Category Archives: Athletics

07.20.13
by

Philadelphia Athletics Historical Society non-visit

I was in Northeast Philadelphia on Wednesday, which gave me an opportunity to make a baseball-related pilgrimage even as the All Star Break cleared the schedule with no MLB games happening anywhere. The quick drive was out to Hatboro, PA, home of the Philadelphia Athletics Historical Society. I parked on the busy main drag and walked up to the building that housed PAHS, only to be greeted by this.

pahs-1

pahs-2

Of course, if I had simply checked the website instead of driving out there like an idiot, I would’ve found out that the Society had lost their lease in April. Apparently they’re in the process of moving some of the items to Spike’s, a trophy manufacturer also located in NE Philly. I briefly spoke with a handyman at the site who was unaware of where PAHS was moving, and was doing repairs to get the space ready for the next tenant. I’ve also reached out via e-mail to the Society and will update this post as soon as I hear back. Until then, immense disappointment.

07.18.13
by

Radio interview with 1010 AM SoCal, talking Raiders & A’s stadium issues

I’m still in Pittsburgh. While resting at The Church Brew Works (a must-see if you’re ever in Steel Town), I did an interview with Julie Buehler and Geoff Bloom of Team 1010, an AM sports talk station in Palm Springs. Normally when I do when of these, I hem and haw a little on the “percentage chance something happens” game. This time I didn’t. Take a listen.



Video streaming by Ustream

Thanks to Julie and Geoff for having me on, and the Trib’s Matthew Artz for linking us up.

07.08.13
by

US Cellular Field (New Comiskey)

In a previous installment of this year’s Chicago travelogue, I described what it was like to go to both Wrigley Field and US Cellular Field on the same day thanks to a scheduled Chi-town doubleheader. While I went into some length about my experience on the South side, I wanted to save the bulk of my observations for a proper review, especially because I wanted to compare the current version to what I saw in 1996, five years after the park opened as New Comiskey Park.

us_cellular-04-outfield_view-sm

View from right field seats

Until the extensive, multiyear renovations package (done by HKS) was completed in 2012, the Cell had earned a somewhat unearned reputation as outdated. This wasn’t entirely HOK’s (Populous) or Jerry Reinsdorf’s fault. Reinsdorf wanted a modern edifice and used Royals (Kauffman) Stadium as his inspiration. The result was nothing like old Comiskey, cramped and dank. The new Comiskey was spacious, exclusive, and packed full of what was then the newest technology outside of a retractable roof. When Oriole Park at Camden Yards debuted the following year, starting the retro ballpark craze, all of the features that made New Comiskey modern made it look fan unfriendly and lacking in intimacy. If that meant outdated, so be it. They lacked the foresight to go retro? Fine. The O’s earned great acclaim for their small urban ballpark, while the White Sox and the City of Chicago spent much of the next two decades playing catchup to the Camden Yards and just about every other new park.

Visiting (Athletics) bullpen

Visiting (Athletics) bullpen, John Jaso (right) getting ready to take some warmup tosses

A look at the bones of the Cell should tell you the era it comes from. There’s a lot of bulky prestressed, pretensioned concrete in the supports and columns. The only structural steel you’ll see is in the upper deck, holding up the roof. The massive pole-to-pole structure backing the outfield concourse holds the scoreboards and numerous ads. If the park were built a few years later, Reinsdorf might have considered turning the ballpark north to take advantage of a great view of the Chicago skyline. Architect Philip Bess offered up his own alternative to New Comiskey in 80’s and in his book City Baseball Magic. Bess’s plan, called Armour Field, was more like Old Comiskey and even more retro than Camden Yards, with extremely shallow dimensions in the corners and a grandstand shape that evoked the Polo Grounds in New York. The park would’ve had a northern orientation, providing fabulous views of the Loop from inside the park. Instead, Reinsdorf chose the parking lot across the street from the old one and oriented the new one southeast towards Bronzeville. Call it a missed opportunity.

Arches evoke old Comiskey Park. White panels cover previously open upper concourse.

Arches evoke old Comiskey Park. White panels cover previously open upper concourse.

New Comiskey was criticized immediately for having a very steep upper deck that was also far removed from the action since it is placed atop two suite levels and a club level (sandwiched between the suites). In hindsight, this critique was perhaps a bit too heavy-handed as many Populous-conceived parks have used variations of this placement. Some may use a large club mezzanine backed by suites (Camden Yards, Petco Park). Another variant had a large club mezzanine, then a glassed-in concourse, then the suites, then the upper deck (AT&T Park, Safeco Field, Coors Field). Others utilized a triple deck of suites on one side and a club section on the other (Progressive Field). Now that we’ve seen 20 years of ballpark development, it’s easier to be kind to the Cell. In actuality, the biggest problem with New Comiskey was that there were too many rows in the upper deck, a chief complaint of the park’s inspiration, Royals Stadium. The latter day renovations chopped the top eight rows off the upper deck and enclosed the upper concourse in translucent glass. A much more substantial roof replaced the previous version and was heavy enough that it had to be supported by the aforementioned steel columns. Curiously, these columns also introduced something that Reinsdorf had worked hard to eliminate: obstructed views. The obstructions only occur in the furthest reaches of the upper deck, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says the new structure properly evokes Old Comiskey. Still, it adds definition to a part of the stadium that sorely lacked definition.

Upper concourse at U.S. Cellular Field

Upper concourse at U.S. Cellular Field. Steel beams are meant to support roof, not seats

Obvious nods to Old Comiskey come in the form of arched windows and openings in the facade, and the big scoreboard in center, complete with the multi-colored pinwheels and fireworks that go off after every White Sox home run. The board is flanked by screens in left and right, which are perfectly functional but not complete despite the number and size of the screens. Out-of-town scores are pretty much an afterthought. The arches, while a tasteful treatment, are nothing compared to the hulking network of ramps that nearly encompasses the Cell. The only thing that makes these ramps an improvement over previous cookie-cutter ramp structures is that they’re somewhat removed from the stadium. The problem with that implementation is that since fans enter at gates attached to these ramps, there’s no way for anyone to easily move between the different decks. To this day the White Sox maintain a policy that a fan’s ticket restricts him/her to a specific level. Fortunately, I was taking in three games of the A’s four-game set in Chicago, so I had a chance to roam around all of the non-premium areas. The White Sox have said that they plan to open up the park more in the future to allow for the kind of in-game circulation experienced at other parks. Even if they do that, moving among the decks will still be a pain because of the ramp system. At least at Gate 5, there’s a bar to accept fans pre and post-game.

View from behind the plate at dusk.

View from behind the plate at dusk.

At least the various food options have improved. The lower concourse has long had a good variety of concessions, including the staple Chicago dog and popular nachos stands. With the upper deck revamp came a number of new selections, including wings from Hooters and several open grills. I had a piled high Chicago dog, just as I did at Wrigley, and I liked the South side version more. A Jimmy John’s ad on the outfield fence teases about sandwich availability at the Cell, unfortunately the only Jimmy John’s is two blocks away along 35th Street, near the El and Metra stops. Outside food is allowed.

The outfield concourse, which has always been reminiscent of the old bleachers at the pre-Mt. Davis Coliseum, is as spacious and friendly as ever. The bullpens have moved from the former slots to Fenway-like spaces along the outfield fence. A patio area sits next to the visiting bullpen in right. The bleachers, which used to occupy both left-center and right-center, are solely in the former. A multi-level outfield platform was erected in the LF corner. Atop this deck is the Comcast-sponsored FUNdamentals children’s play area. Like everywhere else in the park, it has an usher or two to grant access, and when I approached to take look I was naturally looked upon suspiciously as no child was accompanying me.

Ramps and escalators are separate from concourses. This ramp set at Gate 5 is also separated by 35th Street.

Ramps and escalators are separate from concourses. This ramp set at Gate 5 is also separated by 35th Street.

Which brings me to the biggest issue I have with the Cell. The place has staff everywhere. Every aisle has an usher, every open stand (most) has a big crew. Normally that’s a good thing when you need help. At the Cell, it feels more like Jerry Reinsdorf doesn’t trust his fans and chose to have eyes everywhere. Most of the staff were friendly enough, but not to the level of either Miller Park or Wrigley Field. During the game, the upper deck ushers will watch the seats to make sure that fans don’t roam around, say, to the top of the stands. This results in a situation where sneaking down is very difficult. Your best bet for a good ticket below face value may be to find seats on Stubhub or via a scalper. US Cellular Field is the most overstaffed ballpark in the majors by far, and needlessly so.

Night view of... mostly ramps

Night view of… mostly ramps

The neighborhood is still not great. The Sox have gone so far as to point out neighborhood restaurants and bars in the vicinity, though none of them are right at the park other than the aforementioned attached Bacardi Bar. After the Saturday game we walked to Mitchell’s Tap, which has a pretty good beer selection including multiple selections from Founders (which is not available on the West Coast). Even so we eventually traveled back to the North side, ending up at the wonderful Hopleaf in Andersonville. The transitioning (or gentrification) process around the Cell is very much a work in progress.

A decade after opening in 1991, New Comiskey/US Cellular Field has undergone major, near constant changes. It started out with 42,000 seats, moved up to 47,000 seats, then dropped down to the current 40,000+.  Royal blue seats were switched to green, while the white outfield framework was painted black. The upper concourse looks nothing like it used to. Ultra premium seats and a club were added behind the plate. The outfield was changed, foul territory was reduced, and the ballpark was made to resemble its predecessor more than the original vision would have suggested. That’s not enough to place it among the top 10 ballparks on my list. It’s enough to make the Cell a very respectable, functional ballpark that should last another 20 years without major changes. After that? It’ll be up to Reinsdorf’s sons.

—–

P.S. – Many thanks to all of the readers and good people I met out there including Shane/Zonis, Nick, Joe, Derek, Mike, Tom, and everyone else I failed to mention here. All of you made the weekend even better than I expected. I’ll definitely put together a full meetup the next time I’m in town.

P.P.S. – As I’m planning a trip for New York over Labor Day weekend, after that’s completed I’ll do a feature that focuses on the ballparks for the premier teams in the two-team markets, and then another feature on the second banana ballparks (like the Coliseum and the Cell).

07.03.13
by

News for 7/3/13

There’s a lot of news during this holiday week. I figured it would be best to drop it all in here. First up, A’s news.

MLB announced today that it has retained John Keker of SF firm Keker & Van Nest to represent baseball in the San Jose antitrust lawsuit. Keker has a long and colorful history as one of the country’s top trial lawyers, and would be a formidable opponent for Joe Cotchett if the suit ever went to trial. Or, as a former partner at KVN, Wendy Thurm (@hangingsliders), put it:

Keker’s first statement about the case description of himself as a frequent defense lawyer is also colorful:

Keker also has his hands full defending Standard & Poor’s in the federal government’s lawsuit over allegedly fraudulent practices. Let the games begin, I say.

Besides MLB announcement, if you were worried that the lawsuit would leave the news cycle, there are new articles from the LA Times and Forbes covering the matter. In other news:

  • Members of the ILWU (Longeshoremen’s Union) are opposing the SSA settlement, which would close Howard Terminal and potentially convert it to a ballpark site. The union’s complaint is that the net effect of the settlement and consolidation is the loss of union jobs. This contention has evidently forced the Port of Oakland to again delay voting on the settlement to July 11.
  • BART’s still on strike. Last night’s announced attendance was 17,273, the smallest crowd since the end of May. Tonight’s a fireworks game with the 4th tomorrow, so crowds should be hefty despite the lack of BART.

—–

Away from the A’s…

  • The City of Glendale, Arizona, approved a 15-year lease deal to further subsidize the Coyotes NHL club, keeping them in town until at least 2018. The team has an out clause after only five years if they demonstrate they’ve lost $50 million over those first five years. In return, the team will be renamed the Arizona Coyotes. While the NHL continues to own the team in the interim until a purchase is finalized by Renaissance Sports & Entertainment, a new arena operator has been found in titan Global Spectrum.
  • Folks in Seattle were following the happenings in Glendale closely and were ready to pounce if no agreement could be made. Now the Emerald City and Chris Hansen are officially 0-for-2 in attempts to lure franchises to Puget Sound.
  • The City of Anaheim and the Angels are jointly funding a study to determine the cost to keep Angel Stadium up-to-date. Initial estimates have the cost to renovate Angel Stadium at $120-150 million. After the Dodgers spent $100 million to renovate clubhouses and scoreboards, I’d be surprised if the Angel Stadium tab was only $150 million.
  • As the cost to build a AAA ballpark in El Paso rises, the new owners of the franchise backed away from giving $12 million in personal guarantees towards the project.
  • Curbed has a neat pictorial retrospective on the various ballparks that have called New York home over the decades.

And a quick announcement: I plan to be in New York for a few days around August 24-25 Labor Day weekend. I’m still locking down the plans. The Yankees are in town that weekend and the Mets prior to that. I’m working to take in games at both ballparks, and some US Open tennis action if I can fit it in. If you’re there at that time, drop me a line (email, Twitter) and we can have a chat and/or take in a game.

07.01.13
by

BART, AC Transit strikes to affect A’s fans

By now you’re probably aware of the awful gridlock gripping much of the Bay Area because of the BART employees’ strike, which started this morning of months-long negotiations broke down again over the weekend. The employees, who are members of the ATU and SEIU, have been asking for raises to make for recession-era givebacks. The ATU asked Governor Jerry Brown to force an order to keep the trains running while negotiations continued. Brown refused to act, leading to a complete shutdown of trains. (Disclosure: My dad, who retired 2 years ago, was a shop steward for ATU in the South Bay/VTA chapter.)

Whatever your feelings are about the strike, if it goes on throughout the week there will be no BART service to the three-game series against the Cubs, Tuesday through Thursday. BART has attempted to bridge some of the commuter gap by running charter buses between its terminal stations (Fremont, Dublin/Pleasanton, etc.) to San Francisco, but those buses are limited to commute hours. AC Transit is providing extra Transbay buses, while service along the BART spine remains as-is.

AC Transit’s employee contracts were also up last night, so they’re currently working without a contract. There is talk that AC Transit employees will do a one-day walkout as early as Tuesday, which would compound the the East Bay’s transit crisis.

Ferries are experiencing a huge surge in ridership. Unfortunately, fans still need AC Transit (or Capitol Corridor) to get from Jack London Square to the Coliseum.

And not to be left out, the City of Oakland’s non-emergency public employees started their own one-day strike on Monday.

Capitol Corridor is an option that will provide uninterrupted service, despite the fact that its trains are actually operated by BART. While Capitol Corridor isn’t the quickest or most convenient way to get to the Coliseum, it can do in a pinch if you’re set against driving to what will undoubtedly be a more packed Coliseum parking lot. Amtrak even started a promotion this summer that allows riders to pay only $5 each way for companions, up to 5 companions per trip. Capitol Corridor doesn’t have a very frequent schedule late at night, so if you’re considering taking the unelectric train, first check the schedules to see if they work for you.

Fans along the 680 corridor are pretty much screwed from a public transit standpoint. As for South Bay and Peninsula folks, BART was never a direct option unless you drove to Fremont or Millbrae to take BART in the first place. Same goes for North Bay fans, whose transit options to the Coliseum have historically been limited.

BART usually accounts for 15-20% of fans getting to the Coliseum. Tuesday’s date is not a Free Parking Tuesday game, so don’t be shocked if you have to pay – it was on the schedule from the beginning. The A’s haven’t provided any advisories for the series yet, but you can expect to see something tomorrow. The A’s homestand ends Thursday, which should hopefully limit damage if the strike extends through the weekend. The Giants have a six-game homestand starting on Friday starting with a Dodgers series. The A’s return on the 12th with a Red Sox series.

The last BART strike occurred in September 1997, at the end of a particularly dismal season for the A’s (65-97). The A’s weren’t affected in the first two days of the six-day strike as they were on the road. Come Wednesday, September 10, the A’s were greeted by crowds of 4,764 and 6,135 against Toronto.

Advice: Carpool as much as possible. Allow for an extra 30 minutes to get to the ballpark, or leave late (close to 7) to avoid the nastiest part of the commute. Try Capitol Corridor if it works within your schedule. And hope that the different parties can come to their senses and end this mess.

06.29.13
by

When meaningless numbers are spun

In the eight-plus years I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve remembered a lot of little details. I’ve also forgotten just as many. Such was the case Thursday, when a John Shea article brought up San Jose’s economic impact report from 2009 (Exhibit 3 in the antitrust case filing). Shea asked whether a move to San Jose would boost attendance. He then pointed to the report’s assumption of only 2.1 million in annual attendance at a hypothetical 32,000-seat ballpark.

A’s superfan, radio gadfly and occasional commenter here (and friend of the blog) Bleacher Dave stepped up to push the idea that San Jose has an attendance problem, even though an Athletics game has never been hosted there. I rebutted that the attendance claims were never meant to forecast actual demand, only to provide a baseline for tax benefits (conservatively) and indirect benefits (usually outrageous). No matter, Dave pressed on, citing study author CSL’s experience in the field to buttress his argument.

CSL also did similar reports for the 49ers and Raiders to back those teams’ respective stadium campaigns. So far, only the 49ers have their stadium going. I pointed Dave to the Raiders report. Later I remembered that Let’s Go Oakland did its own report for a hypothetical Oakland ballpark either at the Coliseum or somewhere in the Jack London Square area.

Funny thing. Gruen Gruen & Associates, the firm hired to do LGO’s study, made its own attendance assumptions for a new ballpark:

  • Coliseum: 2.11 million/year
  • Jack London Square: 2.24 million/year

The key difference is that LGO’s study has a ballpark capacity of 36,000 instead of San Jose’s 32,000, which would in theory allow for larger sellout crowds when sellouts occur. The projections put the Coliseum roughly on par with San Jose and JLS ahead of both to the tune of 1,600 fans per game. If San Jose’s capacity were greater and had a similar number of sellouts, San Jose would land somewhere in the middle of the Coliseum and JLS projections.

Now if I wanted to twist these numbers into something they aren’t, I’d say that there’s something definitely wrong with the supposedly rabid Oakland fanbase only increasing attendance over the old Coliseum years by 7-13%. Surely there’d be a better response than that, right?

But I won’t. Because that’s not what these studies are for. The studies base their assumptions on five-year historical ticket sales at the Coliseum, which as we all know isn’t exactly an attractive, modern venue. Only one of those years was a playoff year. A major rebuilding plan marked the following years, which negatively affected ticket sales and fan interest. Wherever the A’s build, they won’t have the luxury of getting a big public subsidy as was the case in Miami or Washington, DC. If this thing actually gets built, it’s reasonable to expect that there will be so much pent-up desire to be there (the wildcard of on-field performance notwithstanding) that attendance should easily surpass those assumptions. It all has to do with season ticket sales.

Before a single pile is driven or brick is laid, the A’s will probably have to get somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 season ticket commitments or FSEs (full season equivalents). The closer to 20,000, the better (the A’s hover below 10k currently last I heard). The Giants maintain 25-27,000 FSEs annually, and they were so confident in the demand when their park opened that they only offered full season ticket subscriptions. (Note: More upfront ST commitments – especially multiyear – also proves to banks that the project is worth financing.)

The greater the ST sales, the better for the whole A’s market. It creates scarcity for the remaining seats, it provides a solid secondary market, and if pricing tiers are set correctly, should create good value for fans at multiple levels. It also means a lot fewer really cheap seats, but that’s the price of growing into a better, privately funded facility.

The two economic impact reports written for San Jose and Oakland provided none of this context and took none of these factors into account. All they did was average attendance over a short window, bump it initially upon opening, and taper it down over time as the honeymoon effect wore off. That’s the most basic of analysis and should be treated as such. Actual numbers should be better, but could also be worse if prices are too high or the team is pitiful. There are no guarantees.

If the goal of certain individuals is to create a gotcha moment out of a misinterpreted number, then we’re going to waste a lot of time finding gotcha numbers and moments everywhere. It smacks of a political race. There are much more important numbers to consider, such as the cost of Howard Terminal or a territorial rights payoff. Those are the numbers that matter. Not some previously ignored projections from several years old documents that are easily disregarded.

If people want to persist with stuff like this, I can’t stop them. We’ll be here as we always have, ready to provide the nuance that the news articles, tweets, and radio callers often lack.

—–

P.S. – Oakland Fan Pledge, which was started to prove fan commitment to the A’s, has just over 4,000 pledges so far (including mine). We’ve got a long way to go, folks.

P.P.S. – One more thing to consider. The Giants have long maintained that they need attendance of 30,000 every game in order to take care of AT&T Park’s debt service and field a competitive roster. How on earth would the A’s be able to pay for a more expensive park with 25,000 a game, even if prices were jacked up?

06.25.13
by

Knauss on 95.7 The Game: We think the world’s changed here

Clorox CEO was on with Chris Townsend earlier today. As usual, Townsend had a pretty thorough, wide-ranging interview that touched on a number of A’s and stadium-related topics. I’m going to highlight a couple of items.

Townsend: When it comes to buying the A’s, are you personally interested? Is Clorox interested?

Knauss: No I wouldn’t say we’re interested (Clorox) in buying the A’s. We clearly would love to work with the current ownership, Lew Wolff and John Fisher, on keeping the A’s here. I think there’s a lot of old data that Lew Wolff has about working in Oakland… We think the world’s changed here.

Later in the interview…

Knauss: I think we have this tremendous site down Howard Terminal, which is just adjacent to Jack London Square. We have what I believe can be the premier site in baseball… When I last talked to Lew about that last year, he said ‘we looked at that a long time ago, it’s not viable’. I think the last time the A’s actually sat down with the City in any serious way was over five years ago with Mayor Dellums. At the time I heard some of the old excuses why Howard Terminal wouldn’t work and they’re all void now, it’s a completely different place.

Townsend: Why do you believe Howard Terminal is viable?

Knauss: In 2005 the last time they looked, the Port was close to full capacity. Now it’s under 50% utilization. The Port can easily use Howard Terminal for a ballpark without adversely affecting the shipping business… The second thing I’ve heard over the years is that there is this environmental contamination on the site and people throwing some crazy numbers around about remediating that site. We’ve done the diligence there as well and have been assured by experts that the ballpark can be built on that site without a substantial cost associated with cleanup. Basically we can build a ballpark right on top of that site without scraping the site clean, the same way AT&T Park was built on that pier.

Knauss went on to talk about the revitalization of Jack London Square and the recent Brooklyn Basin deal. Then Townsend moved onto Knauss’s potential interest in owning the A’s.

Townsend: In the past you’ve talked about having a group to buy the A’s. Why have you never made an offer?

Knauss: We’re trying to respect baseball’s protocol. Our attitude is to negotiate this and not litigate this… We’d love to have Lew sit down with us and go over the new world that’s down there, not the old world that he’s familiar with. The other thing is that we’re close to getting this lease renewed so I think we’re demonstrating that you can get things down in Oakland and Alameda County… The second thing is getting site control of Howard Terminal. So I think that’s the reason we haven’t said, ‘Let’s find another ownership group.’ We think that could be viable, but I think clearly we’d rather say, ‘Look Lew, we’ve got a viable site, we believe that the team deserves a new world class ballpark, but there’s a way to get that done here in Oakland.’

Townsend: Clorox moved a number of jobs to Pleasanton. Why do you do that but yet you still say, ‘Ah we’re still about Oakland.’

Knauss: It’s a fair question. There are two things we wanted to try to achieve with that. One is, it’s a bus- it’s really a focus on innovation. The reason we’ve been around for 100 years is because it constantly innovates new products. We wanted to get all of our innovation people in one location. Now obviously innovation is driven by R&D, and we’ve always had R&D people folks out in Pleasanton. We had about 400 scientists out there and we’ve had ’em out there for decades. What we’ve learned over the years is that when you put all of the functions out there that drive innovation – marketing, sales, finance, human resources, legal, etc. – put all those people out there with the R&D people, then you get much quicker innovation, you get bigger ideas developed. So we wanted to create a new campus out in Pleasanton where we had our nucleus and add those people. We moved a lot of those folks out of downtown Oakland out to Pleasanton – but we kept them in Alameda County.

The second reason we did it was a business continuity issue. The headquarters building – obviously we’re all in the Bay Area sitting on various faults. We wanted to get some dispersion of our IT resources out in Pleasanton too where we thought we could spread out some of our risk from a business continuity standpoint. Those were the two central reasons: better innovation, better business continuity, minimizing risk. We’ve kept people in Alameda County, and we’ve kept our general office in Oakland, and certainly I’m sitting here in Oakland and I live in Oakland. So we’re committed to Oakland.

Let’s try to put this in perspective. Don Knauss was brought in as Clorox CEO in October 2006, shortly before Ron Dellums was elected mayor. Knauss is clearly referring to the anti-sports Brown administration and the general absence of leadership during the Dellums era. Are we – and Wolff & MLB – supposed to believe that a new sheriff is in town, that Oakland has suddenly gotten its act together? Moreover, Knauss recited Quan’s stance on the ballpark issue: As long as we provide the site, the A’s and MLB can’t turn us down. I think it’s pretty simple. If Oakland provides all site prep costs, streamlines the process, and throws in $200 million, then you can get MLB to pay attention. Without that it’s not really an even playing field with San Jose, where the greater number and size of upfront revenue commitments can help pay down ballpark debt early, just as is being done in Santa Clara.

Knauss also talked at length about the issues associated with developing Howard Terminal, which he minimized as much as possible. Muppet151 has a little insight into this:

HT is in a state of constant and PERMANENT review. I talked to the guy in charge of overseeing the site who said it’s somewhat similar to what contained contamination at the San Jose Arena. You can read the SJ documents here:

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=43730007

The HT project manager explained things a little further in an email to me when he said “While the Land Use Covenant restricts activities that would interfere with the cap from being conducted without DTSC approval, it is common in development plans to engineer acceptable solutions that modify cleanup remedies including caps under DTSC oversight.” If the footprint of the stadium extends outward to the point it’s over the capped area, and it’s my understanding it would, the stated scenario would take place.

From a technical standpoint, HT is definitely possible, and can be done. The problem is that this is not a 1 time fix. This is a permanent issue, and worst of all this is infrastructure work that the public will be on the hook for. There was cleanup work done in the area in 2004 making the ballpark possibility a little stronger. But the 200,000 cubic yards of capped material remains, as done the 2002 CA DTSC estimate of a $100 million cleanup should something go wrong. And again, that’s public money. Things might go smoothly….but over time, caps need maintenance, and putting a stadium over the underwater caps makes the situation remarkably unique.

Currently, nothing can be built at the San Jose Arena parking lot, including a garage for the arena or a future high speed rail terminal, without a comprehensive and costly remediation plan. Right now there’s only a sealed asphalt cap there.

—

Knauss also brought out the “respecting the process” stance used by many on the outside, including the mayors of both San Jose and Oakland. They’re all willing to “respect the process” until they hear something that doesn’t work with their agenda. That’s how the game is played. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen recently, the only way to get Bud Selig’s attention these days is to sue baseball.

When asked about Clorox’s move of hundreds of jobs to Pleasanton, Knauss’s previously well-focused responses devolved into some incredibly inane, weaselly CEO-speak. Read that response carefully. Earthquake faults? When Loma Prieta hit on the San Andreas fault, the Coliseum had enough structural damage to force Games 3 & 4 to be played at the ‘Stick, despite the Coli being on the Hayward fault (and supposedly less prone to damage). Knauss didn’t touch the issue that really caused the move: many of the scientists and their families lived along the 680 corridor and preferred to work there instead of commuting to Oakland. Knauss had to make the tough decision to keep Clorox competitive. That’s the reality of the move, not some BS reasoning about earthquake faults or risk management. And that’s the irony of it. Clorox is perfectly able to move 500 jobs to Pleasanton or 300 jobs to Arizona if it has business or competitive reasons. In terms of pure economic impact (tax revenue, job creation), the A’s are a much smaller company than Clorox, yet they can’t move 35 miles for competitive reasons. Makes me wonder if Knauss just did this to provide cover for the company’s previous and future moves under his leadership. It didn’t cost him anything, that’s for sure.

—–

Further reading:

06.23.13
by

Who is Joe Cotchett?

Let’s meet Joe Cotchett.

Cotchett, as lawyers are wont to do when filing high profile lawsuits, was full of bluster, using terms like “economic rape and pillage” and “moral outrage” in the first minute of his interview with NBC Bay Area‘s Raj Mathai. By the end of the interview, Cotchett dialed down his rhetoric a tad, admitting that the real goal of the lawsuit was to force a settlement, not a wholesale teardown of MLB’s antitrust exemption. Though if MLB remained recalcitrant, Cotchett would certainly relish the opportunity to tear down AE himself.

While making the media rounds earlier in the week, Cotchett was also on The Game with John Lund and Greg Papa. Apparently Papa wasn’t aware of Cotchett’s role as attorney for the NFL and the Rams when the then-Oakland Raiders forced a move to Los Angeles in 1981. Cotchett’s involvement in pro sports is quite long and varied, though most of it is with the NFL, not MLB.

  • 1981-82 – Cotchett represents NFL & Rams in Al Davis and LA Memorial Coliseum’s antitrust lawsuit against the league. After a mistrial, Davis wins, paving the way for the move.
  • 1994 – Billy Sullivan, who had recently sold the Patriots to Victor Kiam, sues the NFL for not approving a public offering deal that would’ve provided Sullivan with more operating cash. The lawsuit is settled for just over $11 million. Cotchett represented the NFL.
  • 1995 – Cotchett attempts to put together a group to keep Rams in LA. Instead, team owner Georgia Frontiere takes $300 million deal to move Rams to St. Louis.
  • 2004 – This time representing the Raiders, Cotchett successfully defends Davis against a lawsuit by Raiders minority partners attempting to remove Davis as managing partner. Cotchett and the Raiders win using argument that minority partners have no standing.

As you can see, Cotchett has plenty of experience on both sides of the franchise move and antitrust issues, winning and losing some while settling others. While antitrust is Cotchett’s game, he was also successful going up against Charles Keating in the Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal and Bernie Madoff. The State Bar of California named Cotchett their Antitrust Lawyer of the Year in 2011. He’s also made a habit of taking numerous cases on either a pro bono or contingency basis, with attorneys fees to be paid by the losing defendants (as has indicated for the San Jose-vs.-MLB case).

MLB is a different ball of wax, as shown by its still preserved antitrust exemption. Cotchett will argue that MLB is no different from the NFL or any other pro sports league and is subject to the same commerce laws and regulations as the others. Chances are that he won’t get to make that argument given what San Jose and baseball are looking for, but you never know what can happen if/when a trial starts. One thing that can be universally said about the new lawsuit: It’s anything but frivolous.

06.21.13
by

Dust settles after the big lawsuit filing

I’ve spent much of the last week in transit, as my job requires a lot of travel all over the country. Some of the pictures and posts you’ve seen since the beginning of the season have been a byproduct of little side jaunts taken at the end of business trips or cashed in frequent flyer miles. It’s allowed me to visit a lot of the parks I’ve wanted to see fairly cheaply, though the downside is that it has severely reduced my attendance at A’s home games.

Another byproduct of near-constant travel is that I can’t get into a good writing rhythm. I’m already a rather deliberate writer, and I’m envious of the pros who can toss out 500 words constructed in cogent manner in only 15 minutes. Instead I’ve preferred to shift my writing to ever longer pieces, 1000-1500 words, eliminating many of the peripheral “busy” posts that I used to do.

Yet when the San Jose-vs.-MLB lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, I was left at a loss as to how I was going to cover it. While I get a lot of advice from lawyers and legal experts, I still went through the week uncomfortable about touching the legal issue with any real depth. I wasn’t sure I could do it justice (pun intended). Instead I sat back and read all of the great writing by many lawyers-turned/cum-baseball writers like Jason Wojciechowski, Wendy Thurm, and Craig Calcaterra. ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson covered the lawsuit in the broadest manner possible, but the effect of his piece was greater than most because of the wide audience. And we have plenty of lawyers who read and comment on this site. Judging from the last post, they’ve been waiting for this moment for a long time. I’m glad that they may have a chance to sink their teeth into something juicy like this. As for me, I’m glad that at long last the A’s plight is getting the attention it deserves (and San Jose to a lesser extent). (While I was in Phoenix on Thursday, the local ESPN affiliate did a wide-ranging interview with Tim Kurkjian, and the A’s/San Jose/Sewergate were one of the main topics!)

However, let’s be clear about what we should expect from this potential circus. While many can’t agree on what the outcome will be, let’s understand what’s really at stake.

1. San Jose isn’t really trying to overturn baseball’s antitrust exemption.

Attorney Joe Cotchett’s initial bluster aside, San Jose would be perfectly fine with territorial rights being modified, their basic structure left intact. That could mean sharing Santa Clara County or the Bay Area at large, or something in between. As long as they have the right to host the A’s, they’d be fine with territorial rights maintaining monopolies (or duopolies as the case may be) here and elsewhere.

2. San Jose didn’t decide to do this on a whim.

Mayor Chuck Reed told Lew Wolff last week that the City was planning to sue baseball. Councilman Sam Liccardo had been talking up the lawsuit threat since spring 2012. From what I hear Cotchett has been involved for nearly as long. What they’ve been doing during that time is strategizing the particulars. What they came up with is arguably weak from the standpoint of trying to overturn AE, but if the goal is shake up baseball, there’s a chance it could work. SewerGate became a most serendipitous event PR-wise – as serendipitous as rising floods of sewage can be.

3. MLB is not concerned… yet.

MLB knows San Jose’s strategy, and they will certainly push hard to get the case thrown out for lack of standing. If they succeed, we go back to the status quo and San Jose is at the mercy of baseball. That doesn’t mean that San Jose is done, it just means the City can’t force the issue. All parties, including the A’s, know this. The important thing for MLB is that San Jose remains an option, however slight, because if the only option is Oakland and a scramble for extremely limited public funds, the option is poor. Of course, the City could decide at that point that it would give up the seemingly quixotic quest for a MLB franchise. Knowing how the current mayor and leading mayoral candidates operate, that’s highly unlikely. The lawsuit is costing them nothing and giving the City a ton of press and awareness. None of it is bad except that it annoys Bud Selig, who is supposedly in his lame duck period anyway.

On the other hand, if the federal judge finds that the City does have standing, then MLB has to decide what it’s willing to risk during the pre-trial discovery phase, when pertinent documents are exchanged between the two sides. As we saw in the Stand for San Jose case, one side made the blunder of providing privileged information, which the opposing side tried to use in its case. S4SJ’s attorneys, who didn’t disclose or return the confidential docs until they were caught, then were dressed down by two separate judges and nearly thrown off the case. The Lodge has demonstrated in the past that they are very fearful of any releases of team or league financial data, forced or leaked. I wouldn’t expect them to fold like cheap tents, but if enough pressure is applied, the pendulum could swing in the City’s direction as the owners simply prefer the quickest exit to the fiasco. The quick exit won’t come cheap or easy because the issue is complex, as Selig has said (but never properly articulated).

MLB’s lawyers will argue that there is no contract, hence no standing. The City’s lawyers will argue that there could’ve been a contract if MLB hadn’t dillydallied. It’s not mentioned in the lawsuit, but they could easily point to…

4. The Earthquakes

Lew Wolff and San Jose have a contract in place to build a stadium. In San Jose. On land sold by the City to Lew Wolff that started with an option. While the stadium has been delayed due to financing and general economic problems, it’s getting done. Without tortious interference – the real issue in this case. The bar for some antitrust complaints may be lower in California than the federal standard, thanks to the Cartwright Act. Whether this passes muster is up for a judge to decide.

5. The A’s are a defendant

In suing MLB, San Jose is suing all 30 member clubs in the process. So even though Lew Wolff wants to move the A’s to San Jose, he isn’t joining the lawsuit. Wolff’s public statement indicates, yet again, that he doesn’t want any part of the legal process, fiddle-dee-dee. And it sort of makes sense given that teams are bound by the MLB Constitution not to sue baseball or each other. Except that…

6. MLB’s Constitution expired?

According to Cotchett, the last Major League Constitution expired at the end of 2012. Baseball hasn’t posted a new one, so it appears that they aren’t operating with one. It sounds crazy to think that baseball could operate without a Constitution for even a brief period, as the document lays out all manner of league and team business, in conjunction with the CBA. The most recent version dates back to 2005, as part of the Expos’ move contraction-and-expansion to DC. It outlines everything from banal matters such as the timing of the owners meetings to how the leagues and divisions are constructed, and pertinent to our ongoing discussion, club operating territories. You’d think that the document would at least be amended to include the Astros’ switch to the American League West. Right?

Then again, if the league is operating without a Constitution, does it mean that there’s a loophole? If there is no binding Constitution then are territories no longer assigned? I doubt it, there’s too much at stake. The New York teams aren’t going to allow Stuart Sternberg that kind of loophole to move the Rays. Prior to the gag order, the Giants pointed to the Constitution every chance they got to back up their T-rights claims. You think they’d let the document lapse? Even if there technically isn’t a Constitution, the clubs are certainly operating within the spirit of the legacy document, which is probably good enough for a judge. The Lodge is the Lodge is the Lodge, after all. Now, if MLB intentionally let the document expire so that no one can point to the constraints of T-rights, then we’ve just devolved into anarchy within the Lodge. Which probably isn’t a bad thing.

In all likelihood, MLB does have a new Constitution and simply needs to produce it. Issue rendered moot.

7. Where does Oakland fit into all of this?

Oakland is not a party to the lawsuit. That’s just as well, since there’s a good chance San Jose will fail and the A’s will have no choice but to deal with the East Bay. The “tail-between-legs” scenario is what they’ve been hoping for all along, not that they’re presenting realistic options should that happen (remember Victory Court?). The real problem for Oakland is simple: no one’s fighting over Oakland. The clubs are fighting over San Jose, and they’d fight over San Francisco if it came to that. No one outside of the Oakland-only holdouts and Larry Baer is talking about Oakland as anything more than a short-term solution. Have you heard any other owners talk about Oakland in terms of a permanent home for the A’s? Of course not, because it isn’t even entering their minds. The only thing helping Oakland at the moment is each owner’s self-interest. In this scenario Oakland is the safety school of cities, the girl from work you go out with because she’s accessible. And that’s what really hurts. Whether the neglect is benign (Coliseum deterioration, deprioritizing the A’s) or more “sinister” (ownership motivations), Oakland’s status as a baseball town is at best tentative. If San Jose comes out of this with the A’s, no other existing teams are going to start looking to Oakland as a viable MLB home. Expansion is out of the question. The best Oakland could hope for is a minor league club of some sort, either AAA (Pacific Coast League) or high-A (California League). If Oakland is truly afforded the opportunity to keep the A’s, they’ll be ransomed like many other cities have been. MLB will bring in the consultants (just like Miami) to say that a franchise there isn’t viable without a publicly-financed stadium. Then what?

Other observations:
Exhibit 3 in the filing is the CSL-written economic impact report commissioned by San Jose in 2009. Normally we roll our eyes at how these things are written, because they’re designed to convince mayors and city councils, not judges. The use of such a document against baseball is more than a little ironic.

During the first press conference, Cotchett trotted out the SVLG letter and list of companies as signed-on supporters of the lawsuit. He quickly backtracked on that. The letter is Exhibit 2.

—–

As I finished this post the plane descended over the Peninsula. I saw the lights on at AT&T Park while Candlestick Park sat silent and lonely. I wanted to get a good look at the Coliseum, but the view across the bay was obscured by a scratched up plane window and the encroaching marine layer. We landed at SJC and the plane was held on the tarmac because a computer malfunction at Southwest Airlines’ headquarters kept all other planes at their respective gates. How appropriate, I thought.

06.18.13
by

San Jose City Council votes to sue MLB (4 PM Update includes press releases, links)

PDF of the lawsuit filing

It’s on.

More from ABC 7:

So, the city has hired Peninsula attorney Joe Cotchett to file a lawsuit. “This is all about economics. And, you have a city like San Jose, the tenth largest city in the United States, cannot get a baseball club. I can name you other cities that are pulling for San Jose for the same reason. They want the right and the chance to bring a baseball team to their city, their county, whatever it might be,” he said.

A 2009 study found that a new ballpark for the A’s could pump $130 million a year into the San Jose economy. And, San Jose’s mayor has hinted in the past that he’s considered legal action, but the city has always deferred to the principal owner of the A’s — Lew Wolff.

The City has been talking to Cotchett for a while about prepping the lawsuit. I had also heard that Cotchett may be taking this case pro bono, but I can’t confirm that at the moment. Correction: Cotchett is taking the case on a contingency basis. Cotchett has a ton of experience with antitrust suits and sports, representing the Raiders and the NFL at different times.

The Merc’s John Woolfork also has an article with a primer.

And then there’s this.

The podcast of the Cotchett interview is available here.

—–

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s office put out the lawsuit press release:

For Immediate Release:

June 18, 2013

Contact:

Michelle McGurk, Office of Mayor Reed

(408) 535-4840 or (408) 655-7332 (cell)

 

City Council Unanimously Authorizes Lawsuit to Allow A’s to Move to San Jose

San Jose, Calif. – The City of San Jose has filed legal action in federal court to eliminate the territorial restrictions that Major League Baseball has used to keep the A’s from moving to San Jose. The complaint was authorized by the City Council during closed session this morning.

“For more than four years, the City of San Jose has made an exhaustive effort to work with Major League Baseball to resolve any concerns about our city’s capacity to host a major league ballclub,” Mayor Chuck Reed said. “During that time, it has become abundantly clear that Major League Baseball prefers to use territorial restrictions as an excuse to restrict commerce and prevent the Athletics from relocating to San Jose. This restriction is costing San Jose residents millions of dollars in new annual tax revenues that could go towards funding more police officers, firefighters, libraries, gang prevention efforts, road repairs and other critical city services.”

The Oakland Athletics ownership group has expressed a desire to construct a new privately-financed and privately-operated ballpark in Downtown San Jose. While the City of San Jose has worked with the Athletics to facilitate the construction of a new ballpark, their efforts have been stalled by the San Francisco Giants’ claim of “territorial rights” to Santa Clara County. In 2009, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig appointed a special blue ribbon committee to analyze the Athletics’ options for a new ballpark. But after four years, there still has been no decision on whether the Athletics can relocate to San Jose.

According to an independent economic analysis report conducted by Conventions Sports & Leisure International, a new major league ballpark in Downtown San Jose would generate significant benefits, including:

$5 million per year in new tax revenues to the City and other local governments;
$130 million per year in total net new economic output; and
Nearly 1000 new full and part-time jobs.

San Jose has entered into an option agreement with the Athletics Investment Group, LLC, the California limited partnership that owns and operates the Oakland A’s, to purchase property for a ballpark in Downtown San Jose. According to the suit, Major League Baseball is interfering with this contract by refusing to allow the Oakland A’s Club to locate to the City of San Jose. San Jose seeks to restore competition among and between the clubs and their partners by ending MLB’s collusive agreements. The lawsuit outlines several practices that have resulted in an unreasonable restraint on competition, in violation of federal and California law, and constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices under California law, including violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Tortious Interference with Contractual Advantage, and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, and for violation of the federal Sherman Act, and violation of California’s Cartwright Act.

The City of San Jose is being represented in this case by attorney Joseph W. Cotchett and the firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP. The firm is working on contingency.

Additional Resources:

Legal Action filed June 18, 2013: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18492.
Economic Impact Analysis: http://www.sjredevelopment.org/ballpark/EI_Report_09022009.pdf
Ballpark archive, including renderings: http://www.sjredevelopment.org/ballpark.htm.

—–

And now, MLB’s response:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – June 18, 2013

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL STATEMENT

Major League Baseball Executive Vice President for Economics & League Affairs Rob Manfred issued the following statement in response to the lawsuit filed by the City of San Jose today:

“In considering the issues related to the Oakland Athletics, Major League Baseball has acted in the best interests of our fans, our communities and the league. The lawsuit is an unfounded attack on the fundamental structures of a professional sports league. It is regrettable that the city has resorted to litigation that has no basis in law or in fact.”

———-

Additional comments from San Jose Councilmembers, who unanimously voted to approve the lawsuit:

Xavier Campos, Councilmember, District Five: “The Mayor and City Council want to send Major League Baseball a clear message that the future home for the Athletics is in San José. The new ballpark will draw more fans and generate additional revenues, and create jobs during the construction phase of the project as well as permanent jobs well into the future. It’s a win for San José and it’s a win for Major League Baseball.”

Kansen Chu, Councilmember, District Four: “I am disappointed Major League Baseball has prevented the A’s from moving to San José. Winning this lawsuit not only will provide a great economic impact for the City of San José but will also benefit Major League Baseball.”

Rose Herrera, Councilmember, District 8: “This is the right step to take on behalf of our residents to get the baseball team that we deserve.”

Ash Kalra, Councilmember, District 2: “Major League Baseball has given the city of San Jose no other option but to turn to the judicial system to have our concerns heard and this matter resolved. The lack of response from Major League Baseball has been extremely disrespectful to the efforts our city and community have made in creating an attractive environment for the Athletics, particularly since the team’s ownership agrees that San Jose, the Capital of Silicon Valley, is the ideal location for their great organization.”

Johnny Khamis, Councilmember, District 10: “I supported filing the lawsuit against Major League Baseball today because San Jose deserves economic justice.”

Sam Liccardo, Councilmember, District 3, “Our Downtown hotels, restaurants, shops, cafes, and clubs and their workers will benefit the tens of thousands of people attending each game at a Major League ballpark,” said Councilmember Sam Liccardo, who represents the Downtown. “Independent experts put the total economic impact at $130 million a year. But the wait staff and cooks at our local restaurants can tell you about the real impact professional sports have on a large-city economy. When the Sharks play, Downtown is packed with patrons. We expect an even bigger impact with baseball.”

Pierluigi Oliverio, Councilmember, District 6: “As the Councilmember representing the majority of the land where a future ballpark would be built, I support taking this action today. San Jose residents need resolution now. We have waited for four painful years, and the area surrounding the future stadium has languished due to years of indecision. In addition to Downtown, surrounding neighborhood business districts like The Alameda and West San Carlos will benefit from the economic revitalization that a major league ballpark will bring to the Diridon Station area.”

Donald Rocha, Councilmember, District 9: “Today’s legal action is hopefully the first step in a process which will bring the City, Major League Baseball, the Giants and the A’s to the table. I firmly believe that there is an opportunity for a positive outcome for all parties, and for too long we’ve all been so focused on our own best interests that we haven’t pursued that conversation.”

———-

Further reading, if you’re interested:

Commentary later tonight.