Category Archives: News

09.25.11
by

Willingham signing hinges on stadium resolution

Susan Slusser’s report on Josh Willingham’s status makes my last post look downright prophetic (I swear I had no idea). According to Willingham’s agent, Matt Sosnick, any kind of multiyear deal is completely dependent on whether or not the A’s get the green light to move to San Jose.

“We gave the A’s an idea of where we were, and we were told they have interest in bringing Josh back, but before they did anything, they want to see what happens with the stadium,” Sosnick said. “Josh and I both made it clear he’d like to stay, but at this point, I’m pretty sure he’ll test the free-agent market.

“We talked about a time frame, given that Billy would like Josh back, but it seems like Billy is sort of hamstrung right now.”

Now if you haven’t read the last post on the Moneyball script, read it now. And enjoy the symmetry.

Slusser also notes that if the A’s get that green light, they’ll reduce payroll and go into a full rebuilding mode. That would make sense, since Beane and Wolff/Fisher would probably want to time the opening of Cisco Field with a fully resurgent team, one that could maximize revenue. That probably means trading any or all of the cost-controlled young starters, Kurt Suzuki if he has any value left, and maybe even *gulp* Jemile Weeks. The moves wouldn’t have to happen right away, though I figure that Beane will spend some time trying to find a sucker to take Brian Fuentes’ $5 million for 2012. The moves are one more reason for the pro-Oakland folks to hate ownership, though I have to point out that if they were to build in Oakland they’d go through the same phase. If they were to stay in the Coliseum indefinitely, they’d have to keep payroll at the $70 million level in hopes of attracting more fans at the gate, though $70 million doesn’t get you more than scraps as we’ve seen over the last few years. Want to see how Taylor and Carter look with 500+ PAs? We might finally find out.

Thing is, such a hardline stance may not be necessary since several players may not be expected to re-sign with the A’s, and will have their money come off the books in the offseason. That includes $5.75 million for David DeJesus (despite the strange love affair with the guy) and $4.25 million for Hideki Matsui. Plus there’s the dead money of Kevin Kouzmanoff ($4.75 million) and Conor Jackson ($3.2 million). So even if they re-sign both Willingham and Coco Crisp, they can keep their payroll under $55 million while giving the kids precious playing time.

Without Willingham and Crisp, the payroll would be around $40 million, roughly the same amount as the 2002 Moneyball A’s. It would seem that signing both of those players might make sense in that both of them might yield something better in trade near next season’s trading deadline than the first round/sandwich picks the team would get for letting them walk. Beane’s argument is that without a resolution of the stadium situation, there can be no effective long-range planning, since there would be an endless cycle of building up and selling off. As more of the youngsters hit arbitration eligible years, Beane has to keep that in mind and plan accordingly. It’s a tough spot to be in.

09.23.11
by

Thoughts on Moneyball

SPOILER ALERT: IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK, DO NOT GO ANY FURTHER. IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN SOME SUSPENSE REGARDING THE MOVIE, YOU MIGHT ALSO WANT TO WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS.

The struggle to transform Michael Lewis’ Moneyball from a study of a business model into a compelling screenplay has been an ordeal, to say the least. Unlike Lewis’ later work, The Blind Side, the payoff wasn’t as easy or tailor-made for Hollywood. Still, what remains at the core of both narratives is a redemption story, based on a character overcoming incredible odds to attain real success. That makes the Brad Pitt vehicle a show of artistic symmetry, in that the movie’s success to come is nearly as improbable as the on-field exploits of that plucky 2002 edition of the Oakland Athletics.

The first thing that struck me about Pitt’s performance is how weathered he looks as Billy Beane. The bags under his eyes are reminiscent of Benicio del Toro. He shows a full range of emotions, from his portrayal of Beane’s well-known mercurial attitude towards the team to his surprisingly tender moments with his daughter (Kerris Dorsey) and Peter Brand, the assistant GM amalgam played by the now-svelte Jonah Hill. Every A’s fan knows how Beane has evolved in terms of finding greater efficiencies, from unathletic OBP/OPS types to undervalued defensive players and now decent minor leaguers blocked from promotion by established stars in the majors. Despite that evolution, there’s that lingering suspicion that Beane’s methodology was either a fluke or wholly flawed, simply because the A’s didn’t get to or win a World Series. Acknowledgment of that suspicion shows on Pitt’s face, which was constantly full of regret.

The audience may come away from the movie thinking that the 2002 A’s were the MLB equivalent of the Bad News Bears. They weren’t. They had the year’s AL MVP (Miguel Tejada) and Cy Young winner (Barry Zito), neither of whom gets much pub in the film. Neither do Tim Hudson or Mark Mulder, the other two legs of the Big Three, nor Eric Chavez, who would in short order become the face of the franchise. That shouldn’t stop anyone, A’s fans included, from enjoying the film. It was necessary to pare down the story into one big narrative with a limited number of subplots. The team itself, as was known by that year three of the contending window, was a notoriously slow starter and bullish second half performer. Tension regarding Beane’s job security was ratcheted up a bit, as his halo didn’t really get dinged until 2004 or later.

Finishing the movie is Beane’s trip to Boston, where Red Sox owner John Henry bowls him over with a tremendous offer to become the highest paid GM in baseball, only to be followed by Beane backing out of the job and staying with the A’s, where he’d eventually get a small ownership stake a few years later. He famously stated about his fateful decision to choose the Mets over a Stanford scholarship:

I made one decision based on money in my life… and I promised I’d never do it again.

Despite the ownership stake and a contract that runs through 2014, Beane is linked to the Cubs’ GM opening and could be linked to both the Red Sox and Yankees GM positions should they become available. If he stays true to that quote – and it’s always tough to turn down big money – I don’t think he’ll leave the Bay Area. I got that sense earlier in the week, when Beane made rare lengthy appearances on A’s TV and radio broadcasts, and on 95.7. He claimed that he had no inside information, but I’m not convinced in the slightest. He seemed barely able to hold back whatever he was not telling.

The film seeks to give Beane some form of redemption by explaining how a sabermetric-focused approach helped the Red Sox win the Series in 2004. It’s still not the kind of Hollywood ending that the masses want. Beane is a loyal guy to family and organization, even if players are treated as little more than commodities much of the time. I think if he really wants to shake the critics once and for all, he’s gonna have to do it on his terms, as the GM of the Athletics. After spending the last four years in organizational limbo while the stadium situation had no resolution, Beane may be finally sniffing that rebirth, that window opening again. By no means does that mean the A’s will have payroll parity with the Yankees and Red Sox, let alone the Giants. But I figure he’ll take that extra $25-40 million a year in revenue, be rid of the “50 feet of crap” that the A’s are under, and start dealing in earnest once again. Like the long, strange road trip the film took towards eventuality, the stadium may yet see such a resolution and that may be the boost Beane needs to turn the A’s from challengers to champs. It would be more than enough to turn Moneyball from bittersweet to just plain sweet. I’m looking forward to it.

09.20.11
by

The adult conversation

Two weeks ago, Think Big Sacramento released its 100 Day report (PDF), meant to provide a clear picture of funding and economic impact of a new downtown railyards arena for the Sacramento Kings. The 199-page report is actually comprised of 10 separate reports, the last two covering nearly 70 pages of economic impact. Unfortunately, no reader will find the solution within the 199 pages, though that can be somewhat forgiven since they’ve only had 100 days to put this together. Still, the document is a good, important step on the way to actually building anything because it actually lays out all of the financing options, public and private.

Barrett Sports Group prepared a 74-slide Powerpoint presentation on those financing options. I’ll cut to the chase and list the conclusions (emphasis not mine):

  • Public-Private finance plan will likely include a public contribution in the form of land
  • Parcels of public land located in the downtown area, many of which are not currently being used or are severely underutilized have the potential to increase in value due to the development of the ESC downtown
  • ESC development development allows for the maximization of land sales that could increase the number of jobs created in the short term and increase the economic impact of the project by encouraging private development
  • Finance plan will require support from three areas: private investment, user fees and public participation
  • User fees represent a key contribution as these revenues are provided by those benefiting from the facility and bear a direct nexus to the complex

Doesn’t tell you much, does it? The conclusion actually belies the other key information within the presentation. For instance, BSG studied every possible public financing option, from taxes to fees to the sale of parking rights. Here’s the entire list:

funding_options-all-585x438

Unrealistic sources were culled, cutting it from 58 to 36. The following is the list Sacramento citizens, the public and private sectors can consider as feasible for any kind of contribution:

funding_options-culled-585x438

Once you get past the first eight options (the usual taxes used for many venue financing plans) the pickings get pretty slim. There was talk of potentially selling future parking revenue to a private operator in exchange for an upfront payment, which may be illegal in California. And notice how there’s no mention of redevelopment. That’s a good sign that the folks up in Cowtown are ready to engage in a substantive, adult conversation about how this is going to get done. The rest of the year is supposed to be spent creating the funding mix(es) that will be debated by the City Council, and in all likelihood, voted on by Sacramento voters. That’s a tough one to deal with, considering another component study’s admission that only one-quarter of visitors to ARCO/Power Balance come from within Sacramento city limits.

Some other interesting nuggets from the study:

  • The Oakland Coliseum gets $1.2 million per year from the numerous billboards spread throughout the complex. That’s about as much money as they get from the A’s. FWIW, the Raiders pay a little more than a half million bucks to the Coliseum Authority annually.
  • Public support for user fees is as follows: Selling naming rights: 74%; Parking surcharge: 71%; Ticket surcharge: 57%; Arena fee on concessions: 57%
  • One assumed source of revenue is the sale of other various lands, including the Natomas site where ARCO/Power Balance currently sits and another city-owned Natomas site.
  • A remote source of financing being considered is called EB-5, or “green card” financing. It would provide a conditional green card to immigrants who invest at least $500k or $1 million dollars. The Atlantic Yards project was cited as an example, though the EB-5 financing was used for ancillary development, not Barclays Center. The EB-5 may be what attracts Filipino investor Manny V. Pangilinan, though as someone a little familiar with the immigration process, I have to say that people with money or business skills aren’t the ones who need help with green cards.

While I’m glad that Sacramento is going through the process (even if it eventually leads nowhere), I’m confounded that Oakland has not gone through even a tiny bit of this. Why not? The Bee’s Marcos Breton nails the similarity between Sacramento and Oakland:

One thing is certain: Sacramento does not have the corporate base to privately finance buildings, such as AT&T Park in San Francisco or the Staples Center in Los Angeles.

Sounds familiar, right? No number of cute T-shirts or banners hung from railings is going to take the place of real discourse over what Oakland needs to accomplish to retain both of its outdoor teams, let alone the Warriors. If Oakland is serious about getting something done it needs to have its adult conversation. Not lip service. Not a claim of getting an EIR done in a year and then not having a draft in nine months. Getting something big done starts with getting the little things done. And if you’re not having that dialogue with your citizens, you’re just avoiding the subject.

P.S. Of course, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson goes and blows away the adult conversation with an offhand comment about how Cowtown can support two teams, including a relocated A’s franchise.

09.19.11
by

Great America to be bought by group containing 49ers, will end lawsuit

If the 49ers couldn’t celebrate at the ‘Stick yesterday, at least they made a huge step towards celebrating every week in Santa Clara. According to the Merc’s Lisa Fernandez, a real estate firm partnering with a 49ers-controlled entity will buy Great America (the theme park assets not including the land) for $70 million. JMA Ventures, the lead in this purchase, is a 25-year old company backed by major private equity firms (Carlyle Group, Lehman, Morgan Stanley). They also own several properties throughout Northern California, from Tahoe ski resorts to SF restaurants. As for Cedar Fair, the squeaky wheel throughout all of this? They get cash to pay down debt.

This is a much better move than the 49ers buying the theme park outright, since they don’t have the expertise to do anything like operating a theme park. JMA Ventures would seem a more ideal partner, and at least at the outset they don’t appear to be interested in changing anything. Great America is on a weekends-only operating schedule until the end of October, when it closes to the public for the season. That should give JMA and the 49ers plenty of opportunity to take a look around and see what improvements could be made.

Could Great America close in the long run? I doubt it, since JMA is sinking $70 million into what is essentially a bunch of rides and games. Hopefully, they and the Niners can start working the channels with the NFL to integrate some sort of football theme into the park. That could go a long way towards making the Santa Clara stadium a much more cohesive experience for future Super Bowls, even if the stadium won’t have the retractable roof the league covets so much. Unfortunately, there isn’t much room to expand there as previous owners added water park features to Great America – features that won’t be useful in January/February.

Initially, I have a good feeling that JMA, a company geared around entertainment, will keep a local institution going while making it play nice with the 49ers. There’s that chance of integration with the stadium. If the two can enhance job opportunities in the area (even if they are low paying jobs, many of my immigrant relatives work there) it’s a win-win.

09.18.11
by

Bleacher seating clarification

This came this afternoon from A’s VP of Stadium Operations David Rinetti:

Rhamesis and Jennifer,

I am hopeful that both of you will use your means to send this message to all concerned A’s Bleacher patrons:

As you are all aware, we met with a small group of A’s regular Bleacher patrons a few days ago to discuss a potential change in policy. Our goal for this meeting was to try and come up with a solution to deal with the 200 or so complaints that we receive for every premium game in the Bleachers due to guests that show up without a place for their party to sit. Our hope was that we would work with the core group of Bleacher fans to create a way for them to purchase their regular seats in advance and even offer them incentives to do so. We have heard loud and clear from many of the Bleacher patrons through the various blogs and emails that there is clear opposition to this plan. Although some blogs and emails have accused the A’s of trying to alienate their fans, or that this was an intentional ploy by ownership to make things difficult for our Bleacher guests; this is very far from the truth. We were just looking for a way to improve customer service for our fans. Based upon the feedback that we have received, we will not be changing our policy in 2012. We will, however, aggressively monitor the Bleacher area for the premium games to make sure that all fans with Bleacher tickets can be seated.

We thank you all for your continued support of the Oakland A’s.

Respectfully,

David Rinetti
Vice President, Stadium Operations

That should settle it.

09.16.11
by

You mess with the bull, you get the horns

Update 9/18 3:00 PM: According to the Keep the Bleachers General Admission Facebook page, the A’s have done a 180 and reverted back to all General Admission seating in the Bleachers. Huzzah!

It seems as though I’m always in transit when news breaks. Anyway…

Word spread quickly today that, come 2012, the A’s are converting the Bleachers from general admission (no assigned seating) to assigned seating. As a guy who has taken in over 500 games in the Bleachers over the last 20 years, I have to say that I’m in shock. According to conversations with the ticketing office, the change was made because some season ticket holders in the Bleachers were upset that their seats were taken after family members briefly left the game action for a trip to the restroom. While this has happened occasionally for some of the higher attendance dates, I rarely saw this occur. Personally, I have to admit that I usually sat a few rows up instead of taking the prime “front row” seats on the rail in part to avoid the possibility, no matter how remote the chances.

I suppose it’s fitting that tonight’s fireworks show is Star Wars themed, making the bleacher creatures the rebel alliance and Lew Wolff, well, Emperor Palpatine. A few minutes ago I asked David Rinetti to comment on this via email. I’ll post a response if I get one. Update: response at the end of this post.

The obvious theory at this point has many already begrudged fans thinking that Wolff has done this out of spite in response to the at times numerous anti-Wolff posters along the RF rail. I can’t discount it. If the purpose is to motivate some of the protesters (many of whom are season ticket holders) to give up and stop going to A’s games (and thus stop the protests inside the Coliseum), it just might work. He and his staff must have calculated the bad PR they’d get from this and went with it anyway. Like the tarping of the upper deck, this may be a sort of ticketing experiment to see what the response from the fanbase will be. And when the outcry happens, they can point to it and say, “See, we can’t even make a change from a very outdated business model – general admission seating. How can the franchise survive like that?”

Of course, that ignores the decades of tradition of consumer-friendly general admission tickets, even though they are more expensive ($13) than both the Plaza Outfield ($9) and Value Deck ($12). It’s all about the freedom of GA. I could get there on a weeknight after work and sit in the 4th row above the 362′ mark just before the seating bowl bends into a very baseball-unfriendly angle. If not the 4th row, then the 5th. Or 6th. Chances are it was available, with no hassle from the ushers. Now that’s gone, just like my carefree youth.

One thing I never understood about the tarping change was the conversion of the Plaza Bleachers to assigned Plaza Outfield seating, while the regular Bleachers stayed GA. It would’ve made more sense then to convert the Bleachers to Outfield Reserved seating, while the Plaza Bleachers remained GA. Sure, it would have punished the old die-hards even earlier, but it would’ve at least retained GA elsewhere in the park. A better way to make the change would be to have either the left field or right field area remain general admission, while the other side could be converted into “family” assigned seating, sort of like what the Giants did when they remade the Pavilion stands at the ‘Stick almost 20 years ago. I’ve added myself to supporters of the new Keep the Bleachers General Admission Facebook group, and I hope others will too. This move seems drastic and unnecessary, especially at this stage of the A’s tenure in Oakland. If the A’s are going to move to San Jose eventually, why not let Oakland-only fans have at least a few of their beloved institutions? Better that than the continued scorched earth campaign.

P.S. I got Rinetti’s response just after I hit the Publish button. Here it is:

Thanks for your letter.  We are encountering significant ticketing issue on our premium games in which over 200 fans per game have bleacher seats and can’t find seats together or seats at all.  We have come up with a plan to take care of the regular bleacher guests and even provide them with a discount as long as they purchase their seats in advance.  The regular games that have plenty of open seating will not be an issue.  It will be the games vs. the Yankees, Giants, Red Sox and some of the fireworks shows.  If you would like to call me after Tuesday of next week, I can explain further. 

I think I’ll give Rinetti a call next week.

09.15.11
by

Unanimity

On March 11, Chuck Greenberg was ousted as Texas Rangers’ managing partner and CEO. Nolan Ryan was named CEO immediately thereafter, with the plan to become the managing partner down the road. Two months later on May 12, Ryan was approved as the Rangers’ managing partner by a 30-0 vote.

Just over six months after Greenberg’s ouster, the Giants were forced to announce managing partner Bill Neukom’s “retirement”. Mark Purdy reported that Larry Baer would be named CEO of the team, with someone else becoming managing partner. Purdy included three names as the possible next managing partner, including Franklin Templeton Chairman Charles Johnson, who appears to be the frontrunner among internal candidates (I’m not aware of any outside money coming in at this point, though Neukom said he will divest his share in the future). The Giants will need to address that hole at the top of the organization, since it’s the managing partner who represents the team on all relevant league matters, and a fairly important league matter is coming up in CBA negotiations. (The CEO title is entirely internal to the team organization.) Based on the lead time for the slam dunk approval for Ryan and the drawn out process for Jim Crane’s purchase of the Astros, approval of the Giants’ new managing partner candidate should take at least two months.

Now we all know how much Bud Selig, who gives the ultimate thumbs up or down on all ownership matters, likes consensus (or at least the appearance of it). He had no trouble rustling up the 30-0 yea for Ryan, since the fireballer has been a known quantity in baseball for over four decades and is not the type to rock the boat. He wants the same thing for the Astros, and he should get it for the Giants. Reservations about Crane’s previous business doings have tripped him up at least in some owners’ eyes. Just as reservations stand in the way for Crane, there could be at least one owner who stands in the way of 30-0 for the Giants: Lew Wolff.

Wolff has signaled on this site that he’s going to go along with whatever the Commissioner decides, so we can’t expect Grandpa Lew to pace outside Bud’s office wearing a sandwich board. Yet he doesn’t even need to formally verbalize his dissatisfaction regarding the Giants’ territorial rights stance in an owner’s meeting – everyone knows what he thinks and the threat he represents. This provides an opportunity – or rather, an excuse – to bring the two teams to the table to work things out. The Giants have the big holdout vote on the A’s moving to San Jose, and the A’s could be the dissenter in approving a new Giants managing partner. Obviously, the two decisions are not even in the same spectrum in terms of impact, but when you have a commissioner who strives for unanimity, even the smallest tensions can upset it. What’s a commissioner who normally sits on his hands to do? The last thing he needs is the appearance of disunity among his ranks, and a stalemate between the two Bay Area teams couldn’t come at a worse time, even if CBA negotiations are not expected to be particularly rancorous. Both the Dodgers and the Mets are on Lady Justice’s clock, which means no quick resolutions for either.

It’s unfortunate that the Giants chose to make this change now, before the season is officially over. They know that the CBA is coming up, they know that Wolff is looking for a crack in the door. They were probably looking to wait until after the big decisions were complete in November-December before they announced Neukom’s departure. Purdy foiled their plan with his reportage, and if it wasn’t for the very professional Giants media relations staff, he’d be persona non grata at AT&T Park. Nevertheless, that’s where we are now, and while it’s a leap to think that Wolff will aggressively pursue a course of action or lobby owners, that crack is there.

I’ll characterize Wolff’s chances at this point at 25-30% of getting what he wants, 50% of at least getting to the table. Considering where we’ve been for the last few years, I think he’ll take the odds every time.

09.14.11
by

Neukom out as Giants CEO

So there I was, trying to cheer myself after another A’s loss with a side trip to SF’s new high-tech grilled cheese joint The Melt, and I hear that Bill Neukom, he of the monopoly-defending ways (for both the Giants and Microsoft), has been ousted as CEO. “What the what?!?!” I thought.

Mark Purdy appears to have the best read on things. Whether Neukom was too profligate a spender or if his style rubbed the rest of the Giants executive committee the wrong way, it’s a shocking end to a tenure.

At this point it’s much too early to know how this is going to shake out for the A’s. Neukom may stay on in some capacity, and if it’s as some sort of legal counsel, there’s no reason to think the Giants will be even the slightest amount more flexible regarding territorial rights to Santa Clara County. Team President Larry Baer will take the reins, and he hasn’t exactly been friendly to the concept. In a similar manner, Texas Rangers managing partner Chuck Greenberg was deposed before the beginning of the season and subsequently replaced by Nolan Ryan.

Still, you have to think that with the brain-trust of the Giants so worried about spiraling payrolls despite consecutive sellout crowds and locked-in TV dominance, something has to give. Given Bud Selig’s generally laissez faire approach to managing owners and ownership groups, this has to be an internal struggle. Who knows, maybe T-rights is part of the discussion? I can’t see it being at the top of the priority list. Selig is probably watching closely to make sure that the Giants don’t turn into the Dodgers, and not much else.

09.11.11
by

Legislative and political flurry

A series of changes at Oakland City Hall and the State Capitol may portend well for Oakland’s chances to get either an A’s ballpark or Raiders stadium built. Or maybe not.

First up, newly hired Oakland City Administrator Deanna Santana, late of San Jose, made two key hires in poaching SJ Finance Director Scott Johnson and SF Redevelopment head Fred Blackwell to be Assistant City Administrators, each with different roles. Johnson will be tasked with the responsibilities you’d normally consider as part of a city manager/administrator role, such as finance/budget and labor relations. Meanwhile, Blackwell will be covering a redevelopment-oriented role. Scuttlebutt is that CEDA head Walter Cohen may be on his way out amidst “major changes” there. Could CEDA and ORA be headed for big time restructuring? It would make sense if they want to deal with next year’s budget deficit early. That shouldn’t mean bad things for the Victory Court EIR or the Raiders project since they’re already in the pipeline. It probably means there will be fewer resources for planning and future projects, both short and long-term.

Up in Cowtown, yet another bill (actually two) designed to bypass the CEQA process has made it through the Legislature. SB 292 (D-Padilla, San Fernando Valley) limits potential legal actions against LA Stadium/Farmers Field EIR by pushing challenges up to the State Court of Appeal, where cases could be expedited more quickly. This is important because it could save several months, maybe even a year by offering this kind of protection. The actual EIR review process will not be impacted in a major way, only the method for dealing with legal challenges. SB 292 only protects the Farmers Field project, so it isn’t helpful for either Oakland project, or others with already certified EIRs.

A companion bill, AB 900 (D-Steinberg, Los Angeles), could help Oakland. Initially meant as a companion for SB 292, AB 900 expands its coverage to large projects worth $100 million or more. Naturally, that would include any major stadium or arena project throughout the state, including either Oakland stadium, the Kings’ downtown arena in Sacramento, and others. AB 900 actually sets a time limit of 175 days for the Court of Appeal to issue a decision on any affected project after a party files a petition challenging said project. AB 900 will not become law unless SB 292 also is signed into law, so at this point everything rests with Governor Brown, on whose desk the two bills sit.

Brown may be of two minds on the bills. On one hand, he can’t be in love with the Legislature for flat out denying him on a multitude of tax extension requests, though he may be putting the blame on Republicans instead of his own party. And while he’s no proponent of stadium projects, in the case of these two bills there are no traditional public sources of funding being tapped, so he may be a little more amenable to signing these bills than he would for other deals. We’ll see shortly.

09.07.11
by

Is Crane approval on hold pending Astros move to AL?

FOX-26 in Houston is reporting that Jim Crane’s approval as the next owner of the Houston Astros may be awaiting Crane’s agreement to move to the American League. When the possibility surfaced in June, the thought was that realignment could be done, but would have to be studied to understand the effects on scheduling (both inter and intraleague) and the playoffs. It’s safe to say that if Selig is pushing this to happen, that study is complete. Crane doesn’t have a lot of choice in the matter, considering that he remains on the outside looking in. Of course, this would mean that interleague play would occur pretty much everyday during the baseball season.

Houston realignment to the American League

Maury Brown claims that Crane could use “denial” of the move as an excuse should he be denied the ownership stake, and that the excuse would paper over many of the other misgivings the other owners might have about Crane assuming control of the Astros. That’s plausible, but the easiest way for Selig to get some modest form of realignment, which is one of his pet causes, would be to use this as way to kill two birds with one stone: get realignment on the back of Drayton McLane selling the team. I sincerely doubt that Selig and the other owners have gotten religion and have decided to have more “upstanding citizens” within their ranks. None of the billionaires or multimillionaires have gotten to where they were by being nice guys (yes, I am including Lew Wolff). We’ll find out sometime before the end of the season what happens to Crane, to realignment and scheduling in the 2012 or future seasons, and hopefully this will get things rolling for the A’s as well.