Monthly Archives: March 2012

03.07.12
by

A’s release statement on Territorial Rights

Update 9:38 PM – the Giants’ statement:

Statement from the San Francisco Giants Regarding Territorial Rights
March 7, 2012

The Commissioner has asked us to refrain from discussing the territorial rights issue publicly. Out of respect for his request, we will limit our response to setting the record straight on the history of territorial rights.

The Giants territorial rights were not granted “subject to” moving to Santa Clara County. Indeed, the A’s fail to mention that MLB’s 1990 territorial rights designation has been explicitly re-affirmed by Major League Baseball on four separate occasions. Most significantly in 1994, Major League Baseball conducted a comprehensive review and re-definition of each club’s territories. These designations explicitly provide that the Giants territory include Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Marin Counties and the A’s territory included Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The MLB owners unanimously approved those designated territories and memorialized them in the MLB Constitution. Since then, the MLB Constitution has been re-affirmed by the MLB owners – including by the A’s – on three different occasions (2000, 2005 and 2008), long after the Giants won approval to build AT&T Park. Mr. Wolff and Mr. Fisher agreed to these territorial designations and were fully aware of our territorial rights when they purchased the A’s for just $172 million in 2005.

The population of Santa Clara County alone represents 43% of our territory. Upon purchasing the team 20 years ago, our plan to revive the franchise relied heavily on targeting and solidifying our fan base in the largest and fastest growing county within our territory. Based on these Constitutionally-recognized territorial rights, the Giants invested hundreds of millions of dollars to save and stabilize the team for the Bay Area, built AT&T Park privately and has operated the franchise so that it can compete at the highest levels.

Update 5:40 PM – John Shea has reaction from the Giants:

This just came in a few minutes ago:

OAKLAND ATHLETICS

Media Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 7, 2012

STATEMENT BY OAKLAND A’S OWNERSHIP

REGARDING A’S AND GIANTS SHARING BAY AREA TERRITORY:

Recent articles claiming that Major League Baseball has decided that the A’s cannot share the two-team Bay Area market were denied by baseball Commissioner Bud Selig last weekend.

Currently the Giants and A’s share the two-team Bay Area market in terms of television, radio, sponsors and fans. Last year, the Giants opened a specialty store in the middle of the A’s market (Walnut Creek). At the time, Lew Wolff commented that he was ‘fine with the Giants store and wished there was an A’s store in San Francisco.’

Of the four two-team markets in MLB, only the Giants and A’s do not share the exact same geographic boundaries. MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. The granting of Santa Clara to the Giants was by agreement with the A’s late owner Walter Haas, who approved the request without compensation. The Giants were unable to obtain a vote to move and the return of Santa Clara to its original status was not formally accomplished.

We are not seeking a move that seeks to alter or in any manner disturb MLB territorial rights. We simply seek an approval to create a new venue that our organization and MLB fully recognizes is needed to eliminate our dependence on revenue sharing, to offer our fans and players a modern ballpark, to move over 35 miles further away from the Giants’ great venue and to establish an exciting competition between the Giants and A’s.

We are hopeful that the Commissioner, the committee appointed by the Commissioner, and a vote of the MLB ownership, will enable us to join the fine array of modern and fun baseball parks that are now commonplace in Major League Baseball.

Discuss. The emphasis is in the original release.

Added 10:29 AM – Susan Slusser has some musings.

Added 10:51 AM – Nina Thorsen is present at (and reminded me of) Oakland’s press conference regarding Coliseum City.

Updated 10:56 AM – Release updated to correct typo (“were” instead of “we”)

Updated 1:15 PM – Mark Purdy gets quotes from Wolff.

03.07.12
by

3/6/12 News Analysis

First off, a quick acknowledgement of the unanimous approval of the Kings ESC arena deal by Sacramento’s City Council. Somehow, that happened a full hour before the Oakland approved its resolutions and expenditures for the Coliseum City project. There’s still a long way to go. The $255 million that Sacramento is committing to the project is the big semi-known. If KJ and company can put a deal together that doesn’t look too risky (and force a referendum because of that risk), they’ll be in pretty good shape. There are still issues of which route the City will go to come up with the $255 million (selling parking rights vs. raising bonds), the Maloofs’ ongoing debt, and the typical EIR mitigation stuff that will be identified in the coming months. Onward and upward.

I realize that my liveblog notes from the Oakland City Council meeting are so messy that they’re nearly incomprehensible, so I’ll boil the whole thing down to its essence.

1. The Council voted for a feasibility study and EIR, not to build anything.

Just to be clear, here’s the relevant language from last week’s committee report (emphasis mine):

The ENA [exclusive negotiating agreement] with the JRDV/HKS/Forest City development team will allow private predevelopment work to proceed for Area 1. The ENA between the City and the development team is for the purpose of determining the capacity of the development team to deliver on the project, and for studying and evaluating the feasibility of a new stadium development.

In other words, it’s a start. It’s not a promise to replace the Coliseum or erect a ballpark next door. It’s about determining whether this concept, Coliseum City, actually makes sense. Speaker after speaker brought up the legacy of major pro sports in Oakland, totaling 111 years (impressive). Some brought up the soul of the city, or how teams leaving could negatively impact the next generation of Oaklanders. Problem is that all these appeals to passion and soul at least indirectly led to the bad deal that the City and Alameda County got into in the first place with Mt. Davis. Ignacio De La Fuente has been consistent in his desire not to bend over backwards for any team, and that any team that wants a deal in what he considers the best land for a stadium in the Bay Area has to be an equal, willing partner. Or in this case, three equal, willing partners. Which brings me to the next issue…

2. The City Council is couching their words.

Libby Schaaf brought up the fact that the original resolution(s) did not specifically call for a project alternative in which no new stadium is built, so she asked for a rewording and got it. This request came after just about every other Council Member other than Larry Reid and Rebecca Kaplan (who was absent) talked about the “no stadium” alternative. That’s the case where either it doesn’t make sense to build a new stadium to replace the Coliseum, or no team is interested in such a stadium, or some other set of circumstances in which a stadium can’t happen. Those in the audience didn’t want to hear it – they want to hear about progress and results – but it’s a big step forward for the City Council. Last year I wrote about the adult conversation that Sacramento was having with its residents over the Kings future. Oakland is getting closer to having their own discussion, which will be all the more painful because it will involve three teams and choosing favorites.

However, the choices won’t be as simple as “build or don’t build”. There will be an array of choices, permutations, and even sites to consider. Assistant City Administrator Fred Blackwell noted at the outset that because the redevelopment money for the Coliseum City is supposed to be confined to that specific redevelopment area, it couldn’t be used outside the project area. Then Eric Angstadt clarified that all reasonable alternatives will be studied, including sites or options that may be outside Oakland. Who’s right? I guess we’ll find out. My immediate reaction is that if redevelopment is going away from a project/operations standpoint, what does it matter what redevelopment area it’s in?

3. 980 Park and the Ghost of Victory Court

I counted two mentions of Victory Court all night, one by Larry Reid and one by a speaker. It’s almost as if VC has been wiped from people’s memories. Just 14 months ago the Council Chambers was packed to the rafters and an overflow room was needed to hold everyone for a planning commission hearing on VC. This time, a third of the audience was on hand for a different, non-sports issue on the Council’s agenda, and they left when that issue was resolved. There were few people in the balconies, and there were plenty of seats available in the chambers for latecomers. I noticed that neither Let’s Go Oakland nor Baseball Oakland heavily promoted this session, so that may have something to do with the lower turnout.

On the other hand, 980 Park rose like a phoenix. Multiple West Oakland residents spoke in favor of it. Bryan Grunwald spoke out about it, as you’d expect. Nancy Nadel mentioned that her constituents were interested in it, and Jane Brunner pushed it forward. Brunner indicated that there were discussions with city staff about 980 Park’s feasibility, so since Coliseum City’s going through a feasibility study, might as well include 980 Park, even if it’s simply to find out if it makes any sense cost or time-wise. Redevelopment funding issue aside, it can’t hurt to include 980 Park as an alternative. One speaker rightly pointed out that if Coliseum City and its Oakland Live! concept became successful, it could seriously harm the existing downtown Oakland. Cities usually don’t have two downtowns, at least not successful ones. San Jose knows this well, as they forever killed downtown’s retail growth by approving Santana Row three miles away. Downtown Las Vegas is the low-rent, shopworn alternative to the glamour of The Strip. In the next year I can see the Council ask for a full economic impact report, explaining how creating a second downtown could have a complementary or deleterious effect on the original downtown.

…

That’s it for this early morning. I have a postscript item to tack on, but that will have to wait until the business day starts. Until then, comment away.

03.06.12
by

More from Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12

Update 11:27 PM – Unanimous vote yes. Audience erupts in “Let’s Go Oakland” chant.

These are raw notes I’m taking as we go. Voting result will be posted at the top when it’s done.

Blackwell mentioned that because teams are in various discussions with other jurisdictions, plan should also include non-stadium alternatives.

Potential conflicts of interest with one contract provided for planning and development. Decoupling was necessary. So it’s #1 ENA for master planning, #2 for EIR

Urgency. A’s are actively pursuing San Jose. There are a number of obstacles. Giants have expressed opposition. Likely a public vote.

Raiders. They’ve expressed desire to stay with a brand new facility. They are being courted by a variety of interests in SoCal. NFL has been pushing a model with multiple teams playing in one stadium, which could be pursued in Santa Clara vis-a-vis 49ers and Raiders.

Warriors – have had discussions. Are farthest away from making a move. SF has been in discussions.

Funding agreement – funds came from Coliseum Redevelopment Area. Funds are limited to affecting Coliseum area, not available outside area. Funding includes a transfer of assets (redevelopment). Legislation (AB1X26) to eliminate redevelopment indicates that such transfers may be under review. According to City Attorney, actions with third party agreements should be protected from “clawback” (reclamation by state).

Eric Angstadt in response to question by Jane Brunner – Premature to say what will be studied, but all recommended alternatives will be studied in terms of project goals. There will be a report of which alternatives are studied and why. EIR process will study alternatives that are reasonable, including (potentially) sites outside of the city.

23 public speakers – No one against, do not see Bryan Grunwald. Mayor Quan wasn’t in the Chambers initially, now is in the back corner

Chris Dobbins – Save Oakland Sports

San Jose resident argues for Coliseum City as a Raider fan.

Keith Salminen – Not just Oakland’s problem. It’s East Bay’s problem. Future of the East Bay is at stake.

Dr. Death – Humbly ask to fund the studies. Can’t forget the past. 111 years of tradition gone forever. Devastating to the economy and pride. Will be expensive, but you have to spend money to make money. Project may be eligible for $40 million in TOD funds.

Black Hole guy from Brentwood

White guy in red A’s hat and Run-TMC Mullin jersey. If you get rid of the team you get rid of a big part of Oakland’s soul. What do you have left if there’s no soul?

One dissenter, didn’t catch his name – Doesn’t want two downtown Oaklands. Wants the ballpark to be down the street near downtown. Is he referring to 980 Park? Compares situation to Las Vegas with the old Vegas and The Strip.

Bryan Grunwald is here, is given 4 minutes. Supports resolution, argues for scope to be expanded. Ask to spend money on feasibility of 980 Park. Differs with Blackwell on limits of redevelopment funds. (If redevelopment ceases to exist, do the limits matter?) If there is a no-stadium alternative at Coliseum City, why not have the stadium downtown/uptown? To put all eggs in the Coliseum basket is ridiculous and a waste of public money.

Larry Jackson reminds Council that he proposed Coliseum City two years ago.

Jorge Leon spoke once, wanted to speak again but was told to sit down by Larry Reid.

Council members

De La Fuente – Supports resolutions. Understands passion of fans. We don’t have to bargain or beg for our teams because our site is the best. The teams are an asset, but they also want to be here. Can’t forget we are subsidizing the franchises for $10 million/year. We can do better next time. We are prepared to work hard, but it takes two to tango. It’s responsible to look at the no stadium alternative. We can’t force teams to stay. Hopefully we’re sending one more message tonight that we’re willing to work with MLB. Hopefully we’ll get the same in return.

Brooks – In the last year I think we’re making moves like we’re talking to the teams in a way they understand. Refers to opening of management of contracts for Coliseum, which she started.

Brunner – Congratulations Mr. Reid. He has been pushing the Coliseum (his district) as long as I can remember. The only reason we didn’t look at the Coliseum was that the A’s were saying they wouldn’t go there. I’m in total support of this. The reason I’m interested in (980 Park) is that there’s a chance that the A’s will still come back to us and say we’re still not interested in the Coliseum. Talking to staff offline, we need to understand the feasibility of doing it over the freeway. It’s good if we know the pros and cons.

Schaaf – We all want all of our teams to stay, but we don’t totally control that. We have to be mindful that there are other people who control those decisions. There will be scenarios if one or more of those teams don’t stay. Resolution does not include that kind of language, so will ask Blackwell to include it. Coliseum City doesn’t adequately describe how big it is.

(Angstadt clarifies that non-stadium alternative will be specified in the professional services contract.)

Reid – Nobody’s spent more time on this than I have. I tried to get Dan Lindheim to see it, he wouldn’t. I tried to get Jerry Brown to see it and he wouldn’t. Thanks to the Mayor and to Jane Brunner for writing the letter to MLB.

Nadel – Constituents support 980 Park as part of study.

Reid – If we do nothing then we will lose every sports franchise in our city. When we first sat down with Lew Wolff and showed him our vision of Coliseum City, he took it down to San Jose (sic) and came up with the 66th-High Street. If we give MLB two options and MLB tells him, “Here are two options, take one or put the team up for sale,” Oakland would never be the same. (Referring to Coliseum City and Victory Court). I’m glad that someone caught the vision. I just hope it’s not too late.

Unanimous vote yes. Audience erupts in “Let’s Go Oakland” chant.

On the way out I introduced myself to Bryan Grunwald and held the door for Desley Brooks as she left City Hall. If there were any winners tonight, they were Brooks and Reid.

03.06.12
by

Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12: Coliseum City Feasibilty Study

Today’s Oakland City Council meeting began at 5:30, with the non-consent part set to start at 6:30. The last item for the night is the S-13, regarding approval of a two-part expenditure for the Coliseum City feasibility study. Here’s the item as described in the meeting agenda:

Subject: Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex From: Office Of Neighborhood Investment Recommendation: Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation:
1) A Resolution Authorizing An Exclusive Negotiating Agreement With JRDV Urban International, HKS Sports And Entertainment, HKS Inc., And Forest City Real Estate Services LLC, Or Affiliated Entities, For Development Of The Coliseum City Project At The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex And Environs, And Authorizing Predevelopment Funding Of The Developer’s Planning Work In An Amount Not To Exceed $1.6 Million; And
(11-0291)

2) A Resolution Authorizing A Professional Services Contract With Lamphier-Gregory And Team Of Consultants, In An Amount Not To Exceed $1,900,000, For Services Related To The Oakland Alameda Coliseum Complex And Environs And The Oakland Airport Business Park Specific Plans And Environmental Impact Report Without Return To Council
(11-0291-1)

The Coliseum City plan is actually divided into two project areas. Area 1 is the Coliseum complex and several adjacent pieces of land, including the HomeBase acquisitions and parcels in between the complex and BART station. Area 2 is much of the land on the other side of the Nimitz, which includes Zhone among other pieces. The total expenditure of $3.5 million is relevant to Area 1, because item #1 is for the planning aspect and item #2 is earmarked for the EIR work.

Approval of the contract will give the respective parties 12-18 months to complete their work. That does not mean that further EIR work won’t be required. Any new buildings, such as a third sports venue, hotel, or office building(s) will require at the very least a supplement onto the plan EIR. It’s possible that if a new Coliseum were to replace the old one without an additional ballpark or third venue, a supplemental or additional EIR wouldn’t be needed. It’s not really worth discussing further until Oakland has to cross that bridge.

In keeping with other large scale planning and EIR work, I expect that we won’t see a draft document for at least a year. If the stakeholders, including the pro sports franchises, are interested and willing to play ball, we could see action regarding a deal after that point.

I’ll be at the meeting at 6:30 or so. Hope to see a lot of sports fans there. I’ll update this space as news comes.

Update 6:41 PM – Arrived. Council has item S-11, Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan, up right now. Below is a picture of the Council Chambers.

20120306-184411.jpg

Quick observation: Mostly Raiders gear in the not-full crowd, with a smattering of A’s and W’s garb. Obviously there’s overlap.

Update 7:04 PM – Coliseum City item is now up! And there are 43 speaker cards! Settling in. Wait, they’re dealing with the strange Desley Brooks teen center matter first. That item (S-10) has the 43 speaker cards. No hope of getting out of here before 9.

Update 8:16 PM – Quote of the night from a speaker yelling at the City Council meeting: “SHOW ME WHERE THE PROBE IS!!!!”

Update 10:08 PM – FINALLY the teen center thing is over. At least a third of the audience has left. Now it’s on to Coliseum City. 25 speakers, mercifully. This should be a slam dunk. Assistant City Administrator Fred Blackwell is describing the project.

03.05.12
by

Judge strikes down second 49ers stadium referendum

Last week, Santa Clara City Council Member Jamie McLeod hinted at a verdict in the case of City vs. referendum seekers, and it’s here: NO on the referendum. Appeals notwithstanding, there are no obstacles left for the 49ers and City to start building the $1.02 billion stadium on the Great America auxiliary lot.

Taken a week ago: Earth being moved for new sewer lines and utilities to sit under stadium. Note that safety lighting has not yet been removed.

Judge Peter Kirwan clearly sided with the City in his ruling:

In arguing their position, the city and 49ers cited past cases, saying voters only have one shot at deciding “legislative” policy issues, such as stadium construction. Any subsequent issues — like the loan — are only “administrative” acts needed to carry out the wishes of voters who approved the project in June 2010, they maintain.

If there’s a dangerous precedent, it’s that any municipality who chooses to build a stadium in the Bay Area can choose to be purposefully vague or obfuscating when writing up stadium deal terms, get a referendum passed, then fill in the blanks later. Time will tell if others use this as a template. It also remains to be seen if this actually ends up a good deal for Santa Clara years into the lease. Regardless, congratulations are in order to Santa Clara and the San Francisco 49ers, whose diligence (and a lot of help from the NFL) helped make this happen. I look forward to the open house, and will post the occasional picture as construction progresses.
03.05.12
by

The last Bill Madden post

Listen to Bill Madden’s interview with The Drive. It’s far more substantial than the one with the KNBR morning zoo.

Bill Madden is not a pot-stirrer, or at least that’s not his reputation. On the Vecsey scale of sensationalism, he’s closer to George than to Peter.

Madden’s arguments are these:

  • From reading the Major League Constitution, the fact is that the Giants’ hold over the South Bay is ingrained. Per the document, any change would have to be via a 3/4 vote of the owners and could not occur via a Selig decree.
  • Changing T-rights would create a huge precedent, which Stuart Sternberg could use to move the Rays to New Jersey.
  • Bud Selig would like to broker an agreement but Madden doesn’t know how it could be done because Giant ownership feels it would be “committing suicide”.

Confronted by the A’s denial, Madden defiantly asked, “What did I get wrong?” Well, for starters, he got the history of the territorial rights arrangement wrong, though I figure he’d probably correct that if he had the chance. There is the question of how broad an action Selig can take. Madden says that Selig can’t. Lew Wolff’s position all this time has been that it is the commissioner’s decision to make. It’s not quite that simple, however.

Selig generally doesn’t operate by decree, so it’s something of a false argument. The only time in recent memory that he has “decreed” anything was the fateful decision to end the 2002 All Star Game in a tie. Everything other decision was the basis of him lobbying owners as a group to a specific decision or endgame. Yes, some kind of agreement has to be brokered, which Madden alluded to. No one’s breaking news there. How and for what $$$ have always been the sticking points, given the Giants’ and A’s positional gulf on the matter.

Madden even concedes this:

“… Or let Lew Wolff tell me how I’m wrong. I love Lew Wolff. He’s a great guy. My personally feeling is that I’d like to see the A’s in San Jose because I’d like to see them survive. San Jose is the second (sic) largest city in California and they ought to be able to have a baseball team. The fact of the matter is, for whatever reason, Wally Haas ceded those rights to Bob Lurie. And that was the reason Bob Lurie was able to sell the Giants for $100 million.”

San Jose is actually third largest, but I can see how a New York guy can get that wrong.

Eric Davis asks the proper question in the interview,

DAVIS: To your knowledge, have the A’s been denied San Jose or not?

MADDEN: No, I never said that. See, this is the problem. Everybody’s saying that Selig said has told the A’s that they aren’t going to San Jose. I DID NOT SAY THAT. The column does not say that… Is there anywhere in therewhere I said that Bud Selig’s gonna tell them they can’t go to San Jose? I’m saying that under these circumstances they’re not going to San Jose. But it’s not Selig that’s going to tell them that. These are the circumstances.

Bill Madden, you can thank your headline writer/editor/intern/monkey for having to go on the defensive on today. To his credit, he ends the interview with perhaps his most salient point:

I’m sure the commissioner’s not very happy with me on this story. Part of the reason being I’m sure he’s hoping he could broker a settlement between these two teams. Maybe he can. Right now I don’t see that happening.

After the Madden interview ended, Brandon Tierney and Eric Davis both came to the same conclusion: Madden’s connecting dots as opposed to reporting actual news. Is it nothing? Not at all. It’s properly giving attention to the elephant in the room, which is that the A’s and Giants are miles apart on what they think Santa Clara County is worth in terms of a settlement. It’s Selig’s job to broker that deal, and he reportedly won’t start brokering in earnest until the Giants’ astroturf group drops their lawsuit in San Jose. And let’s keep in mind that the way these settlements have gone in the past, there is a baseline: settling team pays half of $75 million “fee” to infringed team, league and other 28 owners pay the other half. Giants ownership know this and want no part of it. They’d just as soon pay the A’s to leave the Bay Area completely. Then again, there is the possibility that arbitration may be in order. Neither team is a stranger to the process. Shyam Das, get ready for Selig’s call on the batphone.

03.04.12
by

Selig slaps down Madden report

The Chronicle’s Giants beat writer Hank Schulman has the scoop directly from the commish’s office:

And, it is not true that Commissioner Bud Selig and baseball owners have all but decided to uphold the Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose, which would preclude the A’s from going there.

There are two schools of thought in how the owners operate in regards to these kinds of votes. One is that like other political bodies, there has to be some amount of lobbying – direct or indirect – to garner votes. That’s what a lot of the traditional media and Oakland-or-bust advocates say is the big obstacle for Lew Wolff in getting territorial rights to the South Bay granted to the A’s.

Then there’s the other school, proffered by many in the national media and the local beat writers, that Commissioner Bud Selig pulls all of the strings politically, and that a vote is effectively a formality, a formal show of unity. I subscribe to this view because Selig’s body of work is testament to it – witness how Selig pushed through the playoffs expansion. It took longer than most expected, but he waded through it and came up with short-term (2012 only) and long-term solutions.

LIke it or not, that’s how Selig works. He did the same thing with the Astros sale and coming move to the American League. It’s not that he’s rallying votes or support. He’s making the deal, or “engaging in shuttle diplomacy” as Schulman suggests. The owners begged Selig to continue as commissioner until he’s 80 years old at $20+ million per year. They’re paying him to act as a mediator, facilitator, and a leader for their cause (and to some degree, baseball’s). He’s there because the owners don’t have to deal with political infighting while he’s the commish because he arbitrates practically every major issue on their behalf. That, folks, is how The Lodge works.

Note: Remember how Selig’s extension was voted 29-1, with John Moores dissenting? They retook the vote ten days later, and the final tally was 30-0.

03.04.12
by

More broadcast notes: Spanish broadcasts, opening series

Out of Joe Stiglich’s report about Lew Wolff’s dismissal of Bill Madden’s column, there’s a tiny nugget at the very end that’s more relevant than anything else that happened on Saturday: Spanish broadcasts of A’s games are on their way back! “A large majority” of games will be carried among three stations: KIQI 1010 AM (San Francisco), KATD 990 AM (Sacramento), and KWRU 1330 AM (Fresno). KATD rebroadcasts KIQI, and all three are owned by Multicultural Broadcasting.

Update: As mentioned by Stiglich and in the comments, Amaury Pi-Gonzalez and Manolo Hernandez-Douen will call the games.

Susan Slusser has an update on the opening series in Japan: the games will be on tape delay on MLB Network. Nothing has shown up on the MLB national broadcast schedule so far. The two games are now listed on the A’s April schedule as MLB.TV broadcasts, though those could be subject to blackouts. Slusser also mentioned that the A’s were able to scrounge up a repossessed, brand new scoreboard to use at Phoenix Muni this year. Not bad.

03.03.12
by

Bill Madden: Territorial rights will be upheld, no A’s to San Jose + Wolff response

Update 7:48 PM – BANG’s Joe Stiglich has a reaction from Lew Wolff:

“I spoke to Bud today on another matter, he didn’t bring it up,” Wolff said. “I think he would have told me if that’s the case. We talked about something else. I think he would have alerted me or the Giants if he had made a decision.”

Perhaps Bud doesn’t have the heart to break the bad news to his friend.

.

The last time NY Daily News baseball writer Bill Madden wrote about the A’s in terms of the franchise’s future was in November, just before the uneventful owner’s meetings. This is what he wrote back then:

Are the Oakland A’s finally about to know the way to San Jose?

According to baseball insiders, the reason A’s co-owner Lew Wolff, the L.A.-based real-estate developer and close personal Selig ally, is not going to be a bidder in the Frank McCourt Dodger auction (as had been frequently speculated) is because the commissioner has given him tacit assurance that his effort to move the A’s to a new stadium in San Jose is eventually going to be approved.

Once Selig completes his major accomplishment of ridding the game and liberating the Dodgers of McCourt – which hopefully will be before Opening Day – he can turn his attention to the A’s, who have been waiting more than two years for his relocation study committee to deliver its report on San Jose and the San Francisco Giants’ territorial rights there.

I followed up with a post. Now Madden’s back and his theory is that the votes aren’t there for the move. It’s better if I just quote Madden directly instead of paraphrasing:

To strip the Giants of their territorial rights to San Jose would require a three-quarters vote of the clubs, and as one baseball lawyer observed: “Clubs would realize what a terrible ‘there but for the grace of God go us’ precedent that would create in which all of their territorial rights would then be in jeopardy.” As an example of that, one can’t imagine the Yankees, Mets or Phillies voting to take the Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose away when it could conceivably open the doors for a team seeking to re-locate to New Jersey.

And that’s it. No other inside sources, named or unnamed, not even the typical political gamesmanship that A’s and Giants ownership have been playing against each other. Nevermind that Madden gets the history of Bob Lurie’s efforts to move the Giants to the South Bay wrong. It can’t happen because the big market teams feel threatened. That’s that.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons why a team in New Jersey can’t work. To wit:

  • North Jersey’s awful history of supporting the franchises associated with the state (the NY football teams don’t count).
  • The lack of a real geographic center upon which a franchise can be based anywhere in the state.
  • Generally poor, small urban centers where you might logically put a team (Newark, Trenton, Camden).
  • A lack of a grassroots effort to bring MLB to New Jersey. (Baseball in DC and NoVa helped quite a bit politically)
  • Governor Chris Christie’s starve-the-beast fiscal conservatism makes any kind of new, publicly-financed ballpark deal difficult.

To follow Madden’s logic (and the Giants, hmmm), it’s the rights to the South Bay that allowed financing for the China Basin ballpark to happen. But if that sunsets after 2017, what other obligation does baseball have to the Giants? And since I haven’t heard this question asked, I suppose I should pose it now:

If Bob Lurie had not gone after the South Bay, he wouldn’t have been granted the rights by Wally Haas. After Lurie struck out in SF for the last time and threatened to move to Tampa Bay, Magowan/Shorenstein swooped in to save the Giants. Would Magowan have asked for rights to the South Bay in 1993-96 in order to finance AT&T Park, knowing that he wasn’t actually going to build there but rather in downtown SF?

I seriously doubt that would’ve happened. The dot-com boom had not started. Google had not yet been a startup. Yahoo! was in its infancy. Apple was near death. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t yet out of elementary school. Only “old school” tech companies like HP, Intel, and Cisco were the talk of the Valley back then.

Now, if the other big market Eastern teams are the linchpin to the A’s move and they actually feel threatened, that’s one thing. That’s one argument that the anti-San Jose crowd has been promulgating for some time. That’s entirely possible. If that’s the case, all of this drama could’ve been dispensed with years ago. Let’s remember that moving the Rays to Jersey, Charlotte, Las Vegas, or San Antonio is completely different from what the A’s and Giants are doing, because:

  • The A’s and Giants already share television and radio territories, local and regional.
  • The A’s and Giants are not restricted from marketing in each other’s stadium territories.

The two situations are not comparable other than the fact that the A’s and Rays are in bad ballparks in suboptimal cities (Oakland, St. Petersburg). If Madden’s right, then the contraction talk has to begin since no other market is really in a position to make a ballpark happen for the next several years. Then again, as I’ve argued before, are the owners ready to shell out $1 billion to contract two teams, kill 10 minor league teams, invite a Congressional inquiry while MLB is growing 7% every year, and get into a major battle with the players union over potential lost salaries? That to me seems like a much more difficult battle than dealing with the issues of two teams whose total impact on the league is 5-6% annually.

If the A’s are forced to stay in Oakland and the Wolff/Fisher group sells, then it will be incumbent upon an East Bay “Magowan” to save the A’s. There will be no hometown discount franchise price. One of Bud Selig’s biggest goals is to get as much for a franchise as possible, and a discount would run counter to that. He’s also not going to allow the A’s to “make it work at the Coliseum” indefinitely, because that’s not an improvement in his eyes, and probably not for his eventual successor either.

Madden’s article is what happens when there’s nothing to report. We’re in a vacuum right now, at least until the start of the season or even May. We should let actual news push the agenda, instead of letting someone’s agenda create the news. Or, as Rob Neyer wrote,

Forcing the A’s to remain where they are is good for nobody except the Giants.

Bingo.

03.03.12
by

MLB finalizes postseason expansion

After a longer than expected set of negotiations with the players union, MLB commissioner Bud Selig got his wish of additional teams in the playoffs. One wild card team will be added to each league, with the two wild cards in each league playing each other in a one game playoff in order to advance to the divisional round.

The issue for implementing the expansion in 2012 was that the 8-team postseason schedule was already baked, making the accommodation of even one game per league difficult. Two or three Saturdays ago, one of the MLB Network shows did a segment on the logistical trickiness. Going into this year, the 2012 postseason schedule looked like this:

Postseason series schedule windows

That puts the play-in game on either the 4th or 5th, with the knowledge that the 4th may be used for a division winner playoff. It sets up a situation where, this year, an AL East team could, if tied for the division lead after game 162, play game #163 on the 4th, lose, then travel across the country to play the Angels on the 5th for the wild card playoff, then fly back across the country to host the first two games of a divisional series on the 6th. And that’s assuming that there are no makeup games to accommodate.

To alleviate some of the strain for the wild card winners, just for this year the divisional series will be held in the abhorrent 2-3 format that we detested so much in the early aughts. It’ll go back to the 2-2-1 format next year. One nice change is the elimination of the “teams from the same division can’t play each other in the divisional round” rule.

This expansion may force MLB to consider going back to the regular season schedule that next year starts on April 1/2, 2013 and ends September 29 (April 1 would be the previously traditional Cincinnati home opener). That format would allow for September 30 for game 163 and/or makeup games, a buffer off day, the wild card playoff game on October 2, another travel day, and finally the divisional series starting on Friday, October 4, 2013. If MLB got greedy and decided to make the wild card playoff game a three-game series (which I’m not against), it could also be accommodated. The old CBA calls for the “championship season” (regular season) to last anywhere from 178 to 183 days, not accounting for foreign opening days like the one being held in Japan this year. This year the season last 182 days. A switch back to what I described would be 182 days long.

As great as the last day of the 2011 regular season was, it was probably a once-in-a-generation event and not something we should expect to see regularly. This format change should work as intended, making the divisional win more valuable and making the wild card teams work harder.