Category Archives: Athletics

01.31.11
by

No Spanish broadcasts in 2011?

Generally there isn’t much that I and the people at Baseball Oakland agree about. However, when I saw their interview with long time broadcaster Amaury Pi-Gonzalez, I was furious. Pi-Gonzalez admitted that this as of now, there is no carriage for the A’s in Spanish for 2011. This comes two years after the A’s signed a five-year deal with the Spanish Beisbol Network, which had broadcasts on two small stations.

Look, I understand that the team’s first broadcast priority is in acquiring KTRB, and then it’s to secure broadcast rights elsewhere should the station purchase not pan out. I get it. But to not have an option for Spanish language broadcasts is downright embarrassing. It’s WEAK. The A’s are trying to move to San Jose, where 31% of the populace is Hispanic and there is no shortage of activists ready to pounce. You don’t need PR missteps like this.

Pi-Gonzalez notes that even if the A’s were to go with internet streaming broadcasts, which are nowhere near as good as an actual radio station at this point, the cost would be $100,000 for the season. That’s chump change! The A’s could’ve non-tendered Conor Jackson, signed him back for cheap Cust-style, paid for the internet broadcast, and pocketed the difference. Or if Jackson left, they could’ve signed another Cal guy.

I feel bad for the veteran broadcaster. A Fremont resident, Pi-Gonzalez supported the Pacific Commons plan quite vocally, and he probably imagined himself in a brand new broadcast booth working A’s games this season, only a 10 minute drive from his house. Now with the broadcast world so uncertain, it hasn’t worked out the way anyone thought it would. We’re with you there, Amaury.

As for the A’s? COME ON, MAN.

01.27.11
by

Green and gold? Canary and blue? Or…

Okay, I can’t help it. This post is wildly off topic. I’ve been waiting for the alternate jersey design to be revealed, and today it was revealed at A’s Media Day. By now you’ve seen the initial pic from Jane Lee, which frankly, looked somewhat underwhelming. Billy Beane described the jersey’s color as “canary yellow,” which seemed to be backed up by more photos, but other photos showed a richer gold instead of muted canary. The A’s web site has now been updated to include a gallery which includes this closeup:

Does that solve anything? I don’t know that it does. In cloudy or night games, the color may look more muted. On bright sunny days, gold may prevail. The stripe has also alternated between green and blue depending on the picture, so it seems that lighting has everything to do with how the uni looks.

Then again, that stripe has a teal-ish tinge to it… We’ll be able to judge for ourselves in a few weeks when the alternate jerseys start showing up in stores. ESPN’s Paul Lukas mentioned the A’s last summer after a throwback game involving the Pirates. This season, Uni Watch may have its first two-face uniform article.

One thing’s for certain: the black alternate is out. Which makes gold/canary the new black I suppose. What will Gio choose when he takes the Coliseum mound?

P.S. Shortly after the post went up I was sent a few more shots by CSN producer Casey Pratt (danke). Judge for yourself.

01.24.11
by

Talking legal actions (again)

A piece by The Bay Citizen’s Zusha Elinson suggests that Oakland may have a legal bullet at its disposal in its efforts to keep the A’s in Oakland. Elinson cites specific language in the original lease that may help Oakland:

“Licensee [A’s] shall not permit or cause to occur any event that may result in the transfer of its Franchise or any of its Home Games to any other city or location or do or fail to do anything which will cause its right to play major league professional baseball in the Stadium to be lost, impaired or transferred to any other city or location.”

I emailed Elinson to figure out where he got this language, as I couldn’t find it in the Seventh Amendment to the Coliseum Lease, which I posted over a year ago. He sent me a 121-page document which, lo and behold, contains the original 1995 lease agreement, the First and Second Amendments, and a bunch of exhibits pertaining to the various improvements that would be made for both the A’s and Raiders. If you’re interested in the grisly details, here’s a link (PDF). The doc has also been added to the Links section on the right. In my rushed reading of it so far, I found it quite illuminating.

Back to Elinson’s article. He spoke to two sides on the SF divide. Jim Hunt represented the Giants in both 1978 and 1992 in their attempted moves to Toronto and Tampa Bay, respectively. Louise Renne was SF City Attorney in 1992 and fought to keep the Giants in town until a new ownership group could be found, effort led by Walter Shorenstein. As would be expected, the two legal eagles don’t agree as to how effective the attempted legal roadblocks were in keeping the team, though it’s likely that at least employing a stall of some kind helped buy the City time in both cases.

Elinson goes on to suggest that Oakland may be able to employ a similar strategy based on similar language in both the Giants’ leases with SF and the A’s lease in Oakland. However, it’s hard to imagine how this would work. Unlike the Giants, the A’s have multiple ways of ending the lease with minimal if any penalty, either by simply staying through the end (2013) or by paying a termination fee if they want to leave anytime in the next three years.

After struggling to find the specific clause in the lease that Elinson cited, I found it in Section 9, titled “LICENSEE’S COVENANTS.” The term licensee refers to the A’s, licensor the Coliseum Authority. The section mostly has to do with keeping the A’s from losing its membership in the American League. As far-fetched as that sounds, it makes sense. If the A’s were routinely going with $10 million payrolls and otherwise making the team look like it wasn’t worthy of being in the majors (some would say this is happening), then Oakland might have just cause. That’s not really here nor there at this point. Section 9.2, which contains the language we’re discussing, is as follows:

9.2 American League Franchise. Licensee shall do all acts required to maintain its membership in good standing in the American League and to comply with all Rules, Bylaws, Regulations and Requirements of Major League Baseball and the American League. Licensee shall notify Licensor promptly after receipt of any information that Licensee is the subject of any action or contemplated action by the American League or any other person or entity that could affect Licensee’s right to continued membership in good standing. No change in the rights and privileges of Licensee as an American League member including the area or exclusivity of the Franchise Territory shall in any way affect Licensee’s obligations under this License. Except as authorized pursuant to Section 3, Section 16 or Section 22, Licensee shall not permit or cause to occur any event that may result in the transfer of its Franchise or any of its Home Games to any other city or location or do or fail to do anything which will cause its right to play major league professional baseball in the Stadium to be lost, impaired or transferred to any other city or location.

Before I do my non-legal (I am not a lawyer or legal expert) reading of this, I must point out that Section 3 has to do with use of the stadium, parking and surroundings, Section 16 has to do with damage done to the stadium due to force majeure (acts of God), and Section 22 deals with condemnation of the stadium (due to deterioration of some kind or eminent domain).

When I first read the part Elinson clipped (in italics), I interpreted it to mean that the A’s can’t do anything to the stadium that would prevent them from playing games there while the lease was in effect. For instance, the Quakes occasionally play games at the Coliseum. The A’s aren’t allowed to cover the baseball diamond with grass for a Quakes game right before an A’s homestand starts, since the time and cost to reconvert the field for baseball use would prevent the A’s from playing there for a lengthy period.

A broader reading of the language could potentially include actions taken by the A’s off the field, such as discussions with San Jose (or even Fremont), which would move the team away from the Coliseum. However, I think this is much too broad an interpretation. If that were correct, it would preclude the A’s from even talking to other cities about future moves even as they terminated the lease by one of the methods described previously. Terms of a lease don’t bind a team any longer than the length of the lease, whatever that is, and most leases have a termination fee. It’s really all a matter of whether or not that fee is too high to stomach (hello, Tampa Bay). Besides, the A’s couldn’t be in San Jose anytime before 2014 due to the lengthy ballpark construction process.

Since I am in no way a legal expert, I can’t say whether or not my take on this matter has any validity. It is clear that from reading the full agreement and the amendments, there are few contractual obligations keeping the A’s in Oakland. Unlike the Giants back then or the Rays today, the A’s aren’t locked in. They’re free agents after a few years at best. If this bit of language is the basis for a lawsuit to keep the A’s in town, things don’t look particularly good for Oakland. Then again, we’ve heard that their strategy is the same as SF’s was: threaten with a lawsuit, stall and hope for a moneybags savior. And we know how that turned out.

01.19.11
by

Boras chimes in on Oakland/San Jose

We can now add über-agent Scott Boras to the list of people who hate Oakland, along Lew Wolff, John Fisher, Steve Schott, Ken Hofmann, Guy Saperstein, and just about everyone else in league with A’s ownership over the past 15 years. Ken Rosenthal reports that Boras, well, his words speak for themselves.

“The idea that we’re here, sitting on our hands and not letting this franchise get going is detrimental to the game,” says Boras, who grew up in Elk Grove, Calif., near Sacramento.

“A few franchises need to be evaluated and examined. Oakland can immediately improve and become a success if moved to San Jose. You would then have two well-run and successful franchises in the Bay Area.”

Now, let’s not read anything more into this than Boras’ own self-interest. I doubt he’s out there, rubbing his hands, actively conspiring to destroy Oakland. I doubt he cares for either Oakland or San Jose. What he wants is the ability to have one more suitor who could offer a nice, fat, nine-figure contract, whereby Boras gets his cut. That’s it.

It’s interesting that Boras’ comments were so pointed, when Joe Stiglich reported over the weekend that he talked to two unnamed agents who felt that the Coliseum’s condition being a factor in signing free agents was overblown. Instead free agents were turned off by the organization’s lack of commitment to winning. We’ll see how that equation changes this season and next.

The rest of Rosenthal’s article pretty much rehashes the current situation, though he editorializes quite strongly in favor of San Jose.

The three other AL West clubs — the Rangers, Angels and Mariners — play in terrific markets with terrific parks. The proposed 32,000-seat stadium in San Jose would be the smallest in the majors. But the A’s average home attendance would almost double if they filled the park, and premium seating and luxury suites would provide additional revenue.

It’s time. It’s past time.

“In the end, this is hurting baseball,” Boras says. “It’s depriving baseball players and baseball fans of a successful franchise. That’s wrong. We need to correct that.”

The solution is within reach.

Somewhere, the commissioner is twiddling his thumbs.

(Thanks gojohn10 for the link.)

01.16.11
by

The Audacity of Orange

I’ve tried to avoid it. You know you have. But it’s there and it has to be addressed.

The Giants have spent much of the offseason showing off their newly earned World Series trophy. Two weeks ago it was at the Silicon Valley International Car Show. It’s been all over the Bay for fans to come up and take pictures with it. As A’s fans we just have to grin and bear it. The Giants have earned the right, and parading around with the trophy is a smart, smart move.

Now they might have taken it too far by hooking up with Showtime for a reality series, scheduled to air this summer. They’ll be mimicking HBO’s Hard Knocks and 24/7 series, in which cameras follow a single team or event throughout training camp. Production has already started on the series, which will chronicle the team’s attempt to repeat from hot stove and spring training to the dog days of August and the pennant chase.

24/7 has worked for years as a promotional tool in part because of the nature of boxing. With two combatants, it’s easy to pick sides among the different camps, and the zero sum result of a boxing match wraps things up neatly. The action within (training, sparring) always films great. HBO has gotten so good at promoting and filming fight action that the producers of The Fighter chose to have HBO Sports film the fight scenes. In the last year, HBO also extended 24/7 to non-boxing events such NHL’s Winter Classic and NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson’ preparation for the Daytona 500.

Covering a team throughout a season, as MLB/Showtime are doing with the Giants, is much different. Not only do you have to worry about the level of distraction that comes with cameras following players and coaches around day and night, there’s also the worry about the level of drama. The Giants should be competitive in the NL West and may even be leading by the time the first episode airs, given that the Rockies present the only real competition for them at this point. The serial nature of the baseball season should provide plenty of footage, but is it going to be any good? Will they be reduced to off-field looks at how unique Brian Wilson and Tim Lincecum are?

If there’s something that the Giants should be worried about, it’s the filming of a meltdown. As much as the Giants’ marketing machine is building up the team, they are absolutely ripe for a fall. As “compelling” as the worst MTV reality show is when a trainwreck occurs, the Giants could be setting themselves up for weekly lampooning throughout the summer. Chemistry is fragile and a constant distraction won’t help maintain it. A meltdown not something I’d wish upon fans of any team. When a team gets filmed in this manner things haven’t turned out all that well. Hard Knocks has been around for 6 seasons. None of the teams profiled won the Super Bowl following the show’s airing (The Jets may find this out today next week).

Good luck with your reality experiment, Giants. You’re gonna need it.

01.14.11
by

Wolff steps up as potential Downtown SJ land buyer

Someone’s eager to wrap things up. And his name is Lew.

Tracy Seipel reports that Lew Wolff has emerged as a potential buyer for some property in downtown San Jose that the RDA just put up for sale. This shouldn’t be a surprise, I hinted at this last Friday. Again, this seems like a form of quid pro quo, with Wolff benefiting in the end as AT&T did with their Santana Row land deal. It’s ugly, and it’s not the way things should be done. However, Wolff himself said he was willing to go to great lengths to make this happen. From October:

While he and agency officials both said no details of a possible land purchase by Wolff had been discussed, the team owner pledged: “Whatever issues we run into, we will figure out how to get them done. We will not let anything stand in the way of getting the ballpark done.”

Noted.

In the last week, the deadline to get everything done for a ballpark deal has shrunk from 18 months to 12 to 9 to 6 and now possibly 2-3 months, which is straight crazy. I’m not going to blame the Giants for this, they did what they felt was in their best interest. It’s the continual, inexplicable delay on Bud Selig’s part that has led the A’s to this being what may be their last chance at a ballpark anywhere in the Bay Area or Northern California. As ever, we have no idea what’s going on within The Lodge. With both Wolff and Mayor Chuck Reed regularly in touch with Selig regarding the rapidly changing redevelopment landscape in California, Selig may finally have the proper impetus to… act. Which sadly fits him to a tee.

With the demise of big city redevelopment near, Merc columnist Scott Herhold took the time to assess how San Jose, with the second largest RDA in the state (behind LA), has fared in its redevelopment initiatives. While he considered it a mixed bag, he felt it was better to be large and audacious with the money than for the city to stagnate and eventually crumble. He also linked to a 2006 pictorial presentation (PDF) made by the RDA, which shows how downtown looked in 1975 (the year I was born) and now. They’ve managed to turn a decaying urban center that was more famous for night cruising by local youths down First Street into a place that has stuff to visit, like fantastic library shared with SJSU, a world class arena, several good museums. Yesterday I was strolling through Paseo de San Antonio (between the Fairmont buildings) and I noticed Sharks fans mingling with attendees at the annual Furries convention. Well, maybe they weren’t actually mingling. At least they were in fairly close proximity. Anyway, who’d ever thought that was even possible in 1975?

Below are two pictures of the Plaza de Cesar Chavez area (Park Ave & Market St), first the 1975 photo and then the 2006 photo.

City Hall was once in the park

The ground level part of the curved building is part of what Lew Wolff may purchase, he already owns the upper floors

San Jose may be forever sleepy, but it has still come a long way.

01.11.11
by

Olney has a silly idea

In Buster Olney’s blog (Insider accout required), he floats an idea that, unfortunately, Craig Calcaterra thinks has legs.

It’s been awhile since Bud Selig formed the committee to study the Oakland ownership situation, with no resolution in sight for his longtime friend and former fraternity buddy Lew Wolff, the Athletics current owner. What Wolff and the Athletics want is a ballpark in San Jose, and Selig might feel as though he can’t give that to him.

But if McCourt eventually has to sell the Dodgers, providing Wolff — who lives in L.A. — an opportunity to buy the Dodgers would be a heck of a compromise move for Selig, who is, above all else, a deal-maker. In a similar way, he ushered John Henry and Tom Werner — previously connected with the Marlins and Padres, respectively — into control of the Boston Red Sox.

And Wolff, of course, could bring along GM Billy Beane, who could leave the Athletics in the hands of the next owner and heir apparent David Forst.

It’s all speculation. But it all could make a lot of sense, depending on which way the dominos fall with the Dodgers.

First of all, Wolff doesn’t have the scratch to buy the Dodgers. Most owners don’t, and with the valuations of teams as high as they are, they’d be foolish to buy teams on their own. Wolff certainly could partner with people in LA, but really, does anyone think the Dodgers will have a problem attracting extremely wealthy buyers when the time comes?

Besides, Wolff’s share of the A’s has diluted over time. The vast majority of ownership of the A’s are highly entrenched Bay Area people, whether it’s John Fisher in SF, Wolff’s friends and family in the South Bay, or Guy Saperstein in Piedmont. When a team sale happens, the turnover of an owner or ownership group is usually complete. We don’t hear much about a major partner cashing out of an ownership group all that frequently, and when we do it’s often because the partnership was somehow broken.

While Wolff lives in LA, he has children and grandchildren here. There have been plenty of video shots of him sitting in the Coliseum with a young child decked out in full A’s regalia over the years. For him it’s not just about real estate, or getting the stadium done, even though that is his charge. There’s a real emotional attachment there, and it’s gotten to the point that the team is family. If anything, the man is too invested in multiple ways to just let this go. Have you noticed how much more defiant he has gotten the last few months? Despite the challenges and mistakes, he’s a man who generally sees things through, and that’s what he intends to do.

01.03.11
by

Jerry Brown: Killing baseball in Oakland not once, but twice

Update 1/4 4:00 PM – San Jose and Mayor Chuck Reed appear ready to fight Governor Brown in order to keep redevelopment dollars intact if Brown’s idea gets past a conceptual stage.

Austerity, thy name is Jerry Brown. As part of the newly sworn-in governor’s agenda to reduce the $25-28 billion state deficit, massive cuts are in store for social services, the University of California and California State University systems, and just about everything else that is state funded.

Robert Gammon thinks this is bad news for any Victory Court ballpark plans, since Brown is looking to eliminate redevelopment agencies as well. Remember that while $750,000 has been authorized for an EIR, nothing has been authorized or raised (via bonds) for further land acquisition or infrastructure work. That part, which is estimated to run $100 million or more, would be unavailable in as little as 12-18 months if redevelopment agencies were killed or if their tax increment funds were diverted to help shore up the budget.

Gammon is unclear whether Brown would try to fight this battle via legislation or some other method. Redevelopment can be viewed in two ways: generally bloated and ineffectual, yet also important for some ongoing smaller projects in many cities throughout the state. Since redevelopment money has more of an indirect benefit for citizens than, say, funds for Cal Grants or Medi-Cal, it’s likely to be less of a hot button issue, which could make it a more likely candidate for the chopping block. However, redevelopment agencies are empowered through Article 16 of the State Constitution, which makes it difficult to see how Brown could do it alone, unless he declared some sort of fiscal “state of emergency” early on in his term and tried to carry out his agenda via fiat. It’s possible that a bill to accomplish this could “sail” through the legislature, but would a referendum be required as well?

Also threatened are enterprise zones, areas designated by cities as economic incubators and eligible for tax credits as a result. Elimination of enterprise zones could raise the price tag on relocation since it’s likely that Oakland/ORA is looking at some of those areas as places where the existing businesses at Victory Court could relocate, with tax credits as an enticement.

Would Brown’s cuts have an effect on San Jose’s ballpark efforts? Perhaps. SJRA’s practice of landbanking has allowed it to use money it raised many years or even decades ago to help fund new projects. With the threat of Brown curtailing SJRA activities severely if not outright, it’s possible that they may see the writing on the wall and sell off various accrued assets to keep existing projects funded or to shore up the agency’s own budget. Better that than for the state to grab the land and sell it on its own, I suppose. Already, SJRA has redone the Airport West deal to suit Lew Wolff’s sliding schedule. They’ve also agreed to sell the long dormant Brandenburg site near downtown to developer Barry Swenson in order to finish a street grid/park project in the North San Pedro area. Going back to the process of killing redevelopment, imagine a June ballot in San Jose with a ballpark initiative and a statewide proposition to eliminate redevelopment agencies. Yikes.

This early on, it’s hard to say how the redevelopment battle will go. Agencies have their own lobbying group and there will be plenty of cities with large agencies who will be steadfastly against such a raid. Lawsuits would be almost guaranteed, as they would be from various other threatened state agencies. Most redevelopment agencies have some ongoing indebtedness, so what happens if their siphon is cut off? Default? Already, CRA is appealing a decision which approved Governor Schwarzenegger’s $2 Billion raid in 2009-10. We’re in for a bumpy ride, folks.

12.21.10
by

Oakland City Council approves EIR funding 6-2

Liveblog of the meeting (watching the stream):

7:15 PM – The first of eight speakers, Chris Dobbins, is up. The first three speakers are in favor of the resolution: Dobbins, Mike Davie, and Jorge Leon. emperor nobody is fifth with the the phrase “green stadium” as the magic words to making the ballpark work. Ethan Pintard suggests other alternative sites, is concerned with land availability. Bryan Grunwald suggests 980 Park, wants more transparency in the process.

7:28 PM – Council is speaking. Nancy Nadel asks about the Uptown garage, which will have $3.8 million in available funding, which will not be enough to finish the garage (it was also dependent on a now dormant housing development). Funny, she talks about the garage in terms of bringing people in from outside Oakland; isn’t that one of the purposes of a ballpark? Just asking.

7:33 PM – Rebecca Kaplan is up, is encouraged but wants alternatives (uses of the Victory Court site) just in case MLB doesn’t choose Oakland or a ballpark doesn’t pan out. Suggests the Coliseum as a possible site, though she takes care that mentioning the Coliseum is not opposition to Victory Court (sounds like a backpedal from the pre-election stance). Asks about pedestrian and rail crossing improvements, potential for a streetcar project.

7:36 PM – Ignacio de la Fuente thanks A’s fans. Is concerned about how MLB plays one city against another to squeeze out the best deal they can. Implores MLB to make a decision, says he can’t in good conscience support the resolution without a commitment from MLB. Brings up the DC-NoVA bidding war to land the Nats. Northern Virginia, like San Jose, was considered in the lead because it was well organized and had good political and economic support. DC got the team because of the deal put together by Robert Bobb and then-mayor Anthony Williams.

7:41 PM – Jane Brunner rebuts IDLF. Basically says that if we don’t approve this, we lose the team tomorrow (applause).

7:44 PM – Jean Quan expresses her support. Also looks at the site for other potential uses.

Motion passes 6-2. “Let’s Go Oakland” chant ensues.

Side note: A Bay City News article (via NBC Bay Area) mentions Fremont as Wolff’s fallback if MLB doesn’t allow a move to San Jose but only as a past (and currently not active) site possibility.

Greetings from the Southland again, where I am working on an ark to transport me, family, and pairs of animals away from the flash flooding here. At least it ends tomorrow. I think.

Rich Lieberman has the scoop that the A’s are dropping out of the KTRB bidding, due to the station’s “significant internal issues.” I think Big Vinny is cutting the A’s a bit too much slack here. Lew Wolff and Ken Pries are fully aware that individual stations don’t come up for sale very often, so to be able to jump in on one that already has your programming and really only needs some upkeep is a pretty rare opportunity, especially in the Bay Area. I’ve gotten on my soapbox two weeks ago, so I won’t belabor the point. Let’s just say I’ll be seriously disappointed if this comes to pass.

Speaking of opportunities, the Oakland City Council will take up the $750k EIR decision on tonight’s agenda (PDF). Be forewarned, however. The agenda has 47 items, and the meeting starts at 5:30 PM – which makes sense if you’re going to cram 47 items into a single session. The Victory Court item, 10-0260, is way down towards the bottom of the list and is a non-consent item, which means it will be heard after 6:30. A staff note for the item goes as follows:

The December 14, 2010 Community and Economic Development Committee approved recommendations and directed staff to spend conservatively – as slow as possible and decisions to expend funds should be leveraged against tangible certainties.

Staff further directed to add a RESOLVED that the contract is subject to termination at any time, with remaining funds left unspent, should the City’s work with the Major League Baseball stop progressing towards a satisfactory conclusion; 4 Ayes

Again, the item should pass handily with the added termination clause, though there will undoubtedly be a great deal of discussion before that vote is taken. The meeting will stream here.

12.14.10
by

Oakland committee approves full EIR study

The Trib’s Angela Woodall observed the proceedings today. The result? 3-1 in favor of a full EIR study. As expected, the lone dissenter on the committee was Ignacio De La Fuente. The issue will appear before the Oakland City Council next Tuesday, where it should pass. The one important detail:

In the end, the committee added a provision that allows the city to cancel the contract with LSA Associates and pay only for work that has been finished.

That’s a good safety mechanism to put in place, just in case.