Category Archives: Athletics

07.07.11
by

A completely avoidable tragedy

By now you’ve probably heard about the terrible tragedy that occurred at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington earlier tonight. A foul ball off the bat of Conor Jackson went down the LF line and caromed into fair territory, where Josh Hamilton picked it up and tossed it to some fans in the outfield seats. Shannon Stone, a firefighter from Brownwood, TX, leaned over a railing for the ball and fell some 20 feet to the ground below. He later died of his injuries. This is the third incident of a fan falling over a railing at Rangers Ballpark, this one being the first death. He had brought his 6-year-old son to the game.

Any adult who sits in an elevated front row should be aware of the potential for danger, especially if you’re fixated on catching a ball. The LF seats in Arlington are a unique situation in that there is a sizable gap between the front row and the out-of-town scoreboard, which forms the LF wall. I have no idea why the gap is there. Historically, the scoreboard was manually operated, which would require some space for the crew to maneuver. After the scoreboards were changed to LED panels two years ago, the space in back of the scoreboard seemed to be unnecessary, except for perhaps ventilation purposes. At the Coliseum, there is no such gap between the scoreboard and the seats. Instead, there’s a three-foot-wide yellow ledge which provides a roof for the crew, and then a wall which extends up to the bleacher seating. Every other ballpark with a scoreboard built into the wall has fans either directly above the scoreboard, or separated by either a net or something solid. The Giants even put in an extra rail at AT&T Park’s bleachers to keep fans from reaching over the fence and potentially interfering with a ball in play.

A gap with no purpose. (Image taken from CSNCA broadcast)

Why the Rangers didn’t install either a net or a chain link “cage” is beyond me. Installation wouldn’t have cost much and would not have compromised ventilation for the scoreboard. It’s not like they haven’t had such a system at Wrigley for decades.

In Arlington, the prior incidents caused the Rangers to raise the railings from 30.5 inches to a height of 46 inches, or so they said. In foul territory this is difficult to pull off, because every fan is looking down into the action on the field (20-35 degrees). Higher railings could compromise views. A closer look shows that the raised railings only occur along the aisles, not the seating sections. That in itself is tragic given the location of this incident. Outfield seats have a much less severe angle of the action, especially the pitcher-batter confrontation. It would’ve been easy to make 36 inch or higher railings uniform across the board, which might have been high enough to keep the man from falling. To understand how unsafe it is, take a look at this picture provided by the AP to ESPN. Notice on the far right how the railing is lower than the fan’s butt? That’s not good.

It’s simple. Either put up a net or raise the railings to a height that might actually protect people instead of merely providing a footrest. Or do both. It’s only your fans’ safety at stake, Nolan. For now, all anyone can do is send their sympathies to the family of the fallen firefighter. Still, it’s hard to get over the fact that this incident was thoroughly avoidable.

P.S. – The tour I took last summer of Rangers Ballpark didn’t allow us anywhere near the field because it was a game day.

07.07.11
by

Bay Bridge Doubleheader By The Numbers

If you didn’t get a chance to take in today’s Bay Bridge Doubleheader (Mariners @ Athletics in the afternoon, Padres @ Giants at night), fear not! You’ll have one more shot on Labor Day weekend, Saturday, September 3 to be precise. On that day, the schedule will kickoff again with the Mariners visiting the A’s, this time a 1:05 PM game. The nightcap will be the D-backs invading the Giants, hopefully with both teams in the full throes of a pennant race. It’s also possible that the following day, the Giants game will be moved from a 1:05 start to 5:05 to accommodate ESPN’s Sunday Night telecast. Note: I was thinking that the NFL’s labor situation may have an impact, but that weekend is scheduled to be the final exhibition weekend and customarily no games are played on that Sunday. However, a compressed schedule may require games on that Sunday. Back to the original topic.

Today’s double dip was truly unforgettable, and unbeknownst to me 14 hours ago, truly epic. Here’s a breakdown of what I experienced/endured today:

  • Combined time of both games – 6:04 (A’s – 2:12, Giants – 3:52)
  • Total attendance – 61,407 (A’s – 19,491, Giants – 41,916)
  • Innings – 23
  • Pitches thrown – 612
  • Home runs – 3 (bookends – Scott Sizemore to start scoring and win the game for the A’s in 1st, Nate Schierholtz to win the game for the Giants in 14th, also Schierholtz also in 4th with two on)
  • Total cost of tickets – $28 (A’s – $12 value deck, Giants – $16 SRO)
  • Total cost of public transit – $12.15 on BART
  • Total cost of parking – $0 at Hayward station
  • Total cost of gas – Approximately $10
  • Miles driven – 68.4
  • Food/beverage cost – $18.14 (A’s $3.60 out of pocket plus $6 value in ticket for popcorn chicken and soda, Giants – $0, Red’s Java House – $12.25 for Double Cheeseburger + Fries + Anchor Steam, Bayside Market – $2.29 for 1L bottle of Diet Pepsi)
  • Time I left home – 11:00 AM
  • Time I arrived home – 12:35 AM
  • Time my phone ran out of juice – 9:30 PM

Speaking of bookends, the games were the last ones I’ll have attended until the big doubleheader on the 16th. Should we do a meetup? Tailgate? Anyone perhaps interested in the 9/3 Bay Bridge doubleheader? Despite the long day, I’d do it again in a heartbeat.

P.S. – While I was walking around I noticed a number of newly painted lines on some parts of the arcade and behind the bleachers at AT&T Park. It turns out that there are now designated areas for standing and circulation. This was mandated by the fire marshal after an inspection brought up uneasiness about the large, difficult to disperse crowds on the arcade. In retrospect, you have to wonder why it took over a decade for that action to take place. I spoke with an usher about it and he said that the number of standing room tickets had to be reduced due to the lower amount of space available for SRO.

Update 11:52 AM – I emailed A’s Stadium Ops czar David Rinetti to inquire about any special fan rules for the doubleheader. Here is his response:

We are conducting our double-header like every other game, with the following exceptions:

  • fans will be able to enter the stadium from 11:05am until around the 7th inning of the 2nd game
  • the second game will start 35 minutes after the conclusion of the first game
  • alcohol sales will continue all the way through the 5th inning of the 2nd game

Like all regular games, there will not be in and out privileges.


 

07.06.11
by

Bay Bridge Doubleheader

Earlier today I posted on Twitter that I was going to take in the Bay Bridge doubleheader by attending both A’s and Giants home games during the same day. The A’s-M’s game, which was not televised, was a tidy affair punctuated by quick innings by both Joey Devine and Andrew Bailey to complete a combined shutout started by Guillermo Moscoso. Now I’m in SF, having bought a SRO admission for tonight’s Giants-Padres tilt. I’ll probably grab something to eat nearby before the game starts. It’s my first time being able to do this, so I can knock it off my bucket list.

07.04.11
by

Revisiting 980 Park

You may remember that last September, Jeffrey did an overview of architect Bryan Grunwald’s 980 Park site. An innovative solution, the ballpark would be placed on an expansive concrete deck above I-980 as the freeway becomes a wide urban canyon as it passes downtown before it becomes CA-24. Thanks to Grunwald’s persistence, the 980 Park site is an alternative on the Victory Court EIR. Since we know it’s part of the discussion from a process standpoint, it’s time to take a better look at what 980 Park’s advantages and disadvantages are.

Grunwald uses Fenway Park as the model. The park is above I-980, bounded by 14th and 18th Streets to the north and south, and Brush and Castro Streets to the east and west.

Looks like everything works, right? Not so fast, my friend. While many detractors focused on the terrorism fear angle of putting a ballpark above a big piece of transportation infrastructure, that’s not really that much of a problem. SFO’s International Terminal is built directly over the main access road. Madison Square Garden and Boston’s TD Garden are on top of heavily used train stations. Parts of Target Field, including the plaza between the ballpark and arena, are above a freeway segment. No, the biggest problem with 980 Park is the size and shape of the site.

In the picture above (provided by Bryan Grunwald), Fenway appears to fit almost perfectly into the site. After further investigation, not everything is at it seems. As an urban canyon, this freeway segment may be one of the widest in the nation thanks to the liberal use of ramps, shoulders, and landscaping. At its widest (Brush St. curb to Castro St. curb), the width is 450 feet. That’s an amazing amount, and that vastness probably led to the physical and psychological separation of West Oakland from the rest of the city. As Grunwald sees it, 980 Park is a chance to reconnect West Oakland with the rest of the city, right that postwar wrong for good. Going back to dimensions, 450 feet is great for any number of commercial projects. It’s not so great for a ballpark. To keep things in perspective, remember that 450 feet is only 10 feet longer than dead center at old Tiger Stadium.

Width of the site varies from 450 feet (yellow line) down to 300 feet (18th St.). Freeway on/off-ramps would have to be modified per Grunwald's plan.

Original yellow line indicates 450 feet (width of 980 Park site). Additional lines show actual dimensions of Fenway from the Green Monster to the end of the opposite grandstand plus additional infrastructure.

The yellow line in the above picture runs from the Fisk Pole south 450 feet. It terminates short of the back of the grandstand. This makes sense when you consider what goes into making the ballpark. Start with 310 (er, 308) from the Monster to the plate and 50 feet to the first row. That leaves only 90 feet for seats and circulation on that side. That’s simply not enough. Osborn Engineering was incredibly resourceful in dealing with the lack of space at Fenway by sticking the main concourse underneath the lower deck. They also crammed in as many seats as possible into the space by having narrow seats (18″) and row treads (30″) in the grandstand area, and if you’ve ever sat in those seats at Fenway you’ve noticed.

At the back of the lower deck grandstand is a narrow corridor for circulation and a "curb" on which people can stand, back to a fence. Upper deck and suites were added much later. Notice how much bigger the seats look from the upper deck club to the front of the lower deck to the back?

The advent of modern standards such as the “growing” American and ADA requirements make it impractical to implement Fenway now. Cisco Field at Diridon may be highly influenced by certain elements of Fenway, but it’s not going to be cramped like Fenway. Fenway’s field is rotated relative to the grandstand and street grid, yet its LF line lines up almost perfectly with the Meridian. Unlike my idea for rotating Cisco Field to expose more fair field dimensions, no amount of rotation can make up for the lack of space at 980 Park. It works at Diridon because the shortest dimension available on the irregularly sized lot is 570 feet, 120 feet more than at 980 Park. Curious about how this disparity works out to other small ballparks throughout the country, I whipped out Google Earth and used its virtual tape measure at several more space-constrained current and former ballparks. What I found was a pattern.

Shortest dimension when accounting for playing field (LF/RF line) in calculation. When possible, figure only includes ballpark grandstand and does not account for setbacks or sidewalks. Acreage includes field, grandstand(s), and everything else within exterior walls. Parking lots and ancillary buildings are not included.

There may be ways to widen the 980 Park site. Brush and Castro Streets are essentially three-lane, one-way frontage roads with parking on one side. Grunwald’s plan could reclaim one lane on each side, adding 15 feet to each side. However, the 450-foot measurement goes from curb to curb, and it will be necessary to have some amount of setback for sidewalks, trees, etc. That requirement alone would eat up the two reclaimed lanes. Beyond that, it’s hard to see what other changes could be made to fit a reasonably-sized ballpark. The field might be able to be rotated so that home plate sits directly above the median of the freeway, and the pitcher and batter face up/down the freeway. That would put the foul poles at Brush and Castro, leaving precious little space for circulation and creating limitations of the seating configuration. It’s a problem for a real architect like Bryan Grunwald, not a blogger enthusiast like me, to figure out. I don’t necessarily think it’s insurmountable. It is definitely a challenge, to put it mildly. And it would most assuredly be a first. Good luck, Bryan.

07.01.11
by

News for 7/1/11

Despite the bittersweet tone of yesterday (thanks for the memories Ellie), there was a little humor to be found before the game (via the Chronicle’s John Shea):

Clubhouse blaze: Before the game, a fire broke out near Brian Fuentes‘ locker, the result of an overcharged battery for the reliever’s remote-control airplane. Several players rushed to put it out, as did Isao Hirooka (Matsui’s PR guy), equipped with a five-gallon container of drinking water.

In a smoky clubhouse, managing general partner Lew Wolff sat at a table, sipped on a root beer float and cracked a couple of jokes about how this could have been his ticket to a new ballpark, playfully chiding his players for extinguishing the flames.

Clubhouse manager Steve Vucinich approached Wolff and whispered, “Nobody saw you set that, did they?”

Briefly: Wolff expects to meet with Oakland mayor Jean Quan, who has thoughts for a new Oakland ballpark, in the next month but said, “Don’t read too much into it.” …

Several hours after the A’s late rally fell short, Oakland passed its budget with Quan as the deciding vote. The budget includes the sale of HJKCC, funds the public library system, and is heavily dependent on approval of concessions by the police union, which are to be voted on next week.

Craig Calcaterra feels our pain.

Bankruptcy hearings for the Dodgers are set to stretch out until next January. Bud Selig will be deposed by Frank McCourt’s lawyers in two weeks. That should be fun.

Do you believe David Stern’s line that 22 teams in the NBA lost money going into the lockout? Think again.

Saturday’s Earthquakes-Red Bulls contest will be played at Stanford Stadium, to be followed by a fireworks show. Coincidentally, the A’s play the Snakes at the Coliseum at the same time, also to be followed by a fireworks show. Even though I already have a ticket for the A’s game, I may ditch it to go to the Quakes match instead solely because I’ve never seen a soccer match at Stanford since it was rebuilt.

China’s 800+ mile (roughly Seattle to San Francisco) high speed rail train between Beijing and Shanghai launched last week. After a decade of planning, the line took three years to construct. A one-way fare from Beijing to Shanghai costs as little as $85 and takes less than five hours to complete the run.

P.S. – I wanted to add a commentary item to chew on as we head into the weekend. Over the past few days there have been renewed calls on the blog for alternative sites, such as 980 Park, Fremont, or Dublin/Pleasanton. Let’s consider the process before putting these out there. Selig’s panel spent an unspecified amount of time looking at sites, not just in Oakland, but throughout and beyond the specified stadium territory for the A’s (Alameda/Contra Costa counties). For whatever reason, in 2009 four Oakland sites, three centered around downtown, were presented. Those were whittled down to the Victory Court site. Now I’ll repeat this again: Out of the entire A’s territory. This may be because of political forces in Oakland pushing it to stay in Oakland and the panel going along with it (some were upset when the 2001 HOK study included Fremont and Pleasanton). Or it could be the panel said they preferred a downtown site and no other site within the territory provided that. Whatever the cause, Victory Court is the choice in the territory. 980 Park is an EIR alternative, but there’s no indicator as to whether or not MLB takes the site seriously. I think it’s safe to say that with the Coliseum being dismissed early on and no implicit desire to seek a suburban locale, for Oakland and the A’s existing territory it’s Victory Court or bust. That may be why the search was formally expanded to include San Jose, since there’s a downtown there too. I don’t know, I’m just trying to make sense of it.

06.29.11
by

Quick notes from Wolff-Townsend interview

Update 11:45 PM – Mark Purdy asks questions of both Wolff and Reed.

Wolff’s reactions to Townsend’s questions:

  • Not critical about Selig. Is resigned to the length of the process.
  • T-rights isn’t “us against the Giants.” It’s a baseball matter.
  • Washington-Baltimore is not comparable to Santa Clara County, and has not been discussed as comparable.
  • Acknowledges cities’ financial problems. Emphasizes ballpark will be built with private funds (does not talk about public land or infrastructure).
  • Continues to be in touch with San Jose and Mayor Reed.
  • Considers real estate transactions for Diridon small in cost relative to ballpark investment.
  • Maintains there is no Plan B, Plan A being San Jose.
  • Says that there is no financial plan for building in Oakland. Infrastructure costs in Oakland and Fremont are “not in the cards anymore.”
  • Oakland Mayor Quan and Wolff have been talking, will meet next month.
  • OT – Feels that 49ers and Raiders should share a stadium.
  • San Jose site is the only that appears to be ready (EIR, land acquisition).
  • Considers being an owner a privilege.
  • Says the A’s have a good fanbase, could be bigger.
  • Likes the challenge of figuring the plan out, but he’s getting older.
  • Hints for the first time that if situation drags past the point where he can see it through, his son (Keith) and staff will do it.

Not much from the interview, but the Quan and succession stuff is revealing.

06.29.11
by

Onus

Update 4:50 PM – The League of California Cities, a redevelopment and city lobbying group, is going straight to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of the new laws.

Update 2:40 PM – Governor Brown has signed the twin kill redevelopment bills.

Reminder: Lew Wolff will be on The Chris Townsend Show (95.7 FM) at 5:30 PM today.

At the end of Howard Bryant’s first column on the state of the A’s, it might have been easy to lose track of something Lew Wolff said.

Though the clock is ticking on the A’s, sources also say the committee has not expressed any time pressure to present Selig of its findings.

“That’s very true,” Wolff said. “The pressure isn’t on them. It’s on me.”

Starting today, the pressure will definitely be on Wolff – despite the fact that this pressure will come from circumstances beyond his control. At the Capitol, Republicans briefly delayed the inevitable passage of the budget, which was constructed from a combination of realignment and suspect revenue projections. The final package includes the two redevelopment bills (one to kill, one for ransom/rebirth) that were passed by the legislature two weeks ago. Cities throughout the state are lawyering up, though it’s hard to see what settlement could arise since any compromise on the state’s part would have consequences for the budget.

Legal challenges or not, all cities have to deal with the repercussions of the budget passage. Redevelopment advocates have called the twin bills little more than an extortion scheme to allow them to continue to work, and they’re not wrong. As mentioned last Tuesday, here are the amounts that would have to be paid for cities and counties to keep their RDA’s functional:

  • Alameda County: $7.7 million
  • Fremont: $9 million
  • Oakland: $39.7 million
  • San Diego: $69.8 million
  • San Francisco: $24.6 million
  • San Jose: $47.6 million
  • Santa Clara: $11.4 million

The figures are the extortion amounts. See how the Oakland amount is nearly as high as the San Jose amount even though it has less than half the population? That’s because so much land in Oakland (most of the flats) is in one redevelopment zone or another. Oakland North reports that the ransom payment won’t be factored into whatever budget is passed by the City of Oakland, which is understandable since it’s such a recent happening. As of this writing, Oakland is still choosing one of several budget proposals to approve, with the tough battle to gain union concessions won by Mayor Jean Quan. For Oakland, the issue with redevelopment becomes a matter of what they’ll be allowed to do once October 1 hits. Unlike San Jose, Oakland hasn’t gone to the trouble of winding down ORA’s activities, which makes extracting ORA from City Hall difficult. Currently, 17 police officers have their salaries paid by ORA, as well as half the salaries of the mayor and city council (who serve on the ORA board). As they scramble to figure out how some of those needs will be met, it’s not hard to see how actual projects which haven’t started in earnest could fall by the wayside.

Worse, not operating a RDA doesn’t mean that the state won’t get its pound of flesh. It’ll still entitled to the $40 million, only it gets to decide at a later point how it will extract the money from the city. If a city decides it can “play ball” it can pay the vig this year and a smaller amount for next three years, and whatever’s leftover can be used for RDA uses by a successor agency, or as I called it previously, “Son of RDA”. If a city decides it can’t play ball, a successor agency will be created for them, much the same way a defendant can get a court-appointed public defender. That agency’s sole purpose will be to tally up and distribute tax increment as it comes in, none going to new projects. Most importantly, in the can’t-play-ball scenario cities won’t be able to issue new debt. That’s a killer for Oakland, which was counting on being able to tap into new bonds to pay for some of the Victory Court project (land/infrastructure) cost. It’s even more important now that ORA had to absorb some of the city’s budgetary cost by acquiring HJKCC. Without that ability to issue new debt, Oakland’s liable to say, at “Our hands are tied, sorry we couldn’t do more.” And they’d be perfectly within their rights to do so. Thanks for killing the A’s again, Governor Moonbeam.

Then again, there may be a loophole, one that some of the largest RDA’s have been looking to exploit – and one that may have the biggest legal test. When Oakland initiated $100 million in property transfers from ORA back to the city two weeks ago, my response was, “What took so long?” Los Angeles transferred $1 billion worth of assets in a similar fashion in January. While these transfers may have occurred before the 2011-12 fiscal year begins, language written into ABX 26, the redevelopment killing bill, allows state-appointed auditors to determine if any transactions done January 1, 2011 or later (effectively after Brown took office) to be reviewed. What that means for those assets is anyone’s guess at this point, and probably will be the focus of more legal wrangling should the state start looking to liquidate assets to get its revenue.

There’s also the case of San Jose’s newly and hastily created SJ Diridon Development Authority. All thats missing from the name is “Re”. The whole affair seems like an overreaction to Brown, though there may be some hidden wisdom in there somewhere. Regardless of whether work is done through the skeleton crew at SJRA or SJDDA, at some point San Jose will also have to decide if it wants to pay to play. Recently, Mayor Chuck Reed and Lew Wolff have been adamant that they will find the necessary funds to cover the rest of the ballpark land acquisition and infrastructure change, $27+ million total. However, San Jose will also have to pay its $47 million soon if they want to be clear of the state’s reach. That would preclude merely piecemealing the remaining land sales/buys, as they have suggested. Instead, the onus may be on Wolff to deliver on the $89 million price of the Airport West (Earthquakes Stadium) land renegotiated last December. That money isn’t due until 2015, yet here we are with pushed up deadlines thanks to the death of redevelopment. $89 million would provide enough cash for SJ to complete its work and fund other infrastructure in the area it wants to be known as Silicon Valley’s Times Square (I thought it was Grand Central?).

Soon, a coalition of the ten largest cities in the state (including SF, SJ, and Oakland) will put together a lawsuit to vigorously challenge Brown’s redevelopment pay-to-play-or-die scheme. Their case is supported by the passage of Proposition 22 last November, which prohibits state-based redirects of property taxes. Legal murkiness started during the gubernatorial transition when Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown signed off on declaring a fiscal state of emergency, which set the framework for the redevelopment reform bills. Which has greater precedence, a new law or an even newer declared state of emergency? That’s what the courts will have to decide.

06.28.11
by

Can’t give these tickets away

The Merc’s Daniel Brown wrote a bleak article on A’s attendance, grabbing a few choice quotes from Andy Dolich and A’s sales/marketing veep Jim Leahey. Dolich reflected on how the Coliseum used to be packed during the Bash Brothers era, and pointed a finger at how ownership’s constant desire to move out of Oakland has hurt attendance.

“Really, it just made me sad,” he said. “There was a time – and it’s getting harder for people to remember – when the Coliseum was the place to be. It was the Giants who were an afterthought. It was the Giants who were playing in a dump and waiting for high-profile opponents to come into town. It’s completely flipped.”

There are also the numerous things done over the years that have effectively reduced the team’s exposure over time.

  • Closure of A’s Clubhouse stores (ca. 2000)
  • Consistent difficulty in getting a decent radio deal in place (not really ownership’s fault)
  • Elimination of Fanfest
  • Tarping off the third deck
  • No improvements to the Coliseum other than visual changes (vinyl signage)

Of course, there are cases like the Tampa Bay Rays, where $35 million of improvements were made that – even when combined with a winning ballclub – had very little effect on attendance. Sometimes a dump is a dump, and a competitive situation with the Giants only highlights the dumpiness. The A’s are really getting left behind due to their stadium malaise, and nothing’s gonna change as long as the Coliseum is home.

Brown also lists all of the promotions being offered just for the upcoming nine-game homestand.

  • Tuesday vs. Florida: Free Parking Tuesday.
  • Wednesday vs. Florida: $2 Wednesday.
  • Thursday vs. Florida: Root Beer Float Day and Free Hot Dog Thursday.
  • Friday vs. Arizona: Friday Family Pack.
  • Saturday vs. Arizona: Fireworks Night (watch from field).
  • Sunday vs. Arizona: None.
  • July 4 vs. Seattle: Fourth of July Visor giveaway.
  • July 5 vs. Seattle: Free Parking Tuesday.
  • July 6 vs. Seattle: $2 Wednesday.

This actually leads me to wonder if there are too many different types of promotions and discounts. It sure doesn’t look like Free Parking Tuesdays has any great effect on attendance. The novelty for BART Dollar Wednesdays, which was strong a decade ago, has thoroughly worn off. The Yankees, Giants, and to a lesser extent, the Red Sox bring in other teams’ fans. Fireworks nights bring in casual fans and families. Giveaways are great to bump up paid attendance, but take a look at the steady stream of “fans” leaving the Coliseum on the BART ramp before the first pitch is thrown and tell me that it helps in terms of real fan support. Would the A’s be better served by across-the-board ticket price drops? Would it even matter?

06.26.11
by

The role of new media

This is the letter I wrote to A’s P.R. man Bob Rose in light of Dale Tafoya being stripped of his media credentials:

Mr. Rose:

I write tonight in defense of Dale Tafoya and his exemplary podcast, Athletics After Dark. He and his team have done an excellent job covering the A’s with a different perspective, and at times greater depth, than is normally allowed on the radio or via the regular print media. It would be a shame if Tafoya were not granted the access he has been afforded previously, and I fear that his product would suffer as a result. To me this is important as the A’s (as you are well aware) have been historically media-starved. To hamper his work over an issue that does not appear to have much or anything to do with his professionalism seems counterproductive at best, spiteful at worst.

Moreover, I think this is a good opportunity to explain what the role of the internet and new media is in today’s coverage of pro sports teams. I had spent a few years during college working with a professional photographer who had a great working relationship with Debbie Gallas and her counterparts at the other teams in the Bay Area. Because of this experience I can say I have at least a cursory knowledge of how the press box works, and what kind of professionalism it  requires. Going back to the internet – I had no foresight back then as to what it would really mean because things moved so fast. Six years ago I started out my blog with a focus on economics and business issues for the A’s and other area teams. Because of that off-field focus, I have never requested a media credential and I don’t intend to start anytime soon. Surely though, there is a place for Athletics After Dark, Athletics Nation, and other good outlets for Athletics fandom. The Cleveland Indians started an in-stadium social media presence last year and expanded it this year.

I write “fandom” because it means more than it used to. No longer does the fan have to rely on daily newspaper reports or even hourly radio updates. News, rumors, interviews, and other content meant to sate our appetites is ever more available and desired. That creates a situation where there could be breaches of professionalism, or at least perceived breaches thanks to less editorial control over instant outlets like Twitter. There can and should be a third way that can allow the new media to operate in a structured, professional manner. I don’t claim to have the answers for this. But I think this is a good time to start figuring it out. It’s not just for now, it’s for the next 5, 10, 20 years. Let’s find a way.

Rhamesis “Marine Layer” Muncada
ml@newballpark.org
new A’s ballpark blog

During the last homestand I spent one game hanging out with many AN regulars, including LoneStranger and emperor nobody. I mentioned that the frequently unused loge seats (suite level near the foul poles) would occasionally be used as auxiliary press seating for Raiders games. It was somewhat inconvenient from a logistics standpoint because someone in media relations would have to run copies of statistics and run them out there every quarter/half. For a blogger, who has this information on a laptop or app within seconds of a play occurring, there’s no need to kill more trees just to run out copies. That makes the loge, or an empty suite as the Cleveland Indians have afforded this year, a good spot for new media. I have a few ideas for this third way of accommodating new media:

  • Pay for limited access. A nominal fee of $5-10 per game, per person. Essentially it’s a ticket with perks such as access to the press box but no assigned seating within. Access to players and coaches pre/post-game would have to be negotiable. The nominal fee is important as it buys the individual a license to say anything (within reason).
  • To prevent just anyone from obtaining this access, applicants would have to provide some proof of prior journalistic work or a portfolio of existing relevant new media work.
  • Wireless internet access is a must.

Personally, I’m glad I had my brief experience working in the regular media. For me, familiarity truly bred contempt, and I found the press box a rather toxic environment, one that threatened to kill my fandom. I think that’s one big reason to separate the regular media from bloggers and podcasters. Now, there may be instances where a blogger or podcaster is looking to cross over into the regular media, and that would have to be dealt with as it happens.

Thoughts?

06.23.11
by

Brown speaks out about redevelopment

Turns out that Governor Jerry Brown and Lew Wolff may agree on something after all.

Too bad it’s not something that can help the A’s anytime soon.

Speaking at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference in SF, Brown addressed the equally touchy subjects of CEQA (EIR process) and redevelopment. About the former:

Brown spoke about his time running Oakland, where he says he received a crash course in local politics.

“Every project was opposed by somebody,” he said. “I never had the experience of so much mindless resistance.”

His principal goal in Oakland was the creation of market-rate housing into the city’s core, which Brown thought would bring more disposable income.

It’s important to note that the opposition hasn’t shown up yet to the Victory Court project because nothing of significant substance has yet been presented. When it does, well, we’ll see how steely the collective resolve is to build a ballpark.

As a developer, Wolff has complained as frequently about CEQA as he has about the Coliseum’s warts. Brown no doubt felt the heat when eminent domain was used under his watch to acquire the Uptown site, not to mention the lawsuits and other challenges the project (built by his friends at Forest City) faced. All of that was done under the CEQA umbrella.

Brown also reaffirmed his position on choosing other budgetary needs over redevelopment. Perhaps some of the reporters in the Capitol were correct in saying that the two “compromise” bills that were passed by he Legislature but not sent to the Governor would be vetoed on the grounds that Brown felt they didn’t go far enough.

And the beat goes on…