Category Archives: Athletics

11.03.11
by

Buster Olney is not all sunshine and roses

During this afternoon’s installment of The Drive with Brandon Tierney and Eric Davis, ESPN’s Buster Olney showed up for a segment on baseball and hot stove action. Among the talk of free agents was a discussion between the three about the state of your Oakland Athletics. As with the Wolff interviews, I’ve taken the time to transcribe the 5+ minute discussion. This time I won’t provide any commentary. I’ll leave that to you in the comments. Keep in mind that this was Tierney and Davis asking Olney on his opinion about the franchise, so do not take it as gospel. Instead, consider it simply as the view of a prominent national baseball writer who is not known for mincing words. Also, remember that Olney’s musing last year got the ball rolling on the Wolff-to-Dodgers rumor. That’s how powerful his word is.

Without further ado:

Davis: Things are just dire. They’re a mess over in Oakland.

Olney: Terrible.

Davis: It’s horrible over there. What do you hear that they’re willing to do in baseball to help this club?

Olney: Well, the Athletics continue to be strung along with the hope that they’ll eventually end up with a ballpark in San Jose. Here’s the thing. They started that Blue Ribbon panel 2 1/2 years ago, that’s 1 1/2 years longer than it took the Warren Commission to issue its report on the Kennedy assassination.

Davis/Tierney: *chuckle*

Olney: The bottom line is that they haven’t gotten any kind of traction from MLB. Now the Dodger situation is getting settled. The labor agreement is getting settled. Maybe at some point soon the Athletics – who to me right now have less hope than any organization in baseball – they are rotting. Maybe if those things get settled out that’s when you’ll see MLB go to the Giants and say, “Look, we need to talk. We need to figure out a way where you get the Oakland territory and Oakland gets San Jose.”  That way they can have a future. Right now the Athletics have no future and that’s why Josh Willingham is leaving and their other free agents are leaving, and they’re really not going to step in and do anything about it because their future is so uncertain.

Tierney: I’ll tell you. It is sad and I think you lay it out well. Willingham, there’s no doubt that he’s gone. DeJesus, Matsui, Coco Crisp. I guess the question is besides Jemile Weeks and Pennington who do we even know on the team next season?

Olney: And the pitchers.

Tierney: Yeah.

Olney: The problem is now though is that let’s say that midway through next year baseball stepped in and said, “Guess what? You get a stadium in San Jose.” All these pitchers they developed, the Trevor Cahills, the Brett Andersons, Gio Gonzalez. By the time they actually break ground and make progress and starting building that park those guys are going to be trade bait.

Tierney: That’s true.

Olney: They’re gonna have to move them out of there because they’re not gonna keep them around, and they’re not gonna sign them to long term deals. It’s really a sad situation.

Tierney: …Lew Wolff, where does he rank in terms of wealth amongst owners? I’m just trying to connect the dots here.

Olney: He’s got wealth – and I’ve always believed this – for example, when people rip the fans in Tampa Bay for not going seeing the Rays. My feeling is those people who live there, they made that decision based on their information. And I don’t blame them. If they don’t think it’s convenient, they don’t think it’s attractive, they’re not obligated to watch their games. I think in the same realm I don’t think Lew Wolff is obligated to pour his money down a hole. The history of Oakland Athletics, whether anyone likes it or not, they cannot draw there. They didn’t draw there with Reggie Jackson. They didn’t draw there with the late Billy Martin’s teams. They didn’t draw there for the Dennis Eckersley teams, the Tony LaRussa teams. They don’t draw now. I think you’ve got a lot of history which tells you that site and that place is a loser if you’re the Oakland Athletics.

Tierney: Wow. *laughs* That is just desperation mode.

Other than personal attacks, anything in that discussion is fair game in the comments. Keep it clean.

Have a nice weekend, everyone?

11.01.11
by

Revised Citi Field dimensions unveiled

Sandy Alderson is making his mark as the new general manager of the Mets, and it starts with changes to the dimensions at Citi Field. Sure, beleaguered owner Fred Wilpon probably made up his mind long ago, but Alderson must’ve had some say over the details. The new dimensions are much more neutral than the expansive, pitcher-friendly measurements of old, as you can see from the comparison below.

The corners remain unchanged and didn’t need to be changed. Gone is much of the Modell’s notch in right field, to be replaced by a picnic area and a chain link fence. Where the original juts out in the power alley, the dimension and wall remains. Another short fence brings in the notorious triples alley in deep right-center under 400 feet (hint-hint, Giants). In left field, most of the 16-foot high wall will have an 8-foot fence placed in front of it, which should make David Wright’s life a lot easier. Wright tallied 14 HR at Citi Field during the 2011 season, it should be interesting to see how much he and Jason Bay benefit. Bay in particular has not been able to make the adjustment with only 18 HR in 900 PA over the last two years. In addition, it’s just as important for the Mets that Citi Field shake its reputation so that it can attract free agent sluggers in the future.

Despite the planning goof that Citi Field was at the outset, it generally follows the important rule that it’s always easier to bring fences in than to move them out. Around here we’re worried enough about Cisco Field that we’ve turned to making suggestions about making the dimensions more neutral. Unlike Citi Field, which was built on a large expanse of land, Cisco Field’s dimensions are limited by a major street to the east. There’s no moving that, or a gigantic wall/building in right.

10.27.11
by

Dodgers may push A’s decision to backburner

The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser sheds more light on the San Jose land deals, adding this tasty bit at the end:

It is unlikely baseball owners would consider the A’s stadium at their meetings in Milwaukee next month because the Dodgers’ ownership situation is expected to dominate the agenda. Meetings scheduled for January might be more likely.

This probably wouldn’t have been an issue if it weren’t for the twin news items of Frank McCourt reaching a settlement with Jamie McCourt, then MLB reaching a settlement with Frank over a likely sale of the Dodgers. The Dodgers bankruptcy trial has been postponed, pending the outcome of both of those issues. The divorce settlement could be court-approved on November 14, right before the Winter Meetings. Assuming that it is approved, the Dodgers could easily push the A’s to the backburner, with the agenda already packed with the Astros-to-Crane sale and ongoing CBA talks.

10.26.11
by

A’s to get huge discount on SJ ballpark land

As part of the complex land deal the City of San Jose is trying to complete in order to assemble the Diridon ballpark site, City is selling five acres of land it has already acquired to the A’s (and Lew Wolff) for $6.9 million, according to the Merc’s Tracy Seipel. Indexed for inflation, that price is only a quarter of the original purchase price and half the land’s market value. The land in question includes the former Stephens Meat plant (now a parking lot), the vacant former KNTV studios, and other properties along West San Fernando. The land sale will be voted on at the November 8 City Council meeting.

If the Quakes land deal is any guide, City will do the following assuming they get the green light from MLB:

  • Make final offers to holdout landowners including AT&T, threaten eminent domain if needed
  • Allow A’s to step in and buy properties at market value plus relocation costs
  • A’s deed all land back to City
  • City arranges for nominal ground lease for A’s to build ballpark (similar to China Basin)
diridon_parcel_map-03_2010

Ballpark site parcel map as of March 2010

The whole package would have to be voted on be the citizens of San Jose sometime within the next year. I expect City to push hard for a special election sometime in the early spring – perhaps during spring training or as the baseball season begins – instead of choosing for the 2012 June primary or November general election.

Mayor Chuck Reed continues to express confidence (bravado?) in the City’s ability to finish the land deals without resorting to eminent domain. To that end, an AT&T spokesman gives a sufficiently cagey answer when asked about selling the Montgomery work center.

Within the span of nine days, we’ll have three major developments in this neverending saga:

  • November 8: San Jose City Council votes on land deal
  • November 10: Oral arguments begin on redevelopment court case in San Francisco
  • November 15: Territorial rights may be taken up on the owners meetings agenda (not guaranteed)

I’ve cleared my schedule properly to cover all of this, in person for the local stuff.

10.26.11
by

2012 MLB Schedule Analysis

Normally I do a review of the schedule immediately when it comes out. This time, I decided to step back in order to review the entire league. I’ve noticed a few things about how the schedule is put together, so I figured it would be best to take time to gear this post towards the traveler. I’ve done several ballpark trips over the years, and I’ve always been frustrated by the lack of tools available for those who want to take similar trips. Knowing this, I’ve taken the 2430-game 2012 MLB schedule and turned it into a grid (PDF), showing all games by home team and date. The teams are organized by geographical area (West Coast, Northeast, etc.) so it should easy to see how a traveler could hop from one city to another, catch a game in each market, then take a short trip to the next one. This first step is next season’s MLB slate, to be followed by all minor league teams. Then I’ll branch out to the winter sports, with the NHL to start, then NCAA basketball, and the NBA once if it gets its act together. I’ll round out the works with 2012 schedules for MLS and NFL/NCAA football.

[Tentative 2012 MLB schedule download in PDF format]

I’m getting ahead of myself. I’ve noticed in previous baseball seasons there are generally two “hot periods” for travelers to schedule ballpark trips for maximum efficiency. The first is mid-May, when interleague action starts. The other is around Labor Day. Those are the times when baseball tends to stray the most from its tendency not to schedule two teams in the same market concurrently. By allowing concurrent scheduling, fans can enjoy short travel distances between games and even the occasional two stadium, day-night doubleheader. This can be particularly effective on the East Coast and in the Midwest, where trips between markets are frequently four hours or less by car or train. Of course, the problem with having the “hot periods” occur in May and September is that they aren’t during the summer, when families are most likely to take long trips such as a weeklong pilgrimage to a few ballparks.

Shown in the spread format, there are a few other quirks about the schedule:

  • The A’s gave up a Sunday game (April 8) and a Thursday game (July 5) to accommodate the two “home” games to be played at the Tokyo Dome on March 28-29.
  • The A’s have another Sunday date with no game – August 26. For some reason, a three-game set with the Rays is scheduled for August 23-25, Thursday through Saturday. Update: This is due to a Republican National Convention event (thanks Nathan).
  • 16 marquee games are on the A’s home slate: 3 vs. the Giants, 6 vs. the Red Sox, 7 vs. the Yankees. 3 games vs. the Dodgers may also count. Expect these games to have premium pricing for non-season-ticket buyers.
  • The Miami Marlins play their inaugural game at the yet-unnamed, unsponsored ballpark on April 4, then don’t play another home game until April 13.
  • The Marlins have had 26 rainouts and 154 rain delays in their tenure at what used to be called Joe Robbie Stadium. MLB must really be looking forward to that going away for good.
  • There’s a unique opportunity from June 17 to June 26 to catch numerous games along the Northeast Corridor (Boston-NY-Philly-Balty-DC). If you don’t mind not watching the A’s, this is a flexible stretch during the summer.
  • The schedule PDF is poster size. Don’t expect it to look good being printed on a letter size sheet.

Enjoy the schedule. I appreciate any feedback you have on it.

10.16.11
by

Shea asks if the A’s could stay at the Coliseum if the Raiders leave

Sometimes I wonder if, given the lack of juicy topics, some of the local media default to writing about the A’s stadium situation. It’s not sexy, and it’s easy to write about without getting into any real depth. That’s exactly what Chronicle baseball writer John Shea did when opining about a new Coliseum ballpark.

Shea thinks that the possibility of a joint 49ers-Raiders stadium in Santa Clara should provide an opening for the A’s to stay there. The land is already there and paid for, as is BART and a ton of parking. Sounds simple enough, right?

Should the Raiders decide that they want to stay in Santa Clara long term, then yes, this could work out just fine and dandy. Except for a few minor details. Allow me to enumerate.

  1. The Raiders may only view Santa Clara as a temporary thing (10 years), with an eye towards building somewhere else in the future. The prime location would be the Coliseum, which as reported previously, has plans on the drawing board for a new football stadium and land purchased to support it.
  2. MLB wants this thing wrapped up by 2015. They’ve said so to both Oakland and San Jose officials. By waiting out the Raiders’ decision making process, they’re guaranteeing that a new ballpark for the A’s couldn’t open until 2017 or 2018 at the earliest.
  3. Why should MLB be subordinate to what the NFL is doing? The A’s have already suffered from that exact problem for the last 16 years.
  4. Who’s paying for the remaining debt at the Coliseum now? Certainly not MLB or the A’s.
  5. What happened to Victory Court? That’s the Oakland site that was chosen by both the City and MLB to move forward because of its location downtown. MLB has already dismissed the Coliseum and Oakland has gone along with it. Nothing has fundamentally changed to make the site more attractive. By going back and forth on sites like this, those involved look as if they’re not making a concerted effort. Instead, it looks like they’re grasping at straws.
  6. Wolff responds in the article to Shea’s idea by saying that he couldn’t privately finance it at the Coliseum site. And he’s right. A “rebuilt” Coliseum is out of the question since MLB would never go for it. And investing $450 million at the Coliseum is impossible for some time to come, given the state of stadium lending and the fact that it’s a “depressed area“.

The only thing that could drive this is if MLB outright rejected the A’s efforts to gain territorial rights in Santa Clara County. Even then, it really comes down to simple sentiment: Al Davis said before his passing that there could be a future for the Raiders at the Coliseum, whereas Lew Wolff doesn’t believe in such a future for the A’s. They’ve both spent a lot of time on this. After all this time, are they both wrong? Or is a quaint notion thrown out there on a whim more realistic? Somehow I find that hard to believe. Facts are inconvenient, I know.

10.14.11
by

Wolff, SJ ready to roll on remaining Diridon land purchases

We’re almost exactly one month from what could be a very pivotal owners meetings in Milwaukee. And while Commissioner Bud Selig may not end up feting his colleagues over a Brewers’ World Series, it may be that Selig’s frat bro Lew Wolff will be the one celebrating. Merc scribe Tracy Seipel reports that the recently formed San Jose Diridon Development Authority (a.k.a. SJ City Council) will meet in closed session to arrange an option from which Wolff could buy the remaining ballpark site parcels.

As discussed previously, Wolff would in all likelihood have to pay for both land and moving costs for the affected landowners/business, since SJDDA/SJRA is tapped out now and for some time to come. One thing that may help is that Maritz Wolff, Wolff’s real estate investment firm, sold a series of hotels in August for $570 million. Some portion of that could easily offset the estimated $24+ million of the remaining land buys. Now that I think about it, I wonder if the timing is set up for a 1031 exchange, which would limit tax exposure for Wolff (in-depth knowledge on this subject is above my pay grade).

Seipel also reports that the purchase may be part of a final push to convince Selig and the other owners:

Mayor Chuck Reed explained it another way:

“It’s so that Lew can go to the commissioner of baseball and say, ‘I control the dirt.’ ”

Reed characterized the plan as taking away “one more little reason the commissioner can’t make up his mind.”

Because of the black cloud over redevelopment and the lawsuit against the state, it’s possible that much of the money may have to be reclaimed by SJRA for its extortion payment to the state, the big bond payment that’s due next month (which could cause a default), or other issues that the agency has to address. It’s not just a matter of SJRA being broke. They also can’t enter into any new agreements, which is probably what caused City to in a moment of prescience create SJDDA. It’ll be interesting to see how the option agreement is structured. The Airport West agreement went through some major changes before arriving in its current form.

Seipel ends the piece with a note from City Attorney John Doyle, who said that a referendum will be required for the ballpark/land transaction.

There are a number of follow-up questions that can only be answered by the actions of SJDDA and affected parties in the coming weeks:

  • What will be the final price for the transaction(s)?
  • Does this lead to Wolff buying all of the land, or giving the purchased part back to the City/SJDDA?
  • Unlike Airport West, the purchase of Diridon has a much earlier deadline. What is that deadline?
  • Is Wolff in effect bailing out SJRA by doing this?
  • While Reed openly cheers on the influence that this move may have, Doyle (as you would expect) tamps down expectations on MLB’s decision-making. What’s the story here?

The road ahead promises to be scenic, and a little bumpy.

10.12.11
by

Population talk

At The Biz of Baseball, Maury Brown and Thomas Kelsey did a study of population per MLB market (existing and prospective) based on commute times to the home ballpark or site. Read the post and take a look at the table. While it’s a subject we’ve covered here at the local level, this comparison also includes potential relocation candidate markets. The census data used is from 2000, so it isn’t exactly up-to-date, yet it provides a reasonably good picture of what the markets look like.

Population in millions. Data from 2000 Census, compiled by Thomas Kelsey for The Biz of Baseball

Presented in this fashion, it’s interesting that Oakland appears most populous due to its central location relative to the rest of the Bay Area. As one might expect, there’s less population within an hour when the A’s are moved from the Coliseum to Victory Court. Based on population alone, San Jose falls into a mid-market range filled out by the Rockies, Indians, Twins, and Mariners. It’s also far superior to any potential relocation market except for perhaps a mythical northern New Jersey opening. It goes to show why, for various reasons, the A’s are not fully exploiting the Bay Area as they should. Oakland partisans will argue that the central location is best, whereas San Jose partisans will argue that the South Bay is the part of the market not getting exploited. All other factors (economic, demographic) aside, the A’s should be able to thrive in the Bay Area once they get a proper ballpark in which they can compete with the Giants.

10.10.11
by

$230,000,000

After the defeats of both the Yankees and Phillies in the divisional round, the most oft-tweeted fact was that all of the payrolls of the remaining four teams (Detroit, Texas, Milwaukee, St. Louis) were less than $107 million. All four teams can be considered midrange in terms of revenue and payroll, which makes it incredibly refreshing that those are the four left standing, not the mega-money teams of the biggest markets. We can only hope that this continues, if only to start a trend of “right-sizing” payrolls all over baseball in order to optimize efficiency. (Yeah right.)

That culling of the playoff herd was preceded by Lew Wolff’s observation (during the Tuesday interview with Carl Guardino) that should the A’s make the move to the South Bay, the team’s annual revenue could jump to $230-240 million. At first that seemed improbable and to me, perhaps a bit of a lark. Over the weekend I started to dig into the numbers to try to understand if it was possible. Not only is it possible, by the time the A’s finish their first year at Cisco Field, $230 million may be mandatory.

To get a better sense of this, it’s best to look at how MLB’s revenue has grown over the last decade, especially since the first revenue sharing CBA year in 2003. Back then, baseball’s total revenue was a shade under $3.9 billion. Last year was a cool $7 billion. During the last decade, the average annual revenue growth has been 6-7% year over year. That growth slowed with the recession, but it’s realistic to see growth rebounding to at least 4%, which would at least outpace inflation. To that end, I’ve run some projections over the next few years with a 5% growth rate (conservative, I expect Commissioner Selig and the owners to be satisfied with no less than 6% if the corporate customer base is considered healthy enough).

Mean and median revenue figures differ because of the distribution of big market teams with very high payrolls.

It gets even more interesting when the numbers are broken down per team.

Growth will be largely dictated by new media/broadcast deals, as well as additional gate revenue from new venues in Florida and California.

By 2015, the average revenue should be $250-260 million, an amount that would support a payroll of $125 million, almost twice what the A’s payroll was this past season. In effect, projecting to $230 million is merely trying to keep up with the Joneses. It’s what will be required for the A’s to truly minimize their revenue sharing “welfare” status. If the A’s can’t hit the median or mean revenue mark on a somewhat regular basis, it’s probably worth asking if it makes sense for the Bay Area to host two teams.

Rough revenue projections. Figures are for illustration purposes only and are not meant to be exact. Model assumes a continuation of the current 34% straight pool revenue sharing plan.

To get to $230 million in 2015, the A’s ownership group will have to sell the hell out of Cisco Field, including a 50% jump from 2014 to 2015 across the board in terms of local revenue sources. Given the meager results they’re getting while at the Coliseum, this is not an impossible task. (The Twins experienced a similar jump when Target Field opened.) Season sellouts for the first year or two would go a long way towards hitting the target. In 2015, the difference between 24,000 per game and 32,000 per game is over $26 million, let alone whatever additional money they get if the ballpark is larger than 32,000 seats.

When Lew Wolff and Billy Beane talk about planning for the next three years, the reasons for doing so start to crystallize when the numbers are laid out like this. Already, the Earthquakes’ $60 million stadium appears to be moving forward without significant upfront sponsorship commitments, indicating that Wolff is willing to make the cash calls necessary to get the ball rolling there. I’ve heard rumblings of private equity firms perhaps being involved, though it’s hard to see any heavy investment there when the return may not be as great as what such firms may be looking for. After all, it was only two months ago when Wolff said:

(Baseball’s) not an internal rate of return 20% or something like that. You shouldn’t be in this business if you want that.

Getting commitments for Cisco Field should not as difficult as for the Earthquakes stadium; in fact it should be a highly competitive situation. Still, ownership has to be looking at trying to reduce debt service as much as humanly possible, so they must have an internal target of upfront money they’ll need to push forward. Maybe it’s $200 million, maybe more (roughly 40% of the total cost). This is incredibly important because the private stadium loan market could be a complete wildcard over the next couple of years. Keeping debt service manageable doesn’t just help the bottom line, it will surely raise the franchise’s valuation due to its favorable debt position. Keep in mind that Cisco’s $120 million naming rights deal has a present value of $60 million, so the A’s will need much more than that to truly get going.

If Wolff gets a “no” decision from MLB, that leaves Beane with the regular revenue streams to fund the next several seasons’ payroll. It’s easy to see the A’s consistently hovering in that 74-86 win range depending on the team’s health. The team may be good enough to go for the division crown with some luck, and without luck the team would not be bad enough to score a top five first round draft pick. On the other hand, if San Jose is a go the controversial full rebuild could occur, with a key focus being another top ten pick to go along with Michael Choice (2010 #10). Jeffrey’s post from Friday explains the need for any money-challenged team to have a stable of developed top ten picks to serve as franchise cornerstones. This also highlights the importance of reining in debt, as it may be expected that the team run lean should a more aggressively enforced debt rule come into play.

In light of the lessons of Moneyball, it’s crazy to think that the A’s payroll in future seasons could frequently eclipse $100 million. Thanks to a little inflation and a lot of revenue sharing, the A’s are coming along for the ride. That will only take them so far, however. If the A’s are unable to significantly grow their own locally-sourced revenue on a regular basis, they be left behind competitively. With the future threat of multiple teams having $200+ million payrolls, the A’s have no choice. As Brad Pitt’s Beane flippantly says to a defiant Grady Fuson in the film, “Adapt or die.”

10.05.11
by

Notes from Wolff-Guardino interview 10/4/11

SVLG President Carl Guardino hosted Lew Wolff on KLIV’s The CEO Show (MP3) again, and it wasn’t some fluff piece. For brevity’s sake I didn’t transcribe all of the interview, only a select few quotes. Listen to the rest and decide for yourself.

Guardino asked about the A’s relationship with Cisco Systems, which seemingly hasn’t budged one bit since the Fremont unveiling in 2006.

GUARDINO: Cisco Systems, of course, is San Jose’s largest employer. They’ve been enthusiastic from the start about partnering with you on a ballpark in downtown San Jose. Are they still involved?

WOLFF: Well absolutely. John Chambers always says to me that we’re partners for life. I hope it’s even longer than that. They’ve been standing up with us. We haven’t really imposed on them too much the last couple of years because it’s up to us to deliver, not them.

Guardino went on to ask about the response to the SVLG 75 CEO letter written a year ago. No response from MLB or Commissioner Selig yet. Then Guardino asked how moving to San Jose would shift the future prospects for the ballclub:

Without question the demographics of San Jose per the number of corporations, which you know, the number of sponsorships, and the fact that we’d have a brand new, really creative venue, will probably almost double our revenues. And that’s on the conservative side. And normally baseball is pretty simple. Depending on your revenues, if your salaries are 40% or 50% of your revenues, you can compete. So if our revenues get up to $230-240 million that totally changes our focus in terms of what we can do.

Stop. At no point in any of my previous projections did I ever have the A’s revenue going past $200 million when Cisco Field opens. If Wolff is thinking $230-240 million, the A’s are suddenly in Giants-Angels territory. That’s a huge development. And it’s one Wolff could regret making as fans may hold him to that.

Wolff also talked about the some of the features in the ballpark we’ve talked about here, such as minisuites and personal signage and advertising. Asked about other features of the ballpark, Wolff describes “that thing in right field”:

Because of the size of the site we have – it’s rather compact – we will have a high wall in right field area. Which will have interesting seating which I won’t get into because I can’t describe it properly… We’re not trying to copy either the retro parks like the Giants have, nor are we trying to copy Wrigley Field or Fenway. We’re trying to do what Silicon Valley and all your members of (SVLG) do. Do something that hasn’t been done before, and not worry about where it hits because it doesn’t have an identical twin somewhere.

Wolff makes the case for sharing the Bay Area again. County Assessor Larry Stone (who had called in during a previous interview) asked to clarify Billy Beane’s statement there may be window for MLB to decide after the end of the World Series. Wolff’s response:

No, he’s not misspoken. Part of what Billy said, and I agree with, I may have even prompted Billy to say it, is that we need an answer, frankly now. While you’re not supposed to make announcements in October… we don’t feel bound that baseball will have to wait until after the World Series.

We’ve reached a point now where being in limbo, like we have been for so long, is not fair to Oakland. It’s not fair to San Jose. It’s not fair to our staff of about 130 people. It’s just not fair to anybody. Even a “No” answer, or “You can’t move to San Jose,” we need to know that. We can no longer – if we have any power – dance around this question.

It’s worth listening to the rest of the interview (MP3). They talk about the Giants and their ownership change, the future A’s roster and payroll, and several other topics.