Category Archives: Athletics

09.23.11
by

Thoughts on Moneyball

SPOILER ALERT: IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK, DO NOT GO ANY FURTHER. IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN SOME SUSPENSE REGARDING THE MOVIE, YOU MIGHT ALSO WANT TO WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS.

The struggle to transform Michael Lewis’ Moneyball from a study of a business model into a compelling screenplay has been an ordeal, to say the least. Unlike Lewis’ later work, The Blind Side, the payoff wasn’t as easy or tailor-made for Hollywood. Still, what remains at the core of both narratives is a redemption story, based on a character overcoming incredible odds to attain real success. That makes the Brad Pitt vehicle a show of artistic symmetry, in that the movie’s success to come is nearly as improbable as the on-field exploits of that plucky 2002 edition of the Oakland Athletics.

The first thing that struck me about Pitt’s performance is how weathered he looks as Billy Beane. The bags under his eyes are reminiscent of Benicio del Toro. He shows a full range of emotions, from his portrayal of Beane’s well-known mercurial attitude towards the team to his surprisingly tender moments with his daughter (Kerris Dorsey) and Peter Brand, the assistant GM amalgam played by the now-svelte Jonah Hill. Every A’s fan knows how Beane has evolved in terms of finding greater efficiencies, from unathletic OBP/OPS types to undervalued defensive players and now decent minor leaguers blocked from promotion by established stars in the majors. Despite that evolution, there’s that lingering suspicion that Beane’s methodology was either a fluke or wholly flawed, simply because the A’s didn’t get to or win a World Series. Acknowledgment of that suspicion shows on Pitt’s face, which was constantly full of regret.

The audience may come away from the movie thinking that the 2002 A’s were the MLB equivalent of the Bad News Bears. They weren’t. They had the year’s AL MVP (Miguel Tejada) and Cy Young winner (Barry Zito), neither of whom gets much pub in the film. Neither do Tim Hudson or Mark Mulder, the other two legs of the Big Three, nor Eric Chavez, who would in short order become the face of the franchise. That shouldn’t stop anyone, A’s fans included, from enjoying the film. It was necessary to pare down the story into one big narrative with a limited number of subplots. The team itself, as was known by that year three of the contending window, was a notoriously slow starter and bullish second half performer. Tension regarding Beane’s job security was ratcheted up a bit, as his halo didn’t really get dinged until 2004 or later.

Finishing the movie is Beane’s trip to Boston, where Red Sox owner John Henry bowls him over with a tremendous offer to become the highest paid GM in baseball, only to be followed by Beane backing out of the job and staying with the A’s, where he’d eventually get a small ownership stake a few years later. He famously stated about his fateful decision to choose the Mets over a Stanford scholarship:

I made one decision based on money in my life… and I promised I’d never do it again.

Despite the ownership stake and a contract that runs through 2014, Beane is linked to the Cubs’ GM opening and could be linked to both the Red Sox and Yankees GM positions should they become available. If he stays true to that quote – and it’s always tough to turn down big money – I don’t think he’ll leave the Bay Area. I got that sense earlier in the week, when Beane made rare lengthy appearances on A’s TV and radio broadcasts, and on 95.7. He claimed that he had no inside information, but I’m not convinced in the slightest. He seemed barely able to hold back whatever he was not telling.

The film seeks to give Beane some form of redemption by explaining how a sabermetric-focused approach helped the Red Sox win the Series in 2004. It’s still not the kind of Hollywood ending that the masses want. Beane is a loyal guy to family and organization, even if players are treated as little more than commodities much of the time. I think if he really wants to shake the critics once and for all, he’s gonna have to do it on his terms, as the GM of the Athletics. After spending the last four years in organizational limbo while the stadium situation had no resolution, Beane may be finally sniffing that rebirth, that window opening again. By no means does that mean the A’s will have payroll parity with the Yankees and Red Sox, let alone the Giants. But I figure he’ll take that extra $25-40 million a year in revenue, be rid of the “50 feet of crap” that the A’s are under, and start dealing in earnest once again. Like the long, strange road trip the film took towards eventuality, the stadium may yet see such a resolution and that may be the boost Beane needs to turn the A’s from challengers to champs. It would be more than enough to turn Moneyball from bittersweet to just plain sweet. I’m looking forward to it.

09.18.11
by

Bleacher seating clarification

This came this afternoon from A’s VP of Stadium Operations David Rinetti:

Rhamesis and Jennifer,

I am hopeful that both of you will use your means to send this message to all concerned A’s Bleacher patrons:

As you are all aware, we met with a small group of A’s regular Bleacher patrons a few days ago to discuss a potential change in policy. Our goal for this meeting was to try and come up with a solution to deal with the 200 or so complaints that we receive for every premium game in the Bleachers due to guests that show up without a place for their party to sit. Our hope was that we would work with the core group of Bleacher fans to create a way for them to purchase their regular seats in advance and even offer them incentives to do so. We have heard loud and clear from many of the Bleacher patrons through the various blogs and emails that there is clear opposition to this plan. Although some blogs and emails have accused the A’s of trying to alienate their fans, or that this was an intentional ploy by ownership to make things difficult for our Bleacher guests; this is very far from the truth. We were just looking for a way to improve customer service for our fans. Based upon the feedback that we have received, we will not be changing our policy in 2012. We will, however, aggressively monitor the Bleacher area for the premium games to make sure that all fans with Bleacher tickets can be seated.

We thank you all for your continued support of the Oakland A’s.

Respectfully,

David Rinetti
Vice President, Stadium Operations

That should settle it.

09.16.11
by

You mess with the bull, you get the horns

Update 9/18 3:00 PM: According to the Keep the Bleachers General Admission Facebook page, the A’s have done a 180 and reverted back to all General Admission seating in the Bleachers. Huzzah!

It seems as though I’m always in transit when news breaks. Anyway…

Word spread quickly today that, come 2012, the A’s are converting the Bleachers from general admission (no assigned seating) to assigned seating. As a guy who has taken in over 500 games in the Bleachers over the last 20 years, I have to say that I’m in shock. According to conversations with the ticketing office, the change was made because some season ticket holders in the Bleachers were upset that their seats were taken after family members briefly left the game action for a trip to the restroom. While this has happened occasionally for some of the higher attendance dates, I rarely saw this occur. Personally, I have to admit that I usually sat a few rows up instead of taking the prime “front row” seats on the rail in part to avoid the possibility, no matter how remote the chances.

I suppose it’s fitting that tonight’s fireworks show is Star Wars themed, making the bleacher creatures the rebel alliance and Lew Wolff, well, Emperor Palpatine. A few minutes ago I asked David Rinetti to comment on this via email. I’ll post a response if I get one. Update: response at the end of this post.

The obvious theory at this point has many already begrudged fans thinking that Wolff has done this out of spite in response to the at times numerous anti-Wolff posters along the RF rail. I can’t discount it. If the purpose is to motivate some of the protesters (many of whom are season ticket holders) to give up and stop going to A’s games (and thus stop the protests inside the Coliseum), it just might work. He and his staff must have calculated the bad PR they’d get from this and went with it anyway. Like the tarping of the upper deck, this may be a sort of ticketing experiment to see what the response from the fanbase will be. And when the outcry happens, they can point to it and say, “See, we can’t even make a change from a very outdated business model – general admission seating. How can the franchise survive like that?”

Of course, that ignores the decades of tradition of consumer-friendly general admission tickets, even though they are more expensive ($13) than both the Plaza Outfield ($9) and Value Deck ($12). It’s all about the freedom of GA. I could get there on a weeknight after work and sit in the 4th row above the 362′ mark just before the seating bowl bends into a very baseball-unfriendly angle. If not the 4th row, then the 5th. Or 6th. Chances are it was available, with no hassle from the ushers. Now that’s gone, just like my carefree youth.

One thing I never understood about the tarping change was the conversion of the Plaza Bleachers to assigned Plaza Outfield seating, while the regular Bleachers stayed GA. It would’ve made more sense then to convert the Bleachers to Outfield Reserved seating, while the Plaza Bleachers remained GA. Sure, it would have punished the old die-hards even earlier, but it would’ve at least retained GA elsewhere in the park. A better way to make the change would be to have either the left field or right field area remain general admission, while the other side could be converted into “family” assigned seating, sort of like what the Giants did when they remade the Pavilion stands at the ‘Stick almost 20 years ago. I’ve added myself to supporters of the new Keep the Bleachers General Admission Facebook group, and I hope others will too. This move seems drastic and unnecessary, especially at this stage of the A’s tenure in Oakland. If the A’s are going to move to San Jose eventually, why not let Oakland-only fans have at least a few of their beloved institutions? Better that than the continued scorched earth campaign.

P.S. I got Rinetti’s response just after I hit the Publish button. Here it is:

Thanks for your letter.  We are encountering significant ticketing issue on our premium games in which over 200 fans per game have bleacher seats and can’t find seats together or seats at all.  We have come up with a plan to take care of the regular bleacher guests and even provide them with a discount as long as they purchase their seats in advance.  The regular games that have plenty of open seating will not be an issue.  It will be the games vs. the Yankees, Giants, Red Sox and some of the fireworks shows.  If you would like to call me after Tuesday of next week, I can explain further. 

I think I’ll give Rinetti a call next week.

09.15.11
by

Unanimity

On March 11, Chuck Greenberg was ousted as Texas Rangers’ managing partner and CEO. Nolan Ryan was named CEO immediately thereafter, with the plan to become the managing partner down the road. Two months later on May 12, Ryan was approved as the Rangers’ managing partner by a 30-0 vote.

Just over six months after Greenberg’s ouster, the Giants were forced to announce managing partner Bill Neukom’s “retirement”. Mark Purdy reported that Larry Baer would be named CEO of the team, with someone else becoming managing partner. Purdy included three names as the possible next managing partner, including Franklin Templeton Chairman Charles Johnson, who appears to be the frontrunner among internal candidates (I’m not aware of any outside money coming in at this point, though Neukom said he will divest his share in the future). The Giants will need to address that hole at the top of the organization, since it’s the managing partner who represents the team on all relevant league matters, and a fairly important league matter is coming up in CBA negotiations. (The CEO title is entirely internal to the team organization.) Based on the lead time for the slam dunk approval for Ryan and the drawn out process for Jim Crane’s purchase of the Astros, approval of the Giants’ new managing partner candidate should take at least two months.

Now we all know how much Bud Selig, who gives the ultimate thumbs up or down on all ownership matters, likes consensus (or at least the appearance of it). He had no trouble rustling up the 30-0 yea for Ryan, since the fireballer has been a known quantity in baseball for over four decades and is not the type to rock the boat. He wants the same thing for the Astros, and he should get it for the Giants. Reservations about Crane’s previous business doings have tripped him up at least in some owners’ eyes. Just as reservations stand in the way for Crane, there could be at least one owner who stands in the way of 30-0 for the Giants: Lew Wolff.

Wolff has signaled on this site that he’s going to go along with whatever the Commissioner decides, so we can’t expect Grandpa Lew to pace outside Bud’s office wearing a sandwich board. Yet he doesn’t even need to formally verbalize his dissatisfaction regarding the Giants’ territorial rights stance in an owner’s meeting – everyone knows what he thinks and the threat he represents. This provides an opportunity – or rather, an excuse – to bring the two teams to the table to work things out. The Giants have the big holdout vote on the A’s moving to San Jose, and the A’s could be the dissenter in approving a new Giants managing partner. Obviously, the two decisions are not even in the same spectrum in terms of impact, but when you have a commissioner who strives for unanimity, even the smallest tensions can upset it. What’s a commissioner who normally sits on his hands to do? The last thing he needs is the appearance of disunity among his ranks, and a stalemate between the two Bay Area teams couldn’t come at a worse time, even if CBA negotiations are not expected to be particularly rancorous. Both the Dodgers and the Mets are on Lady Justice’s clock, which means no quick resolutions for either.

It’s unfortunate that the Giants chose to make this change now, before the season is officially over. They know that the CBA is coming up, they know that Wolff is looking for a crack in the door. They were probably looking to wait until after the big decisions were complete in November-December before they announced Neukom’s departure. Purdy foiled their plan with his reportage, and if it wasn’t for the very professional Giants media relations staff, he’d be persona non grata at AT&T Park. Nevertheless, that’s where we are now, and while it’s a leap to think that Wolff will aggressively pursue a course of action or lobby owners, that crack is there.

I’ll characterize Wolff’s chances at this point at 25-30% of getting what he wants, 50% of at least getting to the table. Considering where we’ve been for the last few years, I think he’ll take the odds every time.

08.30.11
by

News for 8/30/11

There’s a little back-and-forth between the Chargers and a LA-based blogger who has concluded that AEG is buying 96% of the team from the Spanos family, with the intent of moving the franchise to a new downtown LA stadium. Chargers spokesperson Mark Fabiani has said unequivocally that the team will not be sold.

Tim Kawakami has done some back-of-the-envelope numbers on financing for the 49ers stadium and has come up with many of the same conclusions written here a year ago.

Chron sports editor Al Saracevic reports on a new parking study commissioned by a SF Planning Commissioner takes issue with the 49ers stadium EIR’s assessment that parking inventory will be “equal to or superior to any in the NFL.” Considering the way this new study was derived, the results have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, that’s not to say that there aren’t good points. I’m absolutely certain that tailgating, of the kind Niner fans currently experience at the ‘Stick, will be practically extinct. It’ll be largely replaced by team-sponsored fan zones and other tailgating facsimiles.

BANG is asking fans to submit suggestions as to how the Raiders can increase attendance in Oakland. Send responses to turn2@angnewspapers.com or ccnsports@bayareanewsgroup.com.

A fan fell down a stairwell at Rangers Ballpark on Saturday. The unidentified 24 year-old man was knocked unconscious by the fall and remains in a local hospital.

I want take this opportunity to address something discussed in the last comments thread. There’s an opinion – generally espoused by Rick Tittle – that the A’s should spend money on the Coliseum to make things a little more fan friendly. Tittle frequently cites the investment made by Peter Magowan when he assumed control of the Giants as a good example. It sounds good in theory, but it doesn’t explain how this would work. Let’s get a few facts out of the way regarding what the Giants did:

  • The Giants spent $5 million in 1994 to add new LF bleachers, field boxes, the outfield fence, and the out-of-town scoreboard above the RF pavilion.
  • The money also went toward replacing the dirt warning track with the rubberized “tartan” surface. After all, you can’t have high rollers in field boxes stepping on dirt to reach their seats, or have wind-blown dust in their eyes.
  • In 2011 dollars, the inflation-adjusted value would be $8 million or less.

We’ve talked a lot about what it would take to spruce up the Coli, even to the point of fans initiating the effort since we can’t expect the A’s, Raiders, or Coliseum Authority to do it. We’ve heard that the Coliseum Authority may be replacing the obsolete scoreboard system, which is a good and necessary move. However, there aren’t many other changes that could be made that wouldn’t adversely impact either the A’s or the Raiders. Consider this:

  • I’ve suggested in the past that the best way to expand the lower concourse is to take out the last 3-4 rows of the field level seats and make new platforms for wheelchair seating areas and standing room sections. Doing this would remove 3,000+ seats, which would drop the Coliseum’s capacity below 60,000, below NFL guidelines. I can’t imagine either the Raiders or the NFL going for that, even if the Raiders don’t routinely sell out the joint.
  • The A’s can’t add more seats on the field because space is taken by the dugouts, the existing field boxes, the rolled up field tarp, and the bullpens.
  • The A’s can’t reduce foul territory by reconfiguring the lower deck without major engineering and construction challenges.
  • The Coliseum does actually have some modern amenities, such as the West Side Club and the Diamond Level seats.
  • As much as people complain about the troughs in the men’s restrooms, the decision to keep those in place was made in 1995. Have you ever noticed that the troughs have those sensors above that can tell when you’re finished and then flush? That’s the extent of change in the original restrooms.
  • It’s possible that the A’s could invest in expanding the clubhouse facilities, but I don’t know what complexities lie in attempting that.

Now let’s say that you own the A’s, and like what Magowan did 17 years ago, you’d like to spend $8 million, no, up to $10 million on the Coliseum to improve the experience. Take the scoreboards off the table. What would you improve? Do you have any idea how much it would cost? Is there a decent chance you’d recoup that investment? One thing to keep in mind is that when Wally Haas sunk money into the Coliseum, he was eventually paid back by the Coliseum Commission. He eventually saw greater revenues during the Bash Brothers era, but was unable to sustain that in the long run. Many of the current deficiencies with the Coliseum can’t and won’t be addressed by quick fixes.

Before you chime in, read this ESPN article about the A’s and their relationship with the Coliseum by Mark Kreidler, one of the “Rise Guys” brought in from Sacramento a month ago. Then look at the date. Some things never change.

08.25.11
by

Stirring the Beane pot

A few Bay Area writers are talking up Billy Beane possibly leaving for Chicago’s North Side, with the rationale being that Brad Pitt’s alter ego will exit stage right after having experienced too much frustration regarding the A’s low revenue status.

All this sounds fascinating given the A’s record and the lack of resolution on the stadium front. However, it falls apart once you scratch the surface.

First of all, while the story has created something of an echo chamber effect here, there are no media reports emanating from Chicago about Beane being a candidate, speculation or otherwise. There are several “hot” candidates who are either younger or easier to get contract-wise. Dozens of articles have been written about the purported frontrunner for the Cubs’ GM job, current White Sox assistant GM Rick Hahn – who just happens to be a Chicago native and a lifelong Cubs fan. Then there’s the status of wunderkind Rays GM Andrew Friedman, who is currently working year-to-year with no contract. Ned Colletti and Brian Cashman have been discussed as well. On the other hand, Beane is signed through 2014, and even though Lew Wolff would let Beane go if he asked, figuring out how to properly terminate the contract (ending in 2014) and have Beane divest his 2.5% stake in the A’s/Quakes is another matter altogether.

Then there’s a simple matter of timing. Chances are that Cubs owner Tom Ricketts will want to get his new GM in place no later than October, so that his new hire will have a fighting chance in the free agent market (there are some first basemen who may catch Ricketts’ fancy). It’s highly unlikely that we’ll hear a decision on Santa Clara County territorial rights by that point, leaving Beane and the rest in ownership in limbo. Beane would effectively be basing his decision on a hunch, and as we all know, Billy’s a little more empirically driven than that.

For his part, Wolff has been pretty straightforward on this semi-issue (from Shea’s piece):

“I would never inhibit anybody from bettering themselves because of a contract,” said Wolff, who had lunch with Beane on Wednesday and said no team has called regarding his GM. “Billy is fantastic and, to me, indispensable. My hope is he will be here a long time. I did promise Billy and all the guys we would have a venue so they would be able to further execute their abilities, and I think that will happen.”

Sounds optimistic.

“I have to be,” Wolff said. “There is no choice for us, for the good of baseball. It’s sad it’s taking this long.”

He added, “I’m going to build a new stadium for the A’s, and if I’m not, someone will,” but he was quick to point out he didn’t mean he’d move the club or sell to out-of-town interests, instead mentioning his son, Keith (vice president of venue development) as a possible baton receiver. “We’re working every day. If it doesn’t happen, we’ll go to Plan B, which I don’t have.”

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that despite the A’s revenue problem, Beane likes his life. He oversees two franchises by day and pals around with venture capitalists at night. Not to say that he couldn’t get some of that in Chicago, but really, porkbellies aren’t as interesting as tech. And I have to think that as a particularly driven guy, he might not feel his work is done just yet. Just a hunch.

08.12.11
by

C.J. Wilson Appreciation Night

I’m at the yard early. As you would expect, the field is pretty torn up after last night’s Raiders game. Here’s the evidence.

20110812-055531.jpg
Hopefully the crowd is large and lustfully booing our not-so-new nemesis, Texas Rangers hurler C.J. Wilson. I’ll do my part. It’s good to have the boys back. It’s good to be back.

For this homestand, I’ve decided the official song for the blog is “Oh Sherrie” by Steve Perry. Dig into the lyrics, and you might find a metaphor for our Athletics, ownership, and us fans. Enjoy the game. (Yes, I know that Perry is a Giants fan who sold out for the White Sox in ’05. It’s a freaking pop song. Lighten up Francis.)

08.05.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 5

Part 5 of 5 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

LW: How about redevelopment? Don’t you want to talk about that?

ML: I’m getting right to that. Actually let’s talk about T-rights for one more question. If there was a dollar value attached to the T-rights here, is that something you’d consider? Is there a threshold or limit for that?

What do you mean, pay for this (Santa Clara County)? We should be paid for what we or the Haas family gave up?

ML: Well, I suppose this is an academic thing.

We’ll leave that up to the commissioner.

ML: Okay. Fair enough. On to San Jose and redevelopment. There are two properties remaining that have to be acquired. We last heard that they were supposed to be wrapped in June but we haven’t heard anything from the City about that. I’m guessing that they haven’t done it because of all the shakeup with the budget and the ending of redevelopment. Now that they’ve filed a lawsuit there’s all sorts of stuff up in the air.

San Jose went and acquired half the property or more, which is good for us because they’re committed. I spent most of my adult life in redevelopment. We’re not looking for redevelopment to hand us a check or a bond issue or anything. That’s true in Oakland too. The value of the land that we think it is, if San Jose needed that money to be paid to be the last properties (we’ll do it). We thought at first that we’d end up leasing land. Owning the land would be better for us. Whether it’s redevelopment, the city, a special district, whatever the hell they come up with, it makes no difference to us because we’re not looking for anything different than we would be normally. So in a funny way it’s a little better for us.

ML: Really?

Well, look. If we’re fortunate enough that they announce that we can go you have to close your eyes and say, “What will that mean?” The whole community is gonna be excited about that. The thing that bothers me is that – even in this economy – we need a ballpark whether the economy is good or bad. Right?

ML: Yeah.

So why should we be holding up jobs and construction and so on over an argument that I think is –

ML: Petty?

Petty. As a percentage of what we’re doing, the cost of the land, I don’t know what it’s going to be, if you’re going to spend $400-450 million the land is not going to be a situation where it costs X percent and it’s too much so we’re not going to build a new ballpark.

I hate to see what’s happening to redevelopment, because I think it’s one of the few aspects of government that has a cost-benefit to it. I’m still surprised – and I like Governor Brown – I didn’t get why he did that. The answer is that I’m sorry about what’s happening to all of these cities in California. We have a real shovel-ready project if nobody interferes with it. It’s not a concern. Your blog talks about it all the time which I think it good but it really isn’t a problem for us. We have one problem, and that’s the decision. Is that clear?

ML: Yes, and it’s somewhat reassuring in light of what we’ve learned in the past 6-7 months.

I didn’t say it was good for all cities.

ML: I’m not going to lie. There are a lot of people on the blog who read and comment who look at this and say, “That’ll be one more thing that eventually eliminates Oakland or some other city because they won’t have the resources to make it happen.”

By the way, they’re right. Not San Jose though – they’ve spent the resources. Their EIR is done. We may have a lawsuit from some phony – you know all that stuff. Starting now, somewhere else? Forget it, it’s not gonna happen. Anywhere.

ML: Did you even conceive that something like this would enter the equation when you started?

No, not at all.

ML: Going back to the first question, so much has changed in six years. 

A lot has changed and sometimes things that look negative may be positive for certain people, and vice-versa.

ML: The last questions I have are more fun stuff. I was considering bringing a book that I bought last year when I visited Target Field.

The Target Field book?

ML: The big book, the commemorative book. 

I have it.

ML: It’s beautiful, covers the entire history of how they got to that point. Other sites that were considered. Politics, and then finally the actual construction. Have you been to Target Field and maybe the Marlins ballpark?

I have been to Target Field but not the Marlins ballpark.

ML: What do you take away from Target Field?

Are you talking about the history of it?

ML: No, just the ballpark.

I think it looks terrific. It’s actually built on a smaller site than we have. It’s cantilevered out over –

ML: Over streets and railroads.

I don’t think we can afford to build that structure in California privately. They’ve had some help there (in Minnesota). What we’re planning to do is this. When you air-condition space like special restaurants and things. Because of San Jose and the economy and so on. We’re gonna have all of the great concessions but we’re not gonna have a stadium club because we want the downtown to provide that. The less air-conditioned space you have the more you can put into the field. Target Field is great. Give it to me tomorrow and I’ll take it in a second.

But we will be the closest to the field of any ballpark ever built in baseball, at least in my lifetime. And it’ll be fun. We just want to have fun. We want the fan to walk in and have fun. We don’t need to have a monument or tribute like Yankee Stadium – it’s incredible there, the materials and everything. It’s a $1.5-2 billion or whatever it costs. What we want is for somebody to go and say, “Gee, that was really a fun experience. I felt like I was really close to the player.” Each of our places in the ballpark – and my son can go over this with you – are neighborhoods. So it might be better to be in LF standing up than it would be to be behind home plate.

The average (attendance related to) capacity last year based on our study: 51%. So everybody’s saying we’re making this thing too small. Number one – we’re in a two-team market even though the other team doesn’t agree. [laughs] Number two – we think less is more. We want players to look up and have the stands filled. As much as they shouldn’t care whether it’s one person or 50,000, they do care.

ML: They absolutely care.

And so does the manager and so does the staff and the ticketing group. We have 130 people we employ and deserve to have a proper operating environment.

ML: Okay. Going to the Cisco Field renderings that were released last year by Baseball San Jose. A bunch of us, because we’re stadium geeks, started to dissect the pictures to figure out what’s in there, what’s going on. We were able to divine a few things and maybe some of my guesses were wrong. The first thing that stuck out from a pure baseball standpoint – because that’s what we watch, the action on the field – in RF you have that big wall of something facing Autumn Street. The dimensions of the field –

I’m gonna defer to my son Keith. who lives up here in the Bay Area. I’m gonna have him call you or you can call him, either way. He can sit down and explain this to you. It can be a separate blog time. I like it, but I just don’t have the info.

ML: Is Keith dealing with most of this technical stuff now, nose to the grindstone?

He’s my son so I don’t want to overdo it. He’s a little less emotional than I am. Probably smarter, Harvard MBA and all that. He’s a real estate developer and a good athlete. Billy wants to see more of Keith but Keith’s nose to the grindstone, trying to keep everything going here. On both soccer and baseball plus he has other activities outside of that. You’d get a kick out of talking to him.

ML: I’d love to do that, whether that’s soon or after the decision is made.

The other thing is the architect, who used to be with HOK then left – if the two of them were here you’d get a kick out of talking to them. They’re great people. I’ll work on that.

ML: That’s the stuff that we (on the blog) really want to talk about. You mentioned Billy Beane just now. Do Billy and Keith have an ongoing dialogue over how the ballpark should be developed? 

What Billy wants is to do is be able to walk into an office where he doesn’t trip over boxes and stuff. The answer is that we have Steve Vucinich [Ed.: VOOSE! A’s equipment manager]. He has a continuing list of all things the things he’d like to see in the ballpark. He’s been keeping the list for so long that it’s been getting yellow, he teases me. We will use all of our people – we have already but not to the degree when we start actually determining storage space, down to the details. We have great resources for this. Better than just consultants.

ML: That reminds me of when what is now Chase Field was being planned, they left a lot of the conceptual stuff to Buck Showalter, a manager. 

A manager would like to have more space between the foul line and the stands. We want to have one inch. So we’ll have that kind of battle going.

ML: I like that kind of battle. It’s a good thing to sink your teeth into. One more question. During the Fremont unveiling, you referenced ancillary development items such as the baseball village and museum. What happened to the museum concept? 

We probably don’t have room for it there. My partners, the Fishers, they contributed a wing to an art museum in San Francisco. They talk about a museum all the time. They look at the art of baseball. Or maybe they’re talking about pure art. They’ve also been down here and have had a conversation with the local museum. [Ed. – As we are talking I look out the window at the San Jose Museum of Art, a short throw from where I sit.] They have a great art collection, it’s not necessarily sports-related or sports memorabilia. We haven’t thought about it, but we’re open to those kind of fun things. Right now we don’t know if we can incorporate too much of that into the ballpark because of the size. So it isn’t perfect. If John Fisher were here he’d be talking about bringing great contemporary art to a baseball park and I’d be talking about bringing somebody’s uniform.

ML: You know what? I went to Cowboys Stadium last year and there were several contemporary art installations throughout. And it’s really beautiful and striking. 

John will be a big influence on this facility.

ML: That’s great. One last thing. When you look at the renderings, I’ve had a few people tell me it looks like a modernized mirror image of Fenway Park. 

You know, I don’t see it that way but I’m not sure. It is small and compact. Again, I’d like to defer that to the meeting with Keith and so forth. I mean, if we had Fenway Park right now I’d be very happy. [laughs]

ML: [laughs] For years, Fenway had 33,000 seats and no one complained.

You gotta always remember we’re in a two-team market. While there’s plenty of baseball, there’s plenty of other attractions in California, in fact there are more attractions than in Boston for the consumer. We gotta be careful about that.

Is that helpful? I’m pleased you were willing to do this. Believe me.

ML: I’m pleased that you had time to sit down and discuss this.

I guess the point is that I keep getting beaten up, and if people feel that way fine. I feel there are areas where we’ve really been diligent that people don’t want to think about.

ML: This was really great. It’ll be really productive when it gets posted. 

[Ed. – I had originally meant to follow up the museum question with one about honoring A’s history but was thrown off by Lew Wolff’s response that I forgot it. We were also heading into a hard stop. I’ll be sure to broach that in the discussion with Keith Wolff.]

08.04.11
by

Pulling the trigger on Zito

In 2005, Gwen Knapp proposed that the A’s trade Barry Zito, he of the Cy Young award and two All Star appearances to date, to the Giants for the territorial rights to Santa Clara County. I had remarked that the concept wasn’t that far-fetched, though readers noted that Knapp was probably was writing with tongue placed firmly in cheek. Now there’s talk that the Giants may waive Zito outright, with two years and $46 million ($7 million buyout in 2014) remaining on his contract.

With the Giants not budging on territorial rights, $19-20 million for each of the next two years is a lot to waste with Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain accruing service time in the process, and Brandon Belt looking not ready for prime time. The team is raking in the dough, for sure, but with the mortgage on AT&T Park they aren’t exactly up in the revenue stratosphere with the Red Sox and Yankees. That means that they’ll need every bit of that $19-20 million if they want to sign a Prince Fielder-type, who have (post-Bonds) been reluctant to play out their careers at hitter-unfriendly China Basin. Even for the Giants, windows of contention are finite, though longer than for, say, the A’s.

The A’s will have a largish revenue sharing check coming this offseason, and they usually have the ability to absorb additional salary up to a $75 million payroll, based on their annual revenue. They could conceivably take Zito in a trade for scraps (ex.: Josh Outman), which would limit payroll flexibility for the A’s while increasing it for the Giants. A trade by the waiver deadline would go through uninterrupted since no other GM is going to touch Zito’s contract with a ten-foot pole. The Giants would not throw in any cash, making Zito’s total value around $49 million including his prorated remaining salary for 2011 (assuming Zito comes off the DL in time for a trade/physical).

Should a San Jose ballpark open in 2015, the Giants’ claim of damages related to the move amounts to $60 million to cover the final three years of debt service on AT&T Park (2015-17). $49 million is clearly short of $60 million, but there’s also a matter of opportunity cost as well. How much is that extra $19-20 million for 2012-13 worth to the Giants? In a way it’s worth twice as much since the money would be freed up to get another player that they wouldn’t be able to get if they were hamstrung by Zito’s contract.

From a business of baseball standpoint, it would also be the cleanest way to resolve the T-rights debate since it wouldn’t require any action by Bud Selig other than the approval of the trade by the league office and then the procedural vote during the winter meetings. It would be a clean, above-board deal, done conveniently to coincide with rewritten definitions of T-rights in the next ML Constitution (however they’re written). There’d be no need to redirect the A’s revenue sharing check or other financial gymnastics. Politically, it would fit Selig’s M.O. of waiting around until a solution presented itself. And while the A’s payroll flexibility would be less, at least they’d be getting back a fan favorite during a rebuilding era.

Brian Sabean got a taste of glory last November, along with a hefty contract extension. It might be difficult to convince Bill Neukom to go along with the idea, but Neukom’s also taking a chance on not getting anything at all when the time comes. Competitiveness now over anticompetitive business practices? I wouldn’t put it past Neukom to go with the latter. I’d like to think that, in the end, he’s a sensible man. Strange how the tables have turned, eh?

08.04.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 4

Part 4 of 5 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

ML: Now lets move onto everyone’s favorite topic – tarps. They’ve been a bone of contention ever since they’ve been up there. What have you learned from having them up there, whether they were an experiment or another initiative, do they help? Hurt? Does it even matter?

Actually, I want to go to your site. The doubleheader the other day. It was interesting. Somebody caught me the other day at the soccer game, he said, “Oh, I went to the doubleheader, I’m a Giant fan but it was so much fun.” But in your own blog, there were a whole lot of comments saying, “Gee the (Coliseum crowd) looked great because the tarps were there.”

ML: A lot of people said that.

There you are, I win, they (the critics) lose. Move on.

ML: [laughs] And it wasn’t even a sellout. 27,000.

I know, but it would be better if the seats weren’t there. Look, we have $2 Wednesday and a $1 hot dog. You personally have a problem with that. There’s a limit of ten (hot dogs). [laughs]

ML: It’s true. [Ed.: Years ago I once ate six dollar dogs in one sitting. I am no Joey Chestnut.]

I want to see the person who eats that. All kidding aside. Everybody’s saying you have to open this or do that, make it cheaper and cheaper. We need revenue, yet nobody says, “Look how reasonable the A’s game is compared to the Giants.” Which is fine, they have a better environment to go to. You should pay more there.

ML: That actually gets me to something I’ve been thinking about for a while. All the discounts that are available. They’re great and they allow families to come in (more frequently), but sometimes I wonder if there are too many discounts, that it devalues the product.

It definitely does. If everything is product – I’m not saying gouge people – but everything is product. I sort of get a kick out of Groupon. It’s a big problem all sports and concerts, Stubhub and others. Somebody wrote an article in the LA Times where the people went to a Dodgers game for $2.95, they got three seats. It’s also in the hotel business – you’ve got all these sites like Expedia. I don’t know where it’s going but a lot of people go on StubHub. Sometimes they’ll buy seats for triple. Sometimes they’ll buy seats for a third. It’s a very good point. Baseball’s looking at it. The hotel is looking at it in a different way. Who owns the content and controls the price? We own the content. I’m not sure we control the price.

ML: The Tuesday free parking promotion that you’ve had for couple years. Monday’s attendance was 11,000. Tuesday’s was 12,000. 

In the house Monday was 5,500. Tuesday was 8,000. I don’t know if the parking was a factor.

ML: It doesn’t seem like it has a lot of traction.

One of the problems is that we don’t have (much to work with). I think our marketing group may be one of the best in baseball because they have such a challenge. It’s fun to be at the Coliseum, but I don’t know (beyond that). We try everything. The critics say, “Lew’s trying to discourage fans.” That’s really not true. If they want to believe that it’s fine.

Our revenues are around $140-150 million. Our payroll is $75 million. That’s about right. I could name another team or two teams whose payroll is around $40 million. We’d make a lot of money if we did that. I will not do that.

ML: The team you’re playing right now (Tampa Bay).

They run pretty well. I was thinking of a different team.

[Ed. – Wolff demurred on naming the team.]

Over a time period, because of where they were in the standings, all of a sudden they got some terrific young players through the minors. Billy has kept us competitive, and he doesn’t get as much credit as he should, but that leaves us in the middle of the draft. So where other teams get higher picks –

ML: Top ten pick.

That’s never been my goal. I’m convinced that we will have a new stadium in 4-5 years. I hope it’s here. I can’t keep asking Billy and his guys to (deal with being a low revenue, low payroll team).

ML: In the past two years regarding player development, it seems you have gone in a different direction of going after international players, whether it’s Michael Ynoa or Hisashi Iwakuma. Outside the draft. Is that some sort of new targeted strategy?

It’s a strategy but it’s not new. The big money teams. I don’t have the exact figure, but in the last few months the Rangers have spent some $20+ million in the Dominican Republic. [Ed. – Technically this was $23 million for three players, two from D.R. and one from Cuba.]

If the new CBA has draft pick slotting and an international draft it’ll be better for us. We can’t go after free agents and pay somebody six years [trails off]. Last year we thought we had the makings of a pretty good team. We sat down with – and I personally was involved with Billy and David and Scott Boras – and we sat down with Adrian Beltre. We went down to Orange County and met with him. At the end of the day we offered somewhere over $70 million for however many years, pretty much equal to what the Angels offered. Scott said, “No he’s gonna get $90 million.” And Adrian was wonderful. We left and thought, “That’s not what he’s getting.” And then Texas paid him.

We went after Lance Berkman, the (National) league leader in home runs. I didn’t do that. Billy literally flew to his home and talked to him. We offered him 2 years at $8 million (per year), I don’t remember the exact figure. St. Louis only offered him one year at that. I don’t like to blame on Oakland. For reasons of his own choosing, he decided to go to St. Louis. Those two players would’ve been very important to us. We went out and got other terrific players, free agents – DeJesus, Willingham, and so forth. It’s a little disappointing that the hitting (hasn’t panned out). We’re starting to look at our air conditioning (the marine layer). Why do they hit .280 (somewhere else) and then come here (and not hit)? We’re starting to hit now, hitting’s a little contagious.

So when fans say that we’re trying to discourage and we’re trying to make the product bad, they’re wrong. We’re doing the best we can. We send in a report every year about how we use revenue sharing. We don’t put it in our pocket. Our best approach is to build through the minor leagues, drafting, and (hopefully) the international draft.  That’s our best chance of competing.

ML: Do you think that slotting and the international draft will be part of the next CBA?

I don’t know. I hope so, I think it’s good for everybody.

ML: I sure hope so. It’s crazy that given all the reporting about big money payrolls being 2x, 3x, 4x the A’s, it’s sort of underreported how much development budgets make expenditures that much higher.

Well, we have no choice. So we have to use our money efficiently. So it isn’t a matter of lowering your payroll for a major league team. In fact you have to use that extra money in the minor leagues – on the draft and so on.

ML: Could the A’s to land a top tier free agent – say a slugger – next year or the year after that regardless of the ballpark situation? Would you take a shot at it?

We took a shot at Beltre. That was a six or five year deal. The answer is yes, but that isn’t where we’re going to get (that productivity). First of all, the probabilities of our being successful are limited. Boston, Texas, the Yankees – they can just offer another this or another that. We will not intentionally lose money because it’s not good for baseball. It’s not good for the team. We’ve tried everything. We got lucky once with Frank Thomas (in 2006).

The year we went to the playoffs, this is what scared me the most. My people told me, “Just you watch.” Going into 2007, after we got to the ALCS, all we needed was another this or that (player). We had less season ticket sales going into 2007 (than in 2006). How is that possible? It’s just a function of our market is shared. When all of these columnists report this and remember that, when we were playing in the Coliseum and the Giants were playing in Candlestick. That’s a lot different today than it was then. They’ve got a beautiful new ballpark. We don’t.

ML: That’s really what it comes down to, doesn’t it?

It’s not totally that. I think our management talent is as good as anybody’s. I tell you I’ve got owners all over the place who laughed I when I gave Billy and Mike (Crowley) long term contracts and shares of ownership. Now they’re saying how smart (the deals) are. I don’t know two other people, plus David (Forst) and Farhan (Zaidi), who could operate under the conditions that we have – which I’m not complaining about, they’re just what they are – any better than those guys.

ML: Yeah. I’m not sure what else you can do other than hoping a lot of high draft picks all of sudden drop in your lap. That’s not happening.

We’ll be okay. We’ve got the trade deadline coming up. We’re not looking to acquire anybody. We’re not going to give away people just to reduce salary. We want to get something for that. I don’t know how many teams are – so many teams have $100+ million payroll that even if they’re on the cusp of getting to the playoffs they may not be that interested. All of that accelerates from now until Sunday.

ML: If you get a really great offer that you can’t refuse…

We’ll look at it, but I like the way the team is playing now. Plus we’ll get draft choices if we don’t keep certain players. We’re not in a panic position.

ML: No fire sale.

No fire sale. The nice thing about us, and you have to give Billy a lot of credit, one of my favorite all time keepers, not just a player, a keeper, is Mark Ellis. We have a young guy in Jemile Weeks who we hope to be our future. The only thing that we did was – Billy did this, I didn’t even think about it – we wanted Mark to be in a position where he was playing all the time. [Ed. – Ellis to Colorado trade]

ML: Which he is now.

So that was sort of a below market deal, but it was good for him and we owed it to him.

ML: I think it had near universal praise for the way it was handled.

Selig told me never to fall in love with a player because they always move.

ML: Naw, we all loved Ellie.

That guy is so sweet and so decent. We’ve got quite a few but he’s special.

ML: It’s the great legacy of A’s second basemen from Rapid City, SD. Like this stadium business, the radio saga dragged on much longer than it should have? What did you learn from that experience?

Again, the Giants have a better situation (because of KNBR). We didn’t learn much. We learned that sometimes the people who administer bankruptcy, sometimes they get fees for that. Sometimes they don’t operate in the best interest of the very people they’re working for. The situation that came along in the middle of that (95.7 KBWF) was fine and we did it. It’s not perfect but it’s working out better than we thought. I was getting tired of listening to country music, and then the ballgame, and then a religious channel.

ML: Those were trying times. Let’s go back to territorial rights. What is the best way you think this should be resolved?

Good. I always say that if I had a magic wand, we should share the territory.

ML: Flat out.

Just like all the other two-team markets. Your article is right. Santa Clara County was nobody’s territory at one point. That’s good information, it’s true. I have seen the minutes of those meetings, and the Haases were complemented for being cooperative. The reason that happened was to build a ballpark in San Jose. I was even active in that as a businessman. I had no thoughts in ever being involved in baseball. For the Giants to say they have the territory but they didn’t mean to – I just think we should share the market like the other teams. Theoretically the Angels could move right next to the Dodgers if they want.

ML: They could but it’d be crazy.

The Mets could move next to Yankee Stadium. The White Sox could move across town. They’re not going to but it’s allowed. And we’re further from the other team than any other. [Ed. – Again, not including DC/BAL] The whole thing in an academic sense, I can’t imagine the debate.

ML: Do you think the owners understand this? Do you have to talk to them or lobby them about this?

I made up my mind not to lobby them. Over this long period of time they’ll tease me a little bit about it. In fact several have told me, “I’ll talk to Bud for you.” I say no. It’s being done the way it’s supposed to be and let’s just see what happens. Running around and lobbying, I just don’t do that. It’s just not worth it. First of all, everyone’s going to go along pretty much with the commissioner’s decision.

ML: What’s your confidence level right now that this will get done by the end of the year?

In your lifetime? I have a lot of confidence that it’ll be done this year, but I said that last year too.

ML: Right.

Who knew that baseball would explode in two or three other areas? I still have a high degree of confidence that we’ll get an answer one way or the other. That’s all I’m asking for. I mean, I want a yes for sharing. In lieu of that I’ll take a no.

ML: Do you have a hard stop or a deadline for getting this done?

Yes. We missed it by two years. [laughs]

ML: There you go.

The answer is no, not now I don’t. As I say, I’ll pass the baton to those who are working on it. We’re working on this everyday. We’re talking about sight lines and everything. We just haven’t pulled the trigger to spend because we want to know it’s there (first).

ML: Okay.