Category Archives: Athletics

08.03.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 3

[Ed. – Before I start again I have to mention that there are some blogs out there who are cutting and pasting huge chunks of this interview for further commentary. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that I haven’t received a single request to use this interview for any kind of reuse of large chunks of it. I mean, really, it’s not like I’ve spent a lot of time on this. It’s not like people care about professionalism or common courtesy anymore. How about a heads up? Maybe a link to the original interview? It’s the least you can do. The very least. We may not agree on much, but we can at least show courtesy and respect others’ work. That’s all.]

Part 3 of 5 (Part 1, Part 2)

ML: You’ve frequently said here and everywhere that it’s all about keeping the A’s in the Bay Area, in this market –

For our ownership.

ML: Right. Recently, Giants president Larry Baer has hinted that while he supports the A’s looking in their territory – Alameda and Contra Costa counties – but if they can’t they’re welcome to try somewhere else such as Sacramento. How do you respond to that “hint” by Baer and the Giants?

If tomorrow you had the only McDonald’s in San Francisco, and fourteen miles away there was another location in Oakland. And your SF McDonald’s is worth $10 million and the Oakland McDonald’s is worth $100,000. That was fine for you (SF). Now the Oakland location says they’re closing up and they’re moving outside of the territory. What happens to the only McDonald’s then? Larry and the Giants would benefit hugely, I guess, in their minds. They dominate the market now, they may want to dominate it totally. Their market value might jump a huge amount.

However, I don’t get it. I don’t get why they’re so adamant about this. It’s just a difference of opinion.

ML: Do you think the Giants have a motive for protecting their territorial rights other than what they’ve stated publicly? Which is – they just want to pay off the ballpark.

I’ll have to say that going back to – forget that it’s Oakland or San Jose – there are four two-team markets. [Ed.: Note exclusion of DC-Baltimore] Three already have the same boundaries. I think this one should too. I think we would have a great rivalry with them. Why shouldn’t we have a beautiful ballpark? In fact, one of the backers and instigators is my partner and his family, the Fishers. I think if you actually went to a lot of the passive investors in the Giants – these are people who want to support the Bay Area, not just one team. What is it gonna hurt? In fact I think it’s gonna be better for them too. Everybody has their own views.

ML: There’s been some talk from fans and media about challenging baseball’s antitrust exemption. Knowing what you know, being in what they call “The Lodge”, is there anything realistic about that?

Well, today we live in a litigious society. If you want to sue over this chair you’re sitting on you can sue the manufacturer because you’re not feeling well. We are not of that ilk. We are a partner. Maybe this is an odd view, but I believe that we’ve entered a partnership. This is what the commissioner chose. As I said before, we’re not even thinking about it (suing). It’s not right based on being part of a partnership. Therefore it’s not a lever for us, it might be for someone else. If the reverse is true, maybe a smart attorney running a baseball team might say, “We can do this, we can do that.” [Ed.: I chuckled] We’re not going to do it, that’s all there is to it. It’s just not right.

ML: This seems to be something very consistent that you’ve said, even going back a couple of years ago. The partnership idea that all of the owners are in one boat and they’re all supposed to be rowing in the same direction.

I know I’m a little naïve when it comes to that, in the world that we live it, but that’s how I’m gonna run it.

ML: Okay. When it comes to making a decision, is it really all up to the commissioner?

Yep. Well – that’s a good question – he would need a vote of the owners [Ed.: 3/4 of owners]. Since I’ve been there, there haven’t been a lot of votes. Maybe the Giants wouldn’t vote for it or a couple of teams. Again, it’s a collaborative thing. With all the work that’s gone into this, whatever the decision is, it’ll have a lot of backing. I think if he decides to let us move to San Jose that he’ll get a lot of votes. I don’t think the voting will be an issue. He even has the power to go beyond that if it’s for the good of baseball. I really don’t sit there and analyze this from a legal point of view. If the decision is “you can’t” or “you can” the support will be to follow the commissioner’s lead.

ML: And that’s really all you’re looking for. Yes or no.

Yeah.

ML: You mentioned the Dodgers and Mets offhand. Are they on the front burner and the A’s on the back burner, or does it not work like that?

You’d have to ask the commissioner. No, I don’t think we’re on the back burner. I really think the Mets and the Dodgers are two different situations. But they’re both important (teams), important markets, important to us. The Mets aren’t suing baseball. They’re just trying to survive – and maybe they made some errors with this Madoff thing – I don’t know that much about it. The Dodgers are attacking, they put their team in bankruptcy. If they follow the constitution of baseball that’s cause for taking over the team. I’ve got my own stuff I worry about every day. We need those markets to have ownerships that are committed and capable of not getting into these issues.

ML: Commissioner Selig, when asked about what’s happening with the A’s a couple of times this year has said, “We’re working on it,” in nice, vague terms. Are they really still working on it? Seriously.

[laughs] I think what he’s working on – and I don’t know – is unless Oakland knows something that I don’t know. I answer is I think he’s contemplative. Way beyond where I am. We talk several times a week, not on this issue but on others I’m involved in. I’m having a – I enjoy the commissioner. We’ve known each other a very long time, longer than I’ve known my wife – and we’ve been married 54 years. I think he’s got enough information to make a decision. He may be trying to figure out a good way that the Giants are happy and we’re happy. He tends to do that. And right now, what choice do I have? Last night we won a game. That’s more fun than worrying about this crap.

ML: I agree, I agree. Now let’s talk a little about the Coliseum. I’m sure you’re aware that attendance is up this year as opposed to last year, and over 2009 as well. 

When Russia went from communism to capitalism they had a huge jump in economics, but that’s from a very low base. [laughs] When I talk to the commish he’ll say to me, “You know, you’re up 4.5%.” The one thing he follows is attendance. Now I follow paid attendance, I’m not sure that he does.

ML: Fair enough.

Attendance is up (league-wide) according to my last conversation. They’re up a little bit in the American League.

ML: Yeah, I think it turned around after the weather. 

Now I don’t know if it means in the ballpark. I look at Dodger Stadium and it looks almost empty sometimes.

ML: I believe that it’s paid attendance and it’s somehow withstood the drop for the Mets and Dodgers. 

What happens is that some people are afraid to give up their tickets. I was hesitant to give up my Laker tickets. But then I look back and ask how many games did I go to since my kids all moved out of L.A. Do I really need these tickets? And then a year later I decide to do one more year. I worry about the impact of that.

ML: I see.

I just wish the Dodger thing was settled and we could move on.

ML: In the past you’ve mentioned the Coliseum’s defects and its chronic state of decay. Could a ballpark be built alongside or replace the existing Coliseum? For now let’s put aside the financing – well no, we can’t put it aside.

No, let’s put it aside for the moment. First I looked at the Coliseum, because there was nothing downtown. We’re talking about the physical stadium. This is where I read the older (sports) writers, they’re living in the past. A lot has changed for Oakland since then. The last year the Haases owned the team they had the highest payroll in baseball and drew 1.2 million. You might want to check that out.

ML: They were. [Ed. – 1.2 million in the strike-shortened 1994 season, 1.1 million in each of the following two seasons.]

[Ed. – At this point Lew’s son-in-law, Dean Rossi, comes by with his son, Arthur. It’s mostly a personal conversation so I’ll leave this out. Lew will drop Arthur off at the Coliseum to run around the clubhouse – every kid’s dream – before heading up to City Hall to meet with Mayor Quan. Note: Two partners in Rossi’s law firm help run Baseball San Jose.]

So where were we? Coliseum.

ML: So is it possible?

Let’s talk about it. Aside from the market being – Oakland used to have several major corporations, doesn’t have them any longer. The whole thing with the Raider thing, Mt. Davis, we had nothing to do with that. You can never get sight lines that satisfy two sports in one venue anymore. Even inside it’s not good to have hockey and basketball. You can do it but, you know.

There are so many physical issues. Right now if we wanted to move the fans closer, I don’t know what to do. The field is 22 feet below sea level so there’s no way to move forward without tearing down all the seats. You’d understand that better than most.

ML: Yeah.

The field is great until football. The field is great because we have a great groundskeeper, Clay Wood. As soon as the Raiders come in – it’s just not good.

About the site. You can make all the drawings you want on that site. This is what really bothered me. The Coliseum wasn’t even the #1 site in the HOK study. Even Fremont was in the study. The Coliseum had a little line about some kind of utility thing. I asked if there was a title report ordered for the Coliseum. In my world that’s one of the first things you do. Nobody knew, the city didn’t know, it was just a bunch of bureaucratic nothing. So we ordered the title report, which is just about this thick [fingers spread an inch apart]. There is an easement.

[Ed. – The Coliseum Authority recently bought the land in question as part of its new Raiders stadium effort. Oakland Councilman Larry Reid envisions an ancillary development project similar to L.A. Live in downtown Los Angeles, next to Staples Center. The Authority is also proposing $4 million in additional expenditures related to project study costs.]

ML: You mentioned this. It was the sewer interceptor.

It’s not an easement you can move. So any architect who wants to build over the freeway or whatever, needs to sit down and determine what easement does relative to placing a football stadium or arena. That kind of even minor detail, we could say, “oh we’ll do it” but never do it. None of that’s done. The average fan shouldn’t have to bother with that. But that site isn’t as simple as we thought.

One time I thought it would be a good idea to buy the triangle that heads out to Hegenberger (Malibu/HomeBase lots). I said, “Look, we don’t know if we’re gonna stay here, but we need that piece to do parking or mitigate, otherwise it’s chaos if you’re trying to develop that site.” All of a sudden another architect comes up with an idea for these multistory garages. Well, who’s gonna pay for those? And if you’re on the fifth floor of a garage for a baseball team, you might as well stay home. So it was just a hundred inhibitions.

Now, we recently had someone come up to me, a legitimate guy. I didn’t ask who it was as it came through someone else. He said, “Gee whiz, we think there’s a way to remain in Oakland and live with the Coliseum” and so on. Well, tell me what it is. “If you guys want to sell the team” and all that stuff. I’d like to know what you’re talking about before I would even contemplate that. Other owners haven’t been able to do anything in Oakland (build stadia) either. We’re not the only one. The Coliseum’s an over 40-year old facility. Dodger Stadium is too. Dodger Stadium, I believe, would take a minimum of $100 million to keep it going – and they keep it pretty well maintained. So you tell me what this would cost.

ML: I have no idea.

I don’t either. They (Coliseum Authority) don’t have any money. We’re constantly making repairs that are not our obligation.

ML: Really? Like what?

Leaks and things. The scoreboard. There are two of them because of football. I think they’re finally going to replace them, but if they don’t there are no more parts. If a light goes out we borrow it from another one. It’s aggravating. But they basically say they don’t have any money. They still have bonds to pay off. The place is old and this is not the time for cities to write a check for sports.

ML: Yet they’re going forward with a study for the Raiders.

All these studies. If I were an investigative reporter I’d like to know how much is spent. Supposedly that study is done. And that’s fine, they should, the Raiders are fine. Where are all these things? Who’s doing them? If it’s a six month study what happened to the first two months? We have heard nothing. And we’ve been more tolerant than the other two teams (as tenants). We’ve never affected our rights there. If we win (legally), what do we win if they don’t have any money? It was a baseball park once. I wasn’t around when any of that happened, but the amount put into that sure seems strange to me. That was before my time.

ML: The litigious part kind of speaks for itself at least for the other two teams.

Look, I’m just not litigious. I think our legal system is killing us, so much initiative. I’ve been in business almost 50 years. I’m a real estate developer. Most of my contemporaries are suing someone every three months. I’ve had two lawsuits my entire career. I think everything can be settled. But you can’t do it if someone’s not willing to cooperate.

08.02.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 2

Be sure to check out Part 1 of this interview, posted yesterday. You can also get the full interview in PDF and e-reader formats by donating $5 via the PayPal link on the right.

–

Part 2

ML: As I understand it, you had met with Mayor Quan in Oakland recently.

I’m actually having lunch with her today. I have not met with her (yet). She has been very nice to make time to see me. There’s no agenda.

[Ed. – I have not heard anything from either camp about what was discussed during that meeting. Nothing to the regular media either, AFAIK.]

ML: Just a chat, really.

What I’m telling you is what I’ll tell her. There’s no magic bullet here. If there was it’s simple. MLB (the panel) would’ve come to me with Oakland and said, “Here’s a suggested financial plan”

ML: Comprehensive.

Remember that they’re the messenger. They’re just doing what they’ve been asked to do and I’m sure they’ve done it three times now. It sort of says to me that nothing has been produced that means anything, to my knowledge. There may be other reasons. The commissioner is contemplating whatever he wants to do. I think we’re getting there soon. I just don’t know.

ML: Okay.

The only thing missing is that I would’ve enjoyed the process of building the ballpark, financing it, and doing all these things. It looks like because of my age (I won’t be able to). So my son (Keith Wolff), who I think is as good or better at this than I am, and he’s a lot more calm than I am. I believe that development – public or private – can’t get done without a sense of urgency.

ML: It sure seems that way.

We have the resources and we have the people. It’s just that I final – I mean I can but I’m the commissioner’s age. I want to be very careful. None of us are going to live forever or be as active forever. I’m lucky, I think baseball’s keeping me active.

[Ed.: I have to point out that he ordered a frittata with fruit on the side, no starches, coffee with no cream. I ordered Eggs Benedict with potatoes, lots of cream with my coffee. Multiple cups.] 

ML: It seemed like that happened with the Marlins, where Jeff Loria fought for years, and when he finally got approval his son-in-law took over.

That’s also true in Minnesota. I’m sad that the owner (Carl Pohlad) didn’t get to see his ballpark. We’re very advanced in our opinion. Why go out and spend $20 million on working drawings if you don’t know you have a site?

So it’s just a matter of waiting for a decision. I’m not a patient person but I’ve become very patient. The thing that makes me most comfortable is that I have a lot of backup to get this done. That’s number one. On the hand this is affecting our whole organization. We’ve got great people – Billy’s been there for fifteen, sixteen years, twenty years for Mike Crowley. I’ve promised them a new, modern facility and I feel responsible.

There’s something I think you’ll like to know. When we bought the team (2005), six teams had payrolls above $100 million. Now it’s twelve or thirteen. While Billy and his guys are fantastic at doing what they do, there’s only so much they can do. We can go and lose $30 million a year like the Haas family was doing but we’re not gonna do that. So if anyone wants me to do that I’m gonna have to say that we won’t.

[Ed. – According to Forbes/Financial World numbers the A’s lost $6-10 million per year during the last years of the Haas era, which would be worth $9-15 million now. MLB’s stance historically has been to consider Forbes’ numbers inaccurate.] 

ML: That’s something I’ve been arguing for years.

And baseball doesn’t want us to do that. All these teams that have spent haphazardly without breaking even have gone and caused problems for themselves and baseball. Remember that baseball is a partnership. The rule of thumb for running a team before you get huge revenues is that if you can keep your MLB salary at 50% of your revenues you’ll probably be at the break even point or make a few dollars. It’s not an internal rate of return 20% or something like that. You shouldn’t be in this business if you want that.

The great thing about Billy and Mike and their people is that they’ve been able to keep us competitive until we get a new ballpark – I haven’t delivered. We’re in a total revenue issue. We just need more revenue and we can’t get it without a new ballpark. We need some scarcity. We can’t have 70,000 seats or people yelling about tarps.

ML: I’ll get into that later.

I don’t have a yacht [laughs] that we’re paying for out of secret proceeds from the ballpark.

ML: We’re talking about Oakland for a little bit. Has anyone presented you with other information about Victory Court, a sales pitch, or anything like that?

Absolutely not. However, gotta be fair. I think Oakland thinks, “We’re not dealing with Lew Wolff. We’re dealing with this committee.” If the committee has done that, I don’t know about it. I think what’s happened is that they’ve discovered what we’ve known. Through no fault of Oakland, the ability to build a new ballpark – well, you know that drawing a boundary around six blocks or ten blocks doesn’t make a ballpark. Is there a soil test? Will you do eminent domain, will you take people’s property? Do the off-ramps have to be replaced? Hundreds of items. And that kind of Socratic discipline – why should a fan in LF worry about that? Those rich owners over there are supposed to do it no matter what.

ML: Let’s move on to this freeway park. It was proposed by an Oakland architect, Bryan Grunwald, who occasionally posts on the blog. 980 Park is a concrete deck over a submerged section of freeway near downtown Oakland. You said that you consider it an A+ in planning and an F in implementation. Care to elaborate?

The problem with that is that talking to you is easy. Talking to guy looking for $2 ticket night on Wednesday is different. I can’t even imagine the cost on that. Forget about a ballpark. Say you’re putting up a hospital there or a park. I think we’re talking a billion – I have no idea. Air rights, we have them all over California. I haven’t seen too many places where they’re building over there – bridges and stuff. Let’s assume that we did that tomorrow. It would take a decade. I wouldn’t know where to start. First of all, we’d say to Oakland or somebody, “Give us the platform and we’ll build on it.” The platform itself has got to be overwhelming. I love those kind of ideas. They win architectural contests, a student gets a master’s degree for doing them, and we do have huge amounts of air rights all over the world. It just will not happen. If that’s the best we can do, might as well forget it.

ML: There are few places where air rights translate into anything. Those are places where the need is great, such as Manhattan.

I just don’t get it. It would be fun to have an architectural contest. But it’s like an iceberg, beautiful at the top, huge (beneath the surface). If that’s the best any of us can do, we have to forget it.

ML: Let’s shift over to San Jose now. You’ve had an ongoing dialogue with the City and Mayor about the Earthquakes stadium. How is that going?

The Earthquakes stadium also has to be privately financed. Certainly it’s a lot less expensive than a baseball park. I think – I don’t have the numbers exactly – they just opened a new soccer stadium in Kansas City. I think it was $150 million or something and I believe every penny of that was public money [Ed.: Cost was actually $200 million, all public]. We’ve worked very hard. What we want in a soccer stadium is a place you can go – we’re not looking to build Wembley Stadium – we’re in the 15-18,000 seat goal in this market. We’ve worked really hard to get the cost down to about $50 million, which everyone in soccer asks, “How can you do that?” Well, people can do it if it’s their own money, it’s not the government. There’s no soccer stadium that I know, except maybe Home Depot Center (that was not fully public).

ML: That was years ago. [Ed.: Columbus Crew Stadium was also privately financed by Lamar Hunt.]

Well they also had a good deal from CSU-Dominguez Hills. I’d like to move it faster but we’re doing it in stages. Right now we’re going through a planning process, not for a building permit but a use permit. We spent money to tear down the FMC building, but we haven’t pulled the string yet to build it because if you look at the economics of it you’re only using it for 19 games or 20 games. The ancillary use of these facilities, which I think is better than what my consultants think, concerts aren’t what they used to be, high school graduations. It’s Silicon Valley, I think you can have product introductions there. A lot of these things that you can’t predetermine. So what we’ve done is that if there are 10 steps to it we’re in step 7 or 8. We’ve spent money to do that but we haven’t pulled the string yet.

ML: On a related note, I went to the game at Stanford against the Red Bulls. I hate to belittle Buck Shaw, but it’s a small venue. Stanford, which was another example of something built with private funds, cost controlled by John Arrillaga. Many people came from down the Peninsula, there were plenty of the existing fan base, locals. For the fans it felt like it was overdue. Did the experience of that game – 40,000 people, the place was buzzing with excitement – change your thinking or reinforce it in terms of what the Quakes need to thrive?

No. Two reasons. One, One of the people at MLS called me and asked if it was it the game or the fireworks. The game was around the 4th of July. If you look at our fireworks games in Oakland –

ML: They’re consistently higher in attendance.

So I said to our guys, “Why don’t we just work out a deal to play at Stanford all the time?” Stanford doesn’t want that. I don’t want it. No, the depth of the market means that except for three cities, maybe, soccer is not profitable. The owners – Anchutz, my guy John Fisher, the Krafts – they love soccer and they’re gonna support it if it takes another decade to get it where it needs to be. We’re the same way. But the market is not for 40,000 people. We wish it was. If we have 15-18,000 fans and they’re really on top of the field – we’re not trying to have private boxes, soccer is a family sport – we couldn’t do Stanford every week in my opinion.

ML – One of the things I noticed from the renderings is that other than the fact that it’s three sides with one open, the design looks like a miniaturized version of White Hart Lane, where Tottenham Hotspur plays. Is there anything to that?

We’re close to them as you know. I don’t think so, except that when you think about a soccer stadium the dimensions of a field are the dimensions of a field. The only real difference to me is if there’s a track, which really screws it up. All we want to do is get noisy and close. I would say that 70 or 80% of them are like that.

ML – The NFL just completed its CBA negotiations after 3 month lockout. MLB has been, as I understand it, having some ongoing discussions with the players union about their new CBA, which is expected to be done by the end of the season – 

End of the year. Or sooner.

ML – Does what’s happening here with the stadium and the unknown that it is right now have any impact with the CBA?

No. However, I believe that, or I hope that we will have a non-confrontational negotiation, which has been ongoing. What you’ll have is, I don’t know the exact term, probably 3-5 years of what we call labor peace. We had that the last 5 years. I think some of the things that both sides are discussing – I don’t want to get into that information – will be beneficial to all of baseball and all of the union. I don’t think it’ll be the threatening kind of thing we’ve seen in basketball.

ML – There’s been almost no media coverage except for the occasional article from a national baseball writer.

I think it’ll get a little more coverage as we get closer to finalizing an agreement. It may not be controversial at all. This is the year to finish that agreement if possible. We’re working on it very hard. It isn’t like one side is screaming at the other.

ML – The players appear to be offering ideas that the owners may be interested in.

I follow it but I don’t want to get into it. The commissioner – you need to give him a lot of credit. His orders, and the head of the union, are we’re in this business together. Let’s work something out. I haven’t heard anything earthshaking.

ML – That’s good to hear.

Usually union negotiations get tougher close to the end. [laughs]

ML – What do you think about talk – and this is coming from national writers who are spitballing – about contraction of the A’s, Rays, or both?

We (the A’s) are against contraction. Nobody’s called us up and said, “We’re thinking about contracting you.” Contraction has a lot more issues to it than just shutting down a team and so on. They’d pay us the value (of the franchise). Then you’ve got minor leagues, places, cities all over the country with ballparks based on our activities, not just Tampa. We want to do the opposite.

ML – Do you think there’s pressure to get this done (a ballpark) so that nobody even has to consider that step?

That’s a very good question. I think getting it done has nothing to do with contraction. Baseball may have as many teams as they need. Some years it’ll be like we ought to contract. I do think that there’s so much going on with the Mets and the Dodgers, you can only address so many things. All of us are multitaskers. I don’t know that it’s so true in baseball. I don’t think it has to do with contraction. But sure, we and Tampa both need viable environments for our fans, or we won’t have any. It isn’t anything against any city.

ML – Do you and Stuart Sternberg (owner of the Rays) ever commiserate at the owner’s meetings about whose plight is worse? 

I’ve decided that mine is worse than his. He’s a good guy.

ML – He’s also a little younger.

He’s got more time. We don’t commiserate so much but we are both concerned. Very concerned.

08.01.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 1

This interview, at 12,000+ words long, is an order of magnitude longer than the typical posts on this blog. Because of that length, and because of my desire to confine the discussion to the topics within each post, the interview is being split into five parts. However, you can also get copies of the entire interview right away if you donate via the PayPal button on the right. The interview is available in PDF, ePub (e-reader), and Mobi (Kindle) formats for you to use on your computer or preferred device (Kindle uploads require calibre or similar software). Here are your options:

  • Do nothing and get all five parts for free on the site from Monday through Friday.
  • Donate $5 or more this week and you get the transcribed formats as soon as Monday morning.
  • Donate $2 after Friday and you get the transcribed formats in a “post-embargo” discount.

It’s rare that I ask readers for anything, and I intend to keep it that way. I took a lot of time out to work on this and I would simply like to recover that effort. Thanks for your support.

–

Last Monday, I received an email from A’s PR man Bob Rose. He indicated that his boss, A’s owner Lew Wolff, wanted to have a chat with me. After some back and forth, we arranged for a meeting at the Fountain Restaurant inside Wolff’s Fairmont San Jose early Wednesday morning. The discussion went two hours long and covered a wide range of topics. Wolff expressed his interest in having an unedited conversation to explain what he’s been doing, and I was more than happy to have that chat. The transcribed discussion below has minimal editing – only to clean up incomplete sentences, the inevitable “uh” and “um” moments, and for me to add brief editor’s notes when I felt the need. My comments and questions are all in bold, while Wolff’s is in regular font. Editor’s notes are in italics/square brackets. I have intentionally not included links so as to not distract the reader. The interview runs more than 12,000 words. This is Part 1 of 5. The topics covered are as follows:

  • Part 1 – History of working in Oakland, 980 Park site, Process
  • Part 2 – Oakland now and what it takes, Earthquakes, contraction
  • Part 3 – Territorial rights, Giants’ motives, Dodgers/Mets, Coliseum
  • Part 4 – Tarps, discounts, player development, CBA, payroll, T-rights again
  • Part 5 – Redevelopment, Target Field, Cisco Field, Keith Wolff, museum and history

I hope you enjoy this interview as much as I did. I think you’ll feel that there are many revealing answers in there, and plenty of stuff for Oakland and San Jose backers to dislike. I’d also like to thank Lew for allowing me the opportunity to do this Q&A.

– Marine Layer

–

ML: You became managing partner in 2005, after a year-plus stint as VP of venue development. Coincidentally, I started this blog in 2005, partly as a writing exercise, and to inform fans. Over six years have elapsed. Did you think it would take this long?

LW: No, obviously I didn’t. Prior to buying the team I was working on the thing. I’m not sure the title meant anything. I thought that we would figure out a way to do it on the Coliseum site or one of the sites in Oakland. At the time the economy was booming and the value of residential entitlements or zoning was huge. There were a lot of public companies, all these big homebuilders, were dying for the ability to get more and more residential rights, to build apartments or homes.

We came up with the idea. The very first editorial which I saved in Oakland – this was before I was even the owner – said “No public money in baseball.” Which is okay. Except for the Giants and Dodgers, all teams’ new ballparks have had some form of public help (financing). So we had an idea that if we brought a new ballpark to Oakland or any place, we could say to the community, “You don’t have to write a check, but we’d like to entitle certain property for residential” – not for our developer. The reason this escapes everybody is because nobody’s going to take their time to look into it except you.

The idea was this: Say someone wanted to build 1,000 apartment units. And they’re going through the process. You entitle that – assuming the city wants that – those entitlements back then were worth $100k per unit just for the right to build, sort of like land value. Instead of the developer taking that money, that money would go into a small joint powers unit (authority) and be used to fund a baseball park. That’s a double win there. The city gets more housing and those entitlements don’t have to be by the ballpark. They could be in Dublin or Fremont, they could be anywhere (in Alameda County). This was a very interesting concept and we checked it legally. It was very clearly stated in an article in the Chronicle, so it wasn’t a hidden idea. With all the delay and difficulty in both Oakland and Fremont – Oakland in the sense of land availability because it’s a built up city – to get land assembled, and then all the issues with traffic and freeways and off-ramps and so on – so time went on and of course the economy changed. So this entitlement approach to build a ballpark is a dead issue, and we don’t see it coming back for a long time. That says, “Oh my goodness,”  instead of putting up $100 million, which we were hoping to do at the most, we now have to do the whole thing ourselves. That pretty much requires us to be in a central business district (downtown) because the infrastructure is already there. We don’t have to rebuild the freeway or an off-ramp. The entitlement aspect of it – somebody should’ve jumped on it. We couldn’t do it by ourselves. We weren’t looking for money, we were looking for process. So we spent the time before we bought the team and about a year or so after. I think I told you before – I don’t have the book with me- that it takes me one hour, forty-five minutes to go through everything we did in Oakland. Even though somebody has a sign in RF saying, “Lew lied, he never did anything.” That person hasn’t come and sat down and asked, “Tell me what you did do?”

The other side of it is that side – Oakland, Richmond – that whole area was built up rapidly during WWII, shipbuilding and so on. (Land) ownership is very diverse. Just land acquisition alone is difficult. Even though some of the areas look blighted, as soon as you say we’re trying to build a ballpark there, immediately the land values go way up. Some people say that the “North of 66” plan was just a gimmick. What they’re not willing to do and be fair about is that we looked at every possible site – Coliseum, Laney, even the Victory area – all that stuff and somebody at the City said to me, “We can’t help you here. What do you think?” At the same time Councilman Larry Reid was looking at another area around the Coliseum where he was going to acquire a lot of stuff. I drove through there and it looked pretty blighted. All I wanted to do is start a dialogue with 50 property owners or 30. Except for one or two people, nobody wanted to even discuss it. There was relocation, we could’ve moved people to the (shuttered Oakland) Army Base. People will just say, “Oh he just made that up.” If I had my material with me you’d see that before even looking at that we looked at every opportunity that was available. We wouldn’t do it if everybody didn’t want to do it. We couldn’t even get traction.

It’s very simple. One of the very first things any city should do is look at their (county) assessor’s office. Draw a boundary around Victory Court or something. It takes a day or two determine there are 20 property owners and their names. Some of them are in a trust or something. If you just took the assessed value – and because you’re going to buy the property add 50% – you’d have a good idea of the that (total value) is and if you really wanted to, you’d call each person and say, “We’re just thinking about this. You’re a property owner here. We’re not doing anything yet.” Then you’d get an idea of the desire to participate from the beginning. Someone might say, “Oh my god, that’s my business, I can’t take it.” If we gave you that assessed value, and then we paid for relocation to the Army Base and a nicer (newer) facility – I mean it’s a lot of work. I didn’t expect Oakland to do that. But I also didn’t expect them just to draw a line around six blocks and say, “Oh there’s a ballpark.”

ML: We get that too much now.

That’s all we’re getting, because I believe – and this is not a defense – it’s because we’ve explored everything more than once. For two years now this committee, which I ‘ve had very little access to – and I’m sure they haven’t talked too much to the Giants either – guys I know, they’re good guys. They’re supposed to step in and check out if I did everything, and if I missed something. I haven’t heard that I missed anything. You could’ve written a PhD dissertation by now.

ML: Certainly.

There’s other reasons that perhaps Bud Selig is contemplating this. He’s my friend, and he’s involved in lots of stuff in baseball.

ML: You’ve had that information that you showed me last time we talked here two years ago. Because it’s taken this long and you have access to this panel, do you feel that the you and the argument you’ve made have been somewhat rebuked?

No, just the opposite. I think they can’t find a flaw in it. If they can, tell me what it is. They’re not rebuking me. I think it’s so overwhelming. If someone flew in from Mars and you were going to put a ballpark somewhere and one was already in San Francisco, where would you put the next one? [laughs]

Had they come up with a different approach that could be refuted or digested, I think it I would’ve seen it by now. At the same time, I can’t give a reason why a decision hasn’t been made. It’s a baseball decision. The commissioner is a very contemplative person. I’m an owner that wants to cooperate with baseball. When I got into this Bud Selig told me, “What I encourage owners to do is to put baseball first and their teams a very close second.” Instead of putting a team in bankruptcy or whatever’s happening in other cities. I’m just not cut out for that. I feel that being in baseball is a privilege, and we’re enjoying it.

ML: We’ve already gone plenty into my second topic, which is a lot about the pro-Oakland crowd who’ve said you’ve lied. I’ve written that the only thing you’ve really lied about is that you didn’t have a Plan B. Is that right, or am I off-base there?

Well, the word lie is a very strong word in my life. I don’t call people liars. The Plan B would be that if someone says to us – no fault of Oakland by the way – that “you have a team that you can’t move and you have to stay in this facility and make it work with the Raiders there.” Plan B is fairly simple, it’s just that we haven’t addressed them. Moving out of the state to other markets, of which there aren’t many. Selling the team to somebody that can do what we can’t do.

ML: Which a lot of them are hoping that you do.

That’s fine, but that party should also have a real plan, go through what we’ve gone through. The one thing that I wanted to do, because I’ve been in public dealings with cities my entire life, is that I didn’t want to be the owner who says, “If you don’t do what I tell you we’re moving to San Antonio.” Also, I didn’t want to get on a plane and start schmoozing with the mayor of San Antonio or Portland or Las Vegas or Monterrey, Mexico. I don’t think that’s the way to do one of these things. I still don’t think it’s the way to do it. But almost every new ballpark, including the Giants’, has been done under the threat of leaving town. So Plan B, the options are obvious. I think a better way to phrase your question is, “Have you spent time doing that?” The answer is, “We have not.” We still don’t feel like we’re moving out of the market.

ML: I’m in the market and I just took the train down here.

Exactly. Frankly, I don’t have the energy to start discussing with another city council outside the state of California. If we were dead in the water, we’d have to ask baseball what they’d want us to do.

ML: You’ve led into my next subject already with the discussion about what’s been done in Oakland. What is the difference between getting something done here, in San Jose, and in Oakland right now?

Very simple. One, we have a downtown location. When I say “San Jose” all I’m talking about is a specific site in San Jose.

ML: That one. [Ed.: I point in general direction of Diridon]

If somebody that you could go to San Jose instead of Oakland, that doesn’t mean it just happens. San Jose acquired land and went through the process of acquiring it in a downtown area where the off-site costs are minimized. They would be in downtown Oakland if there was a site. There’s a demographic difference, but if our entitlement program worked in either Oakland or Fremont we would’ve been there. I don’t care what people say. We would’ve been there. As much as I love San Jose I wasn’t thinking about San Jose at the time at all. We wouldn’t have spent the amount of time and money we did on Fremont if we wanted to get out of our district. People don’t remember that.

There have been huge demographic changes since the Bash Brothers and the A’s drew X attendance. Back then the population of Oakland was probably twice what it is today. [Ed.: The 1990 population of Oakland was 370,000, slightly less than the current figure of 390,000.] I don’t track it. St. Louis is the city where I came from, and the city used to be 800,000 people, it’s 300,000 now [Ed.: This is correct]. There used to be ten, twelve major company headquarters there. Now there aren’t any except Anheuser Busch, who is rumored to be leaving. There’s been a shift. Even if there were a site in Oakland, if we didn’t have the entitlement program it would be very hard to rationalize it. It’s even hard now. $400-450 million for a privately financed stadium – which it should be private, why should the people pay for it. The process that the public can help you with it can be huge. San Jose, through whatever reasons, has gotten the process so that we can go ahead.

If we started in Oakland, whether it’s Victory Court or floating over the freeway – I want to talk to you about that one.

ML: Yeah. We’ll get to that one (980 Park).

Can I tell you my quick stance on that one?

ML: Sure, go ahead.

It’s an A+ in planning and an F in implementation. [laughs]

ML: Okay!

I love concepts like that.

ML: Well, it came from an architect.

Geodesic dome over a city so that you can control the climate?

ML: [laughs]

I like that stuff, but I’ll let somebody else do it.

ML: That reminds me of a documentary on Robert Moses. There were all these concepts for a Dodgers’ stadium. One of them was a geodesic dome by Buckminster Fuller, which would’ve been interesting for 20 years until they got tired of it.

Two things about that. One thing I think you’ll like intellectually. Housing filters down. So if the Rockefellers live in a mansion with a roof and spread out. I did some work years ago in Guam. A subdivision house with a carport and so on is what filtered down. Now if the Rockefellers were living in a geodesic dome we’d have geodesic domes everywhere.

ML: Makes sense. 

Give me Robert Moses for one year and I’ll have a new ballpark anywhere you want. [laughs] He had more power than the mayor and the president. This great metropolis (New York), that great ability to create, we don’t have that today. I always give a speech that if you have a cure for cancer somebody will be against it. I like the democratic approach to things, but it’s inhibiting the state getting things done.

ML: Sure is. State. Country.

You know when the President said, “shovel ready?” If he meant shovel ready after the environmental work, we’d be talking about a decade sometimes.

07.20.11
by

49ers, Raiders put heads together on stadium

The Chronicle’s Raiders beat writer Vittorio Tafur has a pretty big scoop: the Raiders and 49ers have been in talks about sharing a future Bay Area stadium. Tafur goes on to mention where the Niners are regarding the Santa Clara stadium concept, but mentions nothing about the new Coliseum proposal for the Raiders. At this point it makes the most sense to consider Santa Clara Plan A simply due to the work that has already been done to date. The Coliseum is still in its initial study phase. Speaking of which, as much as I harp on Oakland rushing through the Victory Court EIR process, the new Coliseum was supposed to have its EIR completed in as little as 15 months. Yet here we are, about 9-10 months in, and not a peep.

Fortunately for both teams, the NFL has taken their situations into account and may be ready to lend them a hand. Tim Kawakami notes that as part of the new CBA, the Bay Area has been identified as a place that could receive a loan from the NFL for stadium building.

It’s complicated, though. The CBA designates “stadium credits” for three locations — Los Angeles and presumably the Bay Area are two of them — but not specific teams, the source said.

The “credits” are a precursor to the NFL setting up a formal stadium-loan program, another league source said Tuesday. So, yes, the Raiders could be involved in anything the 49ers try to do, possibly in a shared-stadium venture, as the NFL has encouraged for years.

That isn’t ideal for the Yorks, of course. But at least they know the money could be there, and that means they can keep churning toward their end goal.

Without the NFL loan option, the churning would have been mostly over right here and now.

Initially, a big sticking point in the CBA negotiations was the NFL’s protection of funds for stadia, previously known as the G-3 loan program. The players wanted a piece of the entire pie. While ratification hasn’t been completed, it looks like the players will get a piece of the entire revenue pie, albeit a smaller percentage than what was prescribed in previous CBAs (60% of a smaller pie). Now that it appears that a successor to G-3 is part of the possibly 10-year deal, the prospects should be looking up for the 49ers in terms of getting their funding.

Now let’s take this a step further. Should Santa Clara be the final site for both teams (with the Raiders signing a long-term lease), that should presumably open up the Coliseum for the A’s, right? Yes and No. True, the tenant that destroyed the Coliseum for the A’s would be gone, but they’d be leaving behind $100 million in debt service for Oakland and Alameda County to pay for. There’s no chance that the A’s or MLB will bite on paying off that debt, yet the city and county would need to figure out a way to service it somehow. That could pave the way for the reuse option I drew up last year, but that’s a risky proposition in and of itself. Any reuse of the old Coliseum would require new revenue bonds from the Authority, and I doubt it would politically popular unless it was true slam dunk proposal. Plus there’d be the stink of the Raiders coming back less than 20 years earlier, not selling the place out as advertised, destroying the Coliseum for the A’s, successfully suing Oakland/Alameda County, then negotiating an early end to their stay and finally leaving again.

Finally, there’s A’s ownership’s role in this. Surely, they’d much rather be in control of their situation instead of picking up other teams’ scraps. Revenue generation will be limited at the Coliseum, and the market for ancillary development around the Coliseum is weak. Moreover, redevelopment’s death takes with it any project money for the area, as noted in Oakland’s declaration of support for the Monday lawsuit. The A’s will be funding a greater percentage of their venue privately than either football team, so they should have more say in where they go. As we’ve seen over the last couple of years, you can’t always get what you want.

07.18.11
by

News for 7/18/11: Poison pill edition

Update 4:45 PM – The lawsuit has been filed. Heading the suit are the expected lobbying groups, The League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association, plus the cities of San Jose and Union City. Oakland signed a declaration in support of the lawsuit.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reports on the redevelopment lawsuits that are set to happen any day now but for whatever reason haven’t happened yet. Perhaps the reasoning for this is a poison pill inserted into the first bill (ABX1 26) that could prevent any cities who successfully sue the state over redevelopment from issuing additional debt. I have to admit that I didn’t notice the poison pill in my readings of the bills over the last month or so, despite the fact that the language is front and center.

(3) The bill would prohibit a redevelopment agency from issuing new bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations if any legal challenge to invalidate a provision of this act is successful.

The poison pill may be the trump card forcing cities to pay-to-play for future redevelopment, since the cities have little chance of getting their payments back.

(Assembly Speaker Perez’s spokeman John) Vigna said if the agencies win a court challenge, the provision would force them back to the negotiating table and “continue working on something that satisfies the governor’s concerns, and their concerns.” But the negotiations would only involve those agencies that can make the upfront payment.

Wondering where the money for the last two parcels in San Jose is going? My guess is partly to the county for a prior settlement (which has a lien on some city properties), and partly to the state for the budget. It’s your move, Lew.

Funny that redevelopment wasn’t mentioned once in Dave Newhouse’s glowing interview with Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan. While I admire Kaplan’s gusto, her continued pushing of the Coliseum is almost inexplicable. It’s not what MLB wants, it conflicts with what the Raiders are trying to do there, and the aforementioned freeze on redevelopment makes it just as complicated to work out a deal there as the downtown sites (if not more complicated). It’s also disingenuous to start making bold claims about which city doesn’t have money when the fact is that no city has money, and neither Oakland nor San Jose have articulated how they’ll get out of the RDA pickle.

Other tidbits:

June radio ratings are out. 95.7 (KBWF) dropped from 0.6 to 0.5 in the San Francisco-Oakland market, and stayed steady at 0.8 in San Jose.

Frank McCourt’s hubris continues, as he refers to Selig as “the devil” with “an eye jaundiced towards irrational animosity” in today’s court filing. Read this Vanity Fair article chronicling the McCourt divorce and you might think his arguments are a bit rich.

Carmen Policy was profiled in Sunday’s Chronicle (no public link yet, subscribers only) continuing to lobby for a 49ers stadium at Hunters Point. Policy is on master developer Lennar’s payroll to advocate for the stadium, which ironically Lennar no longer has to support and would actually would save $100+ million if they abandoned the stadium part of the project. Policy, ever a SF/Wine Country guy, also takes a shot at Oakland in the process:

“If I were part of a group that somehow wound up owning the Raiders, I would be looking to expand my influence throughout the Bay Area as far as possible, and one sure way of doing that is playing outside of Oakland.”

Is Policy not aware of what the Raiders’ identity is? Baffling.

The NFL and NFLPA may finally be wrapping up their negotiations, with the possibility of a “global settlement” covering all outstanding bargaining items and external lawsuits, such as Brady vs. NFL. Then again, we’ve heard the two sides were close to finalizing a CBA for well over a month.

07.17.11
by

Notes from the true doubleheader

Saturday’s double-dip truly had an event feel. It’s hard for the A’s to wring value out of a game when tickets are so cheap and frequently discounted. There were no bobbleheads or fireworks today, which made the game itself the real attraction. When the preliminary schedule was released, there was no doubleheader and the series was a typical post-ASB four-gamer. Even though combined attendance for typical Thursday and Saturday games would have eclipsed the 27,379 posted today, today’s number was a better number. From the look of the crowd and the parking lot, 27,379 is more reflective of the actual attendance than the regular paid figure. That feeling of fullness multiplies the sense of energy within the crowd and the venue.

Despite the good vibes, the day was not without hiccups. I didn’t arrive until the bottom of the first inning, which means that I didn’t experience the service debacle that Bryan Cauwels (Hey Bud, PleA’se stop the TeA’se) did. According to Cauwels, many of the concession stands were not fully staffed or ready to serve until 1:30 PM. If this was a strategic plan by the A’s and Aramark to work with a late-arriving crowd, it backfired as many were left standing at concessionaires that normally would’ve been open at that time. Cauwels also went to the West Side Club, where he tried to get sandwich, only to be turned down because the sandwich vendor ran out of bread. I’m not sure how a vendor runs out of bread before a game starts, but it doesn’t make much sense.

By the second and third innings, the lines cleared up and nearly every stand along the original concourses was open. Both stands in the value deck were also open. Lines were short or non-existent, except in the West Side Club. That’s where, in between games, I hung out with a bunch of AN regulars. While in the Club I got an impassioned plea from Josh “emperor nobody” Chase Fields, which was centered on protecting the A’s legacy and progressing to something better (a new ballpark), then an assault on baseball’s antitrust exemption, and finally, a polemic. Since I don’t do polemicizing on the blog, I’m going to try to distill what he said into something with a little less heightened rhetoric. That’ll take some time, so that’s for later in the week.

Once the second game started, I roamed around the Coliseum as I’m wont to do from time to time. Seagulls hovered over the seats, confused about the crowd that was not abandoning the birds’ rightful dinner (their Pavlovian cue is the seventh inning stretch). After taking in the sun for several innings in Section 205, I walked around to the other side of the Coli and met up again with the ANers in 229.

All the while, I was keeping tabs on something statistical. I have a passing interest in the Bay Area’s microclimates, hence my nom de plume (partly). Since we were guaranteed at least six hours of baseball from first pitch to last, I figured I’d jot down the temperatures in both Oakland and San Jose during the game. These are according to AccuWeather, which has in its data a statistic called Real Feel. Real Feel is a trademarked, not publicly codified measure containing a composite of ambient temperature, humidity, sunlight, wind, and other factors combined to approximate the actual feeling on skin. For the period when the sun broke through, there were times when the sun brought the temperature inside the stadium well above 70. When the low clouds reformed, temperatures felt as though they dropped considerably. Saturday was unseasonably cool, so to compare the two cities properly I’ll run this again next month, when the region hits its seasonal highs.

Dew point - which is closely tied to humidity - in the region is usually between 50 and 58 degrees Fahrenheit, which is one reason why the Bay Area is so comfortable year round.

In future comparisons, I’ll probably use data from both AccuWeather and Weather Underground for greater granularity and accuracy. Let me know what you’d like to see in this. What I’m most curious about is the effect of humidity on a baseball’s flight. We on the West Coast have a good idea of what the marine layer can do to a fly ball, especially at night, but there hasn’t been much written or said about why. I think it’s really important to understand this, so that we can know what the right-sized ballpark is in Oakland, San Jose, etc. As much as I love 1-0 pitching matchups, I also don’t want our developing hitters in the farm system to feel that they’re condemned to a life of singles and doubles if they don an A’s uniform. There’s a lot more coming on weather and climate throughout the second half of the season.

07.14.11
by

Refreshing the Territorial Rights debate

A bunch of comments about T-rights in the last thread got me thinking it’s time to reset the debate. There’s some confusion about what was done when and for whom. Previously I’ve written a primer and other posts designed to get into further depth (The Neukom Doctrine, When encroachment is not encroachment). Now let’s get a long-held myth out of the way.

Team X originally held the rights to Santa Clara County. FALSE. According to Doug Pappas, the use of counties to define territorial rights did not become part of the Major League by-laws until the early 90’s. Not coincidentally, this was at the same time that Wally Haas agreed to “give” Santa Clara County to Bob Lurie so that the Giants could pursue ballpark proposals in San Jose and Santa Clara (the city). Historically, teams held rights to their own cities and in some cases other cities well outside their own metropolitan region. In the 90’s teams started to define what their regions were by annexing surrounding counties.The Baltimore Orioles also pursued this line by specifying just about everything between Baltimore and DC, even including parts of the District via the use of Rule 52, also known as the 15-mile rule.

The table below lists all teams in the two-team markets and some data for comparison, including the defined operating territory for each team. The Major League Constitution defines an operating territory as the area “within which (clubs) have the right and obligation to play baseball games as the home Club.”

Note that operating territories in several cases includes both cities and counties. On the other hand, television broadcast territories are all shared.

Note that operating territories in several cases includes both cities and counties. On the other hand, television broadcast territories are all shared.

Baltimore’s deal looks similar to what the A’s are getting now. The biggest difference is that they control their local TV market through MASN, which was created as part of the deal to allow the Expos to move to DC. The O’s pay the Nats a fee to carry TV rights, controlling all revenues that come into the network. Once Nationals Park opened, the Nats actually surpassed the O’s in annual revenue.

The ongoing Dodgers saga could provide its own test of territorial rights. SPORTSbyBrooks reports that MLB is in talks with AEG about a possible downtown ballpark near Staples Center and the LACC. That’s the same area targeted for a NFL domed stadium, making it highly unlikely that both could be downtown. However, it’s not hard to see MLB using this as a stalking horse against Frank McCourt, just in case bankruptcy proceedings allow him to keep Dodger Stadium and the parking lots, if not the team itself. Even if both the NFL and the Dodgers don’t bite there could be another interested party: Angels owner Arte Moreno. Despite the recent signing of lease options at The Big A, the Angels are only locked in through the 2016 season. Moreno is open to looking all over the LA for the next home, and unlike the A’s restrictions vis-a-vis Santa Clara County, Moreno can look at the entire region. That includes downtown LA, which would place the Angels 2.5 miles from Dodger Stadium. Preposterous as it sounds, Moreno hasn’t been afraid to play the leverage game, and the timing of having such an option available would play right into his hands. It’s unlikely that the next version of the ML Constitution will split the LA market unless MLB arranges a downtown LA ballpark deal with AEG and the Dodgers’ next owner, a deal that sounds too complicated to actually work.

Going back to the Bay Area situation, I’ve been trying to figure out how redrawn territories might look if the A’s were to move to San Jose. The pro-San Jose crowd likes to think that the Bay Area would become a large shared territory, like NY/LA/CHI. However, I don’t think that’s realistic. DC-Baltimore remains a split market and with the teams separated by 35 miles and the cities having their own distinct identities, it’s a much better comparison to the Bay Area. A swap of the East Bay for the South Bay is also suspect because it’s practically worthless to the Giants. Operating territories mean nothing except when it comes to playing home games, and the Giants aren’t going to look at building in Oakland anytime in the next, well, forever. Yet the Giants would object to leaving the East Bay unassigned since they wouldn’t want a third MLB team 10 miles or less from China Basin, as unlikely as that sounds. Pro-Oakland forces could lobby MLB to leave the East Bay unassigned, but that does little to address the monetary obstacles in getting a new ballpark built there. It’s clear that either San Jose or Santa Clara County would have to be assigned to the A’s instead of the territory being shared.

The strange thing about the county-based annexation done during the 90’s is that most ballparks are built in downtowns, or at least within major cities’ limits. The Rangers are the only exception to this rule, with their home being halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth in Arlington. One of the iterations of the Washington Senators moved to the Twin Cities suburb of Bloomington at first before moving to Minneapolis proper. The Florida Marlins have always played in the Miami suburb of Miami Gardens, though they’ll move to a ballpark within the city limits next season. With public dollars drying up and tools like redevelopment severely restricted in California, it may be time to redefine what an operating territory is. Just from a practical standpoint, we know several things about what MLB looks for in a ballpark site (in no particular order):

  • Downtown or sufficiently urban location, close to transit if possible
  • Significant infrastructure already in place near the ballpark site
  • Large enough market population and economic strength to make a move worthwhile for the team and MLB as a whole
  • Proximity to existing fans in cases where building in an established market

It’s hard to believe that a piece of suburban, undeveloped land would fulfill these requirements. Knowing this, it may be best to pare back the definition of operating territory to cities instead of counties. For the Bay Area, that would mean the Giants’ territory would strictly be the City/County of San Francisco, while the A’s territory would strictly be San Jose. The rest of the Bay Area could be shared/restricted from the standpoint of hosting a major league franchise, with both teams requiring consent for further moves or incursions by each other or “invading” major or minor league teams. The point of the operating territory is to maximize physical accessibility to fans throughout a market. The Bay Area’s sprawling landscape makes it difficult to do that for all fans, since either the North Bay or South Bay will be pinched. If MLB is looking to evolve the game now just as they did 20 years ago, T-rights are worth a rethink in order to maximize presence for baseball fans throughout the Bay Area, not just the Giants.

07.12.11
by

Selig says contraction off the table

As part of the ongoing All Star media extravaganza, Bud Selig responded to an inquiry by the Chronicle’s John Shea: shea-twitter

There goes the idea that contraction was a bargaining item for the CBA. So let’s go with the idea that the Giants have been hoping that the A’s give up and leave town or get contracted. The latter is not happening, at least through the length of the next CBA (which is expected to approved by both MLB and MLBPA by the end of this season). Now let’s pivot to the A’s, who want Selig to force the Giants to make a deal or have Selig force a vote. Based on Selig’s reputation, the latter is not happening there either. Is that complex, as Selig says? Not really. Is it a difficult negotiation? Certainly. Let’s not make the issue bigger than it really is.

07.12.11
by

News for 7/12/11

Back from a much-needed camping trip, and I’m ready to deal with the anger and frustration. And boy, is there a lot of it. Wouldn’t you be frustrated if the man who holds your future in his hands answers questions in this manner?

Q. What is the latest on the possible relocation to San Jose for the A’s franchise?

COMMISSIONER SELIG: Well, the latest is, I have a small committee who has really assessed that whole situation, Oakland, San Francisco, and it is complex. You talk about complex situations; they have done a terrific job. I know there are some people who think it’s taken too long and I understand that. I’m willing to accept that. But you make decisions like this; I’ve always said, you’d better be careful. Better to get it done right than to get it done fast. But we’ll make a decision that’s based on logic and reason at the proper time.

Selig held steady on other pressing topics, such as the Dodgers, the CBA, realignment, and instant replay.

Joshua “emperor nobody” Chase and Tyler “Blez” Bleszinski have written distinctive, impassioned calls for action and change for the A’s. Both are must reads.

2009 first round pick Grant Green was named MVP of the Futures game last night. After crushing what he thought was going to be a home run against the wall, keeping him to a double, Green said this:

“I’m happy getting doubles. It’s the type of thing where I know I’m not going to be a 20-homer guy in Oakland. Not in that ballpark.”

Imagine if teams could trade draft rights in baseball the same way they could in the other three leagues. Pick signability would take yet another hit for the A’s as long as the Coliseum remained their home.

Despite the A’s struggles on the field, TV ratings at CSN California have seen a slight rise annually from 1.23 last summer to 1.33 this summer. That combined with the slight rise in attendance should mean something, shouldn’t it? If so, what?

Even as cities are looking to sue the state over the death of redevelopment, at least three cities are looking at ways to potentially work within the system. So far that includes the three most prominent cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. Both Oakland and San Jose have said initially that they can’t afford to pay the price to keep their RDA’s functioning. We’ll see about that.

The Florida Marlins are closing off the upper deck at Sun Life Stadium for the rest of the year, with the exceptions of a dog-oriented game in August and the final home game ever in the stadium. Looks like fans are holding out until the next year in the new, air-conditioned space, which is oh-so-Miami sports fan.

The funeral for fallen Rangers fan Shannon Stone was held on Monday in Brownwood, TX. The Rangers and Brownwood have set up memorial funds for Stone’s family, to which the A’s contributed $5,000.

As part of its continued correction, Cisco Systems may lay off anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 jobs before the end of the year, up to 14% of its current workforce. A reduction of 5,000 jobs would save $1 billion in costs and increase profitability 8% in 2012, according to Bloomberg.

There’s a half-serious movement emanating from SoCal to have 13 counties secede from California to form their own largely conservative state. Secession efforts have occurred in the past, mostly from the also largely conservative counties in the northernmost section of the state. It’s not really relevant to the ballpark or baseball economics discussion except that it provides an interesting “what if” scenario if it ever came to pass. Would the new state, which would include Orange and San Diego counties, be more or less friendly to potential franchise relocation candidates? How would they relate to teams who have outdated facilities?

Lastly, it appears that there’s a post-doubleheader tailgate happening on Saturday and a slew of activities before the first game. Given that those of us who are attending will be unable to leave the stadium between games, how about a mini meetup during the intermission? I’m open to suggestions as to where in the O.co Coliseum.