Category Archives: Athletics

06.22.11
by

Howard Bryant strikes again

Much thanks to Howard Bryant for continuing to publicize the A’s plight. Now he has included Victory Court and the Rays in the situation, pointing the finger at the commissioner and the owners for their collective indecisiveness and greed, respectively. He sums up the state of affairs between Oakland and Lew Wolff this way:

A’s fans will nod, too. Despite Wolff’s protestations that he is not purposely burying his club, the A’s appear to be following the Montreal narrative. Wolff is correct that Oakland has lacked the political leadership to give him optimism — with the brief exception of city manager Robert Bobb. No mayor, from Elihu Harris to Jerry Brown to Ron Dellums to Jean Quan, has used significant muscle to make the A’s a priority.

Wolff has no reason to trust Oakland politicians, not after the city and Alameda County leadership all but ruined the fan experience at the Oakland Coliseum to accommodate the disastrous return of the Oakland Raiders.

But there is another truth Wolff must face: Oakland doesn’t have much reason to trust him, either. Since Walter Haas sold the team in 1995, A’s owners have done everything in their power to leave Oakland, physically and emotionally.

The commissioner’s office, too, is complicit in the sabotaging of Oakland. Bud Selig rightfully lauds his three-person committee assigned to the daunting and thankless task of assessing the feasibility of baseball in the San Francisco Bay Area. But although he interprets the length of time the committee has taken to reach a finding — two years and counting since March 2009 — as evidence of its diligence, Selig is selling a false timetable, for he has actually had the A’s-San Jose relocation question on his desk for 14 years.

Bryant finishes his column by citing the possibility that Wolff could own the Dodgers and a fresh ownership group could come in to hammer out a deal with Oakland. If that doesn’t work out, the stage is set for the A’s to leave the Bay Area completely. That’s what scares me. Because Oakland doesn’t have a great track record of doing things like this well or properly, or as I’ve noted previously, alone. Unless there’s a Coliseum deal (which MLB has already discounted), Oakland isn’t getting help from the county or state. I want to believe that Oakland can pull it off. But if the scenario Bryant describes happens with the A’s being “Oakland or bust”, people (including the owners) are generally not going to lay money on Oakland. We are talking about $400 million for the team and $450+ million in private financing for a ballpark, plus $100 million directly from the city to get the site and infrastructure ready. If it is Oakland only, I’ll get behind it 100% – as should most readers here and anyone else who is for keeping the A’s in the Bay Area.

From a practical standpoint, A’s fans need to have as many options for the A’s ballpark location as possible, especially with the coming demise of redevelopment (which East Coast-based Bryant hasn’t mentioned in his columns). If we are stuck with only one option, heaven help us.

P.S. – One thing to look for in the upcoming CBA – franchise relocation fees. They aren’t in there right now, and with two teams possibly coming into play, could allow the owners to get their greed on once again.

06.21.11
by

News for 6/21/11

The NFL and NBA are going hot and heavy with CBA discussions.

  • Latest proposal from the NFL (which has yet to be voted on by the owners) would guarantee a straight 48% share to the players, and would create a system in which all teams’ payrolls would approach the salary cap amount every year. The straight percentage is different from the previous system, which had the teams take $1 billion off the top for stadium expenses.
  • The NBA is proposing a “flex cap” which has a salary floor, max, and a sort of “supermax.” Previously, that upper limit was the luxury tax threshold, which if breached would require a dollar-for-dollar tax on additional payroll. The players consider the as-yet-not-enumerated upper limit a hard cap, since it provides a payroll ceiling. The two sides are early in their discussions.

Governor Brown is expected to announce an alternative to the budget he vetoed last week. Plans may include a revised (or not) take on redevelopment.

The California Redevelopment Association released a spreadsheet detailing the amounts that would have to be paid by various redevelopment agencies if AB 26 and 27 were signed into law by Brown:

  • 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

Remember that if the cities are not able to make these payments, they would not be able to issue additional bonds or otherwise acquire debt.

As initially reported by Rich Lieberman, KTRB is switching to a Spanish sports radio format, courtesy of ESPN Deportes. Once fresh capital is put into transmitter maintenance and facilities, I’d expect the 50,000-watt station to go after the… Giants. The Giants have Spanish broadcasts split between a 5 kW station in Pittsburg and a 10kW station in SF that drops to 500 W after sunset. Assuming the station got enough care and feeding, it could be a formidable player.

 

06.20.11
by

More Cisco field renders from Bryant column

Buried within Howard Bryant’s excellent ESPN.com column on Friday was a photo gallery. I skimmed through it but didn’t notice the four three new renders (thanks Different James for pointing this out). Without further ado, here are the new renders – and commence the “colonnade” discussion.

Easily the best pic of the colonnade (minisuites) we've seen yet. Notice the bullpens on the left and how the seating decks meet the colonnade.

High up above CF, sort of like the front row of the upper deck of Mt. Davis but better.

Aerial shot includes surrounding buildings, including one that has already been demolished.

View from LF corner party suites toward downtown San Jose. I'm sure the placement of these suites is not a coincidence. Not shown: Planes flying in barely above Adobe HQ. Also: This image was part of the August 2010 release.

It’s really amazing how much the San Jose version of Cisco Field is unlike the Fremont version. The only element that has carried over is the roof. Also, I don’t know if these renderings have really gotten across how compact the place is. Sure, it’s easy to divine that from a 32-36,000 capacity. It’s much harder to get the feel, though. Sometimes I walk by the site and I wonder how they can fit it in there, despite the amount of time I’ve spent looking at it. Yet there it is.

06.19.11
by

Sorry Harold Camping, armageddon is actually in 2014

I’m amused reading Ray Ratto’s Twitter feed this morning. He’s fielding questions about the A’s stadium situation, perhaps in response to Chronicle Sports Editor Al Saracevic’s column on the front page of the Sporting Green today (paper/iPad app only until Tuesday). Ratto’s staying consistent in his belief that the Wolff/Fisher group doesn’t have the money to build in San Jose, making it the only reason the move hasn’t happened. As far as I can tell he’s the only media guy who has this particular opinion, though that shouldn’t discount it. It’s simply one of many takes on the subject.

Saracevic laments the possible loss of all three teams currently playing at the Coliseum. The A’s would leave for San Jose or Las Vegas (we’ve gone over that). The Raiders would be lured south to Los Angeles again, whereas the Warriors would head back over the bridge to San Francisco. The 49ers deal in Santa Clara will fall apart, forcing the team to work with SF again. The column is mostly prognostication without much depth, so like any opinion (including mine), take it with a grain of salt.

Howard Bryant mistakenly claimed that the A’s lease runs out after the 2012. In actuality, they could leave after the 2012 if they had a place to play. Since they won’t, they’ll be playing at the Coliseum through their last extension year, 2013. The Raiders’ lease also ends following the 2013 season. What happens in 2014? Jeffrey, Doug Boxer, and I puzzled over that question a few weeks ago. It’s been brought up in the comments with greater frequency recently.

With multiple tenants comes moving parts for stadium deals. When the Raiders sat down with the Coliseum Authority and hammered out their new stadium plan, the assumption was that the A’s would leave after the 2013 season for either downtown Oakland or San Jose. We’re now at the point were no permanent new home could be opened until 2015 at the earliest in either city due to the political process.

Oakland has 50% power in the Coliseum Authority relationship, and other than rejecting Lew Wolff’s most recent request for a lease extension, the city tends to rubber-stamp whatever the Authority does. By supporting what will probably be a $1 billion stadium at the Coliseum complex (plus carried over debt from the old Coliseum), nearly half a billion for Victory Court, and silently pushing for a new Oakland-friendly owner to take over should Wolff/Fisher give up the San Jose project completely due to frustration, they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. Honestly, who could blame them? No private interests have ever invested a combined $2 billion in Oakland in this manner.

The harsh reality is Oakland will be fortunate to get $500 million in these economic times. (So would San Jose.) Both the A’s and Raiders projects will require varying amounts of redevelopment money, which as I’ve written several times, is near extinction. These projects have become much riskier and harder to pull off than ever before. It might be best if Oakland were to focus on one project it can really do well, instead of two in which having fewer resources available for both makes it more likely to half-ass both. The Raiders have a leg up in that the Coliseum Authority has its own ability to raise bonds, and with a few changes to the city charter could be given redevelopment powers over the complex. That isn’t possible at Victory Court, since Oakland is carrying the burden alone. Eventually, Oakland and the Authority are gonna have to make a decision about who to extend, whether for one year or several. Given their track record, it looks more likely that someone or something will make the decision for them.

As for the A’s, 2014 is a particularly dicey situation. Other than AT&T Park, there is no MLB-ready facility in the Bay Area if the Coli were taken away (natch). I went to a San Jose Giants game last week and tried to envision it with 10,000 extra seats so that it could host some MLB games. It didn’t work. I suppose Wolff could build a temporary facility alongside the Quakes stadium at Airport West and move some of the materials over when the time comes, but it seems like a logistical nightmare. If Bud Selig can’t convince the Coliseum Authority to re-up with the A’s for one year, we may see the A’s in some kind of yearlong barnstorming tour, a la the 2004 Expos.

06.17.11
by

Howard Bryant reviews “high stakes game of chicken”

This one’s a must read, people.

mlb_bay_battle_576

Howard Bryant may be a Boston guy through and through, but he cut his teeth at the Merc’s sports department for years as the A’s beat writer. He’s also written some excellent books on baseball: Juicing the Game, Shut Out, and his most recent work, The Last Hero: A Life of Henry Aaron. Now he’s taken some time to write about the future of the A’s, and it’s fairly comprehensive (though he gets the last lease year wrong – it’s 2013, and he confuses Coliseum North with Uptown).

There’s too much meat in the column to cherry pick any one passage, so I’ll leave it up to you to read the whole thing. Then come back here to comment. As Bill King often said of the occasional high scoring game, “this one has become a donnybrook.”

06.17.11
by

Sometimes a tree has to be chopped down

Nearly thirty years ago I went on a field trip with my brother and dad to a nursery in the Santa Cruz mountains. The nursery mostly grew coast redwoods. The afternoon was chilly as the marine layer wafted in over the mountains, giving the trees the moist, dense air that makes them thrive. As we left, my brother and I were both given redwood saplings in half-gallon milk cartons. We decided to plant them in the planter strip near the curb in front of the house. I forgot which brother was responsible for which tree.

Ten years later both trees had grown, though not taller than the other trees on the block. The western tree was taller than the eastern tree and had a thicker trunk. They required no maintenance. My dad laid down iceplant (just like at the old Coliseum!) around the trees and everything coexisted peacefully.

Another ten years passed, and from all appearances the western tree was growing like crazy, whereas the eastern tree was stalling out. The western tree also had much more substantial root growth, which could be identified by the uprooted sidewalk next to the tree. Its brother to the east posed no threat to strollers and skateboarders. Eventually the city noticed the problem with the sidewalk and told us that we had no business planting those trees next to the curb. We were told to put a tree in the yard next time, where it could have more space to grow. One day the city chopped down the western tree, which had grown to 20 feet tall. Later they pulled out the stump and fixed the sidewalk. The eastern tree still stands, growing little by little (I think). My dad calls it the Christmas tree and runs the holiday lights out to the former sapling every December. It remains the only redwood on the block.

San Jose’s redevelopment agency is much like the western tree. It grew as a mighty redwood was supposed to, big and tall and fast. Over time it became too big for its own good, and to keep it from destroying the street it had to be chopped down. SJRA’s mission was informed by a quest to become a big city, which meant putting tons of resources into it. Some of it was well directed (library, convention center, arena, museums) and some of it wasn’t (numerous retail failures). SJRA has a ton of fundamental problems that make it difficult to easily chop down. Yet that’s exactly what it’s done. In preparation for the upcoming fiscal year 109 jobs were slashed, or 91% of staff. Even as they expressed outrage at the passage of the twin “kill” bills, they clearly saw what was coming down the road and prepared for it.

Over the next year it’s expected that many RDA’s will be chopped down like the western tree. Most of those will be agencies that have grown too big or have become unmanageable. The loose definitions of blight and even the term “redevelopment” have allowed the agencies to grow unchecked. Controller John Chiang’s audit covered numerous instances of waste and abuse. Agencies who have mismanaged themselves are likely to get cut down, while the properly managed ones – and they do exist – have a chance to stay alive, like the eastern tree. What we don’t know is the criteria for separating the good ones from the bad ones.

With the first real salvo fired in the redevelopment war on Wednesday, every agency throughout the state is scrambling to protect or save themselves from the coming onslaught.

If you’ve read this far, you now get a treat of ballpark news! The Merc’s Tracy Seipel checked in with both Lew Wolff and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to catch their responses to the redevelopment shuffle. Wolff appears undeterred, still saying he can buy land if necessary, though he hasn’t actually done it. Maybe he’s waiting to find out what he might have to buy once the dust settles. Reed provided three scenarios under which the Diridon land can be made whole:

  • Wolff could buy the two parcels, and the city could sell him the rest of the ballpark site.
  • The city could sell agency assets to buy the last two parcels, then sell the entire site to Wolff.
  • The city could buy the last two parcels and lease the site to Wolff, with the city using the lease as security for financing to pay for the land.

These are all scenarios we’ve discussed here on the blog. None of what San Jose has done has been sexy or attention-grabbing. I’ve noted in the past that I could often count all of the people present at a ballpark-related session on two hands. The point is that they get things done. Every time an obstacle has come up, they’ve figured out a way to deal with it. Consider the following:

  • PG&E substation move? Not needed, ballpark configured to fit within purchased land.
  • Fire training station move? Garage requirement eliminated, no longer necessary.
  • Sharks objections? Lifted once entitlements were made for garage/commercial development on north side of HP Pavilion.
  • AT&T land stalemate? Possibly resolved when city provided entitlements to AT&T for land near Santana Row.
  • Worries about parking related EIR impacts? Not if “enough” parking is found on the other side of Guadalupe Parkway. (*shakes head*)

We’re in for an interesting rest of the year. In the morning I’ll check on what ORA and City Hall did with the $100 million.

One more thing: Billy Beane obliterates Lowell Cohn in this interview.

06.16.11
by

Redevelopment is only mostly dead

Update 6/16 10:50 AM – Governor Brown has vetoed both of the main budget bills, AB 98 and SB 69. The veto came as Brown has been is discussions with Republicans over tax extensions, which were half of his inaugural budget solution. The GOP has given no quarter on these taxes, which apparently has forced Brown’s hand. The trailer bills, such as the twin redevelopment bills, are still on Brown’s desk being held back by the Democrats for the time being. They are important for funding the “cuts” half of Brown’s budget plan, so don’t expect them to go away.

At one point during the current legislative session, there were at least a dozen bills having to do with redevelopment reform. In the end, the bills that prevailed were largely influenced by Governor Jerry Brown. With AB 26 and 27 passing and almost guaranteed approval by the governor, the only thing left that can save redevelopment as we know it is a lawsuit (or 400). A successful legal challenge by cities and RDA’s would completely upend the just completed budget process, since the budget is dependent on $1.7 billion in money flowing from RDA’s to the state.

The way this works is that as of October 1, all redevelopment agencies (city or county) would be dissolved. Any projects under contract before January 1, 2011 would continue to have tax increment (now simply named property taxes) as an ongoing funding source. Anything agreed to after January 1 is subject to review in order to determine whether any bond issues violate the spirit of the law.

In addition, redevelopment agencies could be reconstituted if they can perform their activities while taking care of their ongoing debt and these new payments. If they can’t, a successor agency will be appointed whose mission is to collect the these “excess” property taxes and send it to school districts and the like. Cities can apply to reconstitute or create new RDA’s via the mechanism described in AB 27, but they are bound to the aforementioned property tax revenue distributions.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reports that the City of San Jose’s share for the next fiscal year is $62 million, and $15 million per year after that. That’s going to be extremely difficult for San Jose to pull off because tax increment revenues have been so poor for the last several years that there’s been little excess to use for new projects. SJRA’s practice of landbanking has also tied up funds in real estate purchases, which have allowed SJRA to act semi-speculatively when it comes to encouraging new projects. Many cities practice this, few to the extent San Jose does. Now it appears that much of the landbanked property will have to be sold to cover these new payments, not to mention any shortfalls that might occur if the property tax receipts tank.

Remember that in December, Lew Wolff renegotiated the price of the Airport West property down to $89 million, a reflection of the depressed real estate market. Wolff doesn’t have to pay until 2015. I suspect that he may have no choice but to accelerate the purchase, if only to prevent the state from forcing the city to sell another piece of land Wolff covets, such as Diridon. It may be that the creation of SJDDA insulates the city somewhat, but my understanding of the bill language is that efforts to circumvent these new powers and responsibilities could turn into an ugly tug-of-war over dollars and dirt. San Jose’s moves aren’t nearly as egregious as what’s been squirreled away in LA, but if I were Wolff or a board member of SJDDA I wouldn’t rest easy until I knew how legal the new joint powers authority was via a court ruling. There seems to be a simple solution for Wolff if he wants his ballpark in San Jose: PAY UP. (BTW, you know what else probably costs around $89 million? The Fairmont SF.)

Oakland’s situation is different in that it has much more bonding capacity and property tax revenues in several districts are good. However, it will be difficult for ORA or a successor agency to round up the money needed for Victory Court. As I noted yesterday, ORA is buying the Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center for $29 million just so that the city can balance its budget. Other properties, including the Fire Training Center, were bought under similar circumstances. Those kinds of quickfixes won’t be available for much longer, especially if the lion’s share of excess property taxes ORA collects will have to go to Peralta CCD and Oakland School District (my guess: $15-25 million for the first year, $5 million annually thereafter).

The last obstacle in Brown’s quest to kill redevelopment is a legal one, which has been been telegraphed by cities and their lobbying groups for months. Their biggest problem is that so far, pro-redevelopment’s solutions have been predicated on RDA’s voluntarily sending money to the state and education as they get it. It’s kinda difficult to base a budget on voluntary payments, don’t you think? And as long as they keep up with the rhetoric about this legislation and Brown’s efforts being “unconstitutional” they’re setting themselves up for a big loss. They may prevail on technical legal terms, but even if they do it doesn’t bode well for the state, cities or counties. The budget was passed strictly on party lines, with very little give on display and numerous battles to come before Brown has to make a decision. We’re getting to the point where it’s time to start thinking about working in a post-redevelopment era. Municipalities that can’t make such a transition are in danger of being left behind.

06.14.11
by

KBWF May ratings plummet in SF market, rise in SJ

95.7 Sportsradio’s ratings took a 33% dive from 0.9 in April to 0.6 in May in the SF-Oakland market. Conversely, they rose 33% in San Jose from 0.6 to 0.8.

Ratings for the twin KNBR’s have stayed steady. As for still-in-receivership KTRB, it’s possible that their AM license may be turned back in to the FCC, a rarity in the business.

Going back to KBWF, it looks like Dan Dibley was brought in to cohost with the temporary guys in the morning/mid-morning, with the idea that he’d get his own show or cohost at some point. I think it’s time to take the training wheels off and let him do his thing. While they’re at it, bring in the “permanent” local talent.

06.13.11
by

Time to band together

Athletics Nation’s resident raconteur, emperor nobody, posted a beautiful plea to A’s fans and Bud Selig in the wee hours this morning. A Facebook page was also created named “Hey Bud, PleA’se stop the TeA’se” whose purpose is to spread the message. The message? It’s time for Selig to make a decision and lead. Whether the future is in Oakland or San Jose matters less than the idea that there is a future for the A’s and A’s fans.

In the emperor’s inimitable way, he asks us to be indomitable:

Yes, the Giants are holding it all up, I get that.  Yes, Oakland’s “Victory Court” Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is proceeding at a speed somewhere between that of a glacier and Bengie Molina running out a triple, I get that too.  Yes, in Bud’s mind his hands are tied, so he has gone into a sort of administrative fetal position on this matter, all curled up with his thumb is his mouth — or some other convenient orifice of choice.  Be all that as it may, there’s no cavalry coming to shake him back to sentience and make him bring leadership to a difficult and distasteful set of circumstances.  I hate to say it to you, but the A’s fanbase — the group of people who form the natural constituency of concern here — has been whittled down pretty significantly.  So if you’re looking through your binoculars to see if the cavalry is approaching to save the day — or at least to start some shit so the real players in the drama can feel the heat and act accordingly — I’d suggest you lay the spyglass down and refer to your nearest mirror.  Because that’s where the cavalry is gonna come from, if it’s to make the scene at all in time to keep this franchise from circling the Eternal Drain of Irrelevance and Depredation.

More details about the movement will be unveiled on Chris Townsend’s show at 3 PM. It’s time for real accountability. It’s time for a decision. I’m onboard with this movement and have liked the page. How about you?

06.12.11
by

MLB serious about one-team realignment

Last month I tossed off this article about realignment and interleague play mostly as a short thought experiment. Now, according to Buster Olney, Selig and MLB are taking the prospect of a one-team realignment seriously. The change, which could arrive as early as next year with the next CBA, would send Houston to the AL West. That would create two 15-team leagues with 5-team divisions throughout. It would also cause interleague play throughout the year. (I mocked up a schedule of such games throughout the season.) On Baseball Tonight, Olney characterized the probability at less than 50/50 at this point, but it could develop momentum as talks progress throughout the summer.

Simple change has Houston moving to AL West

Key to the realignment plan is Olney’s assertion that the players are very supportive. Unlike the tension-filled CBA stalemates for the NFL and NBA, there is a prevailing notion that a CBA for baseball could be approved by the end of the season. Houston is the frontrunning realignment candidate, though Florida has also been discussed. Olney also brought the possibility that approval of Jim Crane’s ownership bid may be dependent on his accepting realignment. Houston Chronicle baseball writer Richard Justice is onboard with the switch.

The intriguing wrinkle to the talks is a newly floated idea that divisions should be eliminated, leaving only two 15-team leagues. Like the divisional arrangement, the playoffs would be expanded to 10 teams (5 per league), with each league constituting a “single table” format much like the one used for Premier League soccer. The 4th and 5th place teams would have some kind of elimination game or series to start the playoffs, with the winner facing the top seed next.

How the teams would finish in 15-team, no-division leagues if the season ended today.

This kind of change is being championed by teams in the AL East, thanks to the difficulty of unseating the big money Yankees and Red Sox at the top of the division. Realignment along these lines could increase the chances of third Eastern team making the playoffs. What it really does is reduce the chances of any team with less than 90 wins going to the postseason, which personally is fine with me.

Anyone yearning for a return to the balanced schedule will get it with the elimination of divisions. As shown in the table below (C), each team would play everyone else in the league 10 or 11 times. No, that’s not the magic number of 12 that makes it possible for teams to visit every city twice a year, but for the 10 opponents with 11 matchups, two trips would still be possible. For the remaining four 10-matchup opponents, scheduling would require a mix of 6 home/4 road games.

* - 10 opponents with 11 games (3-3-3-2), 4 opponents with 10 games (3-4-3)

Also on Baseball Tonight, Tim Kurkjian suggested that because of the level of detail that would have to be worked out, there’s little chance any kind of realignment could happen in time for next season. That doesn’t make much sense to me. MLB receives drafts of schedules well in advance so that they can smooth over any issues. The process is automated, for the most part. It shouldn’t take a year of analysis to determine want the impacts are for each team from a revenue/cost standpoint. It could easily be completed by the end of the season. Of course, we’re talking about MLB and Bud Selig here, and if there’s anything we can count on, it’s Selig’s “deliberative” process.