Postseason Coliseum scheduling conflicts mostly averted

MLB announced its schedule for the 2013 postseason today. For the most part it’s a very tidy package, further proof that it’s better for the league to start a little early, around April 1-2, instead of April 6-7. There are always tradeoffs, such as the increased possibility of weather postponements in the spring, but overall it’s better than having the postseason extend into November. As currently formatted, the seventh game of the World Series would occur on Halloween night.

october2013

American League 2013 Postseason Schedule

The National League will get things started on October 1st with their Wild Card Game. The next day will feature the American League Wild Card game. Friday, 10/4 will kick off the AL Division Series, followed a week later by the Championship Series. October 23 is the date of the first World Series game. Remember that by virtue of the American League’s All Star Game victory, the AL representative has home field advantage, including Games 1, 2, 6, and 7 (if necessary).

Since the A’s are the only team in contention that has to worry about scheduling conflicts with a football team, naturally there was concern when the Raiders’ schedule was released earlier in the year. For the most part, the concerns have subsided. The Raiders have home games against the Chargers on 10/6, an off day during the ALDS. Assuming that the A’s make it to the ALDS, there will be a conflict of sorts in that the Coliseum’s grounds crew will have a very tight timeframe to convert the Coliseum from football to baseball (or vice-versa). Normally the conversion takes 36-48 hours. In this case, there will be 18-20 hours tops. It should be a very good demonstration of how bad the situation is for both the A’s and Raiders.

Update 6 PM – The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser notes that because the 10/6 game is between division rivals, the dates could be swapped with the game in San Diego happening first.

The Raiders also have a home game vs. the Steelers on the 27th, but that’s during the three-game middle section of the World Series scheduled for the National League park, so there’s no conflict there. The previous week is a scheduled bye week. Including the just completed NFL preseason, there will be five baseball-to-football-to-baseball conversions in a matter of three months, plus the final conversion to the football configuration for the completion of the Raiders’ regular season. Could’ve been worse.

117 thoughts on “Postseason Coliseum scheduling conflicts mostly averted

  1. I don’t see any conflict (as you stated) but a torn up field, with faded football lines would make for an awful showcase during any potential WS games (Game 6*/7*).

  2. Maybe the A’s can use AT&T Park in the post season since it wont be in use by its primary tenant. (Yes, a terrible situation both the A’s and Raiders are in; aloha!)

  3. Adam, the conflict is with the rush of doing something that takes a couple of days to do in less than 24 hours. Aside from the sheer amount of work to be done, anytime you rush this sort of thing there’s an increased risk of someone getting hurt. And the less time between the baseball conversion and a game means the sod on the field will be significantly less stable, increasing the likelihood of player injury. It’s not just an awful showcase.

  4. The Coliseum will look terrible on tv, with the yard-line residue soiling the greensward. But maybe that’ll be a good thing for the A’s in their battle vs. mlb, particularly if the A’s take the LDS this time. I hope they will.

    The City of San Jose’s opposition to the motion to dismiss its lawsuit is due this Friday. I’m particularly interested in seeing how the City’s lawyers explain an embarassing error in their complaint, pointed out on page 3 (and fn. 6) of mlb’s motion. The City’s complaint very stupidly, albeit accidentally, cited an old version of the NFL constitution for a particular anticompetitive term (an alleged single-club “veto power”) but claimed that the provision actually appears in the current mlb constitution. Apparently, whoever drafted the complaint for the City got confused after reading the old circa-1984 Raiders case. Very dumb play. Imagine it’s the first inning, with a runner on third, one out; the batter hits a fly ball to LF, played nicely by the left fielder, who then tosses the ball into the stands because he thinks there are two outs. True, it’s only the top of the first; not the end of the world. But the Cotchett firm wanted publicity from its contingent-fee adventure, and I doubt this is what they had in mind.

  5. It’s been a long time, and I only vaguely remember the case, but I remember thinking that Cotchett on the civil side was kind of like F. Lee Bailey on the criminal side, great at publicity but not first-rate when it came to the details.

  6. ML, little off topic, but is new stadium/former shared stadium related. According to avowed public stadium funding opponent Neil DeMause over at Field of Schemes it looks like the Niners are on track to realize a $100 million annual profit in their new stadium beyond paying all their obligations on the new stadium (which as we know they financed the lion’s share of). And that’s before they’ve even factored in things like parking revenues and concessions. Any doubt that Santa Clara made the right decision by funding their portion of that stadium should be dead at this point, as should any doubt that the south bay can support a sports team (though why anyone would have doubted that given the success the Sharks have had is beyond me). It’s going to be so successful financially for the parties that even Neil is having to admit that it wasn’t a bad move by Santa Clara and was one of the rare instances where public funding worked out for the best.

    Just more fuel to the fire that is the A’s reasons to move to the south bay in addition to the inevitable field embarrassment the A’s will suffer through if/when they make this post-season.

  7. @xoot- the real embarrassment here is for bs who failed to do his job and make a decision. As the ‘9ers rake in cash in their new stadium they show everyone the economic strength of Siicon Valley. That could have/should have been the A’s to be first out of the ground and MLB rather than the NFL would have looked genius- but then again it’s run by a guy who has zero vision and zero balls-

  8. Selig allows the Giants to dictate that the A’s will be stuck losing money in an obsolete, sewage-spewing football stadium while the lucrative South Bay goes on sans an MLB team. Enjoy the Raiders logo on the field during the playoffs, Bud.

  9. @xoot,
    Your “legal” opinion is tainted with love for your Giants, so whatever you say re the city of SJ or Cotchett should be taken with a huge (I mean HUGE) grain of salt..

  10. @tony, my legal “opinion” only recounts the facts. This is the fairly amusing passage from the motion to dismiss:

    “Despite Plaintiffs’ assertions, this process does not grant any Club ‘absolute veto power over the relocation of a competitive team within its operating territory.’ fn6”

    “fn.6 Plaintiffs cite to nonexistent Articles 4.2 and 4.3 of the Major League Constitution . . . . Defendants can only speculate about what Plaintiffs were referring to when citing statements that do not exist in the Major League Constitution; perhaps it is no coincidence that ‘Article 4.3’ was the provision of the NFL Constitution that was challenged by the Raiders and once contained a veto provision. [citation to the 1984 9th Circuit Raiders opinion].”

  11. Five baseball-to-football-to-baseball conversions?! Doesn’t it cost something like $250,000 for just one of those?

  12. @Chicks Dig The Bunt on Good point, I dont know the cost, but it must really add up. If you put the changing of the tarps on top of that bill, it gives you reasons 999 and 1,000, as to why this situation stinks.

  13. “OK crew, time to take off the green A’s tarps and put up the black Raiders tarps!” It all sounds like a Monty Python skit. It’s just a question of how much longer will the NFL and MLB continue to do nothing about this situation – football played on a baseball infield, baseball played on a torn-up, marked-up football field, and the host city not having the money to pay for new facilities.

  14. It figures that the last stadium hosting both the NFL and MLB would be the one of the few multipurpose stadia that did not have the easy to convert massive movable seating sections that changed with the flip of a switch nor artificial turf which could actually take the punishment of the changeover.

    Oh and in case anyone missed it our division rival Angels just got some good news. Despite playing in a stadium te same age as the Coliseum, they’ve always had a better situation due to Angel Stadium having a far superior, almost modern design. And it’s about to get worse. The Anaheim city council last night agreed to let the team drop the oft mocked “of Anaheim” from their names and have entered negotiations to keep the Angels in Anaheim by further upgrading and renovating Angel Stadium to keep it on par with the stadiums built since the last renovation in the mid-90s as well as to fix underlying issues that the last renovation didn’t deal with or that have developed since then. And it’s only going to cost the city dev rights around the park.

  15. Can someone clarify what the color shading on the Oct. calendar picture above represents?

    OT: I’m unfortunately traveling on both 10/30 & 10/31. I’ve crossing my fingers that the A’s can win it in 5. I’m fairly certain I would emotionally (and likely physically) die if I missed the A’s winning the World Series.

  16. Wouldn’t it be nice to see a tarp free upper tier at the Coliseum, if the A’s could make it to the WS. That fact, along with what would be the most likely to be deplorable field conditions, also. These scenarios would be the best free publicity for both the A’s and Raiders regarding their respective current unacceptable stadium situations.

  17. I agree, ilpec. But it won’t change the fact that there is no public financing available for new facilities, private financing is not feasible in Oakland and neither the owners nor the two leagues are going to charitably donate new facilities (and deal with the precedent that sets up). If there is one city that should be expected to pay for new facilities on the public dime, it would be Oakland. MLB subsidizes the A’s and does not profit from them. The Raiders are ranked dead-last in franchise value in Forbes. But there is no public dime to be had, unfortunately. In other states where there tend to be just one big league team, the state steps in and pays. But in California, cities are expected to go it alone. All this points to the writing on the wall that nobody wants to read – moving the two teams to other cities. But to where? LA doesn’t have its act together (yet) and San Jose, the obvious solution for the A’s, has been designated a colony under control of the Giants.

  18. …Maybe the A’s and Raiders should talk to the NFL Jets and Giants about their interchangeable signage solution and see if it can be applied to tarps – use a single tarp that can electronically switch from green and “A’s” to black and “Raiders.” Instead of removing, storing and reapplying two different tarps, there could be one permanent tarp.

  19. Or they could just dismantle the upper reaches of Mount Davis.

  20. Considering the scoreboards the A’s are still using, I doublt anyone would drop a dime for demolition costs of the unused Mt. Davis seats.

    I’ve been saying this for years, but now that Mt. Davis’ top deck is unused year-round, they need to project visuals on it… A’s/Raider greats, logos, etc. It’s a blank canvas waiting to be used.

  21. @Briggs – The different colors represent the different series (though the Wild Card game has the same color as the ALDS). The darker shade of each color (with white text) shows the guaranteed games, the lighter shade (with black text) displays extended series games.

    Blue: Wild Card + Division Series
    Green: League Championship Series
    Red: World Series

  22. The upcoming postseason will prove how badly the A’s need a new ballpark, but be prepared: the sorry sap traditional Bay Area media will point to the packed Coliseum as “proof” that Oakland can support the A’s, even if most in attendance aren’t from The O proper. Brace yourselves…

  23. 16K last night for a game with huge division implications in September, along with free parking, is all the proof you need that tarps are a good idea. We don’t see that story much, but when the playoffs come, you’ll read all about amazing attendance and fan support. That game needed more fans, not more seats.
    It’s pretty amazing the dance that has to be done in order to appease two teams. Could the Raiders just dig in and say no, it’s our game, and you all just worry about it? Not sure what the politics of such a move would be.

  24. We’ll more another round of “If Lew Wolff won’t build in Oakland, he should sell to someone who will,” without any mention that no one has ever documented the existence of such a person.

  25. The latest news makes things even more frustrating. “Source says labor agreement, has been reached to use union workers in construction of Kings Arena”, or “Anaheim City Council votes 4-1 to enter lease talks with Angles, over stadium redo”. It’s hard to get big projects done, especially in California but it is not imposable. It’s just not happening in Oakland, or San Jose. (Thanks to the SF Giants and MLB).
    @pjk
    Re: We’ll more another round of “If Lew Wolff won’t build in Oakland, he should sell to someone who will,” without any mention that no one has ever documented the existence of such a person.
    Well one more another round of “why are they picking on Lew because his rich”, even though no one, who post here regularly has picked on Lew for that reason at all.
    There are two sides to every story ( and probable ten to this one), and one of the solutions, is indeed Lew selling to an interested party, that would build in Oakland (weather you know, who that person is or not), Lew new San Jose was off limits when he bought into the ownership group, I am not saying its fare I wish they would open up San Jose, but it’s not like Lew did not know what he was getting into, he siting there crying about not being able to build in a place, he know full well that he may be confined to. I am not into the San Jose vs. Oakland thing, I readily admit it can be done , and probable done better in San Jose, but Its can be done and done rather well in Oakland. We always talk about SF Giants/MLB holding San Jose hostage, but Lew is doing a pretty good job on Oakland, as well (and yes I know full well Oakland politicians s have been a big part of the problem.)

  26. Speaking of Playoffs coverage, did it driving anyone else NUTS that Game 2 of the ALDS required having the MLB Network? I really hope the A’s aren’t one of the two ALDS games on the MLB Network.

    I’m happy with the quality of TBS’ coverage. I wish ESPN still carried some Division Series. FOX’s coverage is so stale. There are apparently human beings who like Joe Buck. That’s the only explaination I can come up with for having him broadcast the World Series apparently until the end of time. Bob Costas isn’t getting any younger, FOX. Do the right thing.

  27. Lakeshore: I believe Lew was recruited by his lifelong friend Selig to buy the A’s and get a new ballpark done in their current territory. After at least 5 years of trying (North of Coliseum and then Fremont), Wolff’s conclusion was it was not doable. (Not counting, of course, the magic billionaire scenario of some rich guy coming in and building without regard to making a return on his investment.) Wolff invited MLB to come to the Bay Area and see for itself. Selig formed the so-called Blue Ribbon Committee in March 2009 to take Wolff up on his offer. It is now August 2013 and that committee has not reported anything to contradict Wolff’s findings. No viable site, no financing have been found. End of story.

  28. re: but Its can be done and done rather well in Oakland

    …if this were the case, why hasn’t the Blue Ribbon Committee come forward with a plan to get it done in Oakland and end Selig’s decade-long A’s nightmare? Why have no investors come forward eager to buy the A’s and build in Oakland? I’m not talking about Knauss, who hasn’t actually offered to buy the A’s and only cited two anonymous (of course) groups who would be willing to take a look at it…FWIW, I’ve never heard Wolff “crying” about the situation.

  29. Pjk I love how you conclude with comments like “end of story”, or on another occasion it was “nuff said”, like because you said it that’s it… Right pjk you’re the last word guy, you said it, therefore it must be true. I could go on all day with you (and believe me I have a response for everything too), but ML would probable slap both our hands. Look I actually agree with some of the comments you write, and find some of them insightful at times, as well, but nether you or I know the hole sorry, or even half of it, so cane we leave it at that.

  30. Lakeshore: If you have a viable plan to get a new ballpark done in Oakland, I’m sure the BRC and Selig would love to hear it. They’ve been looking for years and have come up empty. That much is a fact – or else, we’d have had a deal done and construction at least started, if not already completed. Instead we have zilch: No plan, no site, no financing. I’d be happy to take the day off and attend the groundbreaking in Oakland.

  31. @pjk
    I would be happy to attend a ground breaking, anywhere in the Bay Area. I am certainly with you on that.

  32. Regarding the tarps:

    My biggest concern with removing them for the possible-ALCS is that the Coliseum won’t sell out. It’s happened before.

  33. Yes, I remember attending an A’s playoff game some years back where there were empty, uncovered Mount Davis seats and of course the news media honed right in on that – “Empty seats at A’s playoff game.” It was a bit aggravating, since those were obstructed-view seats for baseball. Once the ball went deep in the outfield, no one in those seats could see the action.

  34. Briggs, why is that a concern? A non-sellout would just be more fuel to argument that they need to move. I’d welcome such an embarrassment for the good of the franchise and actually hope to see it happen.

  35. When it comes to playoff games, the East Bay and Frisco media will use the same no-win-for-Wolff arguments:
    * Playoff game sells out, proving the A’s can make it in Oakland (with no mention of the overall long history of poor attendance).
    * Playoff game does not sell out, proving Wolff has so alienated and disrespected the A’s fan base that he needs to sell the team to someone who will build in Oakland.

  36. Love the Lew Wolf needs to sell talk. Shouldn’t it be Fisher needs to sell not Wolf since Wolf is just the face of management? Good series against the Rangers taking 2/3, but I was pretty disappointed with the crowd I saw on my Direct TV. Maybe instead of tarp removal, the A’s need to have more gimmicks like bobbleheads and fireworks show to bring in the crowds.

    OT

    Wouldn’t it be awesome if Fisher brought Celtic F.C to play the Earthquakes in SJ since he has stakes in both teams?

  37. Fewer than 19,000 today. Must be the poor marketing, of course…

  38. @pjk Yes indeed poor marketing is part of the probem, not 100%, not 90%, but if its only 2%, its part of the problem. That is on ownership.

  39. “Poor marketing” = lame excuse to cover up the fact that the East Bay is not and has never been a great baseball market. Like I said before, it’s a chance to blame the owners, owners, owners and excuse the East Bay residents for not showing up.

  40. @pjk,
    Look, I’m as pro-SJ as they come, but I have no doubt that if a new A’s ballpark existed in Oakland, complete with Safeco-like amenities, it would be successful, ie packed with A’s fans. Of course, getting that new yard built in The O is another story rehashed here far to many times, so I won’t start. 19k for our playoff bound A’s is due to the venue, plain and simple.

  41. Tony: History doesn’t necessarily support that contention. The A’s in the early 1970s had a great ballpark and World Series-winning teams. And still, the seats were empty. A bank asked to finance a $500-$700 million ballpark in Oakland is going to look at this attendance history and say “Thanks, but no thanks.”

  42. ““Poor marketing” = lame excuse to cover up the fact that the East Bay is not and has never been a great baseball market. Like I said before, it’s a chance to blame the owners, owners, owners and excuse the East Bay residents for not showing up.”

    Of course the same could be said for San Francisco in 1996.

  43. The are very few “good markets” if the definition of that is drawing well in good years and bad to a crappy multi-purpose stadium in a crappy part of town, with an owner taking every opportunity to make it clear he is moving.

  44. Giants owners could point to strong TV ratings and strong radio ratings and the notion that Candlestick truly was an awful place to see a game and that all that was needed was a good stadium. The A’s TV and radio ratings, I believe (ML, correct me if I’m wrong) have always paled in comparison to the Giants. The A’s ballpark didn’t move into the bottom-of-the-barrel status until the construction of Mount Davis and new ballparks for most of the other teams. The Coliseum also never has had the freezing Candlestick cold to keep people away…FWIW, the owner is only looking to move about 35 miles. But San Jose might as well be San Antonio for some folks. Remember what the 49ers said? That they were not moving the team, they were moving the stadium? They are moving further from Candlestick than the A’s are from the Coliseum (if San Jose ever happens). Yet the 49ers moving two counties away gets a big yawn while the A’s one-county migration is viewed as a devastating abandonment.

  45. Lots of teams drew poorly in the 70s – I wasn’t around, I don’t know why it was so different then. Next time the A’s got good, they were one of the highest drawing teams in baseball (88-92). The Coliseum is plenty cold at night as well.

    Football is different than baseball. If baseball teams played once a week on Sundays, and they were still going to be called the Oakland A’s, of course people would feel differently. As it is, it might as well be San Antonio for me, because I’m not driving to San Jose to go root for the San Jose A’s.

  46. @Tim,
    To counter: if the city of Oakland had its act together financially and politically for an A’s ballpark over the past 16 years (not just holding pep rallies and drawing lines on a map), Wolff wouldn’t need to be talking about moving his team a mere 35 miles. Playing in a nearly 50 year old concrete edifice smack middle in an industrial wasteland, all while a baseball cathedral exists 11 miles away in a hip urban district= low attendance for a playoff bound team. It’s not the owner or the market..

  47. So, naturally we all want the A’s to win the World Series because that would kick ass like totes mcgoats. However, getting that deep into the post season would really give us a lot of data to chew on like how well the Coliseum plumbing can handle several high attendance games over a short span.

    Also, pricing of the top deck seats and how many will be walk-up/day-of sales. That’s the sort of stuff I hope we’re chewing on in November while we bask in the best World Series victory ever. That is, if pennant fever doesn’t claim any lives this year.

  48. @Tony – Correct. I did not address the ability of the East Bay to finance a new stadium or the competence of Oakland public officials. But it is a little more complicated than pointing to low attendance at the Coliseum and saying ipso facto, the market won’t support an MLB team and they need to move to San Jose.

  49. Any season ticket holders here? I have a question. What date did Postseason tickets go onsale for you? Do you know when 2014 Postseason tickets go on sale for season ticket holders? Thanks.

  50. edit: What date did 2012 Postseason tickets go on sale for you last year? Do you know when your option to purchase 2013 Postseason tickets date is?

  51. re: if the city of Oakland had its act together financially and politically for an A’s ballpark over the past 16 years

    …instead, it’s been Jerry Brown firing Robert Bobb for devising a ballpark plan, Ron Dellums doing less than nothing and Jean Quan doing nothing but holding pep rallies and press conferences, drawing lines on a map and coming up with some neat drawings of a stadium development plan with no way to pay for any of it. But I think the bottom line is Oakland simply doesn’t have the resources – land or money-wise – to accommodate major professional sports teams anymore. It’s a struggling city of 400,000 people in a state that won’t pay for stadiums. Do the math on what that means.

  52. @Tim,
    Totally agree with your last post.
    @Briggs,
    WS Championship! You’re also speaking my language brah. Must hit beach; Aloha!

  53. @Tim
    Thanks, I have been trying to point out for a long time, that there are many factors that go into this three city (San Francisco, Oakland San Jose), two MLB (A’s, Giants) team soap-opera, then, the here is an obligatory list of attendance (exhibit A#, as to why the A’s can’t succeed here ), and it proves thus and so.
    The A’s situation is multifaceted, with political powerbrokers, and wealthy heave hitters, that probably run a lot deeper then we think. Tony D. maid a good point last week, he said something to the effect that we all want the same thing, and regardless of whether a person would like to see it in San Jose, Oakland, or Fremont, I believe we all want to see it in the Bay Area, and we are all subject to being frustrated about the situation. If I could devoice myself, from all of this I would, but like the rest of you I love the A’s, So I say Let’s go San Jose, Oakland, Fremont Athletics!!!, or lets go Oakland, San Jose, Fremont Athletics!!!, or lets go Fre….. Well you get the picture; let’s just get our Safeco, please.

  54. @Tony D.
    Aloha!, Kick It Big, my friend.

  55. Well we don’t all want the same thing – I don’t want a new stadium in San Jose. I would much prefer the status quo over that outcome.

  56. @ Tim- Sorry, we all would like the A’s to have a new home, in the Bay Area?, well most of us do. I must ask, why would you want the status quo?, I am as pro-Oakland, as you can find, but if your saying you would rather the A’s stay at the Coli, for 10-20 years more, then to move to San Jose, then that is where we part ways, status quo at the Coli, man you must really hate the idea of the A’s in SJ.

  57. 2012 single game Postseason tickets went onsale on 9/17 at 10:00AM PST. So, we can guess that 2013 Postseason tickets will go onsale in 11 days, on 9/16.

    OT: HOU, LAA and MIN are the remaining home games, also the A’s will most likely clinch their Postseason spot on the road. I guess we won’t see that attendance bump. Being +3k over 2012’s attendance average is nice considering attendance is down league-wide, but that’s swelling, not growth. I’m disappointed they won’t reach 2m in attendance.

  58. @Briggs- Yeah I fill you on that disappointment.

  59. Marine Layer wrote about this here.

    It’s definitely time to remove the tarps on the top deck, or at least open up a few more sections like 324 to 309 to correspond with the Plaza and Field Infield levels.

  60. @Briggs–we just played the most significant series of the year against the division leaders (at the time) and what did we average…less than 19k fans per game–why in the world would anyone think of adding more seats when near 50% of those that are available are empty?

  61. @GoA’s: Because why not? I’m just talking about opening up a few more sections on the View Level. Initially, one goal of the tarps was to compress the fans’ purchasing options to give the games a more “intimate” feel. You and I have been to enough games since 2005 to assess the effectiveness of the tarps in that regard.

    If the only argument level is that the tarps look better than empty seats, then that’s purely subjective. The tarps were an experiment. They’ve likely gathered all the data they needed. The tarps upset more people than they please. I can’t think of a good reason not to experiment with opening up a few more View Level sections. Can you?

  62. @GOA’S

    “adding more seats when near 50% of those that are available is empty”?

    When you say “adding, it’s not like they have to build more seats, as we all know they only have to un-tarp small sections, sections that would sale better than the 50% of seats that are available. What could it hurt; the seats are not being sold anyway? I think we can all agree that the tarp experiment did not work. What’s the harm, especially if were talking about removing them for games (playoffs Giants/Yankees fireworks), that you know you would get bigger crowds if you were to do it. I realize it really would not help the bottom line (it would only decrease revenue sharing checks), but it would add to average attendance, and perhaps encourage some in the fan base.

  63. Re: Removing the tarps

    Why increase the supply of something for which there is already little demand?

  64. re: I think we can all agree that the tarp experiment did not work.

    …How did it not work? I can see removing them for playoff games but that;s about it. Why do we want 30,000-40,000 empty seats at A’s games? Isn’t 15,000-20,000 empty seats a night enough? Or should the A’s charge sub-San Jose Giants minor league prices for the uncovered seats just to fill the building? Major League Baseball at minor league prices. That’ll really make MLB want to stay in Oakland, right?

  65. @pjk Because the supply is already there, and it cost you nothing to use it. We all know the sections, in question, may sale good under the right situations (playoffs, Giants, Yanks), and as I stated befor your comment (question), it would not hurt to build a little goodwill, when you have had a misstep, or two toward some in the fan base.

  66. Aren’t free parking Tuesdays, free hot dog Wednesdays (or is it Thursdays?), $2 ticket sections, bobblehead giveaways, jersey giveaways, numerous fireworks displays, tickets at a fraction of what the Giants charge enough goodwill gestures toward the fans? The A’s have done everything they can possibly do to get the people in and they don’t show. Because they are in a weak baseball market…

  67. One other gesture of goodwill: The team is in FIRST PLACE. They had a huge series this week against their biggest division rival and the place was still half-empty.

  68. @pjk Yeah- If you notice, I said I was unhappy about that myself.

  69. @pjk I agree with you, the A’s have done a lot, to bring in the fans. It seems they have done more then most MLB teams. Like I have said befor, there is a lot of blame to go around, and I am not happy, with the same things that you are not happy with (other then perhaps Lew Wolff), but it would take no cost and little effort to remove some of the tarps, it would be a good thing to do.

  70. It’s not “free” to open up sections. Someone has to staff those areas with ushers and concessions. But your right on one point- the experiment to create a supply and demand issue didn’t work because there are not enough fans willing to go to the Coli on a regular basis. .it would be rather hilarious to see the article about how the A’s untapped the seats so the 20k they average had more room to spread out….and remind me why no call for the raiders to remove the tarps?

  71. Perhaps what the tarping has proved is the A’s didn’t go far enough with it? Almost the entire upper deck is tarped and there are still thousands of empty seats most nights. And yes – I also am waiting to hear Mark Davis skewered for tarps the way Lew Wolff has been…

  72. @GoAs Your correct, its not free to uncover the tarps, but its also true that its not free to cover the seats with the tarps eather. No call for the Raiders to uncover the tarps? Well lets see, hum, one point would be they just did it, when Wolff first came up with this idea, I for one was not appose to it, I wanted to wait and see how it would work, its been, what like 8 years?. another point would be I personaly dont think Davis would drive down attendance to move,(no matter how little), Wolff, on the other hand I am not so sure. another point would be, I fill if Davis had a big game (playoffs), and he thought he could sell more seats, the tarps would be off in 2 seconds, it would not take the NFL to tell him to take them down, like Wolff was told by MLB he would have to if the A’s went any further in the playoffs last year.

  73. Lakeshore: If Wolff wanted to drive down attendance, why not put a last-place team on the field, raise prices and have no giveaways? That ought to do it. Instead, he’s doing the exact opposite and still getting blamed when the people don’t show up. There are some folks who simply are not going to be satisfied until Wolff or some other owner acts like Wally Haas and freely loses lots of money on the franchise.

  74. @pjk/GoAs this Davis.vs Wolff thing is crazy, I dont like or hate eather man, for eather of you to sugjust to compare is odd to me. I think we have all commented here enough times for you to know me a little, I was commenting on somthing Briggs said earlier about a small section of the tarps, and I thought it would be a good idea, to take them down DOG sorry, is someone around here in Lew’s family, or what.

  75. @pjk Not all the blame, I would give him anywhere between 5%-10%, judging from your comments, I would say you give him none and guess what, thats fine with me.

  76. @LSN–no–not in LW’s fam–nor do I like LW being the “reason” behind the A’s attendance failures in Oakland. I find the “victim” mentality of the oakland only folks annoying…if LW was the horrible owner that some of you claim then as pjk suggested he could easily field a shitty team every year–like the Raiders–who btw are last in the 2013-2014 power rankings and whose owner is tarping seats and whose owner is looking for a handout from oakland or he will move to another city—I’m sure that’s LW’s fault also–

  77. Wow, if eather of you think I blame that much on Lew you have eather not read my comments, or your last name is Wolff, if you have a problem with the Oakland-only people, that much dont read that into what I write, or lump me in with them. I have issues with that group myself. Anyway its been fun our team is down early, its late where I am have a good night.

  78. Wolff btw has not asked for a handout from Oakland. He just wants to move a whole 30 miles where private financing is feasible. But nope, he and John Fisher are expected to build in Oakland no matter how much $$ they would lose.

  79. pjk I never said anthing like that, I am sure there are people that fill that way, I am not one of them, if you read any of comments, I would think you would know that. I guess its my own fault, I keep responding to you. good night, and this time I mean it.

  80. Go A’s, I don’t ever remember ushers in the 300 level when it was fully open. If there were, they were one or two around 317, leaving the rest of the deck to anarchy, which was great.

    They probably spend more now putting the one usher on each side to keep people out of the verboten zone.

  81. FWIW, it’s frustrating to watch how the A’s have descended from being able to phone in games against the Astros to being virtually unable to beat them anymore. All these losses piling up against the Astros could have the A’s sitting in front of their TV sets at playoff time instead of playing.

  82. It costs money and time to put up the tarps and maintain them. There are also storage costs. The 300 level uses the same concourse as the Plaza level, which are closed on most weekend games as is. There are going to be thousands of empty seats whether the tarps are there or not.

    Can you honestly say your personal game experience is any better or worse before & after the tarps have gone up? I’m not opposed to the tarps– never have been. All I’m saying is that it’s kind of pointless having them up. If removing them will ease tensions with the fans who think that Wolff/Fisher are sabotaging Oakland’s status, then remove them.

  83. It is better to have tarps than to have tens of thousands more empty seats. This is all part of the writing on the wall that no one wants to read and the question no one wants to ask: Is Oakland really a major league sports market? It has a nearly-50-year-old stadium that desperately needs to be replaced by two state-of-the-art facilities, but the city can’t even think about a huge expense like this. And there are not enough fans to fill the stadium for the A’s and Raiders on a regular basis. So we have these embarrassing tarps.

  84. @Briggs, You can’t suggest a miner thing like removing a small portion of the tarps (even if cost effective, or cost neutral); you may be accused of blaming the next world war on Lew Wolff.

  85. Hay, there’s some grate news about Lew volunteering at the St Vincent DePaul/ Alameda Co., I think that’s wonderful and a good opportunity build up some goodwill.

  86. Yes, I saw that the other day, with Wolff volunteering. The A’s have always been community-minded, supporting juvenile diabetes research, sponsoring exhibits at Oakland Zoo, etc. Unfortunately, all this goodwill has not translated into any urgency on the part of the city or county to get the A’s a new stadium, simply because the city and county don’t have the money.

  87. @pjk Yeah, they dont have the money, but its more then that. If they had the money, given there history, I am not sure how much the would do about it.

  88. BTW: @pjk you are correct about the A’s work away from the field, its a shame that it has not been rewarded with more help (money or othwise), the Oakland pols dont seem to want to do anything, even if they could.

  89. Lakeshore: As I’ve mentioned before, it’s as if the Oakland politicians over the years have been proud to do nothing for the A’s.

  90. In their defense, Oakland politicians have often had better/more important things to worry about and spend their time on than the A’s.

  91. Tim: There is an expectation that cities with major league teams are supposed to, shall we say, tend to the teams’ needs while reaping the economic benefits of hosting a team. In Oakland’s case, the A’s have received nothing but neglect from the city. Maybe that’s all it can offer now… Like I’ve said, MLB charitably keeps the A’s in Oakland, subsidizing them rather than profiting from them. Oakland would seemingly have little leverage against MLB in this situation…

  92. @Tim/pjk
    Re: In their defense, Oakland politicians have often had better/more important things to worry about and spend their time on than the A’s.

    I here you man, but that gets tired, its an honor to be a host city for an MLB franchise, and every city in America has more better/ more important things to do. Look at Detroit, and St Louis (city’s up there every year, with Oakland in national crime rankings), both of those cities have found ways to get new sporting venues, and we know Detroit has more important things to do. Oakland. Like I said yesterday I am the biggest Oakland support around, but look at Oakland’s political history concerning the A’s, and there is no way around it’s a shame the lake of political support the A’s get.
    With the current governor, and former mayor of Oakland Jerry Brown, if I did not know any better I would think he was on the San Francisco Giants payroll. It was not enough, that he not only did not work with the A’s past two ownership groups, he actually worked against them (uptown housing development), when he was the mayor, but as the governor he abolished, city redevelopment agency’s, which is one of, if not the only way Oakland could help with a new stadium. Then you have Ron Dellums, who was literally and figuratively asleep on the job. Then there is the lovable Jean Quan, whom is very adept at throwing pep rallies, but nothing more. When are we going to have the adult conversation, which ML talks about? I wish Robert Bobb would run for the mayor’s office, since he is the only Oakland politician, in recent memory that was actually trying to get something done in a constructive manner. With Oakland’s luck, the governor would find some way to actually fire (for a second time), the mayor (if it was Bobb), (I now it’s not possible just kidding), Hell you could even take it back to the Wilson administration at Oakland’s city hall, that’s like 35- 40 years, t’s no wonder Lew Wolff will not talk to them, although he is not helping the situation by not doing so.
    BTW: Please no, why are you blaming Lew for everything responses. I am ONLY saying he is not helping the situation, by refusing to talk to Oakland that’s all. These things are not mutually exclusive; two things can exist at one time. I know it may be difficult for some of us to understand, but O.J. can commit a double murder, and Mark Furman can be a racist at the same time, believe it or not.
    If Oakland has better/more important things to do after nearly 40 years, then they need to give San Jose a shoot, I am sure no matter what they have to do’ they will make the space for the A’s.

  93. Lakeshore: Wolff HAS talked to Oakland and apparently all it’s ever offered is the same old “Here’s two already-rejected sites for you and you’ll need to have your checkbook handy because we’re not going to help you pay for this.” So what’s the point of hearing the same old thing over and over? Yes, if Oakland can’t help the A’s then it’s time for Oakland to throw in the towel, instead of releasing fantasy drawings of unfunded stadium development proposals and holding pep rallies and press conferences.

  94. @pjk your correct, he has and he may have to do it again, if MLB will not let him move to SJ (and SJ vs MLB does not work out), I guess he could just open talks with Fremont for a second time, and I would be fine with that. You pjk I am going to be mad as hell if they leave the Bay Area.

  95. @pjk
    “You pjk I am going to be mad as hell if they leave the Bay Area”
    Sorry I was trying to say: You know (pjk), I am going to be mad as hell, if the leave the Bay Area.

  96. If MLB won’t let him move to San Jose and a new ballpark in Oakland is not doable, as appears to be the case (how many more years does MLB need to spend looking at this to convince the “Lew lied, he never tried” crowd?), then the A’s either get contracted or moved out of the Bay Area. Fremont is done.

  97. @pjk
    Man I sure hope your wrong about Fremont, if it is dead, I hope they can revive it, because at the end of the day, it may be the last hope we have at keeping them in the Bay.

  98. @Lakeshore: For now, I wouldn’t worry about the A’s leaving the Bay Area. There are two cities very vocal about wanting them. For now, the chances of the A’s leaving the Bay Area is slim-to-none. I don’t know about you, but my biggest A’s-related worry right now is winning the division.

  99. re: There are two cities very vocal about wanting them

    * San Jose, which for the time being is forbidden from hosting them.
    * Oakland, which can’t do what it takes to get a new ballpark done and maintains the team in a decaying, sewage-spewing football stadium that is nearly a half-century old.
    …None of this sounds very promising.

  100. @Briggs Thanks, It’s not that I am worried about it so much, just tired more than anything. I have wondered what it would be like if I grew up in New York, Boston, or perhaps Chicago. It must be real nice not have to really wonder if your team is going to move away, from the area that you grew up in.
    I know teams have moved from those places I think the NFL Cardinals started in Chicago, the MLB Braves in Boston, and as we all know the MLB Giants, and Dodgers in NY, but even when teams left those places (mostly because exploding population, as the country grew and moved west), Oakland is not like that, if they lose the A’s they will not get another shot at an MLB team, and I can live with that if they its San Jose, but if they move out of the Bay Area there will not be another Bay Area MLB (other than the Giants), team , with the Raiders moving to LA, I was in high school at the time, as a young person you don’t always get the economics behind sports, and these teams are your heroes at that time, it was default and if Oakland or the Bay Area loses the Raiders, there will not be another NFL team coming. Last but not least the Warriors, well I never felt as a kid they would leave the Bay Area, I always thought they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose, and they have played at least one full season in each location I think, but the fact that they did not even want to call themselves “Oakland”:, again as a kid that bothered me, and as an adult I understand why. Anyway growing up in, and being a sport fan of Oakland has never been an easy proposition.

  101. That other struggling cities have found ways to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their local sports teams is not a good reason for Oakland to do the same.

  102. I’m just waiting for the Raiders to announce plans to play at Levi’s next season. Niners wrote into the verbiage regarding a 2nd team. Santa Clara approved it. Raiders want to play hardball with Oakland until their new stadium is green-lit.

    If the A’s are going to at the Coliseum until 2018 (assuming their lease is renewed), there’d be an opportunity to improve it for baseball only once the Raiders head to Santa Clara.

  103. re: no reason for Oakland…

    Your comments show what we already know: Oakland does not consider hosting Major League Baseball to be an A1 priority. If things continue as they – the city won’t pay for a new ballpark and no private investors will either (they haven’t offered, so far) – eventually, Oakland will no longer have a Major League Baseball team. It’ll be similar to how Miami and San Diego are now longer considered as hosts for the Super Bowl because the communities were unwilling to make the necessary investments.

  104. re: if the A’s are going to at the Coliseum until 2018, there’d be an opportunity to improve it for baseball

    …There’s not much that can be done. The place is always going to be misshapen for baseball (it’s round, with the huge foul territories) and nobody is going to fork over millions to dismantle the still-unpaid-for Mount Davis. Lipstick on a pig. FWIW, I think Steve Schott once sought baseball-only improvements but got Mount Davis instead.

  105. @pjk: Yeah, I doubt anyone would pay for any heavy-duty remodeling of the Coliseum, but there are definitely afford renovation opportunities. Ultimately, little changes can go a long way to improving the mood of the place.

    You can say it’ll just be lipstick on a pig, but you know what? After you’ve been staring at the pig since 1995, I’m sure that lipstick will look real good.

  106. @Tim
    Re: “That other struggling cities have found ways to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their local sports teams is not a good reason for Oakland to do the same”.
    It’s not a good reason, I agree with you. I don’t want Oakland to do exactly what other struggling cities have, they don’t even have the same resources, as places, like a Detroit, or St Paul/Minneapolis, or Denver, these places can get help at the state level, Oakland really can’t, but the point is they have to do something, if other cities have done things, they probable should not have done, that does not preclude Oakland from doing something, they have not even put out ideas, as of date they have not shown a willingness to do anything. Do you really think Oakland doing nothing, for the A’s over the last 40 years is ok? What do you think is reasonable?
    Oakland, California, is not going to get a new stadium, for free, it’s not San Francisco, it’s not even San Jose, and I say this as a die-hard Oakland supporter. They have to have a plan, and all I ever hear from them is the A’s or Raiders MLB/NFL has to pay for it. I do believe, recently one of the city counsel members said they may have to raise some sort of tax, for the coliseum city project, that’s a start, someone actually mentioned the fact that they will have to find creative way to come up with resources.

  107. re: Do you really think Oakland doing nothing, for the A’s over the last 40 years is ok? What do you think is reasonable? Oakland, California, is not going to get a new stadium, for free, it’s not San Francisco, it’s not even San Jose, and I say this as a die-hard Oakland supporter.

    …Good points. Selig once said if a city doesn’t want Major League Baseball, them MLB won’t be there. Oakland hasn’t done much to show that it really still wants MLB – press conferences, pep rallies and revealing the Giants’ plans to tie up San Jose in court for 10 years don’t amount to much of an effort. And a plan to wait out Wolff, hoping the team finds it has no choice but to build in Oakland on its own dime, is not much of a plan.

  108. I think Oakland clearly should have used redevelopment dollars ten years ago to make the Uptown ballpark happen. There were and are plenty of other lots available for apartments and that was the only/best spot for a ballpark. It would have been a kickstarter for that neighborhood, like the Fox, but times 10.

    Oakland’s budget priorities and capabilities have changed since then. I think Oakland should do everything they can to make Howard Terminal happen, short of using substantial dollar amounts that would be better spent on police officers.

  109. @Tim I agree with you, and I am not saying it should be done at all cost. All I am saying is Oakland is not even talking about things they could do, at this point as an Oakland supporter, I have to hope there is a plan, or back room talks, that the public will never have a full understanding of because the pols are to chicken sh*t, to face the public with a real plan. I also agree with you on the H.T. site its a wonderful possability, but again we have no EIR complete, we have not even started one. We have no idea if we can even build there.Its so bad, that when the Port of Oakland made the agreement, with their shiping partner to turn H.T. over for none shiping use, they made the point of saying the did not do this (simply/only) for a baseball park.

  110. According to a June news article in the Contra Costa Times, Oakland has more than $1.4 billion worth of unfunded pension and employee medical liabilities. Throw in the need for police, and I’m just not seeing how Oakland pays for anything having to do with professional sports. Yes, it is expected that cities take care of their teams. But Oakland simply can’t.

  111. @pjkTim. I here what your saying (pjk), about the money situation, Oakland/Alameda Co. are going to have to come up with creative ways to help, if not let San Jose have at it. (Tim) Lew Wolff has said the H.T. site has been ruled out. Its also been said, by Oakland pols that MLB likes the site if thats true (and we dont know), there may be a chance that Lew will give it a second look, if San Jose does not work out. With Lew dealing with SJ, and MLB dealing with Oakland (if they are) it seems, that both citys are being played, I realize the offer in SJ is for a park paid for by the A’s, but WolffMLB will get money from them as well, nothing is for free, for SJ or Oakland, it will just be a much steeper price in Oakland, because you have to pay more if your not the first choice

  112. I haven’t heard MLB endorsing the HT site. It’s got huge environmental and railroad obstruction problems, for starters, which adds substantially to the cost of building there. We’re talking maximum cost to get minimum return, just for the sake of keeping the team playing within Oakland city limits. When the luxury suites and sponsorships don’t sell (They are not convenient for the Silicon Valley companies who would be needed to buy them), who is going to foot the bill? The owners would have to because Oakland can’t. Which brings us to why the owners don’t want to build in Oakland.

  113. @pjk I here you, its going to take a lot if it ever gets done in Oakland, and that is why I am cool with SJ, if the GiantsMLB ever let that happen (perhaps SJ vs MLB will make it happen), just like you, I would love the A’s in a new ballpark, perhaps one day me, you, Tony D, GoA’s, Briggs, Jeffery, duffer, Tim, Mike2, xoot (I know he is a Giants fan, but he is really cool), and the rest of the crew, can get togather and have a bear when the new ballpark opens

  114. @pjk and of course ML, he is the man.

  115. what improvements can be made at the coliseum? can’t expand the clubhouses since vucinich said they’ve ruled that out because of weight barring walls. i keep hearing that there will be new video boards up but i’ll believe when i see it. i guess they can also improve those screens placed on the 2nd deck facade. those things like many other things about the coliseum are ancient but it could improve the in stadium experience i guess.

    really not much anything you can improve for a facility that is falling apart and why spend millions of dollars on it when a decade from now you probably won’t even have a tenant there.

    though the w’s have been updating oracle over the years and did again this past offseason and they’ve continued to set their eyes across the bay but i guess those improvements to oracle are a fraction of what it’d take to improve the coliseum in the same way.

  116. BTW, today would be a good time for “Eric Chavez Appreciation Day” at the Coliseum.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s