KQED’s Nina Thorsen finishes off her three-part series (1, 2) on the A’s future with a San Jose-vs.-Oakland debate. Featured prominently is our own Jeffrey and his dulcit tone.
As much as I would love for this to be wrapped by the end of the owners meetings next month, it doesn’t appear that it will. That leaves us A’s fans twisting in the wind yet again. Thanks ever so much, Bud.
—–
While I was in transit yesterday, the Merc published an op-ed by Andy Dolich. In the piece, Dolich predicts that the A’s will stay in Oakland long-term.
His last gig was as an executive for the 49ers, keeping the seat warm for Jed York. Interestingly, Dolich’s job was to advocate for the ‘Stick while the Yorks pushed hard on the Santa Clara stadium plan, which undoubtedly led to some conflict. After Dolich was dismissed, he continued to advocate for a SF stadium instead of Santa Clara. Ann Killion wrote two years ago that the firing of Dolich by the 49ers would come back to haunt them and hurt the Santa Clara plan. Amazing how a winning season and help from the NFL proves pundits wrong, eh?
Dolich gets a few facts wrong in his impassioned plea. The South Philly sports complex has four teams, not three. Staples Center on its own has three team tenants. That’s not significant. I’m in complete agreement that the Bay Area can support all of the pro teams that currently reside in the Bay Area.
Reading between the lines, it looks like Dolich is appealing to someone in the East Bay to become a frontman for the Coliseum City plan – if not now, when the plan has legs. That would be a great idea assuming that Coliseum City got off the ground. It’s always good to have someone who has credibility in the sports industry, a history of past successes, and local ties. In December 2010, Dolich floated the idea of a new multipurpose stadium in Oakland, one with the technology to be less of a “neither fish nor fowl” problem than the 60’s-era stadia. I deconstructed the concept and explained why it wouldn’t work. Dolich read my post and sent me an email, which led to a very pleasant exchange on stadia and arenas. I think I even promised to meet him for lunch to talk shop, which never happened, unfortunately.
The bottom line is that it’s nice to hear someone advocating for Oakland and the East Bay, even if his office is actually in the South Bay. Those putting together a Coliseum City plan wouldn’t hurt themselves by having Andy Dolich in a prominent position. To be clear, that’s probably at least a year down the road if it happens at all.
newballpark.org 
I’m not sure what would get Bud to try to push for some mediated solution other than attempts at direct legal action between the teams or proxies, which the SJ lawsuit is, or a threat to the anti-trust exemption which exists in SJ but which is far from fruition. Does anyone thing that a concentrated campaign to get the Commissioner to act in the press from fans or big boosters would influence Bud to move? I’m trying to throw out ideas or get a sense as to what might work to get this thing to actually move.
It’s hard to think of something that hasn’t been done yet… Both Oakland and San Jose interests have sent letters. You have the SVLG pledging support to build a stadium and Let’s Go Oakland doing the same. Local politicians have reached out as well.
.
Several fans have as well.
.
I don’t think external pressure (outside of the ATE stuff) would have much bearing at this point.
Is Andy Dolich an adult? It’s hard to tell.
I think Dolich must be part of some yet unamed group. He has been on radios and TVs lately blasting the A’s especially Lew. I would not be surprised if BS is pressuring Lew and Fisher to sell the team.
One thing I can say with a fair amount of certainty… Lew Wolff and crew aren’t being pressured to sell the team.
@daniel – When the “two unnamed groups” talk initially emerged, Dolich was asked if he was part of a group and he unequivocally said no.
The Sun does not rise in the west! As such, the A’s aren’t for sale AND Selig is not pressuring Wolff to sell! Did any of you even read Seligs comments about working out a deal between the A’s and Giants? Ah, facts and reality can really be bothersome for some. Oh well…
@RM,
its one thing to “advocate” for Oakland; its quite another to lie through your teeth, make up facts and trash the South Bay at the same time. Why would the Mercury News even put that Dolich opinion on newsprint? To try and piss people off? In the end, I hope Dolich likes the taste of crow. Go A’s and Go SJ!
@Tony D. How did Dolich trash the South Bay?
The Dolich piece is nothing to get worked up about, guys. Either way, he restates what pro Oakland folks have been saying since, oh about 1996. I didn’t think there was anything particularly disparaging about the South Bay.
.
He also once said the 49ers were going to stay in San Francisco (unless I am remembering things).
Just thought I’d share this link. It’s the San Jose stadium for the Giants that never was. The venue that caused the A’s to be in the predicament they’re in today where the Giants still have the rights grant but never built this ballpark.
http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/SanJose92_R.html
Marine Layer says:
April 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM Marine Layer(Quote)
Did Drinkabout last night. It’s a free bus that runs around North Park and South Park, shuttling happy drunks around 10 different bars and restaurants. I only wish it happened more than once a month.
^^^^^^^
I lived in SD for 11 years. Did you go to the Whistle Stop in South Park area? I have friend who loves two blocks away.
Did you to go to the LampLighter?
Interesting link, Dan. If the San Jose stadium had been built, the A’s right now would be lobbying Selig to move to San Francisco, and the Giants would be claiming territorial rights.
Dan says:
April 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM Dan(Quote)
Just thought I’d share this link. It’s the San Jose stadium for the Giants that never was. The venue that caused the A’s to be in the predicament they’re in today where the Giants still have the rights grant but never built this ballpark.
http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/SanJose92_R.html
^^^^^^^^
Yep. Why MLB never revoked those crap territorial rights after AT&T was built for the Giants, still is pisses me off.
@Dan,
Thanks for posting that link. I’ve had that rendering for over a year, but (being I’m not computer savvy) never knew how to post it. Yes, in plain view for all to see: the ONLY reason the Giants have “rights” to SJ.
I actually think that ballpark looks better than AT&T Park (architecturally speaking); looks “California mission” in style. Would have been nice, but Cisco Field will quickly make us all forget what could have been.
Thanks again.
Actually Tony if I’m honest I like that SJ Giants stadium design better than any of the renderings we’ve seen thus far of Cisco Field. I think it’s the mission style architecture. Seems to really fit with San Jose more than the brick design of Cisco Field as it stands now. Hopefully Cisco Field’s design isn’t set in stone yet so to speak, which I suspect it isn’t.
Actually Dan, I’d use the same color scheme for Cisco Field as what was proposed for the SJ Giants ballpark; light green roof, pinkish facade with Spanish tiles.
Your fast Dan! Totally agree with yah 😉
In my dreams I pine for a Victorian style Oakland ballpark, but San Jose wise, I actually like the style of the axed Giants park better than Cisco field. Does anyone know what you would have seen in the backdrop of that location?
It would have been off 237 if the LA Times article I’ve read on it is correct. Up near the sewage treatment plant near Alviso. Obviously the location left much to be desired even if the ballpark design is nice. However it would have brought a smile to my face the first time the wind shifted and graced the Giants and their fans with the stink that comes off that plant and usually permeates northwest Milpitas.
Financing terms for the stadium would have been small beans compared to today as well. $155 million from San Jose, $30 million from the Giants, and the Giants would have paid the city $3 million in rent annually.
Dan says:
April 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM Dan(Quote)
It would have been off 237 if the LA Times article I’ve read on it is correct. Up near the sewage treatment plant near Alviso. Obviously the location left much to be desired even if the ballpark design is nice. However it would have brought a smile to my face the first time the wind shifted and graced the Giants and their fans with the stink that comes off that plant and usually permeates northwest Milpitas
^^^^^^^
That Giants BP in SJ would have been near where the Niners are building now correct? By the golf course.
Last post on it I swear. Looks like its total cost would have been $265 million (don’t ask me where the rest was coming from) and it would have seated 45,000 so it would have been a fair bit bigger than both Cisco Field and larger than the eventually built AT&T Park as well.
The Zanker concept would’ve required twice the amount of land that’s available at Diridon. Frankly it looks too much like The Ballpark in Arlington for my liking.
I’m hoping the current Cisco Field design is not set in stone as well. It can be improved upon….big time.
I actually liked the proposed Cisco Field Fremont BP design more than the current BP design in SJ.
dknight, no that was the earlier 1990 Santa Clara County plan I believe and it would have been practically exactly where the Niners are breaking ground this evening. This one we’re looking at was the latter SJ-only flirtation in 1992 that would have been up near where Cisco HQ are today (ironically enough).
Marine Layer says:
April 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM Marine Layer(Quote)
The Zanker concept would’ve required twice the amount of land that’s available at Diridon. Frankly it looks too much like The Ballpark in Arlington for my liking.
^^^^^^^
Too much open space in center field. Ballparks need some character outside of the outfield area…..especially if they are not near a downtown or metropolitan area IMO.
I’m hoping the current Cisco Field design is not set in stone as well. It can be improved upon….big time.
I actually liked the proposed Cisco Field Fremont BP design more than the current BP design in SJ.
In my dreams, I want to see a new Raiders Coliseum made to look like the old Roman Gladiator Coliseum but of course with a modern take.
The Santa Clara stadium site was at Great America Parkway and 237. The city actually ran a street through the parcel to “prevent” a stadium from being built there after the ballot initiative was defeated.
The Zanker drawing looks like a lot of places to me. It is a lot like Rangers Ballpark. I like the Cisco Field renderings (as a base) better than this one.
@RM,
re next months owners meeting: if the A’s aren’t on the agenda, what is? Almost all major business (except A’s) has been dealt with. Are the owners just going to stare at each other for two straight days in May?
“In my dreams, I want to see a new Raiders Coliseum made to look like the old Roman Gladiator Coliseum but of course with a modern take.”
.
Sounds kind of Soldier Field-ish.
“In my dreams, I want to see a new Raiders Coliseum made to look like the old Roman Gladiator Coliseum but of course with a modern take.”
If that means feeding Chief fans to the lions, I’m all for it.
I think Andy is right. San Jose will never be the home of the A’s.
Just like he was right about the Niners staying in SF (serious sarcasm!). What city is that groundbreaking happening at today?…
I’m not saying the A’s will be in Oakland or San Jose or wherever, but just because Dolich was wrong about the 49ers doesn’t mean he is/will be wrong about any other franchise prediction. Napoleon invaded Russia, but he was still a good general. At this point, we are all speculating.
Dolich WILL be wrong about the A’s staying in Oakland! And (again) I hope he likes his crow rare…rare but not cold!
Anyone here going to the Santa Clara groundbreaking?
@Tony D. – There are always plenty of things to discuss besides franchise movement and sales.
@Briggs – I’ve been in touch with someone who will be there. Expect pictures tomorrow.
@ eb – As I noted in the other thread, Dolich also stated that there won’t be another publicly funded stadium built in Northern California (after the Niners’ new home is built) implying that either the Raiders are 1) moving with the Niners 2) staying at the decrepit Coliseum or 3) moving down south. Do you believe him as well?
@Anon I never said that I agreed with him one way or the other. I HOPE he’s right about the A’s and wrong about the Raider’s. I’m allowed to have varying opinions and I don’t think his opinions are invalid because he guessed wrong on the 49ers. A lot of people in the know missed the mark with the Santa Clara stadium.
I don’t think Andy Dolich is particularly in the know on the A’s or Raiders situations. By in the know I mean having direct knowledge of what the ownership group is plotting and the obstackles as the ownership group sees them.
.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Dolich, he was great for my favorite baseball team when he was working for them back in the 80’s and that will always command my respect. Especially when you consider he was the only one who was able to drive good attendance in Oakland. It isn’t that others haven’t tried, it is that he was the only one who made it happen.
.
He clearly was in the know on the 49ers situation, but he disagreed with the York’s on where the team should play. I feel like his take on the A’s is more rooted in his personal opinion than his knowledge of the situation.
well, per BS, the A’s must get a new ballpark
http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_20436887/bud-selig-says-must-get-new-stadium
Beane was on 95.7 this afternoon: talked about smokes and fires, the end appears near…
I think Beane knows or maybe he hopes the resolution is near….
So is Bud going to act in the best interests of baseball and impose a solution if the Giants refuse to negotiate, or continue to act in the best interests of the Giants and do nothing?
Sufficed to say that any news in the positive San Jose direction will have a response shortly thereafter from an anti-San Jose side. The indications by Nightengale got leaks to the other reports saying that no vote would happen. Then a response that A’s were pushing the issue on the origin of the rights were met with Gnats response. Now that the A’s are pushing the issue, Dolich comes up. Its really meaningless. So lets focus on the important stuff, that MLB itself while putting things on the front burner is slow-walking this thing until the people get to the table. I just am not sure if you can nudge people to negotiations or if you need to force this into binding arbitration.
Sufficed to say, Dolich offered nothing, he planned nothing and his words are worth… well nothing. The decision is not in the purview of the diplomats, quoting Spock.
@ Daniel- missed Beane on 95.7- what was he referring to when he talked about smoke and fires?
@ML- you summed up Dolich’ objective in you last sentence- as a consultant he would love to he on the city of Oaklands payroll- does he offer any facts for his theory- nope- he is the ultimate marketer and his opinion piece was an effort to sellhis services to Oakland-
@pjk – there is no “best interest of baseball” power by which a Commissioner can change territorial rights. That is a myth. The MLB Constitution does allow the Commissioner to do a lot of things unilaterally invoking best interest of baseball. But t-rights are not one of them, and in general that power cannot be used on matters that directly impact business and franchise values.
.
That said, Bud is the one who ultimately will resolve this, or else nobody will. But Bud believes in moving at a glacial pace to nudge the parties toward consensus. I don’t think he really cares whether it takes 10 weeks or 10 years.
GoA’s-
listen here, skip the first 5 minutes or so. Beane was asked about the report
by Susan Slusser
http://957thegame.com/#