Category Archives: Oakland

12.09.11
by

City of Oakland baseball announcement today

KQED’s Nina Thorsen passed this along to me earlier this morning:

NOON CITY OF OAKLAND TO MAKE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. OAKLAND MAYOR JEAN QUAN, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR FRED BLACKWELL EXPECTED TO ATTEND.

HEARING ROOM 4, SECOND FLOOR, OAKLAND CITY HALL, FRANK OGAWA PLAZA, OAKLAND

CONTACT: SUE PIPER (510) 238-7439 OR (510) 499-8933 CELLPHONE

Could it be the elusive EIR? An announcement in conjunction with MLB? To find out, I’ll be spending my lunch hour in Oakland.

Update 7:58 AM – The Trib has more on what appears to be a ditching of Victory Court for an alternative:

Quan is expected to discuss a plan for a redesigned Oakland Coliseum complex — Coliseum City — that could provide new homes for both the A’s and Golden State Warriors.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday that the Warriors have held discussions with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Giants CEO Larry Baer about building a new arena near AT&T Park. The Warriors also met with recently Quan about building a new arena at the current Coliseum, according to the Chronicle report.

Yikes. Coliseum City? What about the poor Raiders?

Update 11:54 AM – Running late thanks to a BART delay. Mobile apps not working the way I want. Unhappy Friday so far.

12.07.11
by

Reopening an old wound

Mark Purdy’s newest column revisits a fuzzy period when the halcyon days of the Haas era were ending, and East Bay looked to bring the Raiders back to Oakland.

Reinsdorf’s statement about Oakland, meanwhile, outlines a chapter of the A’s stadium pursuit that many East Bay citizens either forget or refuse to acknowledge. The chapter dates to 1994, not long after the Haas family sold the team to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann. The two men had big plans for remodeling the Coliseum into a fine baseball-only structure. They requested a meeting with the Coliseum commission.

“Here’s what we’d like to do,” Schott told the commission, outlining his remodeling ideas.

“That’s all very nice,” the commission replied, more or less. “But we have some news. The Raiders want to come back to Oakland, and we’ve got a financing plan to make it happen that will include building a new center field addition. You can’t fight this, because the important people in Oakland want it to happen and they’ll make it difficult on you if you try to get in the way.”

Schott and Hofmann acquiesced. From that moment forward, the A’s long-term future in Oakland was probably doomed. Years later, after Wolff and partner John Fisher bought the team, Wolff did assemble a new ballpark proposal near the Coliseum site. His plan involved mixed-use redevelopment and required Oakland’s assistance to acquire the necessary land. The project went nowhere when the city did not or could not cooperate. Wolff then looked south to Fremont and spent years on another failed plan before finally settling on San Jose as his last, not first, resort.

15-17 years doesn’t seem like that long ago. I have trouble remembering all of the details. Purdy’s account sounds roughly correct, though I’m not certain about how all of the dates fit together. There was a point after Schott’s proposal when the old Coliseum Commission came to an end in a political brouhaha, to be replaced by the Coliseum Authority (see “A Cup of Joe with the Georges” for George Vukasin Sr.’s take).

Fast-forward to last year, when the Coliseum Authority worked with the Raiders again on plans to redevelop the entire Coliseum area by constructing a new football stadium to replace the to-be-demolished old Coliseum. A proposal by Wolff when he worked for Schott and Hofmann went nowhere. I’m sure MLB cares not one whit about the apparent favorable treatment the Raiders repeatedly received over the A’s. It won’t affect their decision making at all. Water under the bridge, right?

12.06.11
by

Reinsdorf plays the heavy

Bulls/White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf has a unique bit of experience under his belt: he’s overseen the construction of a publicly-financed stadium (New Comiskey Park/US Cellular Field) and a privately-financed arena (United Center). He once played the I’ll-move-the-team-to-Tampa card with the White Sox and turned it into the birth of the new era of ballparks. He also has a reputation as a shrewd negotiator and plain talker. So I suppose it was not all that surprising that, when Susan Slusser and John Shea caught up with Reinsdorf at the Winter Meetings this week, he had a few choice words about the A’s situation.

Major-league owners can vote to overturn territorial rights, and recent signs point to a potential vote on the issue at the owners’ January meetings. The A’s will have at least one prominent backer in White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, a longtime friend of A’s owner Lew Wolff.

“I’m totally supportive of Lew getting a new ballpark and going to San Jose,” Reinsdorf said. “He needs to be there. It has to come to a head soon.

“Certainly, (the Coliseum is) past its time. In my opinion, Oakland’s past its time, too. Oakland’s had plenty of opportunity to build a stadium and hasn’t gotten it done.”

Within MLB, it’s been well known that Reinsdorf backs his buddy Lew Wolff, along with Commissioner Bud Selig. As a 30-year tenured owner and a member of MLB’s Executive Committee, he’s been known to have nearly as much sway as Selig. When it comes to rallying votes and gaining consensus, Selig and Reinsdorf should be able to pass just about anything, including a resolution to the A’s-Giants territorial rights battle. Will that actually happen? It sure looks that way, based on how Billy Beane’s practically gushing about it.

As for Reinsdorf’s quip about Oakland, that was just mean and unnecessary. Then again, this is the man who sided with Jerry Krause over Michael Jordan.

12.02.11
by

News for 12/2/11

Now that the tryptophan has worn off, we’re starting to get some news again.

  • Wolff Urban Development (Lew & Keith Wolff among others) is buying the Hotel Sainte Claire in downtown San Jose. The hotel, on the corner of Market and West San Carlos, is currently owned by Larkspur Hotels. Marin-based Larkspur dozens of other hotels throughout California, including the Larkspur Landing chain. Prior to Larkspur’s ownership, the Sainte Claire was part of the Hyatt chain. That’s all well and good now that the Wolffs will have three hotels in downtown (Fairmont, Hilton, Sainte Claire). The interesting scuttlebutt is that there may be some higher-ups at MLB that may be involved in the Sainte Claire purchase, perhaps with an eye towards revamping it so that it becomes the official hotel for MLB road teams. That would be a smart move, since right now the Hotel Valencia at Santana Row is eating their lunch in terms of attracting road teams (in this case, NHL squads). The Valencia is only slightly larger, but much newer than, the Sainte Claire, so the Wolffs will have to put a good amount of money into improvements to match or surpass the Valencia. SV/SJ Business Journal asked a consultant, Thomas Callahan of PKF Consulting, how much the Sainte Claire would cost. Callahan pegged the price at $34 million. (David Goll, Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal).
  • Staying downtown, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed may be able to avoid a divisive budget battle with public employees unions thanks to new, lower pension cost projections that cut next year’s budget deficit in half, from $80 million to $40 million. Reed will argue that the projections are a one-time reprieve and that more fundamental changes are required, but this news will certainly make his case look weaker, especially because the unions appear to be offering concessions that will bridge that $40 million and more beyond the next budget year.
  • Moving to a mayor with a different set of concerns, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan’s supporters held a press conference yesterday that may have actually been a proactive rally against a recall petition effort, which is expected to begin next week. So that’s the point when Mayor Quan starts getting proactive. (Matthai Kuruvila, Matier and Ross, SFGate)
  • Meanwhile, a few A’s players have been making the rounds within the community. First it was Jemile Weeks and Tyson Ross at the Alameda County Food Bank on Wednesday, followed by the annual A’s Community Fund Holiday Party on Thursday. (Jane Lee, MLB.com)
  • A ceremonial groundbreaking at New York’s Willets Point (outside Citi Field) kicks off a $50 million redevelopment plan that will surely gentrify that part of Queens. (Nicholas Hirshon, NY Daily News)
  • Historical footnote: the New York Post revealed that prior to building the original Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, the pinstripers were looking for a stadium on 42nd Street in Manhattan. Now that would’ve been different. (David K. Li, NY Post)
  • In what may be the start of a trend, the New England Patriots and Miami Dolphins are pursuing development of casinos within shouting distance of their respective stadia. (Douglas Hanks, Miami Herald)
  • Ed Roski’s Majestic Realty (of the City of Industry NFL plan) and UNLV are still working on a new arena/stadium deal. (Paul Takahashi, Las Vegas Sun)
  • Magic Johnson is teaming up with Stan Kasten as part of a group bidding on the Dodgers. (Bill Shaikin and Bill Plaschke, LA Times)

More as it comes.

11.22.11
by

Big market, low budget

In February I wrote about a potential revenue sharing rollback in the new MLB collective bargaining agreement. While today’s joint announcement didn’t produce a percentage rollback (or contraction for that matter), there is a sort of rollback coming for revenue sharing. And the way it’s constructed, it’s targeted at one team in particular – the Oakland Athletics. Here’s the relevant text (courtesy of The Biz of Baseball):

IV.. REVENUE SHARING

a. The net transfer value of the Revenue Sharing Plan will be the same as the current plan. Net transfer amounts will continue to grow with revenue and changes in disparity.

b. The fifteen Clubs in the largest markets will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing by 2016. The revenue sharing funds that would have been distributed to the disqualified Clubs will be refunded to the payor Clubs, except that payor Clubs that have exceeded the CBT threshold two or more consecutive times will forfeit some or all of their refund.

c. The Commissioner’s Discretionary Fund will increase from $10 to $15 million per year.

Again, no percentage rollback (A). It’s item B that has enormous implications for big market teams. The revised revenue sharing system effectively shuts the big market teams out of the program by the end of the CBA, gradually losing 25% of any revenue sharing receipt annually until 2016 when it’s eliminated entirely. The Bay Area is the #4 media market and is #6 in population, so neither Bay Area team would be eligible for revenue sharing in the future. Sounds like a deadline and a decision for the A’s, right?

Not so fast. SI is reporting that a provision in the new CBA allows the A’s continue on revenue sharing past 2016 if there is no resolution. So what does this all mean?

The A’s are in a unique and unenviable position among the 30 MLB franchises. They are both a big market team and a low budget team. In the long run, they can’t be both. No other big market team operates on revenue sharing, year after year. When Lew Wolff and I talked two years ago, I mentioned that the A’s were the only two team market where one franchise pays into revenue sharing while the other receives it. He replied that he hadn’t heard the Giants-A’s dynamic phrased in such a manner. I joked that he could take that up to the league office if he wanted at no charge.

MLB appears to be taking the steps to ensure that the A’s are positioned to become a full-fledged big market team. Getting a stadium deal in place is only the first step. Vastly improved media and sponsorship deals are just as important. That doesn’t mean the A’s will reach the Red Sox or even the Giants in terms of revenue, but if they can achieve the medium revenue levels of the Nationals or White Sox, they’d be considered self-sufficient. Both Wolff and Billy Beane are aware of this.

One explanation for the provision may be that the A’s might not be able to open a new ballpark in San Jose until after 2016, though there has been no indication that this is the case. If Wolff isn’t given the go-ahead to move to San Jose, there’s no telling what will happen down the road. It should set up the A’s for a sale at some point. The problem with this is that we know that an Oakland-based buyer with knowledge of the area’s low revenue generation would have to buy the team at a discount, whereas other buyers looking to move the team elsewhere would be willing to pay full price. Hopefully it never gets to that point. MLB is not going to approve Oakland’s continued stay on welfare. They’ll move the team out of the area instead.

11.21.11
by

Summing it up (with Slusser update)

Mark Purdy takes all of the stuff we’ve learned over the past couple of weeks and neatly summarizes it, with a few more tidbits thrown in for good measure.

  • The January owners meetings will by January 11-12.
  • Lew Wolff says that he has not been any discussions about selling the team.
  • San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed craps all over Oakland’s plans (such as they are).

I get the feeling that a lot of San Jose boosters are very excited this holiday season. Their gift will have to wait until after the New Year.

Updated 11/22 1:30 AM – Susan Slusser also adds to the story, describing Wolff’s trip to Scottsdale to meet with Selig two weeks ago. This time, Billy Beane was reportedly on board. Here’s the sure-to-be-controversial bit:

Oakland lost money last season for the first time this century, with an expected shortfall of several million dollars, according to Beane. The team is consistently a recipient of $20 million or more in revenue sharing, and Oakland’s attendance actually went up in 2011, but the payroll also went up $15 million, from $52 million to $67 million.

In past years, when the A’s were clearly out of contention close to the non-waiver trade deadline, the team’s modus operandi was often to sell off players. Part of the reasoning was to get young players (probably with little-to-no service time), part of it was to dump salary. 2011 was different in that despite the team was mired near the cellar for much of the second half, yet Beane and David Forst did not sell off Josh Willingham, Coco Crisp, or any of the starting staff. The only notable trades were of Brad Ziegler and Mark Ellis, and in Ellis’s situation the A’s actually sent the Rockies a little cash to make the deal work. While it would make sense to hold onto Willingham if they weren’t receiving anything they wanted in trade, if they held on they’d potentially get a first round or sandwich pick as compensation when some other team signed Willingham.

By not trading any of the veteran free-agent-to-be outfielders (Willingham, Crisp, Matsui), the A’s kept $3-6 million on the payroll. That’s probably the difference between breaking even and losing money in 2011, if Beane is to be believed. Keep in mind how this works from an accounting standpoint: unlike moneymaking teams who get virtually all of their revenues either in advance or throughout the course of the season, the A’s revenue sharing check only comes in December, well after the season is over. They and the other have-not teams don’t consider the revenue sharing receipt as part of their P&L because it’s not there when it can make a big impact. (No, the check is not going to impress Scott Boras if Beane calls about Prince Fielder.) On the other hand, it has a short-term turbo-boost effect on teams that recently opened or are about to open new ballparks, since those teams can get both the receipt for the past season and higher projected revenues for the first season in the new park.

Did Beane and Wolff hold onto to the outfielders in order to prove a point to Selig and MLB? That the M.O. of the past decade(s) was untenable in the long run, while bucking the trend doesn’t work in the short term? Surely they must have realized that Type B compensation was going away – it was talked about throughout the season – so why keep David DeJesus? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if this was planned, given the current spending freeze until a resolution to the stadium problem is found. It reminds me of that silly fake-to-third-throw/fake-to-first play. It’s plainly obvious what’s happening and it elicits a chorus of boos. Once in a while it actually works.

11.19.11
by

Rosenthal has scoop on San Jose (Updated with analysis)

Read Fox Sports baseball writer Ken Rosenthal’s new article on A’s-to-San Jose move developments, then check back here for analysis and discussion.

The big stuff from Rosenthal:

  • MLB wants a larger seating capacity than 32,000. FWIW, last year I explained how the A’s could get up to either 36,000 or 38,000 by simply adding four rows to one or both seating levels.
  • Selig supposedly warned Wolff that $180 million precluded a move to the South Bay. First, take a look at the chart of recent franchise sales I posted last May. Then consider two takeaways from this: 1) Wolff may have to pay compensation to enter Santa Clara County even if he disagrees with it, 2) An Oakland or East Bay-based A’s automatically has a depressed value, as was speculated when Steve Schott lacked interest in Uptown. How does MLB reconcile those two problems, which are clearly related?
  • The usual back-and-forth between Wolff and critics, and the Giants’ continued intransigence.
  • MLB could explore the Montreal option and buy the club and resell when they get a stadium deal and a buyer for the team. Of course, that only hastened the Expos’ departure from Montreal. Also, MLB has to know by now that $500 million for an Oakland ballpark with the economic and political climate in California is going to be more than a little difficult. It goes back to bullet point #2 above: if MLB and prospective owners know that Oakland and the East Bay are limited in terms of revenue generation, what is the financial incentive to build there? How does that help the franchise or MLB for that matter?
  • There’s a claim that the Giants would have to hit 3.2 million in attendance in order to “break even” with a projected $130 million payroll in 2012. That’s a curious point, and one I’d ascribe to a talking point from someone in the Giants, until I looked at the numbers. This past season, the Giants hit a $114 million payroll figure on $230 million in revenue (49.5%). Historically, the Giants have been at around 52-53% of revenue over the course of the last CBA, though in 2008 they hit 56%. That’s probably their upper limit, and $130 million in payroll would speak to that unless they got some new revenue stream out of nowhere. Or unless someone took some dead weight contracts off their hands.

All of the things I’ve been hearing leading up to the owners meetings is that some sort of resolution is due as soon as January. Rosenthal’s article certainly supports this, and actually gives a tiny amount of credence to the idea that Selig is being thorough. (Imagine that?) The path to resolution, as described by Rosenthal, is not the easiest to negotiate.

That’s a lot to take in for a lazy Saturday afternoon. I’ll be off to a birthday party soon, so my contributions to the comments thread may be limited the rest of the day. I’ll still check in every so often, so behave yourselves.

Added 4:20 PM – The Merc’s Scott Herhold picks apart the San Jose ballpark land deal, calls critics “short-sighted”.

11.18.11
by

Checking the couch for loose change

Mary Ann Azevedo of the SV/SJ Business Journal has the news (print version) that the San Jose Redevelopment Agency is using proceeds from the summer sale of various downtown properties to pay off lingering and pressing debts, instead of using the money to pay for ballpark land.

The numbers paint an interesting picture:

  • Sale proceeds are around $19.9 million, which is less than the $25 million SJRA and the City expected to get when the properties went up for bidding early in the year.
  • The discount on the five acres of ballpark land is $19 million, based on the combined original purchase price for the various properties and not accounting for inflation.

It would seem that if the A’s paid the full $25 million for the land, it would help the City further service agency debt while also countering a criticism that that Lew Wolff is getting a plum deal. Even if the A’s paid $12 million more, which would be the appraised “ballpark purpose” market value, it would significantly dull the chief argument by ballpark opponents.

Of course, it’s easy to say the A’s should keep piling on the dollars since it’s their money. They’re only footing the bill for the rest of the land and relocation costs, infrastructure improvements (in all likelihood), and the cost of ballpark itself. By my math the cost of the entire project, including land, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $550 million. If the City continues to provide the $19 million discount on less than half the ballpark land, the A’s and Wolff are paying for 96.5% of the entire project along with 100% of stadium construction cost. There’s no other public-private funding mix in recent history that comes close to this. By comparison, AT&T Park’s public-private mix was roughly 80-20 ($357 privately financed construction, $90 million in publicly-financed land, infrastructure, and tax abatement). FYI, the best deal in all of North American pro sports over the last 30 years is probably the late Bill Davidson’s The Palace of Auburn Hills.

Even with the land sale, SJRA is not in the clear. The fate of the agency lies in the California Supreme Court, where the Justices are expected to decide how redevelopment will be formed moving forward.

Meanwhile, Oakland continues to pursue redevelopment despite impending doom. It’s spending nearly $8 million to spruce up the aging Convention Center. The Port of Oakland, in conjunction with the City, is applying for a $40 million grant to transform the Oakland Army Base into a “trade and logistics center.” I’m sure the pollution-plagued residents of West Oakland are in love with that idea.

11.03.11
by

Buster Olney is not all sunshine and roses

During this afternoon’s installment of The Drive with Brandon Tierney and Eric Davis, ESPN’s Buster Olney showed up for a segment on baseball and hot stove action. Among the talk of free agents was a discussion between the three about the state of your Oakland Athletics. As with the Wolff interviews, I’ve taken the time to transcribe the 5+ minute discussion. This time I won’t provide any commentary. I’ll leave that to you in the comments. Keep in mind that this was Tierney and Davis asking Olney on his opinion about the franchise, so do not take it as gospel. Instead, consider it simply as the view of a prominent national baseball writer who is not known for mincing words. Also, remember that Olney’s musing last year got the ball rolling on the Wolff-to-Dodgers rumor. That’s how powerful his word is.

Without further ado:

Davis: Things are just dire. They’re a mess over in Oakland.

Olney: Terrible.

Davis: It’s horrible over there. What do you hear that they’re willing to do in baseball to help this club?

Olney: Well, the Athletics continue to be strung along with the hope that they’ll eventually end up with a ballpark in San Jose. Here’s the thing. They started that Blue Ribbon panel 2 1/2 years ago, that’s 1 1/2 years longer than it took the Warren Commission to issue its report on the Kennedy assassination.

Davis/Tierney: *chuckle*

Olney: The bottom line is that they haven’t gotten any kind of traction from MLB. Now the Dodger situation is getting settled. The labor agreement is getting settled. Maybe at some point soon the Athletics – who to me right now have less hope than any organization in baseball – they are rotting. Maybe if those things get settled out that’s when you’ll see MLB go to the Giants and say, “Look, we need to talk. We need to figure out a way where you get the Oakland territory and Oakland gets San Jose.”  That way they can have a future. Right now the Athletics have no future and that’s why Josh Willingham is leaving and their other free agents are leaving, and they’re really not going to step in and do anything about it because their future is so uncertain.

Tierney: I’ll tell you. It is sad and I think you lay it out well. Willingham, there’s no doubt that he’s gone. DeJesus, Matsui, Coco Crisp. I guess the question is besides Jemile Weeks and Pennington who do we even know on the team next season?

Olney: And the pitchers.

Tierney: Yeah.

Olney: The problem is now though is that let’s say that midway through next year baseball stepped in and said, “Guess what? You get a stadium in San Jose.” All these pitchers they developed, the Trevor Cahills, the Brett Andersons, Gio Gonzalez. By the time they actually break ground and make progress and starting building that park those guys are going to be trade bait.

Tierney: That’s true.

Olney: They’re gonna have to move them out of there because they’re not gonna keep them around, and they’re not gonna sign them to long term deals. It’s really a sad situation.

Tierney: …Lew Wolff, where does he rank in terms of wealth amongst owners? I’m just trying to connect the dots here.

Olney: He’s got wealth – and I’ve always believed this – for example, when people rip the fans in Tampa Bay for not going seeing the Rays. My feeling is those people who live there, they made that decision based on their information. And I don’t blame them. If they don’t think it’s convenient, they don’t think it’s attractive, they’re not obligated to watch their games. I think in the same realm I don’t think Lew Wolff is obligated to pour his money down a hole. The history of Oakland Athletics, whether anyone likes it or not, they cannot draw there. They didn’t draw there with Reggie Jackson. They didn’t draw there with the late Billy Martin’s teams. They didn’t draw there for the Dennis Eckersley teams, the Tony LaRussa teams. They don’t draw now. I think you’ve got a lot of history which tells you that site and that place is a loser if you’re the Oakland Athletics.

Tierney: Wow. *laughs* That is just desperation mode.

Other than personal attacks, anything in that discussion is fair game in the comments. Keep it clean.

Have a nice weekend, everyone?

10.30.11
by

News for 10/30/11

A few newsbytes as the week begins:

  • Matier and Ross report that the 49ers are gunning for a 2014 opening of the Santa Clara stadium, even though the finances – especially the stadium builder licenses – aren’t ironed out yet.
  • One of the reasons the CEQA/EIR process exists in California is that municipalities and citizens can identify issues that need to be addressed and take care of them early. In Miami, the Marlins ballpark is being built with no significant new transit infrastructure in an area that desperately needs it. The Orange Bowl/Little Havana neighborhood is at least 2,000 spaces short of what should be supplied for a full house, and on-site parking totals well less than 5,000 spaces. The nearest Metrorail station is almost a mile away, and shuttles to take fans from that station and other parts of Miami are currently unfunded.
  • Speaking of transit, the California High Speed Rail project will face renewed scrutiny with the release of an updated (and final) business plan on Tuesday. The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg paints a pessimistic view, as federal funding has dried up and has made continuation of the project an extremely difficult decision. So far, $650 million has been spent on planning and engineering studies.
  • Side note: If HSR goes down in flames, the combined cost of that project and the shuttered Solyndra plant in Fremont would be $1.1 Billion. That would pay for the 49ers stadium and change, or an A’s ballpark in Oakland/San Jose and a Sacramento Kings arena. Before you scoff, know that the total annual revenue for just the NFL and MLB combined ($16 Billion) surpasses that of the movie industry – box office and DVD sales – on an annual basis ($15 Billion).
  • Not only are the Scranton-Wilkes Barre Yankees forced to spend the year barnstorming while their ballpark is renovated, they won’t be able to keep the Yankees team name in the future. The Yankees brand is to be exclusive to the club in the Bronx. The same will go for all of the other Yankees minor league affiliates. Way to keep it in the family, Steinbrenners.
  • Commissioner Bud Selig may have to determine the proper compensation for the Red Sox allowing Theo Epstein to escape to the Cubs, since the two teams can’t come up with mutually agreeable terms on their own.
  • Wondering if Selig will actually retire after his contract ends in 2012? The establishment of an office at his old alma mater in Madison might be the ticket. Selig apparently wants to write his memoirs and participate in the history department at Wisconsin, including the hiring of a professor to teach the history of sports.
  • In addition to Selig’s endowed chair, three members of The Lodge (baseball team owners) also set up a scholarship in the names of Selig and his wife, Suzanne, as part of the university’s Great People Scholarship program. The owners? Three who are incredibly indebted and linked to Selig: fraternity brother Lew Wolff, current Brewers owner Mark Attanasio (who bought the team from a trust headed by Selig’s daughter), and Red Sox co-owner Tom Werner (who was a major beneficiary of the three way Boston-Florida-Montreal ownership swap deal). What do you get for a man who has everything? A scholarship in his name, of course! Now that’s a going away present.
  • One thing to keep in mind regarding Occupy Oakland: the horrific injury suffered by Iraq War veteran and Wisconsin native Scott Olsen will almost assuredly result in a lawsuit against Oakland/OPD, one which is not likely to come out well for the City. Whenever that judgement is rendered, it’ll be more money that Oakland simply doesn’t have for projects such as an Oakland ballpark.
  • On the bright side, the Oakland Tribune and other local papers will keep their names after all.
  • Tony LaRussa goes out on top.

Good stuff to come later in the week.