Category Archives: Athletics

07.25.10
by

Regionality: The New Revenue Stream

Is it possible that the A’s v. Giants rumble for the South Bay is a lot more complex than we even imagined? I mean, Bud Selig keeps saying so. Should we not believe him? Is it possible that the concept of MLB territory is evolving and this dispute is less about right now and more about an emerging revenue stream?

I caught myself pondering this question last week as the All Star Game was struggling to keep my attention. Honestly, my pondering began with a question like “When was the last time I cared about an All Star Game?” Oddly enough, I thought of the 1988 Triple A All Star Game in Buffalo, New York. It was the first Triple A All Star Game to feature all 26 Triple A affiliates and it was televised on ESPN. I remember waiting for the game to start as I sat in a 1950’s era ranch style San Lorenzo home staring at my grandparents 20 inch TV. Jim Kaat and Gary Thorne were waxing poetic about the beautiful new Pilot Field in Downtown Buffalo and the future stars about to take the field.

At the time, my main reason for being so excited was that I would get to see the player I thought would be the 4th Rookie of the Year (after Canseco, McGwire and Weiss) in a row for our Green and Gold heroes, Lance Blankenship. As a baseball card collector, I was also interested in seeing one Gregg Jefferies, a player I had heard about in card shops as a rookie card one needed to possess. They didn’t disappoint! Blankenship was 1 for 3 with a stolen base, while Jefferies was 1 for 2 with a Home Run. Other notable names that participated in the game? Bob Geren, Geronimo Berroa, Mike Devereaux, Joey Cora and Sandy Alomar.

Thinking about the game reminded me how much minor league baseball has changed.  It seemed that, back then, MLB teams didn’t think much about how the distance between the parent club and it’s top affiliate impacted business. The A’s Triple A team was 772 miles away in Tacoma, WA, for example. While that seems like quite a distance, it was nothing when compared with the over 3000 miles that separated the Chicago White Sox and their top affiliate in Vancouver, BC. I threw a quick spreadsheet together and discovered that in 1988, the median distance between a Major League team and it’s Triple A affiliate was 559 miles. (ed. note- This number is based on Google maps and is hardly precise, but close enough to illustrate the point)

If we juxtapose the conditions in 1988 with the conditions in 2009, it is easy to see a trend towards greater regionalization. Consider these things:

  • The median distance between MLB teams and their top affiliate is now only 315 miles.
  • In 1988, there were 2 Triple A affiliates that played within 200 miles of their parent club. Today there are 12.
  • Today there are 3 teams with their top affiliate over 1000 miles away, the greatest distance being the 3600 miles that are between Toronto and Las Vegas. In 1988, there were 6 teams that were separated from their top affiliate by more than 1000 miles, 2 well over 2000 miles.
  • The Braves moved their Triple A affiliate from Richmond, VA after 43 years. The Gwinnett County Braves are just over 30 miles from the parent club
  • The San Diego Padres (or at least some members of the teams ownership group) are actively working to bring the current Portland Beavers (next season Tuscon?) closer to the mothership. Possibly as close as San Marcos (36 mi.) or Escondido (31 mi.).

With MLB Advanced Media generating profits from the web, Fox Sports paying big bucks to broadcast national games, the advent of MLB Network, Regional Sports Networks extending the reach and frequency of each teams broadcasts, and most teams having a newish piggy bank for a stadium… Are minor league affiliates the next money maker for the MLB clubs? Or could there be a different reason for the decline in median distance? Is the shrinking distance between the clubs and their affiliates  about efficiency or marketing or both? Or could it be simply that expansion in the 90’s brought big league baseball closer to existing Triple A cities?

It seems to be all three. Teams are investing in minor league affiliates to make money, closer affiliates help the baseball operations staff by allowing for things like more efficient use of scouts or potentially quicker player call ups and the MLB expansion of the 90’s created the opportunity for MLB Clubs and their Triple A affiliates to move closer together.

Minor League Investments

The Padres are just one of a growing number of ownership groups that are finding it beneficial to invest in the minor leagues. The Braves, Giants, and Red Sox have all made investments in minor league teams at some point in the last decade. While I don’t expect that every team will be out buying up the 150 or so major league affiliated minor league teams across the country, I imagine most are kicking the tires on limited investments.

I find this particular quote from the above linked article to be telling:

“We’re on the record and excited about operating a Triple-A franchise in Padres’ territory,” Moorad said. “And we want to break ground, start turning shovels of dirt within four to six months.

“To be clear, though, our ownership group — not the Padres — will make the deal that makes sense to all parties.”

Is it possible that this view of expanding the reach within their territory by collocating a Triple A franchise is one of the issues that the Selig Panel is reporting on? It seems so.

Efficiency of Baseball Operations

Picture this hypothetical situation that a GM might face. The trade deadline is fast approaching and you are not sure yet if you are a buyer or seller so you need to get good scouting reports on potential targets as well as understand the recent performance of your minor league assets. Your top free agent acquisition is about to go on the shelf with elbow trouble and you aren’t sure who to bring up to take his roster spot. You want to send your most trusted scout to report on both scenarios. If your Triple A team is 80 miles away, and playing at home, and your High A affiliate is even closer, and playing a potential trading partner… It suddenly becomes a few days of driving around the adjacent Metro Area to get an on the ground report rather than a series of plane flights all over the country and back, assuming the two affiliates are playing nearby.

It’s less expensive, your scout is presumably more alert and when you call him on a whim and say, “Ben Sheets elbow is barking, should we call up Bowers, Mortenson, or someone else?” You can expect to get a better answer.

In a scenario that probably more applies to our A’s… Rehab assignments can be monitored by the GM himself if he wants, for crying out loud.

The Changes Since Expansion

Of the markets that hosted Triple A teams in 1988, 2 (Phoenix and Denver) were “promoted” to the bigs and 6 (Calgary, Edmonton, Richmond, Old Orchard Beach Maine, Tuscon and Vancouver) were “demoted” on out of Triple A baseball.

With 4 new Major League teams creating a need for 4 additional Triple A markets, the total new Triple A cities in the past two decades is 12. The new cities, since 1988, are Charlotte, Durham, Fresno, Lawrenceville (Gwinnett County, GA), Allentown (Lehigh Valley, PA),  Memphis, New Orleans, Reno, Round Rock (TX), Sacramento, Salt Lake City and Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre.

With Triple A teams dropping below the Canadian border, and closer to existing MLB franchises, all while new MLB teams were being established closer to existing Triple A cities (Colorado Springs/Denver), it seems only natural that teams would look to realign their minor league affiliations to take advantage of the opportunity to expand their reach into adjacent metropolitan areas. With the growth of Regional Sports Networks, minor league affiliates outside of traditional MLB territory, but inside an expanded TV market, became of greater strategic value.

In conclusion, it is all speculation as to what role this evolving view of the value of minor league affiliates in an extended metro area may hold for big league clubs. That said, it is clear that even small market teams are looking to the minor leagues as potential sources of future revenue. While I am not sure this is something that Selig’s panel is looking into, thinking about it (and mentally squinting really hard) definitely makes me understand some of the delay.

07.21.10
by

More whining + CFL building boom, who knew?

With newspapers laying off employees left and right and slimming down the old broadsheet, you’d think that precious inches wouldn’t be wasted on, well, no new news.

Since there isn’t any news, scribes are forced to get comments from Lew Wolff and Jorge Leon/Doug Boxer, who have have a nicely adversarial relationship. This time, Chronicle baseball writer John Shea and Merc columnist Bruce Newman take stabs at the issue. I had warned you good readers a couple of weeks ago that we were heading into a quiet period. Too bad that’s not stopping the media. If anything substantive happens before August 3, I’ll be shocked.

Well, here’s one rumor that’s a good likelihood: Expect that August 3rd vote to move a ballpark initiative forward. As much as San Jose is whining about the commish and his panel, they’re not going to risk losing all momentum by trying to wait MLB out in vain.

….

Up in the Great White North, various CFL cities are in the process of replacing their oft-utillitarian stadia with updated or new venues. Whether they’re talking amenities in Calgary and Edmonton or new digs in Regina and Winnipeg, it sure looks like the CFL is undergoing a cycle of building similar to that seen with the four major sports leagues. While stadia in large markets (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) have usually been domes, the smaller markets typically had outdoor, 30-35,000 seat venues with minimal creature comforts. (Keep in mind that this is a sport with a $4 million salary cap.) Most of these upgrades look either partly or entirely government-funded, which doesn’t look so great.

Quick sidebar: Years ago I went on a series of business trips to Calgary. One of my contacts there was a guy who was also a high school football head coach. Curious about this, I asked which rules the team played by, Canadian or American. He laughed and replied, “American.”

7/21 10:30 AM – You might like ESPN SportsTravel’s article on the farthest seats in baseball. With distances! And pictures!

07.14.10
by

Altogether Now

Not to be forgotten, at least one Oakland official is expressing his frustration at Bud Selig and his Merry Trio’s sixteen months of work (and counting), courtesy of Chris Metinko of the Trib:

“I think these people are playing us,” Oakland Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente said Wednesday. “The best thing (Major League Baseball) can do is pit one city against the other. I feel this is all being orchestrated.”

De La Fuente’s comments come just days after San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed expressed similar dismay over MLB’s long, drawn-out study.

…

De La Fuente, who also serves on the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board that controls the stadium in Oakland, said he has not heard anything from MLB in several weeks and echoed Reed’s comments about the cities being held hostage.

“At the end of the day, we should not be held hostage by baseball,” De La Fuente said.

In honor of the collective anger emanating from at least two corners of the Bay Area, I present the following video gem (watch out for some profanity):

In light of the rather elaborate plan hatched and executed by Miami’s new trio, it’s worth asking: How much of this process is real?

07.13.10
by

Calling a bluff

There’s a reason why I don’t play much poker anymore. Frankly, I suck at it. I have no poker face. Apparently, we’re about to find out if San Jose has a good poker face too, because Bud Selig just announced that he is not going to bend to their will.

But, Selig said he would not let an Aug. 3 deadline from the San Jose City Council affect the committee’s timeline. San Jose officials have said they require a commitment from Major League Baseball by that date in order to put a stadium referendum on the November ballot.

If San Jose decides to table the measure, that’s not going to be further impetus for MLB to act. It’s amazing to me how stubborn they are about this. They have been slowly plowing away with their head down for five years now. Maybe they received some kind of promise from Selig when he visited a couple of years ago. Somehow I doubt it. Maybe Wolff told them that he’d work the channels and take care of the lodge, which sounds more likely. Whatever the real machinations are, San Jose will have to decide soon how truly serious about this they are. That means taking a bit of a risk and having faith in the citizenry.

MLB is the hot girl who gets all the attention in school, and San Jose is the average looking guy who is barely acknowledged by her. If he wants to take her to the senior prom, he needs to do all the prom stuff – rent the tux, get a limo, corsage, maybe a hotel room… otherwise she’ll find someone else. Perhaps her slacker ex-boyfriend.

Let’s keep this in proper perspective. The cost for San Jose to be in this is minimal compared to the way so many other American cities have been absolutely pillaged by pro sports leagues and franchises over the last thirty years. So come on, SJ, man up. Get the limo.

Selig also addressed a rumor about his panel perhaps working out a ballpark deal with Oakland:

Selig also denied suspicions that the three-person committee has overstepped its original information-gathering objective and has engaged in active talks to broker a new ballpark in Oakland.

Can’t fault the slacker dude from trying to get the girl back. Does this plot sound more John Hughes or Richard Linklater? Kevin Smith?

07.13.10
by

Coming to a head

Tuesday’s Merc article by Tracy Seipel indicates a sense a desperation among the San Jose boosters and Wolff, in that they need Bud Selig to render a decision on T-rights in order for San Jose to move forward with a ballot measure. In weighs Roger Noll, who feels that Selig hasn’t acted prudently on behalf of either the A’s or Giants.

Roger Noll, a professor of sports economics at Stanford University, said Wolff’s frustration means “Selig isn’t doing the job of a commissioner, which is getting the Giants and the A’s to talk together.” He has predicted the two teams could strike a financial settlement for the territorial rights.

“It’s very difficult to reach a deal without the commissioner coming in and saying, ‘Look, I want a deal… and you guys need to work it out,'” said Noll. “‘And if you don’t, I will impose one on you.”’

Now that would be fantastic for the pro-San Jose folks. Unfortunately, it’s not realistic. From what I’ve gathered, there has been little discussion about prioritizing this issue. Even if Wolff brought it up at the brief owner’s meetings and in the process set himself on fire to get everyone’s attention, I still don’t think Selig and the owners would take action immediately. I could be wrong on this, but I’m going with what I’ve been stating the last six months: San Jose has to get its ducks in a row first, then the owners can talk. Unfair? Yes. Unexpected? Not in the least.

The question arising from this is: What risk is there to the political process if MLB doesn’t take action in time? Well, that’s not easy to quantify. Perhaps some group is taking a poll now on this, but I suspect that trying to explain the history and vagaries of MLB’s Santa Clara County territorial rights to the voting populace would be an exercise in futility. The last polls taken support a ballpark in a general way, so what’s the hold-up? In all likelihood, it’s the ballot language. The measure has a limit of 75 words, and the pols must have numerous drafts on hand, wanting the most ironclad (yet deliberately vague) version in place before they go to the voters. That’s the irony in all of this. MLB won’t budge until SJ has its ducks in a row, and SJ doesn’t want to move unless it has an indication from MLB that it wants to move forward. SJ doesn’t want the extra cost associated with a spring off year special election, and November 2011 is more than merely cutting it close, it’s practically late given a likely construction schedule.

It sounds like an impasse, except that MLB knows that it has survived just fine without a franchise in San Jose for the last century. Can SJ afford to be a little more patient? We’ll find out soon enough.

Note: The article mentions a new grassroots anti-stadium group called Better Sense San Jose. The site has been up since April or May and has a decidedly fiscal slant, though like Stand for San Jose, I’m skeptical as to who’s behind it. WHOIS lookups on the domain owner are blocked, whereas the contact address appears to be a P.O. Box at a UPS Store in the Rose Garden neighborhood. Come on, people, it’s okay to let the public know who you are.

07.12.10
by

Selig speaks, actually says something

LA TImes baseball scribe Bill Shaikin has a fairly lengthy interview with one H.R. “Bud” Selig on the eve of the All Star Game. I say “fairly” because the Times has chosen to split the interview into ten (!) parts to hike up pageviews. In any case, Shaikin got Selig to comment a little on the SF-Oakland-San Jose love triangle on page 4. Here’s the excerpt with some interspersed commentary by yours truly.

Q: George Mitchell delivered the report you commissioned on baseball’s steroid era — 700 interviews, 115,000 pages of documents — in 21 months. It has been 16 months since you commissioned a report on the Oakland Athletics’ stadium situation, an issue that does not appear anywhere near as complex. The A’s still want to move to San Jose; the San Francisco Giants still say no. Why have you not been able to broker a deal between the A’s and the Giants?

A: …Now, as far as the San Francisco-Oakland thing: It’s complicated. I like both parties a great deal. We have territorial rules. I put a committee together that has the qualifications to understand. They’re still hard at work. They’ve still got things to do. This has a lot of ramifications to it.

Eventually, I will make a decision. What I want to say — because I’m generally very deliberate, as everybody knows — is that I didn’t want to have anybody say at the end, ‘Did you look at this? Did you look at that? What about X? What about Y?’

Selig is basically saying that he has all the cards here, so he doesn’t have to do anything right away. If  San Jose is balking at putting a measure on the ballot without the decision, tough luck. Why should he put himself out and start making sausage with the owners when SJ hasn’t gotten everything done yet?

Q: Why is it not as simple as: The Giants claim their business will be severely damaged if the A’s move to San Jose, so you quantify how much their business is hurt and write them a check?

A: It isn’t that simple. You’ve got two parties involved here. There are a lot of questions that people raise about damage. It’s up to us to check everything out. There are a lot of questions the other clubs can ask — and I will ask — before we can make any move. I know that people want a decision. I understand that. But my job is to get it right. If it takes a little longer than people thought, so be it.

Ergo, “I really don’t want to open up this can of worms because of the effect on the NY teams. At least not until someone in the Bay Area has their act together.”

Q: The A’s and Tampa Bay Rays are the two teams still looking for a new ballpark. When the collective bargaining agreement expires next year, so does the moratorium on contraction. If the ballpark situations are not resolved, would you consider folding the A’s and Rays?

A: No, I wouldn’t. I think we have moved past that.

It’s too late to talk contraction until the after the next CBA begins.

We’re going into 16 years of labor peace. I regard that as maybe the prime reason for the growth of the sport.

Do you really think Selig wants two contracted teams as part of his legacy?

I love the new ballparks. I love revenue sharing. I love interleague play and the wild card. But I don’t think we understood how those labor confrontations were damaging us, whether it was 1972, 1973, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1990 or 1994.

There’s no need to fundamentally change the current CBA. The only people complaining are fans (and some owners) of small market teams. Everyone else (owners, players’ union) is reasonably happy.

There is no question that both of those teams need new ballparks. We’ll just have to work our way through it. Tampa has done a marvelous job running their team. [General Manager] Billy Beane has done a terrific job in Oakland. With the economics of baseball today, you’ve got to have a new stadium.

It’s hard to infer too much from this. I’ve always held that Selig will not retire until the Tampa Bay and Oakland situations are resolved one way or another. Since contraction is not happening, it has to be ballparks – somewhere. Once the Rangers’ situation is figured out, I expect Selig and DuPuy to spend a lot of time and resources on TB/OAK.

I’ll leave with one of the more revolting developments from Shaikin’s excellent interview:

I [Selig] was a Yankee fan when I was growing up here [Milwaukee].

Does he deserve a pass because Milwaukee didn’t have a major league franchise when he was a kid?

07.12.10
by

Another weekend, another op-ed

Following up on last week’s volley by San Jose booster Larry Stone, Oakland supporter and one-time A’s executive Andy Dolich fires back on the home city’s behalf. He brings up a great point in showing how Oakland has been counted out time and time again, only to emerge as still having its teams. His tack is left a bit wanting, as he repeatedly mines the not-so-recent past for Oakland’s success while not pointing at all to the future, or recent failures. His only hint at the future is a hope that someone will swoop in and buy the A’s out from the Wolff/Fisher group.

The A’s will most likely get their new stadium in Oakland because the A’s will follow the Giants example. In the Giants’ darkest moment, a group came together to keep the team in its rightful place in San Francisco. Oakland elected officials and private, civic-minded business leaders will find a way to build a new ballpark. When fans of the Green and Gold are celebrating their fifth world championship, it will be in Oakland.

I’ve heard this multiple times, yet I’ve never heard it articulated in any meaningful way. Is the idea to wait out the process, hope San Jose fails, Wolff gives up, and sells the team in short order to an Oakland-only interest (that MLB approves of)? It’s not impossible, but it’s not really a strategy. It’s like waiting for your boss to give you a promotion at work even though you’ve been playing Farmville at your desk everytime he drops by. Moreover, is Dolich suggesting that he would be part of the angel ownership group, just as he was part of the Piccinini group? If that happened, then suddenly there would be something concrete. It’s hard to say what other pieces would be part of such an investor group, but at least one would have to be a billionaire in order to carry the weight required to get a new ballpark deal done. Hell, I would love to start that rumor myself, but it would be completely out of thin air.

Speaking of a new ballpark, Dolich cites the Giants the prime example to get something done in Oakland.

It took the Giants 16 years and four failed elections to get their gem of a privately financed jewel at China Basin. It’s a bear to build a new sports venue in today’s California, no matter how much rose coloring you add to your glasses or how much of the owners’ privately funded millions are put into the project.

Point of distinction: When the Giants proposed their “privately financed jewel,” it took only one election to get it approved. The previous three initiatives all involved publicly financed venues in either San Francisco or Santa Clara County. Big difference. Whether in Oakland or San Jose, it’s not hard to envision a ballpark happening once a Yes vote is obtained. Oakland does not have a voting requirement for a stadium, which boosters like to point out frequently, but at the same time it’s remarkably bad form to spend up $50-100 million on land and infrastructure in a budget crunch without getting public approval, especially in light of the Coliseum renovation debacle.

If Oakland and its boosters really want to get citizens of the city and the region out of its collective apathy or disaffection, they need to articulate how this can all be done. It doesn’t have to be done now, but it needs to be done steadily and completely. I’ve received conflicting reports on whether that’s happening, though Mark Purdy, in his latest repetitious plea to Bud Selig, thinks the MLB panel may be working with Oakland interests on such a plan. Personally, I hope that it is happening, whether it’s to perform due diligence throughout the East Bay or to create a viable Plan B if San Jose doesn’t work out. In the constant battling between the two factions, it’s easy to lose sight of the goal of keeping the A’s in the Bay Area. I don’t tire of the posturing since that’s all it is, posturing. Soon, the dog days will be upon us and work will begin anew.

07.03.10
by

The day has come… for a proxy fight

It’s too bad that per the ML Constitution, teams and owners aren’t allowed to sue each other. They’re not even allowed to have open sniping in the local papers or even a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Instead, we have Bill Neukom sending lawyers down to San Jose to fight for the Giants (big and little). For the A’s, it’s County Assessor Larry Stone penning an op-ed in today’s  edition of San Francisco’s paper.

In Stone’s plea to Neukom to call the dogs off, he mentions that the A’s have proposed their own solution for determining compensation for South Bay territorial rights.

As I understand it, the A’s have agreed that following the opening of a San Jose ballpark, the Giants would have the right to ask Major League Baseball to arbitrate any damages to their fan base or revenue that were caused by the new stadium. Neukom has apparently rejected this fair and simple approach, most likely because projections conducted in a fair manner just might show that the San Jose ballpark would have a positive impact on the orange and black.

Obviously, Neukom would reject such a deal as it doesn’t involve a massive upfront payoff, the kind many believe it would take for the move to happen. However, by continuing to take such an intransigent stance, Neukom risks allowing Bud Selig and his committee to dictate compensation terms. Here’s are the four main tenets I expect to be the framework regarding the committee’s report:

  • The A’s hurt the Giants when they moved to Oakland in 1968 because it split the market in two.
  • The Giants hurt the A’s when they moved to a downtown SF ballpark in 2000 because they suddenly had a new venue that was more accessible to everyone in the Bay Area.
  • Trading the higher population of the East Bay and access to the North Bay for the South Bay’s corporate money and lower population is essentially a wash.
  • San Jose’s progress in terms of getting pieces of a stadium deal in place put it in advantageous position.

That last part is not to say that Oakland isn’t making its own progress as it formally acquired the OFDT site from CEDA, but as long as there’s no EIR or negotiations with private landowners it’s well behind. That said, what would you consider fair  compensation given the four points above? Is it at all clear cut?

06.15.10
by

Odds and ends for June 13

Stadium news from all over.

  • For some reason there are lots of empty seats, even sections, at World Cup matches. It may be a distribution problem. Or no-shows.
  • Dave Newhouse reminisces about the Coliseum’s birth. Frank Deford’s piece from 40 years ago is more comprehensive.
  • SJ Mayor Chuck Reed is encouraged by the Santa Clara measure victory while Roger Noll considers trading the East Bay for the South Bay a wash (I agree).
  • The Merc’s editorial page continues its outlook of cautious optimism.
  • Worried about TV blackouts – in New York, no less – the Jets have cut some PSL prices.
  • Speaking of the Meadowlands, online adultery site AshleyMadison.com is offering $25 million for five years of naming rights for the new stadium. The company has been engaging in various kinds of publicity seeking activities recently, and this is obviously one of them.
  • With all of the big sports events happening over a the last month (World Cup, NBA/NHL finals), it may have been easy to overlook the Miguel Cotto-Yuri Foreman fight held at Yankee Stadium two Saturdays ago. The ring alignment was unusual as it was tucked into the rightfield corner, preserving the infield. The fight itself was also one of the better matches of the year so far, with a wholly unusual ending.
  • In case you’re wondering, the Coliseum is the worst ballpark in the bigs for home runs at exactly 1 HR per game. MLB ballparks usually average 2 HR/game. It doesn’t help that the A’s are 13th in the AL in the category.
  • 6/15: Ann Killion has an Inside Baseball article for SI.com. It attacks A’s ownership and praises the 49ers even though they are at different stages and have different business models. It also doesn’t provide a hint of a solution, though you could go with the “If only they hadn’t alienated/victimized Oakland angle.” Astute analysis? I think not.
  • 6/15: Dave Newhouse hails his old boss at the Trib, George Ross, who helped foster the sports scene in Oakland. Interestingly, they have different stances on the A’s moving south:

    Because Ross worked aggressively to get the A’s, is he upset by the idea of their moving?

    “Professionally, no,” he said. “Because when they built the Coliseum (in 1966), they didn’t built it for either occupant. Al Davis prevailed on them to convert it for his needs, and baseball is less at home there than it should be.

    “If the team moves and stays in the Bay Area — in Contra Costa County, Fremont or San Jose — it will still be part of the Oakland-area sports (scene).”

    This is one time I must disagree with the brainy boss who hired me in 1964. The A’s must remain in Oakland, which should make sure that they get first priority on a new place to play over the Raiders, who were rewarded with a renovated Coliseum, at the A’s expense, upon returning to Oakland in 1995.

    The Raiders left town; the A’s didn’t — not yet. Make sure they don’t, Oakland.

    The difference between the two men appears to be a matter of influence. George Ross could exercise it in a fledgling market with a still influential paper, Newhouse is basically left to plead for action while to some unknown hero while writing for the same paper, which 40 years later is a watered down version of its former self.

On a side note, it is a treat to be able to watch WC matches while I’m eating breakfast every morning. Then I can watch American sports in the evening. Totally rad.

06.11.10
by

Overreaction Central

Having a big laugh over certain reactions to a piece about the 49ers and A’s and their owners in the NY Times. The A’s part comes at the end, in which famed protester/fan Jorge Leon has his long awaited meeting with Lew Wolff – this time in a suite.

For many fans, the teams’ search for new homes has become intensely personal.

On May 9, Lew Wolff , the 74-year-old A’s owner who also owns the San Jose Earthquakes, invited Jorge Leon, a fan, and his friends to watch an A’s game in a luxury box at the Coliseum. Mr. Wolff wanted to explain to them why he was trying to move the team to San Jose. Mr. Leon had been ejected from a game three weeks earlier for holding up a sign that read “Lew Wolff lied, he never tried,” a dig at the owner’s public statements that he had exhausted all efforts to get a stadium deal in Oakland.

That night, the owner told Mr. Leon, a San Leandro lab technician who had “Oakland A’s” tattooed on the inside of his left forearm, that he had wanted to build a stadium in Oakland, but that the city could not come up with the land.

Mr. Leon and his friends talked with the A’s owner from the third inning on, at first hardly noticing that Dallas Braden was on his way to pitching a perfect game. Mr. Wolff left in the seventh inning, pulling on an Earthquakes jacket as he walked out of the suite.

Mr. Leon said he came away from the evening unconvinced by Mr. Wolff.

“I want the A’s to stay in Oakland,” he said. “They bring so much pride to the city.”

Baseball Oakland went on AN and decided to jump on Wolff’s departure from the suite as a sign the he’s not a real baseball fan. Field of Schemes’ Neil de Mause considered it a sign that Wolff is one of the worst owners in baseball. When called out on the idea that Wolff left the suite, not the game, de Mause tried to backpedal and cited a third/fourth-hand report that Wolff left to go to a Quakes game – a game that was actually played the night before.

Now, I’ve been in the owner’s suite twice. I’ve also talked to Wolff about how he likes to attend ballgames. The fact is that he doesn’t like being in the suite unless he has to be there. He only goes there to entertain guests. He shows up in the 2nd or 3rd inning and leaves in the 7th, bidding the guests adieu and allowing the guests (who are generally there to party, game being secondary) to finish eating the free food and drink. I distinctly remember yelling out the suite window at Sean Gallagher, cursing his inability to throw strikes. At the other end, Wolff looked at me and smiled, surprised. I guess he doesn’t see too many bleacher creatures up in the hermetically sealed confines.

Anyway, Wolff would much rather sit behind the A’s dugout, though at times he might be in the Diamond Level or linger behind those seats. He may also head down to the clubhouse if he chooses. The idea that people took a fairly innocuous set of events (leaving in the 7th, putting on the Quakes jacket, everyone not paying attention to the budding no-no) is simply rich. Is that what this has come to? Such is the blogosphere, I guess.

On a tangentially related note, I should mention that among the World Cup hoopla that the Quakes are playing an exhibition against Chivas USA at Raley Field tomorrow. Should I run with that as being a trial balloon to move the Quakes to Sactown? Naw, that would be irresponsible. Oops, I already wrote it.