Category Archives: Oakland

11.18.10
by

It’s good hittin’ weather


It’s the halfway point of the NFL season, which means that football is completely dominating the sports world. The NFL Network had its first Thursday night broadcast of the season, and two college football games will be played in MLB ballparks this weekend: Illinois-Northwestern at Wrigley Field, and Army-Notre Dame at Yankee Stadium. The Yankee Stadium football layout is from home plate to centerfield, making seats at the 50-yard line no great shakes. Wrigley Field is much more interesting, as it orients the gridiron much like AT&T Park but with less space to accomplish the task.

Source: Yahoo

Those drag routes across the back of the end zone are sure to be exciting. Update 11/20 – Big Ten officials and the teams’ head coaches had a pow-wow and decided to disuse the east end zone shown above. Instead, both teams will drive toward the safer west end zone when on offense. Bizarre.

Over in Philly, the Eagles are doing something really cool – they’re taking their home stadium, Lincoln Financial Field, off the power grid. To achieve this, 80 wind turbines and 2,500 solar panels will be installed. As large as that is, those renewable energy sources will only provide 15% of the expected output, while a plant that burns either natural gas or biofuels will handle the rest. Still, it’s an admirable effort and something the A’s should look to duplicate – at least the wind/solar part. The Giants, of course, were the first to cover their roof with solar panels. Less than a mile east of the Diridon site, Adobe placed several wind turbines within its building complex.

Enough of the feel-good. Let’s get back to greed business.

  • AEG’s Tim Leiweke wants the citizens of the Southland to believe that a downtown LA football stadium can be built without parking. And that it’ll cost only $725 million. With a retractable roof.
  • As for possible tenants in such a stadium, the Chargers can pay a set amount each year to get out of the team’s lease at Qualcomm Stadium. The amount decreases every year for the next decade.
  • Apparently the NFL is willing to go to any length to get the Falcons out of the 18-year old Georgia Dome. The argument this time: the Dome prevents the Super Bowl from being played in “the elements” as it should. WHA?!?!?!
  • Oriole Park at Camden Yards, which is rapidly approaching its 20th year in service, is ready to undergo a series of improvements, including the removal of more than 2,000 seats, replacement of the existing seats with wider ones, and a drop in the number of luxury suites, from 72 to 50. The O’s are also changing their concessionaire from oft-criticized giant Aramark to Delaware North.
  • Perhaps emboldened by winning a public battle to get Mesa, AZ to pay for a new facility to replace HoHoKam Park, Cubs owner Tom Ricketts has his hands out for $200-300 million in TIF-financed renovations to Wrigley Field. Unlike most TIF financing structures that we’re familiar with in California, the money wouldn’t come from property taxes. Instead, funds to pay back the loans would come from a portion of the ticket taxes currently paid on tickets to Cubs games. The “amusement tax” would be frozen would be frozen at 12%, and planned raises to the tax would pay back the loans. Aside from the even more expensive tickets to come, it’s not an entirely bad idea since the Cubs are as consistent in terms of attendance as any team in baseball.
  • TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha is nearly 80% finished and on schedule for hosting the 2011 College World Series. The 24,000-seat, $128 million stadium looks like a smaller version of the redone Kauffman Stadium, which is a good thing.
  • Drayton McLane is trying to sell the Astros for $800 million, including a stake in CSN Houston.
  • According to AOL Fanhouse’s Jeff Fletcher, nothing happened this week at the November winter meetings regarding the A’s. Wait a few weeks, perhaps.
  • Speaking of being emboldened, Bryan Grunwald has an editorial at SFGate touting his 980 Deck ballpark plan. Will anyone listen?
  • The Trib comes out in favor of Victory Court, saying, “This is a great jumping off point for newly elected Mayor Jean Quan. She has to be all-in for this project and she must convince city leaders to do the same.”
  • Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is still trying (in vain?) to get some kinda of arena deal done that would keep the Kings in town. A meeting today marks the one year anniversary of an arena task force assembled to work a complex land swap that fizzled two months ago.
  • A report commissioned by the SF Board of Supervisors estimates the cost of hosting the 2013 America’s Cup at $42 million, plus $86 million in forgone revenue caused by giving development rights to whomever fixes up Piers 30/32 for the event. Race organizers and other business interests have pledged up to $32 million to help defray the cost. In the sports world, that sounds like an incredible deal.

If there’s anything else about venues worth including, send it in.

11.16.10
by

Not so breaking news

The EIR Notice of Preparation is here. Guidelines for the CEQA (EIR) process can be found here.

The informal selection of Victory Court as the preferred ballpark site has been the worst kept secret in Oakland for several weeks now, and we’ve known about the Planning Commission meeting since last week. So why are the regular media choosing to cover it now (EBX/Trib)? Must be a slow news day.

Still, there are a few takeaways, and credit goes to Robert Gammon in that regard. Mostly, they have to do with Mayor-elect Jean Quan’s view of the project, which is more meaningful than anything any other Oaklander, elected or not, has to say on it.

  • MLB’s commission wants a ballpark done for Oakland in time for Opening Day 2015. This is reasonable considering the normal 18-24 month EIR lead time, which could actually go longer because of Oakland’s recent history with large project EIR’s. Given Lew Wolff’s admission that he has been denied further extensions to the Coliseum lease, it leads to wondering about how a gap between the end of the 2013 season and the start of the 2015 season would play out. Is Oakland holding that extra year as leverage with the idea of pushing MLB in its direction? Is MLB entertaining Oakland’s bid in order to secure that extra year or perhaps more if necessary? Beyond those two parties, there are even more interesting questions. If the Raiders secure their own Coliseum stadium deal, won’t that impact an A’s 2014 year in the Coliseum, and vice-versa?
  • Quan said she also believes a new ballpark at Victory Court will help businesses in closeby Chinatown and could provide the impetus for a new hotel/convention center. It’s strange that the big unifying development strategy for all of downtown Oakland is a ballpark. It makes sense for a ballpark to be a major attraction, but the linchpin? That doesn’t make sense. However, that’s the direction that Oakland is moving towards with this hole-in-the-donut strategy. What if the ballpark doesn’t pan out? That doesn’t mean that Oakland will be ready to go with Plan B, whatever that is. It’s one thing for corporate interests to help pay for a ballpark. That’s not going to happen with a convention center complex. Those projects are usually 100% public/redevelopment funded. From a purely numbers/potential standpoint, a ballpark makes sense because it’s essentially “free” money and buzz, especially if the financing part can be worked out. Something else in the ballpark’s place could take many more years to get going.
  • Quan believes that the only way Major League Baseball would turn down Wolff and Fisher’s request to move the team to San Jose is if the City of Oakland shows that it has a viable plan for a new A’s ballpark and that city leadership is committed to making it happen. If true, this spawns a number of new questions about MLB’s timeframe. Will they set a hard date to complete the EIR and land acquisitions? Will MLB set targets or milestones for the project? What if Oakland doesn’t meet those milestones, or new challenges or opposition shows up? Could MLB create for itself an easy out if things aren’t going well? What constitutes fair or unfair is almost entirely subjective.
  • In another Gammon article about Quan, it was noted that as part of Quan’s “Not Don” campaign, a mailer “repeatedly pounded Perata for the Oakland Raiders deal, a financial debacle that will end up costing East Bay taxpayers more than $600 million. At least two mailers, showed a mostly empty Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, with the message: ‘Thanks, Don.’ ”  The challenge for Quan is to show that she can more competently get a stadium deal done than Perata. The key to this is transparency at every stage of the process. Since the original four sites in May were whittled to one with no public vetting and at least a few commenters will chime in on 12/1 with their own recommendations, it’ll be fascinating to see how the preferred site and alternatives are handled. Will all buildable sites have to be included in the EIR? What if the EIR actually recommends a different alternative to Victory Court (unlikely but still)? The dagger in the Fremont plan was the abrupt change from Pacific Commons to Warm Springs, with no public input beforehand. In San Jose, the Diridon site was not the frontrunner at the outset and only became the preferred site over time. From a selling the public standpoint, how warm are the citizens of Oakland to any stadium deal, even one that has the team picking up the entire construction tab? We’ve seen a Facebook group, we have yet to see a single poll on the subject.

While we’re waiting for the process to kick off, I’ve found a couple of nuggets that might be helpful. First up, a cursory look at the California EPA’s Cortese list shows that none of the parcels at Victory Court fall under brownfield or contaminated status.

victory-ct-project-area

Source: Project EIR Notice of Preparation

One of the more curious aspects of the project is the land grouping, including the Laney College parking lot. While it makes sense for the ballpark to use the Laney lot as part of its parking infrastructure, it’s also quite possible that like the Diridon plan, there could be no parking at the ballpark at all. If there’s no parking at the ballpark, there’s also less environmental impact from the ballpark. That doesn’t mean that the 880 on/off-ramps won’t need improvements, but it could mean that the cost for those improvements won’t be as severe as they could be. Instead, fans would be encouraged to park at Laney (expanded or not), downtown, or at JLS. It’s only one of many details that will have to be addressed as part of the process.

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.

11.11.10
by

Oakland Planning Commission Meeting 12/1

As FSU pointed out at AN, there is a Planning Commission Meeting on December 1st to take initial comments about a ballpark project at Victory Court. The mandatory Notice of Preparation was filed yesterday. Here are the details:

5. Location: Multiple parcels located east of Oak Street to the Lake Merritt channel between I-880 and Embarcadero. Including the Laney College parking lot north of I-880 and a city owned parcel south of Embarcadero.

Assessor Parcel Numbers: 000O-0455-004-04; -009-03; -004-02; -15-02; 000O-0440-004-03; -003-01; -002-00; -001-00; -007-00; -009-03; -012-00; -005-00; -006-00; 000O-0435-001-00; -003-00; -005-01; -002-01; -010-06; -007-03; -010-04; 000O-0430-001-04; 000O-0445-012-02

Proposal: The Project consists of a new ballpark of up to 39,000 seats, located east of Fallon Street, and adjacent development in the project area including up to 180,000 square feet of retail, up to 540,000 square feet of office, up to 700 residential units and approximately 2,500 off-street parking spaces. The proposal may include the potential for land acquisition and include the extension of 4th, 3rd, and 2nd Streets to Fallon Street and the development of new open space adjacent to the Lake Merritt Channel.

Applicant: City of Oakland/ Oakland Redevelopment Agency

Contact Person/Phone Number: Gregory Hunter / (510)238-2992

Owner: Multiple Private and Public owners

Case File Number: ER10-0002

General Plan: Estuary Plan Area – Mixed Use; Central Business District; Estuary Plan Area – Parks

Zoning: M-20, Light Manufacturing Zone CBD-X, Central Business District Mixed Commercial Zone S-2, Civic Center Zone S-4, Design Review Combining Zone OS (RSP), Open Space Zone – Regional Open Space

Environmental Determination: Staff has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) willbe prepared for this project. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) toprepare the EIR was published on November 10, 2010. The comment period for the NOP ends on December 9, 2010.

Historic Status: The project site does not contain any historic properties

Service Delivery District: Metro

City Council District: 3

Action to be Taken: Receive public and Commission comments about what information and analysis should be included in the EIR. No decisions on the project will be made at this hearing.

For Further Information: Contact case planner Peterson Z. Vollmann at (510) 238-6167 or by email: pvollman@oaklandnet.com.

Note that in addition to the 39,000-seat ballpark, a large amount of ancillary development is scoped out including 180,000 square feet of retail and 540,000 square feet of office space. I have not yet found the NOP on the City’s website, I’ll post it as soon as I get it. Not to be forgotten, Let’s Go Oakland head Doug Boxer is the Chair of the Planning Commission.

I’ll be in the house. December 1st, 6 PM @ Oakland City Hall Hearing Room 1.

11.11.10
by

QUAN!!!!!!

.

I wanted to Photoshop in Don Perata's face in but couldn't find a suitable image.

Congratulations to Jean Quan, Mayor-elect of the City of Oakland. She’s the first Asian American female mayor among the Bay Area’s big cities, which is a huge achievement in and of itself. Now comes the hard part. Update 11/11 12:00 PM: Don Perata has chosen not to contest the election results.

Aside from budgetary concerns including a coming showdown with the police union, Quan’s biggest initial task will be to hire a competent, forward-thinking City Administrator to replace Dan Lindheim, the former CEDA head who has promised to stay on until a replacement if found and has essentially been a two-year acting administrator. As I understand it, Lindheim and other Oakland officials have done the necessary legwork to get information prepared for MLB’s panel. It’s difficult to assess City beyond that since there hasn’t been an official ballpark effort yet. Should that occur, it’ll be up to Lindheim’s replacement and CEDA’s Walter Cohen (or whomever replaces him) to push the process. After all, guys as gung-ho as Robert Bobb don’t grow on trees.

I discussed this further at AN yesterday:

1. One of the things that doesn’t get talked about is that there has been a severe brain drain in Oakland gov’t in recent years. Whether some of these people deserved to be employed is for another discussion, but from a practical standpoint, someone tenured and respected that isn’t an elected official will have to carry the water for a ballpark project. I have no idea who that person is.

If a ballpark process is to move forward (and with some alacrity), the ballpark champion will have to be found right quick. It’s possible that one of the reasons a plan hasn’t been cemented is the lack of a champion. The right person may be Planning guru Eric Angstadt, who deftly handled questions at the May 1st Community Meeting. Of course, if MLB makes a move towards San Jose in December it’s likely that a ballpark champion/new administrator will not have been hired yet. Regardless, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have someone willing to push for the A’s – as long as it doesn’t hurt day-to-day responsibilities – in place just in case San Jose falls through.

11.10.10
by

New Wolff Interview on AN

If you haven’t seen it already, go to Athletics Nation (Happy 7th Birthday) and read Blez’s interview with Lew Wolff, Part 1. It brings us up-to-date on where we stand and may answer a few – but obviously not all – questions you may have about the process. I prefer to leave the discussion there as it’s already quitely lively, but if you have any questions that I may be able to provide some clarification, shoot here and I’ll give it a shot. Jeffrey’s been in the comments thread there, so have at it.

Speaking of Jeffrey, he recorded a take on the Giants’ WS win for KQED Perspectives. I can safely say that we’re in the same boat, even the Giants fan Uncle Larry part.

Part 2 of the AN-Wolff Interview is up. In it, Wolff addresses whether or not Fremont was merely a ruse, his own performance as owner, and several other topics. Part 3 is tomorrow.

I’m planning on writing a response post tomorrow after Part 3.

11.07.10
by

It’s like clockwork

It’s been about 3 months since the last time Dave Newhouse ripped Lew Wolff, so you had to figure it was time for Newhouse to drop another diatribe. It starts out by calling Wolff a liar, then the usual bid for canonization of Wally Haas, then a carpetbagger tag for good measure.

That union led to something beautiful — three straight World Series, 2.9 million attendees one season and a community bonding second to none in baseball.

Yes, the same community bonding that made attendance in the strike-shortened 1994 season (the last of the Haas era) 13th out of the 14 AL teams.

The tendency towards repetition is the major reason why I don’t feel the need to quote or respond to his rantings. This time, however, I figure it’s important to point out a few things.

But, MLB, remember this: Wolff’s initial lie was that the A’s must be near BART and the freeway whenever a new ballpark is built. Fremont fulfilled one-half of that requirement — BART was 2 miles away — and San Jose also fulfills one-half, but it doesn’t have BART.

Does Newhouse not understand that demographics and requirements change depending on the site? Of course BART is required in a place BART was previously used. If you spin out a radius of 20 miles from anywhere in Oakland, BART should be readily available. That can’t happen in San Jose, at least for several years. But in San Jose, people are used to getting to and from places without BART. Will East Bay fans find a San Jose ballpark less accessible? Of course they will. Will they be replaced by South Bay fans? Yes, they will. Why? Because it’s Major League Baseball at a fancy new ballpark near them. Some of them will be A’s fans. Others will be casual, hopefully some of them can be converted.

Later on, Newhouse espouses the virtues of the Coliseum’s location and plugs other sites.

And that isn’t the only available ballpark space in Oakland. There are two spots in Jack London Square, though it would take two businesses, Peerless Coffee and East Bay Restaurant Supply, to shift a bit to make it happen.

This may be doable for one business, not both. But Oakland City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente assured me that the most aesthetically pleasing spot — the Oak to 9th Project by the Estuary — remains available. It’s closer to the freeway than BART, but that site is every bit as attractive as the AT&T Park locale.

I find it interesting that Newhouse suggests that getting both Peerless and EBRS to relocate isn’t feasible. So does that mean that Victory Court is by extension infeasible? First I’ve heard of that. Beyond that, once again he’s being fed the same old nonsense by IDLF and Signature about O29 being doable – even though O29 has not been in the discussion for nearly a decade. Only Newhouse ever brings up O29, despite the lack of infrastructure and other challenges that would make it much more difficult to accomplish than Victory Court, 980, or even the Coliseum. Doesn’t it seem strange that while various real estate developers push for Victory Court to boost their own peripheral developments, one of those major developments could easily be cast aside for a ballpark? I’ll tell you why: those development projects aren’t as good as advertised. It’s not their fault that they were hung out to dry after the real estate collapse. Plenty of very rich developers have been left in similar circumstances.

My gut feeling is that Wolff has no place to go but Oakland. The world champion San Francisco Giants have strengthened their South Bay “territorial rights” by investing more heavily in their San Jose minor league team and by planning to renovate its home field, Municipal Stadium.

Thing is, it takes a lot more than a gut feeling to get a ballpark built. Throughout all of Newhouse’s vitriolic columns, he has never discussed how an Oakland ballpark will get done. Never mentions that it’ll cost $460 million in construction cost alone. Doesn’t have an answer for dozens of corporate interests that will be needed to get it financed. Let’s not forget that the Giants caught hell for financing $170 million, and that was after naming rights and charter seat licenses cut the original cost roughly in half. How can it get done in Oakland, a place that has relatively few major corporations? A place where PSL’s are impossible to sell? A place where building at the Coliseum (and perhaps anywhere in Oakland) may require shouldering the remaining debt on Mount Davis? A place where the government wants to keep the Raiders and simply may not have the resources to keep both the Raiders and A’s in town?

Frankly, Dave, you’re doing Trib readers a major disservice by not being honest about these challenges. Hope and emotion don’t make a strategy or a business plan. There are hard numbers and realities to address. When you feel like having an adult conversation with your readers about keeping the A’s in Oakland, you’ll be helping a lot more than you’re doing now. Until then, you’re just filling column inches, throwing some red meat at people who want it, and wasting everyone else’s time.

11.05.10
by

Quan takes lead over Perata

While election analysts (and yours truly) didn’t give Jean Quan much of a shot against Don Perata when Perata emerged with a 11 point lead, the Ranked Choice Voting system may end up working in Quan’s favor when all is said and done.

Source: Alameda County Registrar

The whole count looks rather uneventful until you get to Rounds 9 and 10. In Round 9, Rebecca Kaplan is eliminated and her second place votes are transferred. Apparently Quan received three times as many higher-placed votes as Perata, which led to that same proportion of votes going straight to Quan. The last tabulation has Perata at 48.91% and Quan at 51.09%.

While RCV helps in terms of reining in election costs, it’s not a perfect system. There’s no weighting assigned to first, second, third and so on, making it possible for a candidate coming in a consistent second on most if not all ballots to win outright. That seems strange. Of course, if they were to weight votes they’d be getting into a terrible BCS-type controversy, and no one wants that for an election.

If this holds true, it’ll be a big boost for the Victory Court crowd. Then again, there’s action and then there’s just talk. Whatever the case, there should and will be a few laughs at Lew Wolff and John Fisher’s expense.

11.02.10
by

Experts: Giants winning good for A’s to SJ

Saturday’s post on the Diridon tour included a quick note from me about the Giants:

I’ve given this some thought the last few days, and I think that if the Giants win the boost in ticket and merchandise sales could provide enough economic ballast to make arguments about economic hardship somewhat moot, at least for a few years.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reports that premier sports economics experts Andrew Zimbalist and Roger Noll (co-editors of Sports Jobs & Taxes) think that the Giants’ success will actually be good for the A’s, insofar as Lew Wolff’s designs on moving them to San Jose.

“To the extent that the commissioner’s office would be concerned about the Giants’ financial well-being if the A’s were allowed to move to San Jose,” said Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economist and baseball expert, “that concern would by allayed given the success the Giants have had.”

Zimbalist estimates the Giants will net between $13 million to $16 million from their share of ticket sales and concessions for the postseason and World Series.

“The owners want it (a team) to be as economically successful as it can be,” said Zimbalist of the A’s proposed move. “And I think fundamentally that is what Selig is looking at — if he think’s it’s a plus economically.”

There are also quotes from Noll, CSUEB professor Paul Staudohar, and South Bay cheerleader Larry Stone. From the inception of the blog, I’ve driven home the point over and over again that it is always about the big picture. How does MLB benefit best? And if the answer to that question means breaking thousands of Oaklanders’ hearts, they’re not too concerned about it. That’s the sad part of it all. People demonize these billionaires for hating Oakland or wanting to destroy it. It’s much worse. They simply don’t care one way or another. It would be one thing if they cared enough to hate Oakland, but they are in fact completely indifferent. That’s not to say that they (other than Wolff) love San Jose. They don’t. It’s just a better economic opportunity there.

Last week I posted that I felt the Giants’ success is a blip, not something that should shift MLB’s long-term thinking towards the A’s and Giants. If the indicators point to a South Bay move, and Noll and Zimbalist are right about the World Series boosting and stabilizing the Giants, then yes, the Giants’ arguments are moot. Down the road, I wonder what this means for compensation. If the Giants are sufficiently covered in the short-term by revenue hikes from this WS win, is long-term compensation for territorial rights valued more or less?

P.S. Despite not participating in this year’s playoffs, A’s players will get something out of it. Since they finished 2nd in the AL West, the players are entitled to a whopping 1% share of the annual players’ pool. That should boil down to $9,000-10,000 per roster spot.

10.25.10
by

What A New Stadium Means for Payroll

I read here, and in other places like the sfgate.com Drumbeat Blog, opinions on what would happen if the A’s suddenly had a Target Field like infusion of revenue. Opinions vary from “Lew Wolff is cheap and won’t spend anymore” to “The A’s will spend more money than the Angels!” The real answer, they will spend more but won’t be a West Coast version of the Yankees or Red Sox, is much more interesting. While I will never be a GM for any self-respecting MLB franchise, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Which means, I have ideas for what a future A’s roster/dynasty might look like.

First things first, how do we set a projected payroll? First, we have to have an idea of what revenues might look like (thanks ML). Second we have to have an understanding of how revenues impact Major League payrolls. Forbes has an answer:

Data Provided by Forbes

A few interesting factoids from this table. First, if we are to believe Forbes, only two MLB teams took a loss in order to fund their on the field product this season. Only one of those teams took a “significant” loss. Neither of those teams factored much into the playoff picture. Do you smell what I am cooking? As much as you can’t blame the Yankees for their $200M payroll, you can’t harp on A’s ownership for their smallish payroll. The days of teams spending way more than they have, in order to be competitive, are history. Revenue matters.

The second factoid, that MLB teams spend an average of 55% of their revenue on payroll, sets the stage for what could be. In ML’s piece, he split the difference between Wolff’s number and that of Forbes. Here, I am just gonna run with the numbers provided by Forbes to keep it simple. So, a new stadium should provide, roughly, a 14% increase (that was ML’s number, $149M plus 14% is $170M) for this article we will assume that number is $177M ($155M*1.14). That SWAG number puts the A’s in the neighborhood of the Rangers and their $95M payroll. Heck, if the A’s wanted to “go for it” they could actually have a payroll of $106M and be within the range of Operating Income makers on the Forbes chart ($177*.6).

That gives us a range of $95M to $106M…. Oh, how I salivate. What’s better? As ML pointed out, the A’s have huge payroll flexibility in the coming seasons, if we assume they have this new revenue stream. To keep the core together, the A’s would need to have an $80M payroll in 2013. If they are in limbo, forget about it. If they are in construction… $80M is great… That would give them up to $26M to spend on players in the first year (assuming a 2014 opening). So who could they add?

Assuming the A’s have locked up the new Big Three, Anderson, Cahill and Gonzalez.  Max Stassi has taken over for Suzuki and is a second year player. Grant Green is manning Short Stop and in his second year at the big league level. Adrian Cardenas, or Eric Sogard, is Green’s double play partner and relatively cost controlled. Daric Barton, Chris Carter and Michael Taylor are rocking 1B, LF and RF collectively. Bullpen roles are what they are. That leaves the A’s with a definite need for a Center Fielder, a 3B and a couple of starting pitchers.

Zack Grienke anyone? Tim Lincecum anyone? Certainly not both, but would the A’s really need both? The new Big Three, the New Jack Bash Brothers and the developed youngsters make it so that only one would be required.

Or, Ian Krol and Clay Mortenson have developed into a fine back of the rotation. Matt Kemp in center?

The more I think about it, the more I realize the possibilities are infinite. I am just highlighting shock and awe type moves. Silver bullets, if you will. Reality, if Billy Beane’s past is an indication of his future, is that the money would be spread around and the sum of multiple parts would be greater than the any single player. The point is that Wolff could keep payroll right in alignment with what is normal now, add in the new revenue, and we would all be really happy with the result. Here is my wishful glance at a 2014 roster/payroll with a lot of crystal ball gazing (and rose colored performance projecting) mixed in: