lawn, that’s enough to pay most or all of the mortgage on an average house in that neighborhood for an entire year. I think they’ll make sure someone’s at home to collect the money.
    For that matter, at current real estate prices, I can envision properties getting bought up by investors for private parking lots or garages.

  58. Parting thought for the night: MLB already rejected the coliseum for an A’s ballpark (as if Oakland and the Coli were still relevant to this discussion). But anyhow, needed to get that off my chest ..good night.

  59. PJK, I can see reason for pessimism. There has been no movement in such a long time that it seems axiomatic that BS just doesn’t have the necessary ownership support. Hence, ultimately, it appears that MLB is ok with letting the SJ issue die on the vine. However, I think you are taking the no movement on the issue and reaching the wrong conclusion. Let’s take it purely from a MLB business perspective: The combined Bay Area population is a lot to leave to one team. 7+ million combined in the bay area would make the Giants, per capita, around the second (my guess) richest team per available, unaffiliated pool of metro area fans (behind NY’s 16 million divided by 2). But not only is there a lot of people in the bay area, they also are comparatively very wealthy group (personal and corporate). Plus the bay area is a burgeoning Asian and Hispanic area. As the two largest growing population sub groups in the US, it seems elemental that MLB wants to have baseball widely available to them. Even further, SCC attractiveness is obvious based on it being the destination for the Niners, Sharks, Giants, A’s, quite possibly the Raiders, not out of the realm of possibility of the Warriors (at least at one time).
    Now take all this factual data and place this in front of a group of men who are wealthy because, mostly, their business acumen. They are going to pass up this prime area because the Giants, unlike any two market team, “own” a county that is 40 to 60 miles away from their own ballpark? MLB baseball is going to take all this wealth, all these potential fans, this destination sought by many pro sports teams, and make the only baseball available to them an hour away in real travel time? If so let me just say “wow!” if MLB’s business minds pass up this up.
    No, it just doesn’t make sense. IMHO what does make sense regarding feet dragging is due to the mortgage payments on the Giants park. Owners would be reticent about kicking cash to the Giants. They would be reticent to give the ok to SJ when the Giants have to kick in 20 to 30 million (??) a year for mortgage payments. I can see the owners thinking that is a raw deal to do that to the Giants when they still have those mortgage payments. But when the mortgage payment is gone (2017?), I would think the owners would now believe ‘Hey, we gave you SJ to pay for the stadium. The stadium is now paid for, no way we let you now have the whole bay area and we have to pass up this prime area’ that would also get the A’s off the welfare dole. Again, if MLB passes this all up simply because of an overtly unfair and not very defensible position on TR, “wow!”
    My apologies as I made a lot of assumptions on numbers here, however, I believe they are correct or at least close enough to not alter the reasoning behind the conclusions.

  60. the giants mortgage is $17M

  61. It’s time for Wolff to call for a vote. When it fails, he must demand that MLB buy back the team from him. 26% of the owners dont like his solution for the A’s? Fine. Let all of them chip in to buy the team and cover its losses for several years until another city emerges to take the team away. The Giants have won, folks.

  62. Or, contract the team and start a firestorm with the players union.

  63. @pjk,
    Fine, the Giants have won. No need for you to post anymore then (lol). Peace brah!

  64. @pjk The Giants have not won, at least not yet. The fact that there has been no public announcement suggests that Bud Selig wants this to happen and is working on it. If Bud wants it to happen, I believe there is a better than 50% chance it will happen.
    It’s like trying to get major legislation through the Senate. The fact that there’s a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster means that a lot of deal making must happen behind the scenes and the process is painfully slow. But eventually, the Senate does manage to pass some legislation.
    (It’s an imperfect analogy, because MLB is nowhere near as partisan and divided as Congress. But you take my point).

  65. Not figuring out a solution to put MLB in silicon valley would be a major embarrassment for bs- just taking longer than any of us wants- as long as I continue to see progress (autumn pkwy extension) I can wait or the ultimate announcement

  66. I just don’t at this point anyway Selig/MLB would allow the Giants to “win” and let the A’s continue to suffer; especially since 1) the Giants baseless claims are rooted in utter selfishness and 2) there are reasonable, “best interest of baseball” solutions out there to end the Bay Area saga. Again, I urge those who are impatient and loosing hope to do your research on the Expos/Orioles/DC saga to see how hard it is to wrap these things up. Irwin Raij, you Da man brah!

  67. Horrible at links: search Irwin Raij at the SPORTS BUSINESS JOURNAL DAILY for 3/21/11. Gives you some quick insight on the difficulties now facing the committee. Moral to the story: nothing is impossible in MLB.

  68. From Jenkins’ column:

    — From an American League scout on Melky Cabrera: “Look at this: 201 hits last year (in Kansas City). That’s just tremendous. Forget on-base percentage, OPS, forget all that. He had 201 hits – period! End of statistical analysis.”

    I know this is sort of OT, but I sure hope this idiot scout works for the Angels.

  69. Doc, I read that and chuckled

  70. wow too bad they didnt build the coliseum at that peralta site originally.

  71. Hate to provide this link to the author:

    It quotes Wolff:

    “The most urgent venture is the one that will determine the future home of the team. Schott and Hofmann hired Wolff as a vice president two years ago and directed him to pursue a new ballpark. Although Wolff recommended one be built in the parking lot, adjacent to the current stadium, he said he was not necessarily wedded to that site.

    He is adamant, however, that he will not consider San Jose, part of the San Francisco Giants’ territory under major league rules. San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales said last month that he planned to contact Wolff after the purchase became official and urge him to move the A’s there.

    “I’ll tell him our focus is on Oakland, we’re going to honor the territorial rules, and that’s the end of it,” Wolff said.

    “If we’re going to stay in the Bay Area, we’re going to try and build a new facility in the Oakland area.”

    How’s that for fact checking? Perhaps you could have found that article. It took me all of 5 seconds to google it.

  72. @tracy – We’ve known that from the beginning, when the blog was launched in 2005. Perhaps you should’ve spent more time finding something that actually refutes what I wrote. Moreno paid only slightly more for a team not encumbered by T-rights and in a bigger market to boot. If that’s the case, shouldn’t Wolff have received an even bigger discount, reflective of those circumstances?

  73. I’ll make it easy for you. The same article QUOTES Wolff stating that the AAAAA’s were a well run organization. He added that he wanted to increase revenue to $100-150M.

    That, from the horse’s mouth (or at least a major orifice, leaves no doubt that he valued the market potential in that range. Therefore the price is reflective of these attributes.

    Take a few business courses in order to follow Simon. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  74. @tracy – Do you not know the difference between short-term and long-term strategy? Did you also not notice that Moreno’s price was listed in the first sentence of the article? How can you explain the similar prices? It’s amazing that you continue to attack without actually getting to the heart of my argument. Get some facts and come back and see me.

  75. RM,
    do you need help with Tracy? Just let me know and the monster will be unleashed! 😉

  76. to pjk

    What makes you believe the team is losing money? They are made $20M per year, for the last 3 years. They are pocketing the assistance from the other teams.

    They only like to cry poor, so the fans need to get the facts.

  77. Tony,

    You mad?

  78. What the deal with Baseball San Jose Blog? Anyone know who runs that?

  79. @Briggs – I don’t know who writes for it.

  80. Tony,

    My name is bummersuc.

    Bring it on.

  81. MarineFog

    Where is it written that all franchises must be equal? Moreno got the better deal because he was the better businessman. The Angels territory has always been viewed as larger and with much higher growth potential.

    Wolff, in fact, could have purchased the Angels.

    Art Moreno poured money into that franchise, including into payroll and marketing. He earned and therefore deserves the results. This is America after all.

    Moreno negotiated a $50M X 10-year T.V. deal. What has Wolff done? Who wants to give them a large contract? For what, that losing team that is always selling off their best players?

    So what you’re saying is that despite Wolff being satisfied with his price at the time of purchase, he is now deserving of value along the lines of the Angles or Giants franchises?

    What the Giants are saying is that he purchased a franchise at a specific price that contained specific rights. All franchises in business have some sort of rights including territorial rights.

    If Wolff wants a larger territory in terms of revenue, why doesn’t he just purchase the Dodgers? Perhaps it’s because he wants to buy low sell high. He obviously don’t want to earn it.

    Forbes indicates Oakland player expense staying essentially the same since the purchase, while revenue rose. In fact the revenue has exceeded Wolff’s high target of $150M. The value of the franchise has more than doubled.

    He pockets the welfare money of $20-30M per year, instead of putting it into the franchise. This profit margin equates to a 12% cap rate, and has come post-meltdown years.

    He decided to “invest” in Billy Beane. Was that as opposed to investing in players and marketing? Beane whines that they are last in revenue. Well, if he was a better G.M., it would have certainly helped. See Tampa Bays.

    Why would fans support a team that constantly wants to move? Why can’t he sell to dot com corporations in San Jose now? They are international companies, and the A’s playing in Oakland doesn’t really matter.

    Wolff in Sheep’s Clothing has pulled the wool over your eyes. He pulled the same act with the S.F. Fairmont hotel, as you know, attempting to convert that into condos.

    The Giants owners are heroes. Wolff is a despised carpetbagger.

  82. Tracy,
    I’ll make it very, very simple for you:
    1) A’s and Giants have existed together in Bay Area since 1968 (I wasn’t even born yet).
    2) Bay Area only two-team market that isn’t shared territory.
    3) Giants only have territorial rights to San Jose because they were supposed to relocate and build a ballpark here.
    4) Oakland no longer works for the A’s and MLB.
    5) reverting Santa Clara County back to pre-1992 status will allow the A’s “legal” access to San Jose.
    6) a win, win for the A’s, San Jose, and ALL of MLB (including the Giants).

    Now was that so hard to understand Tracy; debate over!

  83. @tracy: Whether Wolff, as a person or business owner, is deserving of being able to build a ballpark in San Jose is besides the point. This isn’t a matter of ethics. It’s an issue of whether MLB wants to put a team in San Jose. Everyone involved with making this decision is aware of that. If the A’s move to San Jose, the profit Wolff/Fisher make when they sell is small potatoes compared to MLB’s longterm plan for the region.


    On the surface, we may see teams as these things we root for; which have history; rivaliries. Beneath that thin veil is just another MLB outlet store. They have 30 of the strategically placed around the continent. They all have interchangaable parts, whether you’re talking about front office personnel or on-field talent. MLB is deciding the feasibility of putting a team in SJ, plan and simple. Whether that’s fair to certain fans, other owners or civic leaders is really besides the point. You’re really missing the point if you’re making this about right & wrong with heroes & villains.

  84. Why don’t someone put up 40% of your paycheck for competition?

    Wolff was satisfied with his purchase. His team has double in value. Now he wants it all without earning it.

    If MLB wanted to remove that territory, they would have done it after the Giants were purchased. The Giants have since poured hundreds of million into it.

    Wolff is trying to grow an asset he purchased to a level not in line with the purchase price, through his relationship with Selig.

    Nice that you support this type of strong arm tactic. It’s UnAmerican.

    This blog should be entitled “Bias A’s Fans Supporting Supporting a Cheap Crook”.

    Debate over junior!

    • Wolff is trying to grow an asset he purchased to a level not in line with the purchase price, through his relationship with Selig.

      One day, I hope to sell my collection of Garbage Pail Kids at a level not in line with the purchase price.

  85. Briggs,

    If this is voted down, what would your statement turn into?


    “This was about MLB not wanting to put a team in San Jose”

  86. @tracy (or should I say dick) – “Life is unfair?” Did you pick that up from watching yesterday’s afterschool special? Good job. Or rather, not so good a job considering you had two days to come up with your rejoinder.

    What has Wolff done? He negotiated the first long-term TV deal in A’s history with the greatest number of carried games in A’s history. He negotiated a deal to buy a radio station in order to devote it to the A’s and run into a foolish bankruptcy receiver. He then quickly worked out a deal to launch a new sports radio station, the first to challenge the Bay Area’s dominant station. He’s selling off properties to ensure he has equity to build a privately-financed ballpark in San Jose.

    Back to the topic at hand. You still haven’t come up with a valid reason for the similar franchise prices. The Giants say that territories were baked into the franchise prices. That’s complete BS. If that was the case, the Angels should’ve sold for $250 million or more instead of $185 million. The Dodgers were sold by Fox in 2004 for $430 million. Now that’s baking in value in the form of Dodger Stadium and surrounding real estate.

    Peter Magowan bought the Giants for roughly the same amount as the franchise fees paid for the Colorado and Florida/Miami franchises. If there was premium for T-rights, it surely didn’t show there. Until you can address the argument without dancing around it, I consider this matter closed. Good day.

Comments are closed.