Category Archives: Baseball

10.29.13
by

Turner Field

The First Quarter 1965 edition of Modern Steel Construction has marvelous article on the construction of Atlanta Stadium. The multipurpose venue served as arguably the most successful “on spec” stadium ever built. That’s to say that the stadium was built specifically to attract teams to Atlanta, which had no major pro sports franchises to call the city home. Initially, Charlie Finley wanted to move the A’s to Atlanta from Kansas City, but the American League blocked the move. The NFL was slow to approve a franchise move or expansion to Atlanta, until AFL-related parties showed interest. When the stadium broke ground in 1964, league interest was piqued and deals started getting done. First it was the Braves moving from Milwaukee, followed by the NFL expansion Falcons franchise. Both teams had a spacious, modern venue to share. The layout was akin to the Coliseum, with the lower deck seats conforming to the bowl shape. This yielded large foul territory and a lengthy distance from a 50-yard line seat to the sideline. The biggest differences between Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum were that the former was enclosed and built with more structural steel as opposed to the all-concrete Coli.

turner_field-031

Panorama from Right Field

When Atlanta was awarded the 1996 Summer Olympics, local officials saw a way to reuse the showcase Centennial Olympic Stadium for baseball. To do so, the main grandstand would be built with a baseball-friendly contour. Temporary sections would be built for the Olympics, creating a capacity of 85,000. Those stands would be torn down after the games, allowing the Braves to fill in the rest of the ballpark in left and center field. Eventually the venue re-opened in 1997 as Turner Field (named after the team’s then-owner, CNN magnate Ted Turner). An outline of the temporary stands forms the large entry plaza in left field, while a wall and the outline of the baseball field commemorate the old stadium in the parking lot across the street.

After the Braves moved in for good for the 1997 season, the newly rechristened Turner Field looked like a ballpark in form and function. It had large, wide concourses. A large outfield complemented the Braves’ pitching staff, and the rounded fence was reminiscent of the old Launch Pad. Foul territory was significantly reduced. Yet one couldn’t help but feel that the stadium was cavernous. The split lower deck has a total of 46 rows, a reminder of how many seats had to be crammed in there for the Olympics. No other lower deck has nearly as many rows, including the split lower deck setups in Anaheim, Arlington, and Baltimore. The main concourse at row 30 is dark and somewhat cramped. The next concourse on row 46, airy and huge. The club level cantilever is modest, covering most of the upper section of the lower deck. A ramp in right field extends so far out it feels like it’s in another ZIP code. Including the outfield plaza, the whole site takes up 20 acres. Even the ballpark footprint alone is about 17 acres. Fulton County Stadium’s circular footprint was a meager 10 acres.

What remains is a vast, family-friendly ballpark well suited for the modern fan. The outfield has numerous play areas and attractions, restaurants with fare at many different price levels, and space, space, space. Turner Field was among the first ballparks to implement a large center field scoreboard plaza, and this one makes AT&T Park’s rendition look like an apartment balcony. Along the left field upper deck sits yet another play area called the Coca-Cola Sky Field, a synergy of adapted re-use and branding that would only be possible in Atlanta. The park lacks a signature element to distinguish it from others. There’s no contrived affectation in the outfield. The scoreboard was once the largest, but has been surpassed by others since. The skyline of Downtown Atlanta is somewhat obscured by the Delta Sky 360 Club above the left field seats. Dark blue is the predominant color, though there’s plenty of muted green throughout in the columns, trusses, and railings. And the facade has some brick to cover the concrete, only enough to make it look like someone stopped work about a third of the way through the job.

Turner Field’s real gem is the Braves Museum Hall of Fame. Entrances are along the left field concourse and the outfield plaza, the latter for use on non-game days. Admission is $2 (via a token) during games, $5 at other times, and can be packaged with a $17 stadium tour (which I did not have time to take). The museum is chock full of exhibits celebrating the franchise’s different eras in Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Boston. A statistical leaderboard displays all of the accomplishments of Braves greats, and there are lockers to honor players and notable teams over the years. There’s even a Pullman rail car that fans can enter to experience what it was like to travel from city to city by train. Of course, there’s a great homage to Hank Aaron, plus preserved dugouts and seats from the old Stadium. Best of all, when I checked in via MLB’s At the Ballpark app, I received a coupon for free admission. If you get to the game early and have time, it’s definitely worth the hour visiting the Museum can easily take up.

The only public transit directly serving the ballpark is local bus. The Georgia State MARTA station is the closest at 1 mile away. A better choice is to take the free ballpark shuttle for MARTA riders, which originates at the ever sad Underground Atlanta mall adjacent to the Five Points station. It’s basically set up for fans to walk through the mall and perhaps pick up something before boarding the shuttle to the ballpark. The ride takes 10 minutes and the return trip drops fans off directly in front of the station. My trip was such that I flew into ATL in the morning, took the Red (or Yellow) line to Five Points, then the shuttle to the park. Cost was $2.50 each way, plus $1 for the Clipper-like Breeze card used for area transit. Simple enough.

Pullman car used during train travel era

Pullman car used during train travel era

Turner Field improved on Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium in many of the same ways other cookie-cutter-cursed cities had their ballpark experiences enhanced. While Turner isn’t as intimate as PNC or as distinctive as AT&T or Camden Yards, it’s comfortable and has good sight lines and food. More importantly, it stands as an innovative example of stadium re-use and financing, since the whole thing was paid for with Olympic sponsorship dollars. That’s not a point the casual fan will care about. For a stadium geek like me it’s a bonus point. By those measures Turner Field is a major success, and finally a permanent baseball-only home for a once-nomadic franchise.

10.24.13
by

Bloomberg pegs A’s franchise value at $590 million

In what will probably become an annual study, Bloomberg released MLB franchise valuations today. The timing, prior to the first World Series game, stands in contrast to Forbes’ release, which is usually on Opening Day. While there will continue to be heavy debate as to the veracity of the valuations (MLB financials are not public data), having a second set of numbers released is good at least for discussion purposes. Besides, the bubble effect we’ve seen with valuations the past several years has allowed Forbes to set a baseline for franchise sales, whether teams and leagues want to acknowledge the data or not.

There’s also a very useful, colorful, interactive info graphic that breaks down both franchise valuations and revenue sources. The former includes $110 million for each club’s 1/30th share of MLB Advanced Media, the league’s digital media arm. The latter indicates which teams have shares in regional sports networks, along with revenue sharing payers and receivers.

The A’s ended up 26th in the rankings with a $590 million valuation. That’s 26% higher than Forbes’ spring figure. Methodology is rather murky, but the two outlets seem to be using similar types of data (if not datasets). Bloomberg also has the A’s tied for 1st (with the Royals) among revenue sharing recipients with $36 million. That’s more than the $33 million the A’s brought in via ticket sales. The Giants, who were valued at $1.23 billion, paid in $21 million to the $480 million revenue sharing pool. The Giants may be worth more than twice the A’s value, but the media revenues aren’t as big a gap as you might think. Bloomberg has the Giants at $88 million via their evergreen deals with CSN Bay Area and KNBR, whereas the A’s pulled in $65 million thanks to new deals with CSN California and Entercom’s KGMZ over the last few years.

Curiously, quotes from A’s PR man Bob Rose and Giants control person Larry Baer provide some owner insight. While in the past Lew Wolff may have argued against the numbers due to perceived discrepancies in local revenue (Wolff thought they were overstated), Rose offers up the notion that the valuation may be low. If revenue is $175 million, Rose argues, then the team is worth 4x that amount, or $700 million. Previously I had multiples at 3x for low-revenue teams and 2x for high-revenue teams. Perhaps a rethinking is in order.

If Rose is correct, the cost to buy the A’s and build a stadium would cost upwards of $1.2 billion, not including land and infrastructure. Chances are they could get it, considering the attractiveness of MLB revenue streams. Of course, future value of the A’s would be heavily tied to whatever ballpark deal is made. If the A’s stay in a ballpark they largely have to pay for themselves, that would limit revenue potential. A publicly subsidized venue would make things easier on the A’s balance sheet.

All in all, it’s more reason for Lew Wolff and John Fisher to hold onto the club despite the ballpark territory stalemate. Then again, without a lease we may see that coming to a head soon enough.

10.20.13
by

Port of Oakland points out numerous Howard Terminal issues in RFP proposal

Two competing narratives define Howard Terminal at the moment. The first, proffered by Oakland ballpark boosters, insists that because of the summer move to attain “site control” over the Port locale, getting a ballpark built should be a mostly a matter of procedure that can quickly result in HT being shovel-ready. The other narrative, promoted by this site and other skeptics, argues that because of the land’s heavy industrial and maritime uses over the last several decades, it could be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to even attempt it.

Adding to the information fog surrounding Howard Terminal are suggestions that the permitting and CEQA processes for the site could somehow be streamlined. One Twitter follower even explained to me a few months ago that the site wouldn’t need rigorous environmental review because HT was somehow zoned for a convention center. That’s not true, and even if it was that’s a wholly different use and set of impacts compared to a ballpark. No, HT is zoned as heavy industrial, Port land. No commercial uses are allowed there. I’ve also heard that there’s a way to build at HT without breaching the thick contamination cap already there. That’s patently ridiculous. Now if someone wants to offer up some great technology that allows for building a code-compliant, earthquake-safe, 10-story tall permanent ballpark whose foundation doesn’t require digging out some dirt, I’m all ears. Pardon me for being cynical.

Or if you don’t want to pardon my cynicism, take it from the Port. In the aftermath of the SSA consolidation deal inked between the Port and one of its bigger operators, Port staff prepared a report for a forthcoming RFP to find bidders who could use HT in the short-term. The concern is that the Port is losing $10 million a year while Howard Terminal remains vacant post-consolidation. I’ve bolded some of the more noteworthy language, and summarized the issue below each quoted graf.

Urgency of Revenue

With the loss of about $10 million/year of revenue at Howard Terminal starting October 1, 2013, finding a new tenant that can quickly establish operations and pay rent to the Port is critical. Because the property is already generally permitted and entitled for maritime and maritime-related uses, maintaining land use consistency will help expedite occupancy. However, it should be noted that even some maritime uses may require additional entitlement work; for example, construction of extensive break bulk facilities may require some California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis and permitting work. This work, however, is expected to be relatively limited as compared to non-maritime uses of the property.

Issue #1: The Port is trying to maintain maritime use so that they can get a tenant in there tout de suite. That doesn’t mean that the Port is against a ballpark, but it’s clear that a non-maritime use like a ballpark is bound to be tied up in red tape for some time to come.

BCDC Seaport Plan

Howard Terminal is included in the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (“BCDC”) Seaport Plan as a “Port Priority Use” area. This designation is based on a Bay-wide study performed by BCDC periodically to determine whether enough capacity exists across all Bay Area ports to accommodate anticipated cargo growth in the long-term future. Using Howard Terminal for non-maritime uses conflicts with this designation, and de-designation of lands from Port Priority Use requires a Seaport Plan amendment, which is a fairly lengthy and involved process. To pursue an amendment, the Port would be required to provide evidence that sufficient capacity exists within the remaining Port seaport properties, or elsewhere within the Bay Area Port priority lands, to support the long term maritime growth demands for the region. BCDC would then independently analyze that information before proceeding with an amendment.

Issue #2: In order to accept non-maritime reuse of Howard Terminal, that red tape would include a Seaport Plan amendment, proof that the consolidation properly makes up for HT’s lost cargo handling capacity. If the consolidation doesn’t prove enough, more capacity would have to be found elsewhere, even somewhere outside Oakland city limits.

Tidelands Trust Compliance

Howard Terminal is currently encumbered by the Tidelands Trust. Uses of the property are therefore generally limited to water oriented commerce, navigation, fisheries, and regional or state-wide recreational uses. Approval from the State Lands Commission would be required for any uses of the property that are not Tidelands Trust compliant. Many non-maritime activities are not considered Trust compliant uses and thus may require lengthy negotiations with the State Lands Commission, and potential legislation, before the Port could proceed with such non-Trust uses for the property.

Issue #3: This is a very similar situation to what the Warriors face with their planned arena at San Francisco’s Piers 30/32. Howard Terminal is on the water, on the bay, thus any plans there mandate special consideration of the effects of such a project. Since that process could take years to shake out, project proponents have pushed local legislators to write “streamlining” bills that can cut down review time normally associated with EIR-challenging lawsuits.

Other Entitlement, Environmental & Regulatory Issues

Howard Terminal is subject to a complex set of regulatory permits and deed restrictions related to the hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater underlying the property. Development of new structures that penetrate the ground surface or changes in land use will require notices to regulatory agencies, and compliance with existing health, safety and soil management plans. Non-maritime uses will likely require extensive and expensive clean-up or other protective environmental measures, precluding expeditious turn-over of the property to a new rent-paying tenant. Further, non-maritime uses will likely require numerous land use entitlements including local land use permits, an amendment to the Oakland General Plan, and CEQA review. These activities could take several years to complete. 

Issue #4: The cap problem.

Remarkably, there was no mention of a ballpark anywhere in the proposal for the RFP. There was also no mention of an EIR for a ballpark or any other Howard Terminal-related project. That makes sense when the goal is simply to get a tenant in there in the next year. No chance that can be anything but a shipping concern. Staff’s recommendation is to carry forward an RFP focusing only on maritime uses. That could change if City Hall leans hard on the Port to formally open up HT for non-maritime uses. Then again, as staff pointed out, Broadening the RFP scope further would complicate the evaluation process. SSA’s transition was originally supposed to complete at the beginning of this month. Now it may slip until January, which seems more realistic considering the work involved.

When it comes to Howard Terminal, you can read this site or listen to some story that some people are selling. Or you could disregard both and read Port staff’s own words. Don’t worry, I won’t be offended if you do. Mayor Jean Quan has been claiming for some months that some good news would be coming by the end of the year regarding HT. Hopefully the news isn’t limited to announcing that the Port has identified a new operator at the site for negotiations. That’s what happened with the Coliseum City RFP. In February 2012. The Port of Oakland has is semi-autonomous. It has to be fiscally responsible and self-sufficient. A $10 million hit per year is a big hit no matter how long it lasts. The Port also has another project, the Oakland Army Base reuse plan, which may now be counted upon to replace the jobs lost if Howard Terminal can’t find a new tenant. All of these issues and others are why I suggested caution when Howard Terminal came into play again. Now let’s see what site proponents can do about all the obstacles in their path.

—–

P.S. – Don’t forget, the issues identified by Port staff don’t include issues that could arise specific to the construction of a ballpark: pedestrian and vehicular bridges needed over the Embarcadero railroad tracks, and potential resistance from Oakland residents over the prospects of a tall stadium on the waterfront.

10.16.13
by

Negotiating Extension and Investor Group Approved for Coliseum City

Two weeks after a potential investor group headed by Colony Capital and Rashid Al Malik’s HayaH Holdings was revealed, that same group was formally approved as part of the master developer team. With that approval comes a 12-month extension on the ENA (exclusive negotiating agreement) to figure out all most of the details, plus a 6-month administrative extension if needed.

That’s the news. Now let’s try to understand what has to happen next.

The City of Oakland has about $250,000 remaining in money it assigned towards Coliseum City studies. Bay Investment Group (BayIG), the Colony/HayaH partnership, will put in $500,000 towards a market study to determine the viability of Coliseum City. This is important since BayIG is expected to push that study to its own individual investors, who as a group will decide if/how to move forward. The forthcoming study is not to be confused with AECOM’s feasibility study, which was made available during the summer.

Over the next 12 months, the public and private sides have to make good on a set of deliverables. Some within the City, especially CM Larry Reid, wanted a shorter 6-month + 6 month extension instead of the 12 + 6 deal that was approved. Reid’s concerns, aired last week in a committee meetings, were that 12 + 6 was too long a period and didn’t show the necessary urgency to the NFL and the Raiders. Raiders owner Mark Davis has indicated that he wants a lease/stadium deal in place shortly after the NFL season ends.

Nevertheless, Coliseum City will move forward on its own timeline because BayIG asked for 12 + 6 in order to get everything in order. A short list of deliverables looks like this:

  • November – Estimate on cost of remaining pre-development work
  • February – Assessment of new infrastructure costs
  • April – Letter(s) of intent from team(s) who choose to sign on with plan
  • May – BayIG market analysis
  • Summer/Fall – EIR and Specific Plan

These items, along with additional smaller ones, should lead up to preliminary project approval in whatever form it takes, plus a DDA (disposition and development agreement), the contract fine print on how Coliseum City is built, including costs, financing, and timelines. Zennie Abraham caught up with Oakland Asst. City Administrator Fred Blackwell at the meeting to summarize what’s next.

Simply put, BayIG just bought the City of Oakland and Alameda County some time. However, it’s easy to see how the list of deliverables doesn’t exactly line up with the timeframe that Davis is trying to dictate. Moving forward, the issue is whether the dev team can show significant enough progress to get Davis to sign on and sign a separate lease at the Coliseum that would keep the Raiders in Oakland throughout the transition. Then again, that part’s a little confusing too. When Raiders uber-fan Dr. Death asked JRDV’s Ed McFarlan when the earliest groundbreaking could be he received this rather optimistic response.

That seems unlikely given the scope of the project and all the little details that need to figured out. Is that groundbreaking for a new stadium alongside the existing Coliseum? Certainly it couldn’t be demolishing the current Coliseum and building on the same site, since the demo itself would take months and would displace both the Raiders and A’s. While BayIG indicated that it will reach out to the A’s and Warriors to gauge their interest in Coliseum City, it’s extremely unlikely that either team will commit. Despite recent setbacks, both teams are focused on their San Jose and San Francisco plans, respectively. Plus they’d have to commit without all deliverables in place, especially that market analysis. If you think that Lew Wolff would sign a short-term lease without knowing the development’s impact on the A’s, you’re crazy.

For the next 12 months, BayIG has control over most of the process. They could press the deal if they see encouraging signs, or they could kill it if the market analysis looks bad. They’re in great shape considering that they’ve only committed $500,000 towards the project – chump change for billionaires. Just as important, they don’t have to adhere to a specific vision of Coliseum City, though they’re positioning themselves to have at least the football stadium in place. Consider last night’s report on the agenda item:

The Coliseum City Master Plan is providing the basis upon which the City is currently under a separate contract with a specialized planning consultant firm to complete a Specific Plan and CEQA/EIR analysis. The Specific Plan will also identify alternatives to the Master Plan and will consider different development scenarios that will envision zero up to three sports facilifies at the site. Pursuant to CEQA, the separate planning contract will prepare an EIR to address the potential physical environmental effects of the Coliseum City project.

There’s nothing new there, but BayIG is positioned to take advantage of it. There could be a single football stadium, a football stadium and a ballpark, even an arena. At this early stage, it looks like it’ll just be the Raiders stadium, though even that is far from a given. BayIG could find that the best thing to do is to minimize its investment in the stadium, or seek out revenue streams from the stadium or team that could help pay back their investment. The infrastructure cost, which will be borne by City/County, could also prove prohibitively high on top of the remaining debt to be carried at the Coliseum. BayIG could even go with zero venues at the Coliseum. Such a plan would probably not get approval from City since it would represent a white flag. Yet it remains a distinct possibility – if not now, within a few years.

The upside, regardless of your optimism or skepticism of Coliseum City, is that things are coming to a head. Coliseum was introduced more than 21 months ago, and has shown only the most tentative progress until a few weeks ago. Now’s the time to put up, to see what results Coliseum City can yield. No more stalling, and for that we can all be glad.

—–

Note: The only local mainstream media coverage of yesterday’s news came from CSNBA’s Scott Bair. Seems like everyone else was preoccupied with transit strikes and some other multibillion dollar development in the South Bay which is a lot more than vapor.

10.11.13
by

Judge partially sides with MLB in antitrust lawsuit, allows San Jose to argue interference claims

UPDATE 2:07 PM – I’ve uploaded a copy of the ruling. It’s worth a read.

Additionally, San Jose Mayor Reed’s office released a statement in reaction to the ruling:

I am pleased that the judge has allowed our case to move forward. Major League Baseball’s unfair and anti-competitive actions are costing San Jose residents millions of dollars in annual tax revenues that could go towards paying for more police officers, firefighters, libraries, road repairs and other critical services.

San Jose filed this lawsuit after waiting patiently for more than four years for a decision from Commissioner Selig. The court’s decision this brings us one step closer to paving the way for San Jose to host a major league ballclub.

Carry on.

—–

Update from the Merc’s John Woolfolk on San Jose’s antitrust lawsuit against MLB:

And other tweets:

During the hearing last Friday, Judge Ronald Whyte gave indications that he would back MLB based on the standing issue, while allowing San Jose to rework its case and try it in a state court. MLB had pushed for Judge Whyte to dismiss all claims, including those that could be covered by California’s more stringent antitrust laws. San Jose hoped Judge Whyte would rule that the City had standing, which would move the case forward and start a potentially damaging discovery phase for MLB.

Assuming that the tweets above are correct, baseball’s antitrust exemption remains immune to a legal challenge. Instead the case will be about tortious interference, or MLB’s stalling that has prevented San Jose and the A’s from getting a ballpark built. San Jose claimed initially that this amounted to $1.5 million per year in tax revenue, and could be awarded treble damages as a result. Over 30 years that comes to $135 million, not adjusted for inflation.

If San Jose can force discovery into the dealings of its “Blue Ribbon Commission” and other activities related to San Jose and Oakland, it could also force MLB to make a deal since they’re against any kind of opening of their books. There’s a lot more to the TI argument than standing.

A press conference may be in the offing. If it happens I’ll see if I can head out to City Hall.

For now I’ll end with this Bill Shaikin tweet:

Hooray for inertia!

10.11.13
by

A Puncher’s Chance At Best

Sisyphus, by Titian (mid-16th century)

Two weeks from today will mark the 10th anniversary of the last team to win a World Series with a payroll under $70 million. The winner in 2003 was the Florida Marlins, a team chock full of prodigious young talent (Miguel Cabrera, Josh Beckett, Dontrelle Willis) and wily veterans (Pudge Rodriguez, Jeff Conine, Mike Lowell) who shocked the world when they beat the Yankees in six games. In 2003 the Yankees’ payroll was nearly $153 million. The Marlins’ payroll was a shade over $45 million. This year the team the wins it all will have a payroll anywhere from double to more than triple that of the teams that were just eliminated.

Atlanta was the first to go, seemingly powerless against the Dodgers’ Puig-powered juggernaut. Next was Tampa Bay, who fought bravely before succumbing to a superior Red Sox squad. Wednesday night it was the Pirates, who did about as much against Adam Wainwright as the A’s did against Justin Verlander. The Opening Day payrolls for the eight postseason teams were as follows:

  • Los Angeles – $216,753,286
  • Boston – $154,555,500
  • Detroit – $148,693,600
  • St. Louis – $116,790,787
  • Atlanta – $90,039,583
  • Pittsburgh – $66,805,000
  • Oakland – $61,964,500
  • Tampa Bay – $61,928,975

Atlanta’s $90 million is somewhat deceptive. It includes $25 million for Dan Uggla and B.J. Upton. Uggla was left off the Braves’ NLDS roster, and Upton had a grand total of 3 pinch-hitting appearances during the series. Essentially they’re dead money, mistakes made by the Braves’ longtime braintrust. Those mistakes were possible because Atlanta has the revenues to make them. Take the ability to make those mistakes away and suddenly the makeup of the Braves is similar to the other eliminated teams, as is the payroll. The other three teams are small market/have not/50-feet-of-crap-then-us teams. When they make a free agent mistake, it affect everything else. The big market teams not only can afford to mistake those mistakes, they can keep filling their lineups with veterans who habitually have good at bats, and relievers who have tons of experience.

Big markets respond to mistakes or issues by buying depth. Victor Martinez injured for the year? Get Prince Fielder. Dodgers and Red Sox having clubhouse and performance problems among their stars? Bundle them up and trade them for each other. Even a mid market team like St. Louis has options. Don’t think Albert Pujols is worth a long-term deal anymore? Take that money and spend it on calculated risks like Carlos Beltrain and Chris Carpenter, while locking up Yadier Molina.

For have-nots it’s far more grim. David Price expects to be traded from the Rays in a month or two. The Pirates are fortunate to be in their second year of a six-year window, after which they’ll have to figure out how to afford to keep Andrew McCutchen, Gerrit Cole, and Starling Marte. The A’s are in a similar situation, with decisions forthcoming on extensions for Josh Donaldson and the young guys in the staff, including Brett Anderson perhaps as early as in a few weeks. Whether the future with Coco Crisp in green and gold is one more year or three, Billy Beane and David Forst eventually have to find his replacement. The have-nots’ options are more linked to their GMs’ resourcefulness than a smorgasbord of big money, franchise cornerstone players.

Whether you think the A’s postseason came down to one or two plays, the fact is that for the A’s to win any ALDS and then advance to the World Series, everything has to go right. They need error-free ball and a ton of luck. Effectively, all have-not teams have a puncher’s chance of winning it all. Depth-wise they are no match for the haves. Maybe that’ll make it taste sweeter when one of the have-nots eventually gets the baseball gods to shine on them all the way to winning the World Series. It also makes the situation feel more desperate when they get eliminated early.

Why is 2003 important? It’s the first year of the modern revenue sharing agreement among MLB’s 30 clubs. While it has been tweaked in the last two CBAs (2006 & 2011), the fundamentals remain the same. Teams take a third or so of their locally-generated revenues, pool it together, and split it equally. Teams that end up paying the luxury tax see that money redistributed among the have-nots. Teams in the 15 biggest markets are prohibited from receiving revenue sharing receipts (net payment from the pool if the share they paid is lower than expected). 2003’s also the first season after the publication of Moneyball. Since then local TV money has become a much bigger factor, far outpacing the small adjustments being made to the revenue sharing formula to compensate.

Technically, the A’s are one of those 15 big market teams. They get an exemption for now because they play in the Coliseum, a poor revenue generator as a ballpark. Should they move into a new ballpark somewhere in the Bay Area, they would immediately lose the exemption. That realization raises the stakes on the future for the A’s. Like the Giants, they’d have to pay for their own stadium and and can’t rely on revenue sharing. The owners, cognizant of this, purportedly have qualms about the A’s ability to avoid massive debt and manage the club in a sustainable way. Sure, they could dump payroll or make cash calls if things got tight, but that would run counter to the purpose of having the A’s in a new ballpark. MLB’s 2000 Blue Ribbon Panel (not the one working on the A’s) made recommendations that could have helped competitive balance, such as sharing of 50% of local revenue and the allowance of strategic franchise relocations. The owners decided to keep revenue sharing a limited affair.

Yet if MLB is destined to have its top 10-12 franchises in their own contention bucket, shutting out everyone else, then the only way the A’s can truly compete is to get into that group of top 10-12/13 payrolls. Even with a $100 million revenue boost for the A’s touted by Lew Wolff, the A’s would be at the bottom of that list. That might be fine, since the A’s would continue to have spend/rebuild cycles. They’d still have to rely on their resourcefulness. The A’s have a nice boost from CSNCA and they have more national TV money coming, but the biggest windfall would come from that new ballpark, even net of debt service. Without substantive progress made on that front, the A’s will forever remain a team with a puncher’s chance that loses by decision in the end. That’s baseball in the new millenium.

10.07.13
by

Time lapse Coliseum conversion

If you attended the game on Saturday, you probably noticed that the only thing faster than the A’s running onto the field after Stephen Vogt’s walkoff single was the Coliseum’s conversion crew, getting ready to do the big switch. As I hoped, someone captured the entire thing on time-lapse video. Claiming credit is SF media company Evolve Media.

The conversion was announced as complete around 3 PM Sunday, 5+ hours before the rescheduled Chargers-Raiders game. That means it took 18 hours to complete the change, a very impressive figure for sure. For now it looks like the crew has been granted a well-deserved break, as they didn’t tear down the seats immediately after the Raiders won. However, a decision will have to made soon on if/when to switch back to baseball, perhaps as soon as after Game 3 ends. The issue for the Coliseum Authority is that there isn’t a Raiders game at home until October 27, a good three weeks from now. If the A’s don’t advance and the Authority decides not to pull the trigger on the conversion, they could save themselves $500,000. If they wait until the last minute and the field ends up extra crappy because of it, the teams playing Game 5 and MLB will not be pleased. Here’s to hoping the A’s can force the issue.

10.05.13
by

A’s lease situation looms in the shadows

Lost in all the postgame recriminations from Friday night is an article by the Chronicle’s Will Kane. It’s about the lease extension talks between the A’s and the Coliseum Authority, which to date haven’t yielded a new deal. When we last left off, Lew Wolff indicated that the A’s presented the JPA an offer of a 5-year extension at a higher annual payment, which would cover maintenance and some improvements at the Coliseum. The actual amounts and terms weren’t publicly disclosed. Wolff aimed for an escape clause that would be triggered by the Raiders building a new stadium that would presumably adversely impact the A’s. That was followed by Raiders owner Mark Davis pushing to demolish the old Coliseum and build a new one in its place.

Having this game as one of the last in the Coliseum is surely inconceivable. Right?

Having this game as one of the last in the Coliseum is surely inconceivable. Right?

Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, who has been touting the potential for Coliseum City since its public unveiling, believes that the two sides are close to a 6-8 year extension. What’s a little disturbing is this message from Kaplan:

And the six- to eight-year window should give Oakland plenty of time to get serious about building a replacement ballpark and luring the A’s to stay, Kaplan said.

Hold a sec. Plenty of time to get serious about building a replacement ballpark? You’ve got to be kidding me with that. I’m sure that Kaplan was merely referring to the idea of shoe-horning a ballpark into the A lot, a secondary item within the overall plan. It’s the tone that’s disturbing. It places doubt on the idea that Victory Court was serious, and it certainly raises questions on the seriousness of inclusion for the A’s in Coliseum City. Just as the A’s aren’t winning back burned fans by talking about leaving, Oakland isn’t going to win the A’s over by considering them an add-on or second/third phase. Plus the idea of 6-8 years should give anyone pause. For all the talk by Kaplan and Mayor Jean Quan about how projects could be fast tracked or don’t need extensive environmental review, 6-8 years is an awful long time to effect change. Especially if both Coliseum City and Howard Terminal are under site control, Oakland’s favorite new catch phrase. Mark Davis lightly admonished Oakland about showing urgency last month. A move like this shows more of the same lack of urgency from Oakland. How are any of the teams supposed to take Oakland pols seriously if the general feel is that they’re making moves to make it look like they’re making moves?

While Kaplan was quick to say that a deal was close, A’s President Michael Crowley doesn’t see it that way.

“We’ve had some discussions, but we still remain far apart,” Crowley said of the lease talks. “I really don’t want to negotiate in the press. We certainly hope to be playing here in 2014.”

We certainly hope to be playing here in 2014? That’s also a pretty bad tell. Wolff has been careful to talk about playing at the Coliseum for years to come, even talking to a fan about it in Anaheim during the last regular season road trip. But this is not a certainty. And if your argument for the A’s staying is simply, They have nowhere to go, think again. Of course they have somewhere else to go. It’s really a question of how much money they’re willing to pay to make it happen – short and long-term.

Consider this game of musical chairs.

  • The A’s Coliseum lease ends at midnight on New Year’s Eve.
  • Same goes for the San Jose Giants at San Jose Municipal Stadium. Obviously the A’s aren’t going to play at Muni, it’s much too small and is older and more dilapidated than the Coliseum.
  • Raley Field is not old and dilapidated. It has 11,093 seats, plus berm seating up to 14,000. I did some measurements of the berm in RF and some of the other areas, and have concluded that if bleachers were installed atop those areas, the capacity could reach 20,000. Without standing room admissions. The A’s would sell that capacity out for 2-3 years straight, the transition time needed to build in San Jose. That capacity isn’t necessarily too small for MLB since there would be a clear transition path, and the A’s have been playing to an average of 20,000 per game for the last three years anyway.
  • What about the River Cats? Well, Lew Wolff would have to call in a favor. The team is owned by Susan Savage, widow of Art Savage. Art Savage was an executive with the Sharks almost 20 years ago, and Wolff called him and his family good friends. Wolff would have to work with the family, who runs the stadium, to compensate them properly and plan Raley’s temporary expansion. The River Cats could continue to play select games there, or…
  • Move temporarily to San Jose, where city leaders would be happy to kick the intransigent High-A Giants to the curb in favor of a AAA team while waiting for the MLB A’s to arrive. As of two weeks ago, there is no movement on a lease extension for the SJ Giants. Sound familiar?
  • That leaves the SJ Giants without a lease, without a home. That will not go over well with long-time SJ Giants fans, some of whom are part of the Stand For San Jose lawsuit. Sucks for them, I guess. If the Giants started looking for a home somewhere else in the Bay Area or NorCal, trust me, there will be no shortage of smaller cities ready to roll out the red carpet for them.
  • When the temporary arrangement ends in 2016 or thereabouts, Raley Field can be restored back to its previous glory. While there would be a big grassroots effort in Sacramento to attract the A’s full time, much of the available political capital has already been spent on the downtown Sacramento Kings’ arena. We already know that, when Raley was under construction, changes had to be made that dropped the possibility of easy vertical expansion. That makes it difficult to envision Raley as anything larger that 20,000 seats, unless someone’s willing to pay to gut it and rebuild the suites and a new upper deck. Besides, after 2-3 years it’ll become readily apparent how much better Raley is suited to being a AAA park than a MLB park. It’s akin to what happened when Bud Adams moved the Oilers out of Houston, Absent a modern stadium, Adams had his team play in the Liberty Bowl in Memphis for a year, followed one season at Vanderbilt Stadium. Adequate, and definitely not permanent.

Is any of this based on inside information? I assure you, it is not. Rather, it’s an example of a well-conceived Plan B, just in case the A’s can’t work out a Coliseum lease extension. It gives the A’s a decent place to play while they wait out the legal drama, while not infringing on T-rights. The way T-rights are written, Santa Clara County can accept any team it wants provided it’s not a MLB franchise. That’s how Wolff, Davis, and Crowley should be thinking. If they aren’t, then they’re not doing their respective jobs.

10.04.13
by

Wendy Thurm’s live tweets from antitrust hearing (Update: link to Fangraphs article)

UPDATE 10/5 9:45 AM – Thurm put out an analysis of the hearing and potential steps forward at Fangraphs. I concur with everything she wrote.

—–

Fangraphs’ Wendy Thurm will have an article on this morning’s hearing soon. For now, this Storify recap will have to do.

My initial thoughts are that Judge Ronald Whyte was very thorough in picking apart arguments from both sides. He raised the lingering issue of standing for the City of San Jose, and openly questioned the purpose and efficacy of MLB’s long-held antitrust exemption. There’s a sense that Whyte may rule to dismiss the lawsuit based on standing, which would force the City to appeal. If the suit is dismissed, Whyte could choose to leave the matter for a state court to decide, or determine that his ruling covers both state and federal courts. A decision could come around the end of the month.

[View the story “San Jose vs. MLB Antitrust Hearing 10/4/2013” on Storify]
10.03.13
by

Hearing and Noise

Got some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that due to some scheduling conflicts I won’t be able to attend Friday’s antitrust hearing in San Jose. Stuff happens. Fortunately, Fangraphs and Sports on Earth’s Wendy Sturm (also a lawyer in a past life) will be covering the hearing. Judge Ronald Whyte isn’t expected to rule from the bench, so we probably won’t hear anything right away. Instead, expect to get top notch coverage from Thurm and from a Merc reporter, either John Woolfolk or legal affairs writer Howard Mintz.

The good news is that I will be doing some additional noise measurements while in the Coliseum for Game 1. Unlike last time, when I used a mixture of smartphones and phone apps, I’ll be mostly using a handheld sound level meter. One thing I noticed about using smartphones is that their sensitivity peaks at around 100 dB, making measurements above that level difficult to capture. That’s why I decided not to publish my findings from the final home game of the regular season.

That doesn’t mean that the data isn’t valuable. I’ll run a phone in parallel for logging purposes, and I have a decent idea about how to adjust measurements based on how the meter and phone/app differ.

This is where you get involved. Some of you have been asking to do your own measurements. If you’re going to attend either or both games, I can use your data. The methodology is simple.

  1. Download either Decibel 10th for iPhone or Noise Meter for Android to your phone. Both are free.
  2. Familiarize yourself with your respective app before the game if you get there early. Both have simple interfaces for turning both monitoring and logging on and off.
  3. Send me a log from the ceremonial first pitch. Both apps have direct email capability. Send the log to newballpark at gmail.com.
  4. Send a log from the first A’s rally with at least two runners on.
  5. Send one from the first A’s home run (if that happens) if you can capture it.
  6. Send one from the end of the game.
  7. In the email containing each log, include information about your location in the Coliseum and your phone (model, operating system, app calibration if you chose to use it).

As much as I’d like to get many different data points, I don’t want to stop you from cheering on the A’s. Making sound measurements is not conducive to multitasking, and rooting loudly or clapping can skew results (since you have a microphone right in front of you). If you can, restrain yourself a little. I know, not fun. That’s why I’m not asking you to log a dozen or twenty points. I’m also not asking to log the entire game, as it will most assuredly will kill your phone’s battery. It comes with the territory.

Throughout the night I will tweet readings I get. If I can I’ll post them in a new blog thread as well. Compare and send me tweets if you like. I hope to compile the results and plot them sometime next week.

If you’re interested in participating, reply in a comment here or via Twitter. I’ll try to give whatever support I can. Have fun, and go A’s!

—

Note: My meter uses A-weighting for its measurements. Your app should as well. If you’re using your own sound meter and it logs, send me the logs if you can. Please note which make and model meter you’re using.