Category Archives: Athletics

03.08.12
by

The difference between 1990 and 2012

Following along with the previous post, I wanted to point out how things progressed during the Lurie-Haas era, and compare that to the Magowan/Neukom/Baer-vs.-Wolff era.

Lurie-Haas:

  • In anticipation of a stadium referendum in Santa Clara County, Bob Lurie asks Wally Haas Jr. for consent to claim Santa Clara County.
  • Haas approves. Santa Clara County, which had not until that point belonged to either team, becomes part of the Giants’ domain.
  • 1990 – Santa Clara County measure goes down to defeat.
  • 1992 – San Jose votes down another utility tax plan to fund its own ballpark.

At no point did the Commissioner or League Presidents have to intervene or rule on behalf of either team.

Magowan/Neukom/Baer-vs.-Wolff:

  • The Giants have SF, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Santa Clara Counties as their defined territory. The A’s have Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
  • 2009 – After striking out in Fremont, Wolff looks to San Jose. Giants object. Commissioner Selig convenes three-man panel to study issue. A’s are not allowed to make an official stadium deal (including referendum) with San Jose until T-rights issue is resolved.
  • …wait through rest of 2009…
  • …wait through 2010…
  • …wait through 2011…
  • Giants astroturf group Stand for San Jose sues City of San Jose over preliminary land deal terms for ballpark.
  • 2012 – Commissioner Selig claims that issue is now on “front burner”.
  • …waiting…

Waiting.

P.S. – Tim Kawakami has called Billy Beane the designated grown-up in their chat today, while Ray Ratto’s analogy wins the day.

03.08.12
by

Giants revisionist history

One thing that I don’t think can be argued is that over the last 15 years or so, at least since Peter Magowan took control of the Giants franchise, the Giants have had a better PR machine going than the A’s. When the A’s hired former Giants PR head Bob Rose, it was a tacit acknowledgement of that superior effort. The Giants’ needling of the A’s in their Wednesday press release was a great example of their skill.

Except they missed a few facts.

Here’s a chunk of the release:

The Giants territorial rights were not granted “subject to” moving to Santa Clara County. Indeed, the A’s fail to mention that MLB’s 1990 territorial rights designation has been explicitly re-affirmed by Major League Baseball on four separate occasions.

If you read that quickly, you might think it’s a simple, cut-and-dried scenario. In reality, the two sentences aren’t related at all. The Giants actually argued that Santa Clara County was not granted “subject to” a move. It wasn’t? Why was it granted, then? The Giants didn’t go into any explanation for what occurred (bullet points would’ve been helpful). The facts are these:

Bob Lurie asked Wally Haas for permission to take Santa Clara County in 1990. If the Giants feel that’s a myth and desire to dispel that myth, they should explain how they got Santa Clara County in 1990. As far as everyone knows, this is how it happened (via the Chronicle’s John Shea):

As Wally Haas [III] tells the story, the A’s were approached by Giants exec Corey Busch requesting exclusive rights to the area before the Giants’ proposed ballparks in Santa Clara and San Jose.

The A’s said OK, and the transfer became official when baseball owners granted approval.

That was it.

“We shared the territorial rights up to that point, the Giants and the A’s,” Haas said on the set of “Chronicle Live” on Thursday. “They asked if we would cede those rights to them so they could go through the referendum, and we felt that was fine.”

It takes some temerity to deny long-held history and not even provide an alternative. Quick chronology:

  • 1987 – San Francisco Proposition W fails at the ballot box. Bob Lurie throws the door open to building outside of San Francisco.
  • 1989 – Lurie works with San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos and Spectacor on a ballpark at China Basin (Proposition P). That effort fizzled in the wake of Loma Prieta.
  • 1990 – Lurie looks south to Santa Clara, where a ballpark could be built north of Great America. He asks Haas for permission and is granted county. The Santa Clara County (unincorporated)/San Jose/Mountain View/Los Altos/Milpitas/Santa Clara (city) utility tax goes down to defeat.
  • 1992 – Lurie turns his attention to San Jose, where Mayor Susan Hammer worked on a ballpark plan at 237/Zanker. The San Jose-only utility tax lost, and with it the hopes of having the Giants in the South Bay.
  • 1992 – Lurie comes to an agreement to sell the Giants to an investment group in St. Petersburg, where a domed stadium was built on spec.
  • 1993 – Walter Shorenstein and Larry Baer rally SF civic leaders in an effort to rescue the Giants. Peter Magowan, the head of Safeway, is brought in to be the managing partner. The price of the franchise is $95 or $100 million, depending on who you ask. The price is considered a discount in exchange for keeping the team in the Bay Area, as the Tampa Bay bid was higher. Magowan would go on to sign free agent Barry Bonds, and resign his Safeway post to focus full time on the Giants.
  • 1995 – Magowan and Baer craft another China Basin ballpark plan, partnering with Mayor Frank Jordan and later his successor, Willie Brown. In the meantime, Haas sells the A’s to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann for $85 million, with some $10-15 million of incurred debt discounting the price as well as another “hometown discount” to keep the team local.
  • 1996 – Proposition B, the Giants’ privately financed stadium plan, wins by a landslide.

This goes back to a question I posed when the Bill Madden article came out last weekend. Read it carefully, look back at the chronology, and think about it.

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

The Giants maintain that because territorial rights were confirmed with subsequent CBA/Constitution ratifications, Santa Clara County should remain theirs in perpetuity. The problem with that argument is that until recently, no other team has formally pushed for a move to Santa Clara County. Sure, Schott had talks with Santa Clara in 2001, but those went nowhere fast and no serious prep work (EIR, feasibility study) was done. What is there to defend if no one is asking? Now the A’s are challenging those rights, and both teams are getting a little hot under the collar.

Finally, the Giants argue that because of the way the Bay Area was gerrymandered, the Wolff/Fisher 2005 purchase price of $172 or $180 million (depending on who you ask) is not reflective of the A’s having control over Santa Clara County. There is no comparable recent Giants sale price to compare it to, so we have nothing to go on there. The Giants’ 2011 franchise value, $563 million, has multiple components including the value of their ballpark and media empire, neither of which the A’s have. That makes it difficult to isolate what the true value of Santa Clara County is, at least when it comes to locating a stadium there. The Giants have also added and swapped partners in the intervening years more than 70’s Marin County couples at a key party, which makes it even more difficult to understand the value of any specific component or any particular stake.

One comparison you can make is the purchase prices of the two teams when Magowan and Schott entered the fray. To reiterate, Magowan’s bid for the Giants was $100 million in 1993. Schott’s bid for the A’s was $85 million in 1995. If we adjust the 1993 figure for inflation and ignore the downturn caused by the 1994 strike, a 1995 valuation is $105 million, a $20 million difference between the Giants and A’s. That’s probably the best comparison to make because it’s pre-AT&T Park and pre-media empire. Adjust that $20 million gap for inflation and the result is $30 million, which is what Roger Noll has argued territorial rights to the South Bay are worth. To some that may seem low and not reflective of baseball’s impressive post-strike growth. At 5% compound interest, the 2012 value is $45 million. At 10% it’s $101 million.

In any case, there is a value associated with an A’s move to the South Bay. It’s been the Selig panel’s charge to determine that value and the feasibility of the move. Maybe the Giants would be irreparably harmed if the A’s went to San Jose. I don’t believe they would, but I don’t have the information available to appraise the situation properly. The teams are busy spitting out press releases and statements. What I want is real figures. I want the presentation that the panel made to the MLB Executive Committee two months ago. Without that, we’re left with an incomplete picture and a lot of spin. Knowing that’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever see that presentation, I realize that my request is futile. I’m still putting it out there, hoping that at some point, we’ll all be better educated about all of this.

.

P.S. – I’ve also written about the price of T-rights in these posts: The Payoff, The Neukom Doctrine, A Territorial Rights Primer

03.08.12
by

San Jose Councilman Sam Liccardo talks nuclear option

An updated version of Mark Purdy’s column from earlier today has an interesting quote from San Jose Council Member Sam Liccardo. Liccardo, whose District 3 includes downtown San Jose and borders the ballpark parcels, is a staunchly pro-A’s-to-San Jose.

Meanwhile, officials in San Jose said Wednesday they remain planted firmly in wait-and-see mode. However, Councilman Sam Liccardo, who represents the downtown area, for the first time raised the possibility of governmentally addressing MLB’s unique antitrust exemption, which permits the league to control franchise movement in ways other pro leagues cannot legally do.

Liccardo said that if the antitrust exemption comes to be viewed as an impediment to free-market competition and economic progress, perhaps it should be challenged.

“The Giants should have nothing to fear to see the A’s compete for fans in San Jose,” Liccardo said. “May the best team win. That’s the American way.”

I’ve written in the past that an actual legal challenge to the Giants’ territorial rights wasn’t in the cards because of the cost of making such a move and the City’s constant fiscal difficulties. On Tuesday, the San Jose City Council passed a controversial motion to put pension reform on the June ballot. Earlier today, I saw what appeared to be public employees picketing along West San Fernando and Almaden Blvd. There’s a new twist to the story, in that the City may run a surplus for the coming fiscal year. Even though the surplus may be a result of major cutbacks, it’s still easier to make legal moves in that environment than it would for a city running eight-figure deficits on an annual basis. It’s far too soon to tell whether or not to take Liccardo’s threat seriously. The way MLB jealously guards and protects its antitrust exemption, it could easily dig in for a protracted battle. Then again, it may run screaming from a fight and push the Giants to accept a payoff if that threat proves a little too real. There’s only one way to find out, I suppose…
03.07.12
by

A’s release statement on Territorial Rights

Update 9:38 PM – the Giants’ statement:

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

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

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

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

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

This just came in a few minutes ago:

OAKLAND ATHLETICS

Media Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 7, 2012

STATEMENT BY OAKLAND A’S OWNERSHIP

REGARDING A’S AND GIANTS SHARING BAY AREA TERRITORY:

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss. The emphasis is in the original release.

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

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

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

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

03.07.12
by

3/6/12 News Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The City Council is couching their words.

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

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

3. 980 Park and the Ghost of Victory Court

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

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

…

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

03.06.12
by

More from Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Dobbins – Save Oakland Sports

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

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

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

Black Hole guy from Brentwood

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

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

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

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

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

Council members

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nadel – Constituents support 980 Park as part of study.

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

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

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

03.05.12
by

The last Bill Madden post

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

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

Madden’s arguments are these:

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

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

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

Madden even concedes this:

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

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

Eric Davis asks the proper question in the interview,

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

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

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

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

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

03.04.12
by

Selig slaps down Madden report

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

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

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

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

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

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

03.04.12
by

More broadcast notes: Spanish broadcasts, opening series

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

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

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

03.03.12
by

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bingo.