Category Archives: Baseball

08.29.11
by

Rust Belt Ballpark Tour 2012

I have a news post in the hopper. It’ll have to wait until tomorrow.

During tonight’s A’s-Indians game, there was a brief shot of Heritage Park, an outdoor monument at Progressive Field. Heritage Field opened in 2007, long after the last and only time I visited then-Jacobs Field. I’d like to visit the Jake again in 2012, along with a number of other major and minor league ballparks, some of which I have visited in the past.

So far I have assembled the following list of cities and venues to visit over the span of roughly one week, in no particular order:

  • Detroit (Tiger Stadium)
  • Toledo (Fifth Third Ballpark, AAA)
  • Cleveland (Progressive Field)
  • Canton (Pro Football Hall of Fame)
  • Pittsburgh (PNC Park, Consol Energy Center)
  • Columbus (Huntington Park, AAA)
  • Cincinnati (Great American Ball Park)
  • Dayton (Fifth Third Field, A)

There are additional side trips that could be taken if I have the time:

  • Louisville (Louisville Slugger Field, Museum/Factory)
  • Indianapolis (Victory Field, AAA)
  • Buffalo (Coca-Cola Field, AAA)
  • Toronto (Rogers Centre)
  • Lima, OH (McKinley High)

What places or parks would you like for me to cover on the trip? So far the must-sees are the 4 MLB facilities, Huntington Park, and Canton. Everything else is up for grabs or depends on the game schedules, which won’t be available for a few months at the very least. Also, if there’s a particular route you think I should take, here’s your chance to suggest it. I’m shooting for May 2012 to take the trip. Thanks for your help.

08.25.11
by

Stirring the Beane pot

A few Bay Area writers are talking up Billy Beane possibly leaving for Chicago’s North Side, with the rationale being that Brad Pitt’s alter ego will exit stage right after having experienced too much frustration regarding the A’s low revenue status.

All this sounds fascinating given the A’s record and the lack of resolution on the stadium front. However, it falls apart once you scratch the surface.

First of all, while the story has created something of an echo chamber effect here, there are no media reports emanating from Chicago about Beane being a candidate, speculation or otherwise. There are several “hot” candidates who are either younger or easier to get contract-wise. Dozens of articles have been written about the purported frontrunner for the Cubs’ GM job, current White Sox assistant GM Rick Hahn – who just happens to be a Chicago native and a lifelong Cubs fan. Then there’s the status of wunderkind Rays GM Andrew Friedman, who is currently working year-to-year with no contract. Ned Colletti and Brian Cashman have been discussed as well. On the other hand, Beane is signed through 2014, and even though Lew Wolff would let Beane go if he asked, figuring out how to properly terminate the contract (ending in 2014) and have Beane divest his 2.5% stake in the A’s/Quakes is another matter altogether.

Then there’s a simple matter of timing. Chances are that Cubs owner Tom Ricketts will want to get his new GM in place no later than October, so that his new hire will have a fighting chance in the free agent market (there are some first basemen who may catch Ricketts’ fancy). It’s highly unlikely that we’ll hear a decision on Santa Clara County territorial rights by that point, leaving Beane and the rest in ownership in limbo. Beane would effectively be basing his decision on a hunch, and as we all know, Billy’s a little more empirically driven than that.

For his part, Wolff has been pretty straightforward on this semi-issue (from Shea’s piece):

“I would never inhibit anybody from bettering themselves because of a contract,” said Wolff, who had lunch with Beane on Wednesday and said no team has called regarding his GM. “Billy is fantastic and, to me, indispensable. My hope is he will be here a long time. I did promise Billy and all the guys we would have a venue so they would be able to further execute their abilities, and I think that will happen.”

Sounds optimistic.

“I have to be,” Wolff said. “There is no choice for us, for the good of baseball. It’s sad it’s taking this long.”

He added, “I’m going to build a new stadium for the A’s, and if I’m not, someone will,” but he was quick to point out he didn’t mean he’d move the club or sell to out-of-town interests, instead mentioning his son, Keith (vice president of venue development) as a possible baton receiver. “We’re working every day. If it doesn’t happen, we’ll go to Plan B, which I don’t have.”

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that despite the A’s revenue problem, Beane likes his life. He oversees two franchises by day and pals around with venture capitalists at night. Not to say that he couldn’t get some of that in Chicago, but really, porkbellies aren’t as interesting as tech. And I have to think that as a particularly driven guy, he might not feel his work is done just yet. Just a hunch.

08.04.11
by

Pulling the trigger on Zito

In 2005, Gwen Knapp proposed that the A’s trade Barry Zito, he of the Cy Young award and two All Star appearances to date, to the Giants for the territorial rights to Santa Clara County. I had remarked that the concept wasn’t that far-fetched, though readers noted that Knapp was probably was writing with tongue placed firmly in cheek. Now there’s talk that the Giants may waive Zito outright, with two years and $46 million ($7 million buyout in 2014) remaining on his contract.

With the Giants not budging on territorial rights, $19-20 million for each of the next two years is a lot to waste with Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain accruing service time in the process, and Brandon Belt looking not ready for prime time. The team is raking in the dough, for sure, but with the mortgage on AT&T Park they aren’t exactly up in the revenue stratosphere with the Red Sox and Yankees. That means that they’ll need every bit of that $19-20 million if they want to sign a Prince Fielder-type, who have (post-Bonds) been reluctant to play out their careers at hitter-unfriendly China Basin. Even for the Giants, windows of contention are finite, though longer than for, say, the A’s.

The A’s will have a largish revenue sharing check coming this offseason, and they usually have the ability to absorb additional salary up to a $75 million payroll, based on their annual revenue. They could conceivably take Zito in a trade for scraps (ex.: Josh Outman), which would limit payroll flexibility for the A’s while increasing it for the Giants. A trade by the waiver deadline would go through uninterrupted since no other GM is going to touch Zito’s contract with a ten-foot pole. The Giants would not throw in any cash, making Zito’s total value around $49 million including his prorated remaining salary for 2011 (assuming Zito comes off the DL in time for a trade/physical).

Should a San Jose ballpark open in 2015, the Giants’ claim of damages related to the move amounts to $60 million to cover the final three years of debt service on AT&T Park (2015-17). $49 million is clearly short of $60 million, but there’s also a matter of opportunity cost as well. How much is that extra $19-20 million for 2012-13 worth to the Giants? In a way it’s worth twice as much since the money would be freed up to get another player that they wouldn’t be able to get if they were hamstrung by Zito’s contract.

From a business of baseball standpoint, it would also be the cleanest way to resolve the T-rights debate since it wouldn’t require any action by Bud Selig other than the approval of the trade by the league office and then the procedural vote during the winter meetings. It would be a clean, above-board deal, done conveniently to coincide with rewritten definitions of T-rights in the next ML Constitution (however they’re written). There’d be no need to redirect the A’s revenue sharing check or other financial gymnastics. Politically, it would fit Selig’s M.O. of waiting around until a solution presented itself. And while the A’s payroll flexibility would be less, at least they’d be getting back a fan favorite during a rebuilding era.

Brian Sabean got a taste of glory last November, along with a hefty contract extension. It might be difficult to convince Bill Neukom to go along with the idea, but Neukom’s also taking a chance on not getting anything at all when the time comes. Competitiveness now over anticompetitive business practices? I wouldn’t put it past Neukom to go with the latter. I’d like to think that, in the end, he’s a sensible man. Strange how the tables have turned, eh?

08.03.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 3

[Ed. – Before I start again I have to mention that there are some blogs out there who are cutting and pasting huge chunks of this interview for further commentary. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that I haven’t received a single request to use this interview for any kind of reuse of large chunks of it. I mean, really, it’s not like I’ve spent a lot of time on this. It’s not like people care about professionalism or common courtesy anymore. How about a heads up? Maybe a link to the original interview? It’s the least you can do. The very least. We may not agree on much, but we can at least show courtesy and respect others’ work. That’s all.]

Part 3 of 5 (Part 1, Part 2)

ML: You’ve frequently said here and everywhere that it’s all about keeping the A’s in the Bay Area, in this market –

For our ownership.

ML: Right. Recently, Giants president Larry Baer has hinted that while he supports the A’s looking in their territory – Alameda and Contra Costa counties – but if they can’t they’re welcome to try somewhere else such as Sacramento. How do you respond to that “hint” by Baer and the Giants?

If tomorrow you had the only McDonald’s in San Francisco, and fourteen miles away there was another location in Oakland. And your SF McDonald’s is worth $10 million and the Oakland McDonald’s is worth $100,000. That was fine for you (SF). Now the Oakland location says they’re closing up and they’re moving outside of the territory. What happens to the only McDonald’s then? Larry and the Giants would benefit hugely, I guess, in their minds. They dominate the market now, they may want to dominate it totally. Their market value might jump a huge amount.

However, I don’t get it. I don’t get why they’re so adamant about this. It’s just a difference of opinion.

ML: Do you think the Giants have a motive for protecting their territorial rights other than what they’ve stated publicly? Which is – they just want to pay off the ballpark.

I’ll have to say that going back to – forget that it’s Oakland or San Jose – there are four two-team markets. [Ed.: Note exclusion of DC-Baltimore] Three already have the same boundaries. I think this one should too. I think we would have a great rivalry with them. Why shouldn’t we have a beautiful ballpark? In fact, one of the backers and instigators is my partner and his family, the Fishers. I think if you actually went to a lot of the passive investors in the Giants – these are people who want to support the Bay Area, not just one team. What is it gonna hurt? In fact I think it’s gonna be better for them too. Everybody has their own views.

ML: There’s been some talk from fans and media about challenging baseball’s antitrust exemption. Knowing what you know, being in what they call “The Lodge”, is there anything realistic about that?

Well, today we live in a litigious society. If you want to sue over this chair you’re sitting on you can sue the manufacturer because you’re not feeling well. We are not of that ilk. We are a partner. Maybe this is an odd view, but I believe that we’ve entered a partnership. This is what the commissioner chose. As I said before, we’re not even thinking about it (suing). It’s not right based on being part of a partnership. Therefore it’s not a lever for us, it might be for someone else. If the reverse is true, maybe a smart attorney running a baseball team might say, “We can do this, we can do that.” [Ed.: I chuckled] We’re not going to do it, that’s all there is to it. It’s just not right.

ML: This seems to be something very consistent that you’ve said, even going back a couple of years ago. The partnership idea that all of the owners are in one boat and they’re all supposed to be rowing in the same direction.

I know I’m a little naïve when it comes to that, in the world that we live it, but that’s how I’m gonna run it.

ML: Okay. When it comes to making a decision, is it really all up to the commissioner?

Yep. Well – that’s a good question – he would need a vote of the owners [Ed.: 3/4 of owners]. Since I’ve been there, there haven’t been a lot of votes. Maybe the Giants wouldn’t vote for it or a couple of teams. Again, it’s a collaborative thing. With all the work that’s gone into this, whatever the decision is, it’ll have a lot of backing. I think if he decides to let us move to San Jose that he’ll get a lot of votes. I don’t think the voting will be an issue. He even has the power to go beyond that if it’s for the good of baseball. I really don’t sit there and analyze this from a legal point of view. If the decision is “you can’t” or “you can” the support will be to follow the commissioner’s lead.

ML: And that’s really all you’re looking for. Yes or no.

Yeah.

ML: You mentioned the Dodgers and Mets offhand. Are they on the front burner and the A’s on the back burner, or does it not work like that?

You’d have to ask the commissioner. No, I don’t think we’re on the back burner. I really think the Mets and the Dodgers are two different situations. But they’re both important (teams), important markets, important to us. The Mets aren’t suing baseball. They’re just trying to survive – and maybe they made some errors with this Madoff thing – I don’t know that much about it. The Dodgers are attacking, they put their team in bankruptcy. If they follow the constitution of baseball that’s cause for taking over the team. I’ve got my own stuff I worry about every day. We need those markets to have ownerships that are committed and capable of not getting into these issues.

ML: Commissioner Selig, when asked about what’s happening with the A’s a couple of times this year has said, “We’re working on it,” in nice, vague terms. Are they really still working on it? Seriously.

[laughs] I think what he’s working on – and I don’t know – is unless Oakland knows something that I don’t know. I answer is I think he’s contemplative. Way beyond where I am. We talk several times a week, not on this issue but on others I’m involved in. I’m having a – I enjoy the commissioner. We’ve known each other a very long time, longer than I’ve known my wife – and we’ve been married 54 years. I think he’s got enough information to make a decision. He may be trying to figure out a good way that the Giants are happy and we’re happy. He tends to do that. And right now, what choice do I have? Last night we won a game. That’s more fun than worrying about this crap.

ML: I agree, I agree. Now let’s talk a little about the Coliseum. I’m sure you’re aware that attendance is up this year as opposed to last year, and over 2009 as well. 

When Russia went from communism to capitalism they had a huge jump in economics, but that’s from a very low base. [laughs] When I talk to the commish he’ll say to me, “You know, you’re up 4.5%.” The one thing he follows is attendance. Now I follow paid attendance, I’m not sure that he does.

ML: Fair enough.

Attendance is up (league-wide) according to my last conversation. They’re up a little bit in the American League.

ML: Yeah, I think it turned around after the weather. 

Now I don’t know if it means in the ballpark. I look at Dodger Stadium and it looks almost empty sometimes.

ML: I believe that it’s paid attendance and it’s somehow withstood the drop for the Mets and Dodgers. 

What happens is that some people are afraid to give up their tickets. I was hesitant to give up my Laker tickets. But then I look back and ask how many games did I go to since my kids all moved out of L.A. Do I really need these tickets? And then a year later I decide to do one more year. I worry about the impact of that.

ML: I see.

I just wish the Dodger thing was settled and we could move on.

ML: In the past you’ve mentioned the Coliseum’s defects and its chronic state of decay. Could a ballpark be built alongside or replace the existing Coliseum? For now let’s put aside the financing – well no, we can’t put it aside.

No, let’s put it aside for the moment. First I looked at the Coliseum, because there was nothing downtown. We’re talking about the physical stadium. This is where I read the older (sports) writers, they’re living in the past. A lot has changed for Oakland since then. The last year the Haases owned the team they had the highest payroll in baseball and drew 1.2 million. You might want to check that out.

ML: They were. [Ed. – 1.2 million in the strike-shortened 1994 season, 1.1 million in each of the following two seasons.]

[Ed. – At this point Lew’s son-in-law, Dean Rossi, comes by with his son, Arthur. It’s mostly a personal conversation so I’ll leave this out. Lew will drop Arthur off at the Coliseum to run around the clubhouse – every kid’s dream – before heading up to City Hall to meet with Mayor Quan. Note: Two partners in Rossi’s law firm help run Baseball San Jose.]

So where were we? Coliseum.

ML: So is it possible?

Let’s talk about it. Aside from the market being – Oakland used to have several major corporations, doesn’t have them any longer. The whole thing with the Raider thing, Mt. Davis, we had nothing to do with that. You can never get sight lines that satisfy two sports in one venue anymore. Even inside it’s not good to have hockey and basketball. You can do it but, you know.

There are so many physical issues. Right now if we wanted to move the fans closer, I don’t know what to do. The field is 22 feet below sea level so there’s no way to move forward without tearing down all the seats. You’d understand that better than most.

ML: Yeah.

The field is great until football. The field is great because we have a great groundskeeper, Clay Wood. As soon as the Raiders come in – it’s just not good.

About the site. You can make all the drawings you want on that site. This is what really bothered me. The Coliseum wasn’t even the #1 site in the HOK study. Even Fremont was in the study. The Coliseum had a little line about some kind of utility thing. I asked if there was a title report ordered for the Coliseum. In my world that’s one of the first things you do. Nobody knew, the city didn’t know, it was just a bunch of bureaucratic nothing. So we ordered the title report, which is just about this thick [fingers spread an inch apart]. There is an easement.

[Ed. – The Coliseum Authority recently bought the land in question as part of its new Raiders stadium effort. Oakland Councilman Larry Reid envisions an ancillary development project similar to L.A. Live in downtown Los Angeles, next to Staples Center. The Authority is also proposing $4 million in additional expenditures related to project study costs.]

ML: You mentioned this. It was the sewer interceptor.

It’s not an easement you can move. So any architect who wants to build over the freeway or whatever, needs to sit down and determine what easement does relative to placing a football stadium or arena. That kind of even minor detail, we could say, “oh we’ll do it” but never do it. None of that’s done. The average fan shouldn’t have to bother with that. But that site isn’t as simple as we thought.

One time I thought it would be a good idea to buy the triangle that heads out to Hegenberger (Malibu/HomeBase lots). I said, “Look, we don’t know if we’re gonna stay here, but we need that piece to do parking or mitigate, otherwise it’s chaos if you’re trying to develop that site.” All of a sudden another architect comes up with an idea for these multistory garages. Well, who’s gonna pay for those? And if you’re on the fifth floor of a garage for a baseball team, you might as well stay home. So it was just a hundred inhibitions.

Now, we recently had someone come up to me, a legitimate guy. I didn’t ask who it was as it came through someone else. He said, “Gee whiz, we think there’s a way to remain in Oakland and live with the Coliseum” and so on. Well, tell me what it is. “If you guys want to sell the team” and all that stuff. I’d like to know what you’re talking about before I would even contemplate that. Other owners haven’t been able to do anything in Oakland (build stadia) either. We’re not the only one. The Coliseum’s an over 40-year old facility. Dodger Stadium is too. Dodger Stadium, I believe, would take a minimum of $100 million to keep it going – and they keep it pretty well maintained. So you tell me what this would cost.

ML: I have no idea.

I don’t either. They (Coliseum Authority) don’t have any money. We’re constantly making repairs that are not our obligation.

ML: Really? Like what?

Leaks and things. The scoreboard. There are two of them because of football. I think they’re finally going to replace them, but if they don’t there are no more parts. If a light goes out we borrow it from another one. It’s aggravating. But they basically say they don’t have any money. They still have bonds to pay off. The place is old and this is not the time for cities to write a check for sports.

ML: Yet they’re going forward with a study for the Raiders.

All these studies. If I were an investigative reporter I’d like to know how much is spent. Supposedly that study is done. And that’s fine, they should, the Raiders are fine. Where are all these things? Who’s doing them? If it’s a six month study what happened to the first two months? We have heard nothing. And we’ve been more tolerant than the other two teams (as tenants). We’ve never affected our rights there. If we win (legally), what do we win if they don’t have any money? It was a baseball park once. I wasn’t around when any of that happened, but the amount put into that sure seems strange to me. That was before my time.

ML: The litigious part kind of speaks for itself at least for the other two teams.

Look, I’m just not litigious. I think our legal system is killing us, so much initiative. I’ve been in business almost 50 years. I’m a real estate developer. Most of my contemporaries are suing someone every three months. I’ve had two lawsuits my entire career. I think everything can be settled. But you can’t do it if someone’s not willing to cooperate.

07.31.11
by

News for 7/31/11

No, this is not the big reveal. That’s coming in a few hours. Relax. I’m only putting up this post to cover some news items of interest.

Lew Wolff is the first owner to publicly call for Frank McCourt’s ouster.

Wolff said he did not speak out as a way to curry favor with Selig, his fraternity brother at the University of Wisconsin, who has kept the A’s waiting more than two years for a decision on a proposed move to San Jose. Wolff said no one — including Selig — had asked him to speak out and said he had no interest in buying the Dodgers.

I don’t get the sense that Wolff wants to deal with the mess that is the Dodgers. At this point, he’s a lot more like Murtaugh than Riggs. Added – At Biz of Baseball, Maury Brown traced back the chronology of McCourt buying the Dodgers. As always, the truth is more complicated than convenient.

The San Diego Chargers released an “update” on how their stadium campaign is going. For now, they continue to focus on a downtown SD site near the Convention Center and PETCO Park. They also have a very interesting response to a question about the death of redevelopment.

You’ve stated that recently-passed California redevelopment law changes may still undergo a legal process before they’re set in stone. If the legislation remains unchanged, how does it affect your efforts?

Assuming that the California Supreme Court does not invalidate the new redevelopment laws, the changes will impact our efforts in the following ways:

(1) The City of San Diego will not have available redevelopment money until sometime into the next decade – perhaps as late as 2024 or 2025. So we can no longer count on any immediate redevelopment funding for our project.

(2) Therefore, we now need to find alternative sources of funding. One idea that is getting some traction is the creation of a new Sports and Entertainment District that would tie closely into the existing Convention Center – and perhaps become part of the proposed Convention Center expansion. This sort of District could give us access to funding sources that are now not available for a simple stand-alone pro football stadium.

(3) Finally, we are exploring ways to bridge the gap between when stadium funding would be necessary and the time when redevelopment funding would be available in the next decade. It may be possible, with the cooperation of other government entities in the region, to bond against the future redevelopment revenues so that stadium construction can begin before the actual redevelopment dollars are available. This option increases the cost of the project, but such cost increases may be unavoidable in light of the recent state law changes.

Sounds a lot they’re using the 49ers sales pitch, though the ability to use the Q site as financial backing for the new stadium seems questionable at best.

Montreal interests want MLB back in town. They’ll need a comprehensive ballpark plan before anyone pays attention, unless they want to be used as a stalking horse. BTW – a $60 million payroll could be supported? Any team nowadays should be able to support $60-70 million without blinking an eye thanks to revenue sharing.

We may have been incredulous at the prospect of building two ballparks in Omaha – one for AAA ball and one for the CWS. Now it appears that a valid reason has surfaced for the separation of teams: one of the ballparks just had to have circus rides for kids and a big bar for the adults.

95.7 Sports Radio relaunches Monday at 6 AM as 95.7 The Game. The hosts are:

  • 6-10 AM – The Rise Guys (Whitey Gleason, Mark Kreidler, Dan Dibley) come from Sacramento
  • 10 AM-2 PM – The Wheelhouse with John Lund (Lund is from Portland)
  • 2 PM-6 PM – The Drive with Brandon Tierney and Eric Davis (Tierney was on NY’s ESPN 1050, Davis was the All-Pro ex-49er cornerback)
  • 6-10 PM – The Chris Townsend Show (coincides with baseball during the season, includes his pre/postgame duties on weekdays)
  • Weekends – Rick Tittle will be handling pre/postgame for the A’s on weekends.

According to Darren Rovell, the Versus network will be re-branded NBC Sports next January. Yawn.

Thanks for your patience on the big reveal. I’m still finding things that need tweaking so I’ve needed every hour.

07.25.11
by

CBA Talk: The impact of the NFL CBA on MLB

While the media has been vigilant in its reporting of the NFL collective bargaining travails (sometimes to its detriment), reporting on the NBA has been scarce for the first month of the hoops lockout. And unless you asked around, you’d have every right to think that MLB’s own CBA was not expiring after this season ends.

All of the leagues and players unions like to think they have the best deals for their constituents, and are generally immune to effects from the deals struck by rival leagues. However, it’s clear now that the NHL CBA, struck in 2005 after the loss of an entire season, has shifted the landscape for the NFL and will do so in even an greater fashion to the NBA. Salary rollbacks and harder salary caps are the rule of the day now, with the economic downturn providing significant ammunition to the leagues. The pendulum has swung back, though it’s thought that when the NHL redoes its CBA after next season, a market correction towards labor will be due.

MLB remains on a different plane due to its lack of a salary cap and extensive revenue sharing. The “guaranteed share” measuring stick used by the other three leagues to determine what is fair for the players doesn’t exist in baseball, and it’s safe to say that it won’t for a long time. As long as the biggest stars keep getting nine-figure deals in free agency, MLBPA is perfectly content with the cost controls currently in place (service time + arbitration for young players).

That brings the comparison between the NFL and MLB down to one key item: the length of the agreement. MLB has usually done 4-6 year deals to allow for economic shifts – especially among individual teams. The NFL just blazed a trail by putting together a 10-year deal with no early opt-out by either signatory. Will Selig or the owners push for a longer deal? MLB is not as dependent on national TV money as the other leagues. Yet all of the network deals (Fox, ESPN, TBS) expire after the 2013 season. With networks pushing for more “sure things” in terms of programming, it’s not hard to see MLB trying to get up to 10 years out of each contract if they can.

Generally, leagues try to have some amount of overlap among the agreements with players, networks, merchandisers, etc. That way they don’t have to follow up one length negotiation with another. If MLB/Selig are influenced to push things out a little, it could mean that the next CBA could end anywhere from 2018 to 2021. If not, the CBA will probably expire in 2016 or 2017. Either way, there should be some kind of resolution to the A’s and Rays’ stadium situations. If not, well, I give up.

07.25.11
by

Dublin looks for its own independent league team

Brian Clark, the former Virgin America exec who is seeking to bring a North American League franchise to San Rafael, is about to embark on a quest to bring a franchise to Dublin. According to the CoCo Times’ Robert Jordan, Clark is working at adding four NAL franchises to the Bay Area, though he hasn’t identified the other two cities.

Independent leagues tend to be more volatile than affiliated minor leagues under the MLB umbrella. However, going Clark’s route may be the only way to sidestep the effect of territorial rights on the Bay Area. As Chris Lee found out in his efforts in Windsor, nothing is happening in the North Bay without the Giants’ approval – even if Lee were interested in a franchise not affiliated with the Giants (which he is).

One effect of this movement is that if Clark got four franchises going in the Bay Area, the appetite for minor league baseball could be somewhat depressed due to a similar product at a similar price point being in place. By this I don’t mean the Giants, per se, I mean the appetite for moving the Giants to another community if the cost is too high or if someone like Lee wanted to bring in a second Cal League team. I think the Bay Area’s small enough that pro baseball as a whole could be oversaturated in the Bay Area. Obviously we have no data to prove this given the historically low number of minor league and independent league franchises in the Bay Area, but it’s something to think about. For many games on the schedule, NAL teams could compete with the A’s on price alone. And really, if the quality of the product matters less than the family experience, the A’s might have to look over their shoulder.

If Clark were to try to find a place for a franchise on the Peninsula, it could get even more interesting. The biggest hindrance there is the lack of available land. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility, and if they can pull it off, more baseball is better than less. The Giants are too much of a premium product to be materially affected, but there is room on the Peninsula for a value-oriented product. I’m all for it, Mr. Clark. Let’s see what you can come up with.

07.19.11
by

Escondido AAA Park may be first redev casualty

Amidst the general uncertainty about the impact of the new redevelopment laws on new projects, Padres owner Jeff Moorad announced that he will sell his recently acquired AAA franchise if a deal to build a ballpark in Escondido doesn’t come to fruition. Moorad stated that he will give the situation “until the end of the season,” a loose timeframe which lines up well with the legal resolution of redevelopment’s fate.

Despite the setbacks, Moorad may have a Plan B in place with an unnamed North San Diego County city:

“We are committed to Escondido at the momentMoorad said. “Nothing has changed there. There is still one other city in the North County being aggressive. We would need the other city to move quickly if Escondido withdrew.”

The Padres’ AAA franchise was based in Portland for years until it was kicked out of its old stadium in favor of the Portland Timbers MLS franchise. At least for this season and the next, the team will play in Tucson. It’ll be interesting to see if a local ownership candidate surfaces in Tucson should the North County ballpark plans fade away. Until recently, Tucson was a AAA and spring training home, and it’s possible that it’ll have neither in the future. Having a AAA franchise in town would be good for Tucson baseball fans, even if it pushes out an independent league team.

07.18.11
by

News for 7/18/11: Poison pill edition

Update 4:45 PM – The lawsuit has been filed. Heading the suit are the expected lobbying groups, The League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association, plus the cities of San Jose and Union City. Oakland signed a declaration in support of the lawsuit.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reports on the redevelopment lawsuits that are set to happen any day now but for whatever reason haven’t happened yet. Perhaps the reasoning for this is a poison pill inserted into the first bill (ABX1 26) that could prevent any cities who successfully sue the state over redevelopment from issuing additional debt. I have to admit that I didn’t notice the poison pill in my readings of the bills over the last month or so, despite the fact that the language is front and center.

(3) The bill would prohibit a redevelopment agency from issuing new bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations if any legal challenge to invalidate a provision of this act is successful.

The poison pill may be the trump card forcing cities to pay-to-play for future redevelopment, since the cities have little chance of getting their payments back.

(Assembly Speaker Perez’s spokeman John) Vigna said if the agencies win a court challenge, the provision would force them back to the negotiating table and “continue working on something that satisfies the governor’s concerns, and their concerns.” But the negotiations would only involve those agencies that can make the upfront payment.

Wondering where the money for the last two parcels in San Jose is going? My guess is partly to the county for a prior settlement (which has a lien on some city properties), and partly to the state for the budget. It’s your move, Lew.

Funny that redevelopment wasn’t mentioned once in Dave Newhouse’s glowing interview with Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan. While I admire Kaplan’s gusto, her continued pushing of the Coliseum is almost inexplicable. It’s not what MLB wants, it conflicts with what the Raiders are trying to do there, and the aforementioned freeze on redevelopment makes it just as complicated to work out a deal there as the downtown sites (if not more complicated). It’s also disingenuous to start making bold claims about which city doesn’t have money when the fact is that no city has money, and neither Oakland nor San Jose have articulated how they’ll get out of the RDA pickle.

Other tidbits:

June radio ratings are out. 95.7 (KBWF) dropped from 0.6 to 0.5 in the San Francisco-Oakland market, and stayed steady at 0.8 in San Jose.

Frank McCourt’s hubris continues, as he refers to Selig as “the devil” with “an eye jaundiced towards irrational animosity” in today’s court filing. Read this Vanity Fair article chronicling the McCourt divorce and you might think his arguments are a bit rich.

Carmen Policy was profiled in Sunday’s Chronicle (no public link yet, subscribers only) continuing to lobby for a 49ers stadium at Hunters Point. Policy is on master developer Lennar’s payroll to advocate for the stadium, which ironically Lennar no longer has to support and would actually would save $100+ million if they abandoned the stadium part of the project. Policy, ever a SF/Wine Country guy, also takes a shot at Oakland in the process:

“If I were part of a group that somehow wound up owning the Raiders, I would be looking to expand my influence throughout the Bay Area as far as possible, and one sure way of doing that is playing outside of Oakland.”

Is Policy not aware of what the Raiders’ identity is? Baffling.

The NFL and NFLPA may finally be wrapping up their negotiations, with the possibility of a “global settlement” covering all outstanding bargaining items and external lawsuits, such as Brady vs. NFL. Then again, we’ve heard the two sides were close to finalizing a CBA for well over a month.

07.14.11
by

Refreshing the Territorial Rights debate

A bunch of comments about T-rights in the last thread got me thinking it’s time to reset the debate. There’s some confusion about what was done when and for whom. Previously I’ve written a primer and other posts designed to get into further depth (The Neukom Doctrine, When encroachment is not encroachment). Now let’s get a long-held myth out of the way.

Team X originally held the rights to Santa Clara County. FALSE. According to Doug Pappas, the use of counties to define territorial rights did not become part of the Major League by-laws until the early 90’s. Not coincidentally, this was at the same time that Wally Haas agreed to “give” Santa Clara County to Bob Lurie so that the Giants could pursue ballpark proposals in San Jose and Santa Clara (the city). Historically, teams held rights to their own cities and in some cases other cities well outside their own metropolitan region. In the 90’s teams started to define what their regions were by annexing surrounding counties.The Baltimore Orioles also pursued this line by specifying just about everything between Baltimore and DC, even including parts of the District via the use of Rule 52, also known as the 15-mile rule.

The table below lists all teams in the two-team markets and some data for comparison, including the defined operating territory for each team. The Major League Constitution defines an operating territory as the area “within which (clubs) have the right and obligation to play baseball games as the home Club.”

Note that operating territories in several cases includes both cities and counties. On the other hand, television broadcast territories are all shared.

Note that operating territories in several cases includes both cities and counties. On the other hand, television broadcast territories are all shared.

Baltimore’s deal looks similar to what the A’s are getting now. The biggest difference is that they control their local TV market through MASN, which was created as part of the deal to allow the Expos to move to DC. The O’s pay the Nats a fee to carry TV rights, controlling all revenues that come into the network. Once Nationals Park opened, the Nats actually surpassed the O’s in annual revenue.

The ongoing Dodgers saga could provide its own test of territorial rights. SPORTSbyBrooks reports that MLB is in talks with AEG about a possible downtown ballpark near Staples Center and the LACC. That’s the same area targeted for a NFL domed stadium, making it highly unlikely that both could be downtown. However, it’s not hard to see MLB using this as a stalking horse against Frank McCourt, just in case bankruptcy proceedings allow him to keep Dodger Stadium and the parking lots, if not the team itself. Even if both the NFL and the Dodgers don’t bite there could be another interested party: Angels owner Arte Moreno. Despite the recent signing of lease options at The Big A, the Angels are only locked in through the 2016 season. Moreno is open to looking all over the LA for the next home, and unlike the A’s restrictions vis-a-vis Santa Clara County, Moreno can look at the entire region. That includes downtown LA, which would place the Angels 2.5 miles from Dodger Stadium. Preposterous as it sounds, Moreno hasn’t been afraid to play the leverage game, and the timing of having such an option available would play right into his hands. It’s unlikely that the next version of the ML Constitution will split the LA market unless MLB arranges a downtown LA ballpark deal with AEG and the Dodgers’ next owner, a deal that sounds too complicated to actually work.

Going back to the Bay Area situation, I’ve been trying to figure out how redrawn territories might look if the A’s were to move to San Jose. The pro-San Jose crowd likes to think that the Bay Area would become a large shared territory, like NY/LA/CHI. However, I don’t think that’s realistic. DC-Baltimore remains a split market and with the teams separated by 35 miles and the cities having their own distinct identities, it’s a much better comparison to the Bay Area. A swap of the East Bay for the South Bay is also suspect because it’s practically worthless to the Giants. Operating territories mean nothing except when it comes to playing home games, and the Giants aren’t going to look at building in Oakland anytime in the next, well, forever. Yet the Giants would object to leaving the East Bay unassigned since they wouldn’t want a third MLB team 10 miles or less from China Basin, as unlikely as that sounds. Pro-Oakland forces could lobby MLB to leave the East Bay unassigned, but that does little to address the monetary obstacles in getting a new ballpark built there. It’s clear that either San Jose or Santa Clara County would have to be assigned to the A’s instead of the territory being shared.

The strange thing about the county-based annexation done during the 90’s is that most ballparks are built in downtowns, or at least within major cities’ limits. The Rangers are the only exception to this rule, with their home being halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth in Arlington. One of the iterations of the Washington Senators moved to the Twin Cities suburb of Bloomington at first before moving to Minneapolis proper. The Florida Marlins have always played in the Miami suburb of Miami Gardens, though they’ll move to a ballpark within the city limits next season. With public dollars drying up and tools like redevelopment severely restricted in California, it may be time to redefine what an operating territory is. Just from a practical standpoint, we know several things about what MLB looks for in a ballpark site (in no particular order):

  • Downtown or sufficiently urban location, close to transit if possible
  • Significant infrastructure already in place near the ballpark site
  • Large enough market population and economic strength to make a move worthwhile for the team and MLB as a whole
  • Proximity to existing fans in cases where building in an established market

It’s hard to believe that a piece of suburban, undeveloped land would fulfill these requirements. Knowing this, it may be best to pare back the definition of operating territory to cities instead of counties. For the Bay Area, that would mean the Giants’ territory would strictly be the City/County of San Francisco, while the A’s territory would strictly be San Jose. The rest of the Bay Area could be shared/restricted from the standpoint of hosting a major league franchise, with both teams requiring consent for further moves or incursions by each other or “invading” major or minor league teams. The point of the operating territory is to maximize physical accessibility to fans throughout a market. The Bay Area’s sprawling landscape makes it difficult to do that for all fans, since either the North Bay or South Bay will be pinched. If MLB is looking to evolve the game now just as they did 20 years ago, T-rights are worth a rethink in order to maximize presence for baseball fans throughout the Bay Area, not just the Giants.