Category Archives: Athletics

11.12.10
by

Wolff/AN Interview Observations

There’s no need to rehash all three parts of Blez’s fantastic Lew Wolff interview (Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3). Doing so would repeat a lot of material that we’ve already written about, so I won’t do that. I also won’t get into a gotcha-fest as some other blogs have, and I won’t dig into Lew’s usual smattering of interview flubs. I’ve gotten used to it by now.

The lie

Instead, I’ll focus on some of the new information we’ve gotten from the series, and read between the lines on it. First, I’ll frame the discussion with one declarative statement:

I know specifically that Lew has lied about one thing in public all these years.

The lie? When Fremont started to go south, Lew said that was he didn’t know what he was going to do, that there was no Plan B. San Jose was always Plan B, or C if you choose to make it part of the longer history. That’s not to say that he hasn’t lied about other things, far from it. It’s just that what some people consider lies or damned lies others think are realities borne of statistics.

Back to the lie. San Jose was continuing to perform its due diligence and that, frankly, Wolff would’ve been a fool to not explore it – at least to the constraints placed upon him. Of course, this was pretty obvious to anyone watching this for any serious length of time. Yet from that lie, I’ve picked up a behavioral pattern that shows how this whole process is moving, at least from the owner’s perspective.

Simply put, Lew tends to only use certain terms and couches his language until he feels he has the leeway and confidence to move forward. While the Coliseum North project was in play, he never mentioned Fremont by name, even though he met with Cisco a few months after the Oakland unveiling. While Fremont was in play and even after it unofficially died, he never talked about either San Jose or Oakland. When the San Jose EIR was certified, he started talking about San Jose in real terms and advocated for it. He started sending players and Stomper to South Bay events. And now he feels confident enough to proclaim that there’s

“…absolutely no reason any of us can come up with that either the Giants or the baseball Commissioner should not approve us to move 50/60 miles away to San Jose so A’s can get a new ballpark.”

He’s couched this newfound confidence by saying he doesn’t know when the decision will be made, but we all know what the timetable is. At this point, over 5 years into Wolff’s tenure as managing partner and 7 into his search for a new home for the A’s, both the A’s and Raiders are running into a hard limit. That limit is the end of both teams’ leases in 2013. A fairly significant revelation from the interview is that he has asked the Coliseum Authority for lease extensions and the requests weren’t granted. Part of this is perhaps due to the Authority feeling duped the last time the team got its extension from 2010 to 2013. Now it’s a matter of the Authority choosing to deal with the Raiders on a new football stadium which would replace the Coliseum. There isn’t room to work on two new venues simultaneously at the Coliseum. By buying the Home Base lot on Hegenberger and incorporating that into the study area, the City made its choice – at least for the Coliseum grounds. Frankly, that’s the right choice. A football stadium makes much more sense in a location with an ocean of parking, not a locale that would be mutually beneficial for a ballpark and downtown.

Wolff’s language has even gotten to the point where we’re not really talking about T-rights compensation. We don’t have a baseline from MLB, a demand from the Giants, or an offer from the A’s. In fact, the only people that are actually talking about it are the media and blogs. Ever wonder why that is? I’m starting to think that T-rights are like Fight Club or a internal political third rail within the lodge. T-rights have much more power if they aren’t enumerated. Once you name a cash price, T-rights start on the slippery slope towards being commoditized. The last thing the lodge wants is actual free market principles working within their antitrust-protected economic structure. They don’t even want the public to know what their finances are other than an annual December press release exhorting record league-wide revenues. (They don’t believe in full revenue sharing either, but that’s another story.)

Bird in hand

In Part 3, Wolff sneaks in a little comment about Oakland’s and San Jose’s relative populations. He starts off talking about the history of Bay Area T-rights and then dives into the population discussion:

LW: OK, I don’t want to bore you with it.  In Oakland, from the 70’s to 2007, the demographics from Oakland have changed, through no one’s fault – it just changed, and that’s a big problem.  For example, they grew from 362,000 to 372,000 or something like that, a very low compounded rate.  San Jose went to a million people in the same period.  We’re not suggesting that’s the reason to go there but that’s the reason we’re not doing well here.

TB: There are more fans to draw from.

LW: Right.  San Jose hit a million a couple of years ago and that is just within the city limits.

In March I wrote about population density and the myth of Oakland being more truly urban than San Jose. My conclusion was that there was only one truly urban center here, SF, and the others are just pretenders. I did a variation of the standard population survey, based on the home ZIP codes of ballpark sites. While the Diridon, Victory Court, and Coliseum sites were fairly close if the circle were drawn only 3 miles from the ZIP, distinctions are made once you go farther out.

Population/Business counts per ZIP code radius. Source: 2000 Census

The numbers are now 10 years old and aren’t reflective of housing booms in both Downtown San Jose and Oakland in the early part of the decade. I doubt that either city’s downtown received more than 10,000 new residents each due to this rise in the housing stock, but it’s possible. Either way, it doesn’t change the 5-mile number more than 3-5%. I’m looking forward to the 2010 numbers coming out in the near future.

I buttressed the argument in March with the notion that at its size, San Jose is capable of doing large projects alone, without county or state help. SJ is actually rather adversarial with Santa Clara County, and tends to throw its weight around frequently and in a rather crude manner. That’s not really the case with Oakland and Alameda County, where partnerships are more necessary. With the Coliseum Authority tied up with the Raiders project, Oakland will be doing the ballpark project solo. And that, given Oakland’s recent political history, has to give MLB’s commission and Bud Selig pause.

I am a ballpark. Hear me roar!

For a stadium geek like me, the most intriguing news was the admission that there would be no stadium club (Part 3). gojohn10 and I expounded upon that in the comments thread, and I’m glad to say that the speculation was – based on what we know so far – correct. The club seats are in the small third deck, with no indoor concourse behind them.

One of my favorite things about the Coliseum pre-Mt. Davis was the openness of the Plaza concourse. There were no concrete walls in back of the seats, and you could see the setting sun between the decks, through the portals, as if the Sun itself had its own knothole to watch the game before it had to go to bed. You know where else you see this? Fenway. Wrigley. At Fenway, you can stand at the back of the lower deck along the first base line and all that’s there is a chain-link fence. The air circulates better, the place feels less claustrophobic, it just feels more like baseball. As the new ballparks stuffed more, well, stuff into their bodies (suite levels, club concourses), from within the ballparks started to look more monolithic. In the last 5-7 years designers have tried to break things up by breaking up the seating decks, which is simply not the same thing as what I described earlier. There’s still a mall on the concourse. Nowadays, all you’ll see behind the plate are seats, then windows, then more windows, then maybe some seats way up top. It looks more like a high-rise office building than a ballpark. Exterior façades have brick or stone glued to concrete, highly reflective glass curtainwall, and in very few cases a look inside the ballpark for passersby.

The new Cisco Field design may be the most “retro” ballpark design of all because it looks to eschew all of these new conventions. Do we really need three club levels, each more exclusive than the last? I don’t think so. How about a massive wall of suites? Don’t need that either. What about just making the sight lines the best, the closest? That sounds good. As I write this I’m shaking my head because I’m wondering how future revenues will be affected. The baseball fan in me completely buys into it, while the number cruncher doesn’t.

What about integrating the ballpark into the neighborhood as just another piece, instead of making it a centerpiece? Neither Wrigley nor Fenway make much of an attempt to scream, “I AM A STADIUM AND YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION TO ME.” The Green Monster, so imposing inside Fenway, doesn’t look like much from the outside. Wrigley is clad with simple fences and is colored light gray, with accents in the form of neon and signs.

When revealed, Cisco Field’s colonnade was met with a great deal of unease. Readers here didn’t know what to make of it. It didn’t look substantial enough. It didn’t look complete. And maybe that’s the point. At the best, most classic ballparks, there are few barriers for the sounds and smells to leave, enticing more people to come in. It’s supposed to be transparent. It’s supposed to allow people to feel that there are no barriers between them and the team they love.

What will Wolff do to make up for the lack of indoors at the ballpark? Service. People who have club seats and suites will get the best service (yes, that sucks given the state of service at the Coliseum). And some heaters overhead to keep the April nights a little warmer. Me? It looks like I might not get the restaurant/bar in the RF wall that I’ve wanted all of my adult life. But if I can walk the dog by there every day and see it from multiple angles, different perspectives – I’ll be fulfilled beyond earthly belief. Because when it’s 5 PM in December and the sun is setting through the decks in left field, I’ll walk by and remember how good it was when I was nine. How good it can be when it’s done right.

Quick note: The Quakes have a date for their stadium! 2012, no later than 2013, according to Wolff (thanks, Elliott Almond). That would seem to tie in with the idea that both A’s and Quakes venues are to be built in sequence, if not concurrently, to take advantage of package deal lower costs for materials and labor. Congrats Quakes fans. Few can relate to the hell you’ve been through, and you deserve your new Epicenter.

Also: Justin Morneau wants the fences at Target Field pulled in.

11.11.10
by

Oakland Planning Commission Meeting 12/1

As FSU pointed out at AN, there is a Planning Commission Meeting on December 1st to take initial comments about a ballpark project at Victory Court. The mandatory Notice of Preparation was filed yesterday. Here are the details:

5. Location: Multiple parcels located east of Oak Street to the Lake Merritt channel between I-880 and Embarcadero. Including the Laney College parking lot north of I-880 and a city owned parcel south of Embarcadero.

Assessor Parcel Numbers: 000O-0455-004-04; -009-03; -004-02; -15-02; 000O-0440-004-03; -003-01; -002-00; -001-00; -007-00; -009-03; -012-00; -005-00; -006-00; 000O-0435-001-00; -003-00; -005-01; -002-01; -010-06; -007-03; -010-04; 000O-0430-001-04; 000O-0445-012-02

Proposal: The Project consists of a new ballpark of up to 39,000 seats, located east of Fallon Street, and adjacent development in the project area including up to 180,000 square feet of retail, up to 540,000 square feet of office, up to 700 residential units and approximately 2,500 off-street parking spaces. The proposal may include the potential for land acquisition and include the extension of 4th, 3rd, and 2nd Streets to Fallon Street and the development of new open space adjacent to the Lake Merritt Channel.

Applicant: City of Oakland/ Oakland Redevelopment Agency

Contact Person/Phone Number: Gregory Hunter / (510)238-2992

Owner: Multiple Private and Public owners

Case File Number: ER10-0002

General Plan: Estuary Plan Area – Mixed Use; Central Business District; Estuary Plan Area – Parks

Zoning: M-20, Light Manufacturing Zone CBD-X, Central Business District Mixed Commercial Zone S-2, Civic Center Zone S-4, Design Review Combining Zone OS (RSP), Open Space Zone – Regional Open Space

Environmental Determination: Staff has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) willbe prepared for this project. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) toprepare the EIR was published on November 10, 2010. The comment period for the NOP ends on December 9, 2010.

Historic Status: The project site does not contain any historic properties

Service Delivery District: Metro

City Council District: 3

Action to be Taken: Receive public and Commission comments about what information and analysis should be included in the EIR. No decisions on the project will be made at this hearing.

For Further Information: Contact case planner Peterson Z. Vollmann at (510) 238-6167 or by email: pvollman@oaklandnet.com.

Note that in addition to the 39,000-seat ballpark, a large amount of ancillary development is scoped out including 180,000 square feet of retail and 540,000 square feet of office space. I have not yet found the NOP on the City’s website, I’ll post it as soon as I get it. Not to be forgotten, Let’s Go Oakland head Doug Boxer is the Chair of the Planning Commission.

I’ll be in the house. December 1st, 6 PM @ Oakland City Hall Hearing Room 1.

11.10.10
by

New Wolff Interview on AN

If you haven’t seen it already, go to Athletics Nation (Happy 7th Birthday) and read Blez’s interview with Lew Wolff, Part 1. It brings us up-to-date on where we stand and may answer a few – but obviously not all – questions you may have about the process. I prefer to leave the discussion there as it’s already quitely lively, but if you have any questions that I may be able to provide some clarification, shoot here and I’ll give it a shot. Jeffrey’s been in the comments thread there, so have at it.

Speaking of Jeffrey, he recorded a take on the Giants’ WS win for KQED Perspectives. I can safely say that we’re in the same boat, even the Giants fan Uncle Larry part.

Part 2 of the AN-Wolff Interview is up. In it, Wolff addresses whether or not Fremont was merely a ruse, his own performance as owner, and several other topics. Part 3 is tomorrow.

I’m planning on writing a response post tomorrow after Part 3.

11.07.10
by

It’s like clockwork

It’s been about 3 months since the last time Dave Newhouse ripped Lew Wolff, so you had to figure it was time for Newhouse to drop another diatribe. It starts out by calling Wolff a liar, then the usual bid for canonization of Wally Haas, then a carpetbagger tag for good measure.

That union led to something beautiful — three straight World Series, 2.9 million attendees one season and a community bonding second to none in baseball.

Yes, the same community bonding that made attendance in the strike-shortened 1994 season (the last of the Haas era) 13th out of the 14 AL teams.

The tendency towards repetition is the major reason why I don’t feel the need to quote or respond to his rantings. This time, however, I figure it’s important to point out a few things.

But, MLB, remember this: Wolff’s initial lie was that the A’s must be near BART and the freeway whenever a new ballpark is built. Fremont fulfilled one-half of that requirement — BART was 2 miles away — and San Jose also fulfills one-half, but it doesn’t have BART.

Does Newhouse not understand that demographics and requirements change depending on the site? Of course BART is required in a place BART was previously used. If you spin out a radius of 20 miles from anywhere in Oakland, BART should be readily available. That can’t happen in San Jose, at least for several years. But in San Jose, people are used to getting to and from places without BART. Will East Bay fans find a San Jose ballpark less accessible? Of course they will. Will they be replaced by South Bay fans? Yes, they will. Why? Because it’s Major League Baseball at a fancy new ballpark near them. Some of them will be A’s fans. Others will be casual, hopefully some of them can be converted.

Later on, Newhouse espouses the virtues of the Coliseum’s location and plugs other sites.

And that isn’t the only available ballpark space in Oakland. There are two spots in Jack London Square, though it would take two businesses, Peerless Coffee and East Bay Restaurant Supply, to shift a bit to make it happen.

This may be doable for one business, not both. But Oakland City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente assured me that the most aesthetically pleasing spot — the Oak to 9th Project by the Estuary — remains available. It’s closer to the freeway than BART, but that site is every bit as attractive as the AT&T Park locale.

I find it interesting that Newhouse suggests that getting both Peerless and EBRS to relocate isn’t feasible. So does that mean that Victory Court is by extension infeasible? First I’ve heard of that. Beyond that, once again he’s being fed the same old nonsense by IDLF and Signature about O29 being doable – even though O29 has not been in the discussion for nearly a decade. Only Newhouse ever brings up O29, despite the lack of infrastructure and other challenges that would make it much more difficult to accomplish than Victory Court, 980, or even the Coliseum. Doesn’t it seem strange that while various real estate developers push for Victory Court to boost their own peripheral developments, one of those major developments could easily be cast aside for a ballpark? I’ll tell you why: those development projects aren’t as good as advertised. It’s not their fault that they were hung out to dry after the real estate collapse. Plenty of very rich developers have been left in similar circumstances.

My gut feeling is that Wolff has no place to go but Oakland. The world champion San Francisco Giants have strengthened their South Bay “territorial rights” by investing more heavily in their San Jose minor league team and by planning to renovate its home field, Municipal Stadium.

Thing is, it takes a lot more than a gut feeling to get a ballpark built. Throughout all of Newhouse’s vitriolic columns, he has never discussed how an Oakland ballpark will get done. Never mentions that it’ll cost $460 million in construction cost alone. Doesn’t have an answer for dozens of corporate interests that will be needed to get it financed. Let’s not forget that the Giants caught hell for financing $170 million, and that was after naming rights and charter seat licenses cut the original cost roughly in half. How can it get done in Oakland, a place that has relatively few major corporations? A place where PSL’s are impossible to sell? A place where building at the Coliseum (and perhaps anywhere in Oakland) may require shouldering the remaining debt on Mount Davis? A place where the government wants to keep the Raiders and simply may not have the resources to keep both the Raiders and A’s in town?

Frankly, Dave, you’re doing Trib readers a major disservice by not being honest about these challenges. Hope and emotion don’t make a strategy or a business plan. There are hard numbers and realities to address. When you feel like having an adult conversation with your readers about keeping the A’s in Oakland, you’ll be helping a lot more than you’re doing now. Until then, you’re just filling column inches, throwing some red meat at people who want it, and wasting everyone else’s time.

11.05.10
by

Quan takes lead over Perata

While election analysts (and yours truly) didn’t give Jean Quan much of a shot against Don Perata when Perata emerged with a 11 point lead, the Ranked Choice Voting system may end up working in Quan’s favor when all is said and done.

Source: Alameda County Registrar

The whole count looks rather uneventful until you get to Rounds 9 and 10. In Round 9, Rebecca Kaplan is eliminated and her second place votes are transferred. Apparently Quan received three times as many higher-placed votes as Perata, which led to that same proportion of votes going straight to Quan. The last tabulation has Perata at 48.91% and Quan at 51.09%.

While RCV helps in terms of reining in election costs, it’s not a perfect system. There’s no weighting assigned to first, second, third and so on, making it possible for a candidate coming in a consistent second on most if not all ballots to win outright. That seems strange. Of course, if they were to weight votes they’d be getting into a terrible BCS-type controversy, and no one wants that for an election.

If this holds true, it’ll be a big boost for the Victory Court crowd. Then again, there’s action and then there’s just talk. Whatever the case, there should and will be a few laughs at Lew Wolff and John Fisher’s expense.

11.03.10
by

Mark it down: July 16th Doubleheader

BANG’s Joe Stiglich reports that the A’s have moved a Thursday night (7/14) game to Saturday (7/16), setting up a classic doubleheader. Which. Is. Totally. Awesome.

It’s the first time the A’s have staged a planned doubleheader since 1995. The first game will start at 1:07 p.m. with the second game to follow after a short break.

There’s nothing in the CBA that expressly disallows classic or traditional doubleheaders, but both MLBPA and MLB have frowned upon the practice for different reasons. The players don’t like the disruption to the schedule’s rhythm and the extended wear-and-tear a DH can bring. The owners see it as leaving gate revenue on the table.

My favorite moment as an A’s fan was a midweek doubledip in July 1990 between the A’s and Indians. The A’s were in top gear, mowing down everyone in their path. Bob Welch pitched the first game, Dave Stewart the second, and Eck closed out both. The starters both went 8, no need to tax Rick Honeycutt or Gene Nelson. I sat in the sun-kissed bleachers for six hours, never wanting to leave. Both games were tidy affairs, running around 2:30 each. It seems so long ago. I look forward to reliving this 21 years after the fact. If anyone wants in, we should set something up.

11.01.10
by

Have You Heard the One About…

Way back, all those eons ago, when Baseball San Jose released the renderings of the potential Cisco Field, I noted that there were two questions that seemed to be on every A’s fan’s mind. The first was, would the park be hitter, or pitcher, friendly. The second was, What the heck is that thing in Right Field?

While we know (thanks to ML) that the answer to the second question is a “colonnade,” the first question has yet to be answered in any sort of educated way. Until now.

A fellow named Greg Rybarczyk runs a very cool website called Hit Tracker. On the site, he tracks things like the actual distances of Home Runs across the league, the atmospheric conditions when the home runs are hit, the angle that the ball left the bat and the speed at which it traveled. The best part of all of this is that he can take this data and, through a highly scientific method, derive a HRPF (Home Run Park Factor) for each of the Major League stadiums.

Long time reader, gojohn10, reached out to Mr. Rybarczyk and he graciously agreed to build a model for the potential Cisco Field using some assumptions about field dimensions and fence heights combined with actual data based on the positioning of the field and it’s geographical coordinates. Using this model, we can safely say the answer to the first question can be phrased something like this, “Did you hear the one about the ballpark in San Jose?”

The punch line would then be, “150/101/100/168/142.”

HRPF works a lot like BPF (Batting Park Factor). The Park Factor is calculated such that 100 means “MLB average.” A number below 100 indicates a park where home runs are less likely. A park with numbers above 100 indicates “Band Box” designation. The further a number is from 100, above or below, the more/less likely it is that bombs will be droppin’ like rain in Seattle. The aggregate HRPF for Cisco Field, as rendered, would likely be something around 132. The highest HRPF presently is Coors Field with a whopping 118.

What’s worse? The easiest Left Field HR, presently, is at the erstwhile Enron Field, 132. The easiest Right Center Field is at Coors Field, 145. The easiest Right Field is at Miller Park, 137. Cisco Field would best all of them. Today, only one park is the most easiest place to hit a Home Run to more than one field, Coors Field is the easiest to CF and RCF. Cisco Field wouldn’t only be the easiest, it’d be the easiest by a landslide and to 3 different parts of the park.

The numbers in the punchline are the projected HRPF at the potential Cisco Field starting in the Left Field corner and moving around the outfield to the Right Field corner. Left Center and Center Field would play fair… Everywhere else would resemble Slow Pitch Softball. Greg theorizes that Bay Area weather conditions could bring that number down by about 10 points. Even so, Cisco Field would still be an easier place go yard than Coors Field. Start signing sinker ballers, and guys who fly out to the warning track 20 times a year, now Billy!

Some important things to note:

  • The Right Field line fence height in the model is 24 ft. There was some debate amongst the three of us (ML, gj10, me) as to what the real height would be. I estimated 35 ft. gj10 estimated 30 ft. ML, the brains of the operation, estimated 24ft. So this is sort of a worst case scenario in the Right Field corner.
  • Similarly, we all had different guesses for the rest of the fences. Though, the differences in our estimates were pretty insignificant. The model is based on 9 ft. fences in Left and 12 ft. fences in Center and Right Center.
  • The upshot is, while the Right Field corner could be moved considerably closer to the magic “100” with a fence as much as 10 ft. taller, Left Field and Right Center would need to be moved back quite a bit to be closer to average.

Uncle Lew, if you are reading this… Please consider changes similar to what ML suggested here. Thank you!

10.30.10
by

Notes from 10/30 Diridon Site Tour

gojohn10 was good enough to go on today’s Diridon site walking tour. He’s also shown up at some of the Fremont and San Jose functions. Here are his notes (edited ever so slightly) and some pictures, which include an update on how things are going in SJ.

SJRA Program Manager Dennis Korabiak (light shirt with jacket) leads the tour

  • Tour led by Dennis Korabiak again
  • Only about 10-15 people this time
  • We went to a room at HP Pavilion for a Q&A presentation
  • Korabiak said he met with baseball officials this week. Wouldn’t comment when someone asked if it was the BRC. He said it was a matter of public record and could be found on his boss’ (Harry Mavrogenes’ calender on the net). I checked and only saw a regular meeting with the two on Wed the 20th
  • No timetable for response but baseball seems impressed
  • If territorial rights are changed by December or early January, OK for March election
  • If ballot approved active negotiations begin with A’s to sell or lease the land [Ed.: City/Redev are on hold until that happens.]
  • Current estimate is $460 million for facility only
  • Officially need to have a vote, though theoretically not necessary if A’s buy land [Ed.: Only if holdouts are willing to sell, else eminent domain needed.]
  • Someone asked if SJ has $ for remaining parcels. He rambled a bit then said they are selling other assests and “getting good deals.” He thinks the answer is yes, they will have the money. As for Wolff buying the land he said “show me the $” [Ed.: Indeed. SJRA does have $140 million in assets, BTW.]
  • Substation is there to stay. Not required to move even for high speed rail. I asked if there would be any effort to make it look nicer. He said the A’s facility design should take care of that. [Ed.: I hope people like cinder blocks. Or freeway sound walls.]
  • Someone asked if MLB has approved park dimensions (right with ya, buddy). Korabiak said we’re not there yet.
  • Someone asked if the park will be at ground level. Korabiak said it might make sense to sink the field 10-25′ the the expensive seats on top are easier to get to (reaffirms ML’s take that the club seats are up high) [Ed.: Yep, figured as much]
  • If no vote on stadium the city will still buy land for BART and HSR
  • AT&T building eligible to be designated historical landmark (unfortunately I kinda missed this part). As for negotiations he says there is much more to it than AT&T being a Giants sponsor. Eminent Domain is on the table, but last resort and something they would like to avoid for tax reasons. [Ed.: AT&T can be designated a landmark, but it is still going to be demolished if the ballpark moves forward. Efforts will be made to document its history and value, including possible salvage. The same goes for the old KNTV studio next door, which has already been bought by City.]
  • I asked whether the Giants success has any effect. He said he didn’t know. [Ed.: I’ve given this some thought the last few days, and I think that if the Giants win the boost in ticket and merchandise sales could provide enough economic ballast to make arguments about economic hardship somewhat moot, at least for a few years.]

Korabiak answers questions about Diridon site plan at HP Pavilion

Much thanks to gojohn10 for taking the tour and reporting in. He’s also working with Jeffrey on another interesting feature we should have up soon. That and the usually post-World Series, post-election flurry of activity should make things interesting around here soon.

10.26.10
by

Strange bedfellows

After Dave Newhouse’s A’s/Warriors panel with Oakland mayoral candidates at the beginning of the month, it wasn’t clear if anything would come of their responses. According to East Bay Express scribe Robert Gammon, it appears that something happened, as Lew Wolff and John Fisher gave a combined $25,000 to Don Perata’s campaign two weeks ago, perhaps a reward for his “candor.” Just to refresh your memory, here’s what Perata said about keeping the A’s in Oakland:

“I probably know a little more about this stuff than most people. I was part of two Raider deals that both failed. We got held up; we really did — by both (the A’s and Raiders). We got rid of the Coliseum board and then politicized it. … In retrospect, it was a disaster. I don’t think the A’s are going to stay here. We can’t play in this game, putting up the money. We haven’t been smart with our franchises.”

Gammon also got some follow-up from candidate and current City Council member Rebecca Kaplan.

Perata appeared uninterested in talking about keeping the A’s in town, according to several attendees. “He was very evasive,” said Kaplan, who was at the meeting with Quan, Perata, and fellow mayoral candidate Joe Tuman. “He basically conveyed that keeping the A’s is not very important.”

So, is it simply a matter of A’s ownership supporting Perata after the position was made public? Or was there a sort of quid pro quo there? Of course, Wolff denies any sort of link between the donation and the stance. Was the donation made because they truly feel that Perata is the best candidate? R-i-i-i-i-i-g-h-t. Though it should be mentioned that many longtime Perata friends, those who’d support a JLS ballpark, also donated serious money to Perata’s campaign affiliated, police union-funded political group. FWIW, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed was reelected in June and virtually no one noticed.

The rather prolific (at least recently) White Elephant Parade looked up contributions by both teams, and found that the Giants donated nearly double the amount of the A’s during the same 2009-10 state legislative session.

For Wolff and Fisher, $25,000 is a trifle, especially compared to the land bill they’ll face as San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency checks the couch cushions for change needed to buy the rest of the Diridon ballpark site.

10.25.10
by

What A New Stadium Means for Payroll

I read here, and in other places like the sfgate.com Drumbeat Blog, opinions on what would happen if the A’s suddenly had a Target Field like infusion of revenue. Opinions vary from “Lew Wolff is cheap and won’t spend anymore” to “The A’s will spend more money than the Angels!” The real answer, they will spend more but won’t be a West Coast version of the Yankees or Red Sox, is much more interesting. While I will never be a GM for any self-respecting MLB franchise, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Which means, I have ideas for what a future A’s roster/dynasty might look like.

First things first, how do we set a projected payroll? First, we have to have an idea of what revenues might look like (thanks ML). Second we have to have an understanding of how revenues impact Major League payrolls. Forbes has an answer:

Data Provided by Forbes

A few interesting factoids from this table. First, if we are to believe Forbes, only two MLB teams took a loss in order to fund their on the field product this season. Only one of those teams took a “significant” loss. Neither of those teams factored much into the playoff picture. Do you smell what I am cooking? As much as you can’t blame the Yankees for their $200M payroll, you can’t harp on A’s ownership for their smallish payroll. The days of teams spending way more than they have, in order to be competitive, are history. Revenue matters.

The second factoid, that MLB teams spend an average of 55% of their revenue on payroll, sets the stage for what could be. In ML’s piece, he split the difference between Wolff’s number and that of Forbes. Here, I am just gonna run with the numbers provided by Forbes to keep it simple. So, a new stadium should provide, roughly, a 14% increase (that was ML’s number, $149M plus 14% is $170M) for this article we will assume that number is $177M ($155M*1.14). That SWAG number puts the A’s in the neighborhood of the Rangers and their $95M payroll. Heck, if the A’s wanted to “go for it” they could actually have a payroll of $106M and be within the range of Operating Income makers on the Forbes chart ($177*.6).

That gives us a range of $95M to $106M…. Oh, how I salivate. What’s better? As ML pointed out, the A’s have huge payroll flexibility in the coming seasons, if we assume they have this new revenue stream. To keep the core together, the A’s would need to have an $80M payroll in 2013. If they are in limbo, forget about it. If they are in construction… $80M is great… That would give them up to $26M to spend on players in the first year (assuming a 2014 opening). So who could they add?

Assuming the A’s have locked up the new Big Three, Anderson, Cahill and Gonzalez.  Max Stassi has taken over for Suzuki and is a second year player. Grant Green is manning Short Stop and in his second year at the big league level. Adrian Cardenas, or Eric Sogard, is Green’s double play partner and relatively cost controlled. Daric Barton, Chris Carter and Michael Taylor are rocking 1B, LF and RF collectively. Bullpen roles are what they are. That leaves the A’s with a definite need for a Center Fielder, a 3B and a couple of starting pitchers.

Zack Grienke anyone? Tim Lincecum anyone? Certainly not both, but would the A’s really need both? The new Big Three, the New Jack Bash Brothers and the developed youngsters make it so that only one would be required.

Or, Ian Krol and Clay Mortenson have developed into a fine back of the rotation. Matt Kemp in center?

The more I think about it, the more I realize the possibilities are infinite. I am just highlighting shock and awe type moves. Silver bullets, if you will. Reality, if Billy Beane’s past is an indication of his future, is that the money would be spread around and the sum of multiple parts would be greater than the any single player. The point is that Wolff could keep payroll right in alignment with what is normal now, add in the new revenue, and we would all be really happy with the result. Here is my wishful glance at a 2014 roster/payroll with a lot of crystal ball gazing (and rose colored performance projecting) mixed in: