Category Archives: Baseball

12.01.10
by

Oakland Planning Commission Session 12/1

I can’t be more glad to be late. Which is saying something, considering I’m habitually late.

The commission hasn’t started to address item #5 on the agenda, which is the ballpark proposal. The main hall is packed, it’s standing room only in the overflow room, and dozens are milling around in the foyer and hallways. I’d say it’s a good turnout so far. They’re about to take a break before item #5.

7:59 PM – Eric Angstadt is explaining the CEQA process now. Emphasizes that this study session is not about whether or not this is a good project, it’s only to get input that’s germane to CEQA. If you need a primer on the process, read this. I imagine that regularly having to explain the process can be a bit tiresome.

8:07 PM – Doug Boxer is laying down the ground rules. Explains that the fire marshal is upset. Gets a show of hands as to who approves, vast majority approve. Asks for signs to be taken down, people in hallways to go to the overflow room. So far there are 26 comment cards.

8:11 – Gary Knecht (thanks V) asks for current traffic counts and perhaps a new economic impact report, in reference to redevelopment funds. Also just ran into Nina Thorsen, who got booted from the main room.

8:13 – Max Allstadt wants to bridge the no man’s land that is the Nimitz.

8:15 – Mike Johnson has been an A’s fan since he was four. Says that the project has to be looked at in terms of business outreach. Ballpark is a good idea. It would tear him apart if the A’s left.

8:24 – The speakers are coming every two minutes and I can’t keep up, but I’ll point out speakers of note. Mike Davie (linusalf) is coming up.

8:27 – Ben Fernandez owns the Portobello condos near the site and enthusiastically supports the project. Refers to China Basin as a good example.

8:29 – linusalf wants to include impact of non-car transportation, especially bike travel and routes.

8:30 – BTW if anyone is looking, I’m behind the TV in the overflow room (ducks). Bryan Grunwald is coming up.

8:34 – Grunwald is up after Boxer’s jokey intro. Is explaining 980 Park’s site costs as lower than Victory Court. Talks up social justice aspect. The crowd here is not receptive. Asks for 980 Park to be considered along dual track with Victory Court.

Note: There’s some vague talk about costs. We’ll try to estimate those as well as we can but any numbers coming from anyone outside the City or landowners are uneducated.

8:43 – Bobby Tselentis is taking his two minutes. Wants for JLS to come back, including the Spaghetti Factory (ditto). Gets huge applause in this room.

8:45 – Rep from Alameda County Labor Council speaks. Wants quality analysis of jobs. In ACLC’s study, many Oakland families relied upon the so-called low paying seasonal jobs A’s a major source of income and benefits. Ballpark is good, but there are existing businesses that will be affected, and the protection of existing businesses and industrial land is important.

8:49 – Oak Center head (missed name) is up. Asks what happened to the other sites in the study. Supports 980 Park site.

8:52 – Ben Delaney of Jack London Neighborhood Association speaks. Also asks what what happened to the other sites. Wants to know what mitigation will be put in places for affected residents. Wants to know what measures will be made to have jobs for Oakland first. Says that Lake Merritt BART is suboptimal, freeway infrastructure is inadequate. Thanks the City for not choosing JLS North/West, where his house would be in left field.

9:03 – One speaker cites two different estimates for Caltrans to act on such a project – 18 months or 2-3 years. Given the time crunch, it’ll be necessary to get all of the various agencies on the same page. Another speaker has grave concerns about limited parking, especially because of the Laney College uses (day/night classes, flea market). Brings up eminent domain.

Several speakers, including some representing Chinatown, are asking for a thorough health study.

9:14 – KTRB’s Rick Tittle is asking if Oakland is a big league town as this is a watershed moment. “Are we going to sit around and let another city steal our team away?” Tittle also pleaded for the City not to get bogged down in the details (I’m paraphrasing). But that’s what CEQA is. It’s set up to be legal protection for the little guy, for the disenfranchised. You want to rush through something, move to another state. Or China.

9:15 – Ethan Pintard is up. Like the site but has concerns about a parking nightmare. Biggest concern is for prosperous established businesses at the site. Proposes the Wood Street development (West Oakland) as a possible site, because existing plans aren’t happening soon. 39 acres of adjacent land with willing sellers. Virtually all of the land is vacant. Would like to see the old 16th Street station as part of the development.

9:20 – Jorge Leon is up. He’s endearing, but he isn’t really helping. He’s the “Joe the Plumber” of the Oakland-only movement.

9:25 – The always interesting Sanjiv Handa gives a political retrospective. Thinks the Port of Oakland would be on their knees begging for the Victory Court ballpark plan in light of the failures at JLS (which is changing hands again). Mentions the cautionary tale of the Marine World almost moving to a site near the Coliseum, then bolting for Vallejo.

9:33 – Last speaker asks what will happen if Oakland loses the A’s. Will that be covered somehow? Is cautiously optimistic, hopes Lew Wolff is watching and sees the support.

Speakers are finished, commissioners are taking their turns. People are starting to file out. There’s an older, familiar looking man in a three-piece suit here. I can’t quite place him. EIR consultant, perhaps?

BTW, there are no exhibits or even a presentation. That’s for later.

11:32 – Just got home and the comment board is already lively. Thanks to Nina, David and LeAndre, all of whom I had brief chats with. The crowd was great and I didn’t see any pitchforks or torches. Plenty of different interests were represented, which gave the session a good sense of balance.

Quick note – The site may be down for a bit Thursday for some maintenance. Hopefully not for long.

And from the sometimes you just can’t win department – the same night when Oakland can puff out its chest a bit with this first study session, what’s on the front page of CNN.com? A video report on child prostitution along International Blvd.

12:25 AM – There were some reports earlier today that got comments from Ignacio De La Fuente. IDLF wants MLB to commit to Oakland before the City pays for the EIR and related study work. MLB may well be willing to pay for the EIR, but he probably won’t get his wish. More on that in a later post.

Also, just noticed this from KTVU’s report:

That looks somewhat familiar…

11.29.10
by

Cyber Monday Reality Check

Update 11/30 10:57 AM – There was an article at the Merc website about a San Jose special election in March being unlikely, but it was pulled. It may have to do with the deadline to place an initiative on the ballot for the special election. The article will run in tomorrow’s edition, so we should see it later today/tonight.

Sorry, no great deals for consumers here. There’s still plenty of stuff to read before Wednesday’s big rally planning commission session, so let’s let ‘er rip.

At A Better Oakland, V Smoothe has, as usual, a very realistic and substantial take on where Oakland is in the process. Thankfully, she references some of the work we’ve done here on site reviews (Howard Terminal/JLS West/Victory Court), and states her preference for Chris Kidd’s Jingletown site concept. More to the point, she defines what the purpose of the session is:

So basically, this is when you have an opportunity to go say what you think should be studied in the EIR. Like, for example, you could go and say, “I think it’s really important that the EIR examines pedestrian and vehicle safety impacts at the railroad crossing at the intersections of Embarcadero and Broadway, Franklin, and Webster” and that would be appropriate. If you went and said instead “I think Lew Wolff is an asshole and the A’s should stay in Oakland,” that would not be appropriate. Or productive. You don’t have to go to the hearing to have input on what gets studied — as I mentioned above, you are also encouraged to submit your comments in writing.

Just as important, she takes just two paragraphs to nail the frustration many fans have with the City of Oakland and Oakland-only boosters.

…And the attitude from so many City officials and A’s-in-Oakland boosters that we should keep the team because we just deserve them rather than because we have an actual plan for how we’re going to accomplish that infuriates me.

So it isn’t that I’m anti-Oakland so much as I’m anti-whining. And running around bitching about how unfairly Lew Wolff treats Oakland while doing absolutely nothing to further the goal of offering a viable stadium site is whining. While Oakland sat around feeling all put upon and pouting about being rejected and claiming there are tons of great ballpark locations all over Oakland if your ignore all the feasibility problems with them, San Jose, without any guarantee or even real reason to believe they could land the team, identified a site, bought up most of the land, certified an EIR, and built up significant community support for their proposal. That’s what being serious looks like.

Couldn’t have written it better, or more credibly, myself.

Over in St. Pete, Tropicana Dome has proven to be more costly for the city than expected, at $7.3 million per including operational costs and debt service. Rising insurance premiums and increased traffic control expenses are partly to blame. Besides those already sobering figures, the Tampa Tribune also asked whether or not the region can actually support the Rays in the long run. As studied nearly two years ago, the population of the Tampa Bay Area is not particularly large, and the location of the Tropicana Dome is nearly the worst within the region for attracting the greater populace. The biggest hurdle, however, could be getting a privately financed facility built in a region bereft of corporate interests:

The Tribune studied the Fortune 1000 list of major U.S. corporations and found only six companies on it based in the Bay area. Miami only had six, too. The median number of headquarters companies in a major-league market was 20.

Sounds familiar.

If you’re interested in the subject matter, there’s an article in the Chicago Tribune about the company that is converting Wrigley Field back from football to baseball. The very same field that, if the Ricketts family is allowed, would be torn up to build underground clubhouses for both home and visiting teams in left and right field, respectively.

Apparently the Marlins are trying to color coordinate the seats in their half-built, future ballpark with sponsor brands. Hmmm…

11.26.10
by

Caveat citizen

A pithy piece on stadia and politics comes this week from an unusual place: a law firm. Attorneys Christopher Bakes, Scott Anders, and Jeremy Vermilyea of West Coast firm Bullivant Houser Bailey PC penned a succinct rebuttal (on Lexology) to a recent Wall Street Journal article on how municipalities are more averse to publicly financing stadia than before.

Bakes, a lawyer for the firm’s Sacramento office and an avowed Giants fan, represented the City of San Francisco in 1992 when the team threatened to move to Tampa, which gives him a pretty unique perspective on how stadium deals work. In his and his colleagues’ view, the problem for most stadium initiatives is not so much public financing as much as proper education of the public. That might be better termed “selling” the concept, in any case it’s part of the process. Here’s how they explain it:

Why stadium and ballpark initiatives fail. The key point missed by The Wall Street Journal is why so many stadium proposals became — and continue to become — problematic in the first place. It has far less to do with public funding than it does with good governance and public engagement, or (more likely) the lack of public engagement. This is because despite repeated failures at the ballot box and elsewhere, public officials and team owners almost never correctly interpret what is actually going on.

Voters don’t reject great ideas, they reject great ideas that aren’t carefully explained to them. When first proposed, ballpark proponents rarely list as a first priority the need to educate the public on why a ballpark is beneficial. It is as if the good public officials of Seattle (or San Diego, or Pittsburgh, or Minnesota) didn’t know about any of the troubles in Baltimore (or San Francisco, or Philadelphia, or Milwaukee), and simply moved along as if their new ballpark was the only one that had ever been conceived anywhere in America.

Later in the piece, the Giants and 49ers efforts are lauded for their outreach efforts with the public. It’s noted that the Giants’ plan, from conception to opening, took eight years (1992 to 2000). The 49ers’ stadium is on a similar path, with initial work dating back to 2007 and a likely opening in 2015. In San Jose, the process started in 2005 and an opening isn’t likely until at least 2014.

That brings me to Oakland. We’re about a year removed from Let’s Go Oakland’s unveiling of four sites, which apparently was done just to show that at least on the surface there was more than one. Any amount of scrutiny, which wasn’t done by local media, would’ve shown that there were really two sites, JLS West and Victory Court. Now that Victory Court is the chosen site, the clock will begin on December 1, when the first planning commission hearing for public comment is held. If the process holds true, a ballpark wouldn’t open until… 2018 or 2019.

If you think Oakland is somehow going to be able to shortcut the process, think again. The last large development project completed in Oakland was Uptown. Compare what Forest City originally pitched to what was eventually built:

Obviously, market conditions dictated how expansive the project became. Still, it’s likely that citizens will point to this as part of the City’s track record when it comes to executing on large projects. If MLB places faith in Oakland to get the ballpark plan done, it will do so knowing that the timeline will be quite long, through 2018 or later. And if proponents try to short circuit the process? There is no shortage of potential litigants ready to gum up the works.

Then again, as the article stated,

It has far less to do with public funding than it does with good governance and public engagement, or (more likely) the lack of public engagement.

The whole thing could get done more quickly if there’s a lack of public engagement. If that’s what happens, God help Oakland and A’s fans.

11.24.10
by

There’s trying, and then there’s trying

This Thanksgiving, we should all be thankful that, despite the often misplaced or ill-timed effort, many people have been trying to keep the A’s in the Bay Area. To illustrate this, I’ve put together a map showing pretty much all of the sites that have been considered for a ballpark over the last 15 years. Below the map is a brief history and the fate of each site.

bayarealocations

Competing sites:

  • # – Victory Court. Emerged as the preferred ballpark location by the City of Oakland after the unveiling of four sites by Let’s Go Oakland in December 2009. EIR process has begun, initial comment period open. Public hearing on December 1 to elicit public comments.
  • * – Diridon (South). Preferred San Jose site picked after two year deliberation process. EIR completed in 2009, a 3+ year process.

HOK East Bay study sites:

  • A – Howard Terminal. Waterfront site immediately west of Jack London Square. Eventually was leased by Matson to consolidate shipping operations.
  • B – Oak to Ninth. Waterfront site east of Jack London Square. Has development plans for 3100 homes, parkland, and commercial uses.
  • C – Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. Home of the current stadium, has had interest from different parties for a ballpark elsewhere within the complex. Both the Raiders and A’s have leases through 2013. The Coliseum Authority is working with the Raiders on a football-specific successor to the Coliseum immediately to the south of the existing stadium.
  • D – Laney College. Plans envisioned replacing the college’s athletic fields with a ballpark. Peralta Community College District was not interested in such a use.
  • E – Uptown. The preferred site from the study due to its downtown location and access to mass transit and parking infrastructure. Any chance of a ballpark was derailed when the A’s showed little interest and the site’s chief proponent was fired and a developer-friendly housing scheme was heavily promoted. An apartment complex is now on site.
  • F – Pleasanton. One of two southern Alameda County sites included in the study. Was undeveloped back then, is still undeveloped now.
  • G – Fremont. The other southern Alameda County choice, the site was north of the NUMMI (now Tesla Motors) site. The area would be reconsidered several years later for another shot at a ballpark, but NIMBY resistance helped kill it.

San Jose study sites:

  • I – FMC/Airport West. Old military vehicle plant was briefly considered thanks to central location within Santa Clara Valley. Was eliminated in favor of a more urban locale. Became the site of the future San Jose Earthquakes stadium.
  • II – Reed & Graham. An asphalt plant next to I-280. Eliminated early on due to infrastructure issues. Plant still in operation.
  • III – Del Monte Cannery. A single-owner site that was ready for redevelopment, just north of Reed & Graham. A developer showed interest in building condos on the site, which is eventually what happened.
  • IV – Berryessa Flea Market. Located on San Jose’s east side, its major advantages were its size, a single owner, and its location near a future BART station. Like the Del Monte Cannery, the site has plans for future residential development. Such work has not yet started and may not commence for several years.

A’s ownership promoted sites:

  • 1 – Coliseum South. Site pitched by Lew Wolff shortly after he was hired by Schott/Hofmann. Ownership agreed to pay 50% towards a study on the site, which included the HomeBase and Malibu lots. The Coliseum Authority balked. In 2010, the Authority bought the land with an eye towards a Raiders stadium and ancillary development plan.
  • 2 – Santa Clara. North of Great America, the site was also considered for a Santa Clara ballpark plan over a decade prior. In order to prevent a ballpark from being built, the City added a street through the property that gets very little vehicular use.
  • 3 – Coliseum North (High/66th). A broad redevelopment plan that would have bought 100 acres of industrial zoned land and changed the zoning to residential/commercial, with a ballpark as the centerpiece. Existing landowners balked at moving and Wolff/Fisher were not willing to pay much more than a nominal amount for the land, leading to the plan’s demise.
  • 4 – Pacific Commons. Took the Coliseum North redevelopment concept and moved it to Fremont, on Cisco/Catellus-owned light industrial (yet undeveloped) land. Plan died as the broader economy went into the tank in 2007.
  • 5 – Warm Springs. Rebirth of the original Fremont plan would’ve had the ballpark decoupled from the residential and commercial components. Area residents decried the location’s proximity to local homes and the lack of road infrastructure. The plan came and went quickly, which made the team look further south.

Have a good Thanksgiving, everyone.

11.15.10
by

Five degrees of separation

Here at the ballpark blog, we’ve been very upfront about one particular issue when it comes to Cisco Field: We don’t like bandboxes. From the initial look, that’s exactly what it appears to be. We were even concerned enough to consult a noted expert about the ramifications of implementing the ballpark using the speculated dimensions, and the results only made us more fearful. We’ve been conditioned, as good A’s (and baseball) fans, to love the occasional 1-0 shutout that runs only 2:15. While the Diridon site creates limitations as to the layout, there’s still plenty of room to put in a neutral field.

To refresh your memory, here’s what the existing plan looks like.

In hopes of effecting some kind of change, I took the projected layout and revised it slightly. The changes are as follows:

  • Field orientation is rotated 5 degrees north (counterclockwise).
  • Home plate is moved roughly 10 feet east.  This may seem strange considering the space constraints on the east side of the lot, it’ll make sense later.
  • The seating bowl, which is at a 75 degree angle, is made more acute to end up at 65 degrees.
  • The outfield wall is redrawn to keep the the left field grandstands parallel to streets and existing lot lines.

Now here’s what the revised layout looks like.

The outfield dimensions are now 328-375-402-376-314.

A lot better, no?

Rotating the field makes an incredible difference, even a 5 degree change. It opens up the outfield a ton and makes for a much deeper transition from the right field corner to the power alley. Now that extra set of seats/bleachers in right field isn’t so bad, as the 36-foot high wall goes from 314′ to 370′ and then drops to a 12′ high wall at 356′. Left field is a pretty standard set of dimensions, with the quirk being a pitcher-friendly jump from 328′ to 370′. Center field’s 402′ is pretty blah.

There are some compromises and penalties that come with rotating the field. The LF line cuts into the grandstand more, so much that I was forced to move home plate 10 feet east to compensate. By doing this, the LF corner can be fairly standard and not many seats are lost. To keep the simple contour of the seating bowl, the angle of the bowl had to be brought in 10 degrees. If that hadn’t been done, a kink or bend along the first base line would’ve been required. The resulting angle is 65 degrees, which should create for better sight lines than the original concept (75 degrees).

As with the original analysis, I’ve projected two capacities, one in which there are a minimal number of rows and another where there are four additional rows for both the lower and upper decks. All else stays the same. One change is the inclusion of a service tunnel near the LF corner. An outline of seating sections is shown where the affected seats would be taken out.

Additional notes:

  • ADA locations refers to wheelchair locations and companion chairs. It is assumed that some accessible seats within the seating bowl will have flip-up armrests.
  • Temporary seating refers to rows of seats at the back of available sections. It’s a simple way to add seats for a nominal cost, and can be easily adjusted on an as needed basis. Unused ADA rows can be replaced by rows of temporary seats if space is available. The Giants have employed this method of adding seats extensively.
  • The third deck (club) has been omitted to reduce clutter. The suite level (tucked underneath the upper deck) is obscured.
  • After some discussion, I’m going with 36-foot high wall in right, which is closer to what Jeffrey and gojohn10 have suggested. (The Green Monster is 37′ 3″ high)
  • Bullpens are still in center.

Questions? Fire away.

11.12.10
by

Wolff/AN Interview Observations

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

The lie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bird in hand

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

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

TB: There are more fans to draw from.

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

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

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

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

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

I am a ballpark. Hear me roar!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.12.10
by

Target Field a revenue bonanza

I last wrote about a new ballpark revenue model almost exactly three years ago. Back then, I had estimated that the A’s could net $24 million more per year, after revenue sharing. One thing I did not focus on was the possible gross revenue the team could realize, which would be $44 million more than at the Coliseum. Little did I realize that the delta could become even greater over time.

Minnesota Public Radio called up Forbes and the usual gallery of sports economists to get an idea of how much the Twins have benefited from Year One at Target Field. The answer: $50-70 million more than 2009 at the Metrodome, perhaps more. That figure is based mostly of gross revenues from the stadium, before the team has to hand over its share of revenue sharing and get its piece of the central fund.

Curious about how a similar effect could be applied to the A’s in new digs, I re-ran the numbers. This time, with the 2009-10 drop in revenue, I figured the difference would be vast, but I had no idea how vast. The current model looks like this:

There is some debate as to what the A’s final revenue is. Forbes said that in 2009 it was $160 million, $155 million for 2010. Lew Wolff said that the number for 2009 was $130 million. Lacking a look into the A’s books, I’m splitting the difference for illustrative purposes. That puts final revenue at $149 million and gross local revenue at $86.7 million. Now for the future model:

In this case, the new gross local revenue is a whopping $160 million, while final revenue is slightly higher at $170 million. This is because the A’s will be able to deduct debt service and a host of other expenses as part of the “Actual Stadium Expenses” deduction against revenue sharing allowed in the CBA. Interestingly, it creates a situation where the A’s would continue to be revenue sharing recipients instead of payers, to the tune of $20 million. This is mostly due to rising revenues league-wide, as the average annual revenue per team is approaching $200 million (thanks, Yankees). The best way for the A’s to stop being revenue sharing recipients under the current CBA would be to ink richer TV and radio deals.

It goes to show how the A’s aren’t just being left behind on the revenue front, they’re getting lapped. Repeatedly. Going back to the gross local revenue figure, note the difference between the future and current models: $74 million. And it could be even greater, since the numbers don’t account for in-stadium merchandise sales. Those sales all get counted the same in the long run, but it’s all about when they get counted. Every year the A’s count on their windfall coming in December, after all of the books are closed. The rich teams get their windfalls throughout the year. November when thousands upon thousands of large season ticket deposits are made. Merchandise sales when purchases are made. Millions of advance tickets, often sold well before Game 1 on the schedule. Plus the various sources that come in during the season. There’s a constant, predictable, heavy stream of dollars that makes it much easier to project payroll and operations.

(The next couple of paragraphs are not for the purist A’s fan or Oakland partisan. You have been warned.)

With that in mind, I’m starting to think that if/when the San Jose move is confirmed, in the ramp-up to the ballpark opening the A’s will unveil new alternate uniforms, hats, perhaps even team colors, all with the idea of capturing the San Jose audience dollar while the iron is hot. There’s no official “O” hat for the team now, but you can bet there will be a second “SJ” hat when the time comes. I’m not too keen on this, and I worry that the team will go D-backs crazy while attempting this. I sure hope they rein this in.

Beyond that, I would also expect that once the confirmation is made, the A’s will open up and sell “Oakland” as much as it can in a sort of  “get it while you can” manner. Those nods to history that fans criticize the team for not honoring? You’ll see it. And it will be for sale. It reminds me of the latest episode of Mad Men, in which Don Draper rebounds from losing a major tobacco account by buying a full-page ad in the New York Times. In the ad he swears off tobacco accounts forever, shocking everyone in the office, Madison Avenue, and the public. The motivations for both are anything but altruistic, yet completely shrewd and understandable. They also hold a great risk of backfiring. At least in the case of Mad Men, we’ll pretty much know what happens next Sunday night.

10.04.10
by

More end of season tidbits

Let’s roll it out, shall we?

  • New Twitter update (and article) from A’s beat writer extraordinaire Susan Slusser (@susanslusser): Beane feels optimistic about prospects for new stadium. He says team expects news sooner than later.  #Athletics. More on this from MLB.com’s Jane Lee.
  • The Quakes named David Kaval as its new President. Kaval replaces Michael Crowley (the one who owns a piece of the A’s, not the journalist), who will be bumped up to Managing Director. Kaval’s previous gig was at the independent Golden Baseball League. Quick analysis: the Quakes need to make more headway with sponsorships, and Kaval’s experience indicates he knows the angles.
  • –
  • Target Field ended the regular season with the 3rd worst home run rate (1.35 HR/game) of any MLB ballpark, just behind Safeco Field (1.22) and yes, the venerable Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (1.33). Some of that may be attributable to the half-season absence of Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer‘s almost inexplicable power dropoff, from 28 to 9 HR in one year. Mauer should be able to adjust, as David Wright did at Citi Field (10 to 29 HR from 2009 to 2010).
  • The Twins are criticizing the T-Wolves for placing a large ad sign at Target Center that will be visible from Target Field and Target Plaza. Seriously?
  • Home runs are down slightly at New Yankee Stadium, but it’s still the most HR-producing park in the majors.
  • MLB instituted new sky ground rules at Tropicana Field for the playoffs. The upper “A” and “B” compression rings/catwalks that hold up the dome are no longer in play, as balls that hit the rings are now automatic dead balls. Previously, balls that hit the rings were in play, and were ruled fair or foul based on where they landed. The lower “C” and “D” rings are home runs if balls hit them in fair territory.
  • Matier and Ross report that the 49ers are getting ready to open a sales office for their planned Santa Clara Stadium. The office will be in the Tech Center, which is adjacent to the Santa Clara Convention Center, which itself is across the street from the stadium site. No seat license prices yet, of course.
  • Mesa, AZ voters are mulling over Prop 420, a proposal to replace HoHoKam Park with a new city-owned ballpark complex with a bunch of ancillary development to help pay for it. If you’ve ever been to HoHoKam, you’ll know that the only thing ancillary to the park right now is a cemetery.
  • Firing up stogies in the clubhouse to celebrate the Reds’ first division crown since they opened their new ballpark is apparently verboten.
  • The nonprofit group that runs the Memphis Redbirds (AAA, Cardinals) has been struggling financially, causing them to consolidate a bunch of debt in an effort to stay afloat. What hurt them? The arrival of the Memphis Grizzlies, a blip of excitement for U of Memphis basketball when John Calipari was there, and bad projections for attendance at AutoZone Park. The team and ballpark will probably be sold in the near future.
  • The Giants are getting the late game slots (6:37 PM PT) for their first two home NLDS games, which is great for West Coast viewers, not so great if you’re a young Braves fan who has to go to school Friday morning. The Rangers are getting the crappy day slots that we as A’s fans have been rather familiar with.
  • Attendance at yesterday’s Raiders-Texans game was a scant 32,218. There are often comments about how whether or not the Bay Area is a two-team baseball market; are we sure it holds up as a two-team football market? They could’ve saved some money and left the tarps on!

Update: Tonight’s fresh articles by Susan Slusser and Jane Lee have done a better job of clarifying where management’s position is going forward than the quotes Slusser got from Lew Wolff last week. From Lee’s article:

“I was talking to one free agent last year, trying to tell him to concentrate on the field, that we had the best playing facility in the league, the best groundskeeper in the league. He said, ‘You’re right — until August.'”

…

“I think we’re going to be planning a new stadium at some point soon,” Beane said. “That’s just my own gut feeling. We have to at some point. I’m an optimist.

“I think it will allow us to start to plan around some of these guys here from a long-term standpoint. Hopefully, it’s not a revolving door, like it’s been the last decade. Hopefully, we could do some long-term planning, which we really haven’t been able to do. I think it would be pretty invigorating for everybody involved, and I think everybody would sort of be relieved having a direction for the franchise.”

Thing is, if MLB rules in Oakland’s favor, there’s an immediate quandary because I don’t think the owners have been planning on staying in Oakland.

09.29.10
by

The debt rule and you

When the current CBA was ratified in 2006, it was largely seen as little more than extension to the 2002 CBA. That is, except for one pretty important detail. Prior to 2006, all MLB teams had to conform to what was called the 60/40 debt rule (assets/liabilities). Enforcement of the rule was at best lax, allowing teams to make some really bizarre long term contracts without batting an eye. With the new CBA, the debt rule had radically changed. Instead of pinning available debt to franchise value under the 60/40 rule, debt was to be capped based on earnings. Here’s the initial language of the rule:

DEBT SERVICE RULE
Section 1.    The Rule. No Club may maintain more Total Club Debt than can reasonably be supported by its EBITDA. A Club’s Total Club Debt cannot reasonably be supported by its EBITDA if Total Club Debt exceeds the product of the average of that Club’s EBITDA over the most recent two years multiplied by the Cash Flow Multiplier applicable to that Club; provided, however, that a Club may elect, on or before April 1, 2007, to utilize, in both 2007 and 2008, the average of its EBITDA over the most recent three years.

To illustrate this, let’s look at Forbes’ 2010 financial profile of the A’s. In it, operating income (EBITDA) came out to $22.1 million. For 2009, it was $26 million. Averaged, it’s $24 million. To get the Total Club Debt ceiling, multiply that last figure by 10, and you get $240 million in debt ceiling. Also in the profile, the A’s have a 30% debt/value ratio, putting the team’s applicable current debt at $88.5 million. Every team gets a debt exemption of $36.5 million. Factored in, that puts the A’s debt at $52 million. That leaves $188 million under the team’s cap.

According to the listed definitions of what constitutes debt, just about anything that is borrowed or to be paid later falls in. This includes loans from MLB or third parties such as banks, non-player deferred compensation, stadium debt (only when the stadium opens), loans from related parties (ex.: partly or wholly owned regional sports networks), and any other debt except for a player compensation and an initial $36.5 million deduction (like the standard income tax deduction).

The 10x multiplier changes to 15x when a new stadium opens. This is important, because, as Jeffrey pointed out two weeks ago, MLB is ready to provide a loan of up to $150 million for construction. Assuming that EBITDA stays fairly constant, the A’s debt ceiling will move to $360 million. In the meantime, the A’s would likely pay down existing debt (either from annual profits or by bringing in additional partners) to get itself in the right position to get the stadium financing.

The kicker here is that while player compensation is not supposed to be part of the calculus, it is no doubt a considering factor. Selig has a mandate for mid/small market teams to get their houses in order prior to opening a new ballpark. Any number of punitive measures can be taken against a club if they go over their debt cap, including restrictions against future borrowing and even limits to new player contracts. If anything, this is the true spirit of the debt rule: to keep teams living within their means. (Big market teams such as the Dodgers and the Rangers under Tom Hicks benefited from selective enforcement.)

To understand how this affects the A’s moving forward, let’s take a look at where the teams stands in terms of payroll as of the end of the season:

Now let’s assume that certain housekeeping moves are made. Trevor Cahill is locked up through his arb years in a similar deal to what Brett Anderson received, plus Daric Barton is also secured. In addition, Mark Ellis is brought back, as well as Kevin Kouzmanoff. Jack Cust is gone, while Michael Taylor starts the season in RF. Gio Gonzalez, Dallas Braden, and Andrew Bailey are also back through short-term/non-arb deals. No one of note is traded, but a free agent slugger is brought in for a 2-year, $20 million deal with a third year team option. Here’s what that would look like:

If you’re Selig and you’re looking at the two tables, you’re thinking “That’s it. Give me your credit card.” It doesn’t matter that this kind of debt technically doesn’t count toward’s the CBA definition, it’s still debt. Salaries weren’t supposed to count under the old 60/40 rule either, but they did. It’s a terribly unfair way to run a competitive league, but them’s the breaks. By 2013, the payroll will head into the $80 million territory because of the normally occurring raises. As a team that is not yet fully capable of carrying its own weight, the A’s have their own de facto salary cap. Most of it is due to circumstance. Type A free agents aren’t going to sign 2-3 year deals here unless they have a problem that makes other teams balk at giving them 5-6 year deals (injury history, age, consistency). Yet that 2-3 year window is exactly what the team should exercise while costs are contained. Lew Wolff mentioned recently that the one-year rental idea doesn’t work that well, which is true at least historically. So what’s the best way to fill in the holes in the lineup? More Coco Crisps? Trade one or more of the pitchers for a bat?

Most importantly, how does this affect how you view the A’s future, or the league in general?

Note: If you’re wondering how the Yankees operate within the rules even though they’ve accrued billions of dollars of debt, the answer is simple. The team doesn’t “own” most of the debt. Its related parties do.

09.27.10
by

Larry Stone speaks, some won’t like it

KCBS Radio did one of their In Depth interviews with Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone (MP3 download). Stone has, of course, been a active, constant proponent of bringing MLB to the South Bay, and has used his easily won public office as a bully pulpit. Stone was asked about the history of now 24-year effort to get this done, plus fielded questions about whether his roles as assessor and developer are conflicts of interest. If you’re a South Bay partisan, you’re going to think what he’s saying is gospel. If you’re an Oakland partisan, your ears may bleed profusely. It’s over 27 minutes long and well worth the listen (thanks, I.C.).

Among the morsels from the interview:

  • Within the first two minutes, Stone makes the claim that the A’s can’t survive in Oakland.
  • Stone is (IIRC) the first public figure to say that the Giants are trying to drive the A’s out of the market. When challenged on this, his response is, “Anybody would try to do this.”
  • Apparently the Earthquakes are not considered a major pro sports team, at least according to Stone. He must’ve forgotten them.
  • He thinks the Giants could spend $2-3 million to defeat the spring ballot measure.
  • Stone dances around the idea that some of the owners might feel threatened by another team invading their respective territories.
  • SJRA has the money set aside for the last two parcels (AT&T and Aegis).
  • Stone claims that when he talked to Schott some time ago, Schott had 75% of the owners lined up for a vote for a move south.
  • Stone speculates that Selig gave the Giants a “10 year head start” for the SC Co. t-rights, in effect protecting the county for a decade.
  • Interviewer Jane McMillan characterizes the Diridon area as “suburban” in comparison to what would normally be considered urban areas for other ballparks. Where does urban end and suburban begin?
  • McMillan also asks if a deal is done, but unfortunately says that the ballpark will be shared with the Quakes (which it won’t), which got Stone’s response moving in the wrong direction.

It’s a good listen, though if you’re on the SJ bandwagon you’ve already heard many of the talking points.

BTW, on an unrelated note, the Rangers secured a 20 year, $3 billion extension to the current TV rights deal with Fox Sports Southwest. $150 million a year (Maury Brown thinks the numbers could be off). Guess they won’t have that big debt problem that could keep them from re-signing Cliff Lee and extending Josh Hamilton.