Category Archives: Owners

05.03.12
by

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, Part Deux

Shortly after Commissioner Bud Selig convened his three-man panel to figure out what to do with the A’s, all sorts of political machinations started happening. That included then-Oakland City Attorney John Russo (now City Manager of Alameda) penning a lawsuit threat against the A’s. I wrote back then:

What recourse do the Giants have, then? They can try to go to bat for Oakland, even though they have no history of doing that previously. Even though, in moving to China Basin, they’ve actively siphoned East Bay fans away from the A’s. Even though they’ve held a regional hegemony for decades. It wouldn’t be hard to posture themselves as saviors of baseball in Oakland – no matter how strange that sounds – as it wouldn’t require much effort and could be done in a sort of stealth mode. It wouldn’t be difficult to get a few letters from prominent pols in order, so no problem there either. The best part is for the Giants is that it works. It paints Wolff as a villain and Oakland as a victim, despite the backstory’s greater complexity.

Eerie, no?

Now we have word from the Trib that Jean Quan has met with Giants ownership. That wouldn’t be the first time. Perhaps it’s completely altruistic, in that they’re instructing her on how to put together an AT&T Park-style stadium deal, the kind that Clorox CEO Don Knauss is pursuing. (Knauss also had a lengthy interview with KQED.) Then again, this is the same Giants ownership group that may have pulled a power play to kill the Piccinini-Dolich group’s chances to buy the A’s, because the Giants didn’t want an Oakland-based group owning the A’s:

More likely, Piccinini suspects the San Francisco Giants ownership had a hand in convincing Selig to make sure the deal never materialized, especially since Selig has called the A’s move from Kansas City to Oakland “a terrible mistake.”

“I can tell you there’s an executive with the Giants, who shall go unnamed,” Piccinini said. “I ran into him at a Warriors game. He said, ‘I hear you’re getting involved with the Padres. We want you in San Diego; we just didn’t want you here.’ “

Speaking of Piccinini, he’ll be available soon if he wants to deal with the struggle to be an owner again. Piccinini is part of the Moorad group who were teased the Padres, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. Moorad won’t be able go after another team, knowing that there are permanent veto votes against him within the Lodge. Much of the rest of the Central Valley base of the ownership group should be available, and they could pull in another frontman – Andy Dolich, perhaps?

If Piccinini’s right, the Giants don’t care for the A’s in Oakland or anywhere else in the Bay Area. That makes it frustrating to see Quan consult with the Giants. The Giants aren’t doing the City of Oakland any favors. Just because they may have a somewhat allied interest (keeping the A’s out of San Jose) doesn’t mean they are allied.

If Quan’s smart, she’ll ask for some of the SF sponsors that Oakland will need because as much as the East Bay wants to puff its chest out , the pickings are slim. The Chron 200 is an annual list of the Bay Area’s largest independent, publicly-traded companies by revenue. Generally these are companies with revenues over $100 million annually. Some private companies, like Bechtel, or subsidiaries, like Matson (Alexander & Baldwin), and nonprofits (Kaiser Permanente) are excluded. Distributed by region, San Francisco has 19 of 200, with 5 in Marin County and 26 in San Mateo County. Santa Clara County has 102, or 51% of the list. Oakland has 3 companies on the list, the East Bay in total has 38.

Chron 200 list by city/county-region

If you combine SF, San Mateo, and Marin Counties, you get 50 companies. That’s not significantly greater than the East Bay’s 38 – or 40 if we include Kaiser and Matson. Straight up it would appear that there’s enough corporate strength in the East Bay to make a privately financed, $500 million ballpark happen. But the Giants’ argument for years has been that they needed the South Bay to finance AT&T Park. If that’s true then there’s a logical incongruence at work. Either the South Bay was required and there’s no other way but to include them, or the South Bay wasn’t required and the strength of the West Bay is enough. So which is it?

Also, check out the imbalance of companies in the Giants’ designated territory and the A’s. The Giants have over 75% of the Chron 200. The A’s have less than 20%.

The secrecy of the mystery ownership bidder is also a bit baffling. Lew Wolff has said that no interested party has asked him directly about selling the team. Instead, whoever’s interested has chosen to use back channels to engage Wolff – once. What is the point of that? If the East Bay coalition’s goal is to first work with the current ownership group to develop a plan to keep the A’s in Oakland, why have they never directly called Wolff once? They’ve gone semi-public twice in the last several months to indicate there’s an ownership group in waiting. Seems to me it’s a lot harder to put together a press conference than to call Wolff or arrange a meeting. For whatever reason, they haven’t done the latter. In the last comments thread, a question was posed, “Why doesn’t Lew listen to what these guys have to say?” I think the answer is that they have to present something to the man first. They’ve presented a plan to MLB three years ago that went unanswered. If they want to work with Wolff, they might want to first try to, you know, work with Wolff instead of posturing. It’s somewhat embarrassing that Mayor Quan has probably spent more time talking the Giants brass than the A’s. If A’s ownership is the enemy, don’t pussyfoot around it or hedge. Declare it and get to work. Otherwise it’s just another exercise in scoring PR or political points. And the only real winner in the end is the Giants.

05.01.12
by

Dodgers sold, O’Malley looks at Padres

It’s May Day for Dodgers fans. The Frank McCourt era is officially over, as the sale of the franchise was officially closed today with McCourt selling to Guggenheim Baseball Partners. I’m two hours south right now, yet I can hear a din of cheering. Or maybe that’s the exhaust fan in the kitchen.

McCourt’s still in the mix, thanks to his being part of a joint venture with the parking lots surrounding Dodger Stadium. As for running the franchise in any way, he’s gone. And for that, all of baseball can be grateful.

It was expected that some of the losing bidders would latch onto the new opportunity that was created when Jeff Moorad and Company gave up on buying the Padres from John Moores. The first one has surfaced. According to Ken Rosenthal, it’s former Dodgers owner Peter O’Malley. O’Malley, his family, and others with the money to make the deal happen, have requested to look into the Padres’ finances and are looking to wrap up a deal as early as the All Star Break.

That’s all well and good, but O’Malley should know from experience that Bud Selig is not going to allow the sale of the team to the first guy who shows up with a check. Selig wants a bidding war, and there is buzz that three of four other parties are interested in the team. He wants John Moores to get a little extra for his having to wait. The Padres aren’t going to go broke anytime soon. As crazy as this valuation and sale price bubble is, maybe it’s not so crazy to think that Moores could get $700 million, $800 million, maybe more.

If there’s a lesson to take from the last few years it’s this: If you’re an owner, embroil yourself in a scandal – messy divorce, financial, etc. You’ll make out great in the end.

04.16.12
by

The Reckoning in May?

Update 3:45 PM – Slusser just tweeted that the issue will not be on the agenda even though Wolff has requested it. And the beat goes on…

Susan Slusser reports that the A’s are putting territorial rights on the owners meetings agenda next month. Will we finally get a resolution? We just might.

Back in December I had heard that ownership had the option to put the matter on the February meeting agenda. For whatever reason that didn’t happen. My guess is that the acceleration of the Dodgers’ sale and bankruptcy resolution came somewhat unexpectedly, which forced the A’s back onto the backburner once more.

There is an inherent amount of risk to making this move, as a vote could go against Lew Wolff and John Fisher. The big unknown is whether this vote is being shepherded by Bud Selig, who generally tries to build consensus before doing anything. Considering how long this has taken, anything’s possible. If this goes according to Selig’s M.O., he probably has both the votes and at least some kind of framework in place for a deal to compensate the Giants, whatever that is. If not, Wolff could lose and be left with no other option than to work something out in Oakland.

Slusser cites the Tracy Ringolsby article that we mentioned here last week, along with the threat of a San Jose antitrust lawsuit should the vote go against the A’s and San Jose.

Either way, I’m glad we’re finally getting somewhere with this. It promises to be a very exciting and newsworthy next couple of weeks. I’ll be back from San Diego the day before the meetings start, so I’ll be able to give it the attention it deserves.

P.S. – If you’re wondering whether or not a vote will actually be taken, just remember that the executive council had a report presented by Selig’s 3-man panel during the winter meetings. If the owners didn’t have the information necessary to vote on the issue before, they most assuredly do now.

04.14.12
by

A’s break out their own legal heavyweights

The Merc’s Internal Affairs column has revealed that A’s ownership has brought a big gun to what could be future legal proceedings against the Giants – or at least the Giants’ astroturf group, Stand for San Jose. In this case it’s trial lawyer Allen Ruby, best known in the sports world as Barry Bonds’ attorney in the slugger’s perjury case. Ruby is a partner at Skadden Arps, one the largest law firms in the world.

Ruby successfully defended the NFL against the Raiders, as well as former San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales when he was brought up on corruption charges. MLB teams can’t sue each other or baseball due to a clause in the sport’s constitution. MLB tends to handle its business within the confines of its ownership ranks, a method furthered under Bud Selig. That doesn’t leave out the possibility of a team going outside to sue a city or team on non-baseball grounds, as the Giants have done. If anything, bringing on Ruby is like a country stockpiling nuclear weapons during the Cold War. No one intends to actually use them, but the possibility is there. Personally, I don’t think this ever sees a trial, so we won’t get to see Ruby in a courtroom representing the A’s.

Also onboard is Cecily T. Barclay, a partner with Perkins Coie whose specialty is land use and entitlements. Coie was named 2012 San Francisco Land Use & Zoning Law Lawyer of the Year by industry website Best Lawyers, and has worked on a number of large projects throughout the Bay Area, including the Lennar/Hunters Point project, the Cargill Saltworks/Redwood City plan, and Rivermark in Santa Clara.

As impressive as this legal firepower is, I hope it never has to get used, because if it does it only means more delays for the A’s.

04.08.12
by

Ostler talks Cespedes, impact

The Chronicle’s Scott Ostler writes about what success Yoenis Céspedes could have, and projects it beyond the field.

It could be an adventure for team ownership, too. What if Céspedes keeps hitting and stirs up interest, a la Linsanity, drawing big crowds to the Oakland ballpark?

That would throw a monkey wrench into ownership’s aggressive campaign to prove that there is no market for baseball in Oakland.

If that happens, A’s owners Lew Wolff and John Fisher will have their own private Cuban missile crisis, and they won’t be able to solve it by picking up the Hot Line and threatening Nikita Khrushchev. Sorry, honey.

Now that would be something. Fans coming out and supporting the team regardless of what they think of ownership? It’d be as if they came to watch baseball or something. I know this: today I sold a bunch of my Giant fan friends on Céspedes. Sometimes all you need is a draw. It’s been proven repeatedly that quality pitching isn’t a draw. Home runs? You know what they say…

03.28.12
by

The bubble effect

While my team was coming up short in bar trivia last night, news came over the wire that the group headed by Magic Johnson, Stan Kasten, and Peter Guber (yes, that Peter Guber) won the extremely competitive bidding for the Dodgers with a $2.15 billion offer. As recently as last week, the Dodgers were going to be sold for $1.4-1.6 billion, and New York hedge fund magnate Stephen Cohen seemed to have taken the lead thanks to having more cash in the bid compared to the Johnson-Kasten’s larger overall offer. The facts of the sale have been trickling out throughout the morning, and the details couldn’t have been more surprising.

  • The $2.15 billion bid is in two parts: $2 billion for the team and stadium, and $150 million for the parking lots through a joint venture with outgoing owner Frank McCourt.
  • Despite McCourt’s bankruptcy foibles, he’ll end up clearing around $1 billion in profit after dealing with creditors, including his ex-wife. In 2004, McCourt bought the Dodgers from Fox for $430 million, not putting up any cash to do so. Plus he gets the parking vig.
  • The bid appears to be ALL CASH. If so that’s incredibly impressive and has major implications down the road.
  • Johnson and Kasten had six private investment firms come in to bid for the right to claim the majority share. The winner was Guggenheim Partners, a Chicago/New York firm that manages $127 billion in assets. As part of the deal, the control person or managing partner will be Guggenheim CEO Mark Walter. The new entity that owns the team will be called Guggenheim Baseball Partners.
  • For now it appears that nothing will change day-to-day in the Dodger front office. That means that Ned Colletti stays put as GM, though Stan Kasten will slide in above him as President and Magic Johnson will probably have an Executive VP role, similar to the one he had with the Lakers. Keep in mind that while Kasten oversaw much of the Atlanta Braves’ successful run throughout the 90’s and early 00’s, he had John Schuerholz run the baseball side of the house.
  • There is potential in developing the parking lots, though everyone in the joint venture would have to sign off on any plans.

Local and national writers have run the gamut speculating what this new ownership group will do going forward. The first obvious step is to get some kind of new TV deal done, which McCourt tried to do under the gun but was blocked from doing by a bankruptcy court judge. The Dodgers could continue with Fox Sports for $200 million or start their own network. A Dodger network may be the best call, though ownership will most certainly run into some hard negotiations with Time Warner, LA’s predominant cable operator. Time Warner will operate the Lakers’ upcoming dual-channel, dual-language sports network, so there is built-in competition.

Ticket prices will also go up at some point, commensurate with rising payroll. For 2012 the active roster payroll is only $90 million, plus $11 million in deferments to Manny Ramirez and Andruw Jones. The Dodgers had been dropping ticket prices precipitously over the past year or two, allowing for a great amount of headroom for hikes when the time comes. That time may be next year, when the team has to make decisions on Andre Ethier and James Loney, while deciding what kind of extension to give Clayton Kershaw. Those three alone could translate to some $40 million per year in additional salaries. Even so, that only brings payroll to $130 million. The Dodgers could make one or two additional huge free agent splashes in the next 48 months, which is why the Giants have to be absolutely frightened.

From a macro perspective, every owner now has to be wondering what this clearly overpriced sale will mean for them. Sale prices have already been trending some 20% higher than Forbes valuations, so this only extends the bubble that’s been forming over the past five years. The bubble was created by great increases in media revenues, chiefly from new and often team-owned regional sports networks like YES and MASN. In response, several incumbent RSNs have overpaid to keep teams on their channels, such as the Fox Sports regionals in Dallas (Rangers) and Los Angeles (Angels). The table below shows franchise valuations and sale prices, in conjunction with relative values to generated revenue and the aggregate value of all franchises. Most franchises are in the 2.5-3 range. The Yankees sport a 4+ multiple, whereas the Dodgers nearly reach 9 – an artifact of how the Dodgers have been run lean while in bankruptcy. Have-not and small market teams have a multiple in the low 2 range.

Right-hand column shows franchise values as a function of revenue. If the Dodgers got a $200 million/year TV deal, their multiple would be in line with the Yankees'.

Higher valuations or potential sale prices doesn’t mean that there’s going to be a bunch of franchises for sale. For one, Commissioner Selig doesn’t want to have a “glut” of teams available since that will only decrease competition and deflate if not pop the bubble. We know that Padres and Orioles are  available, even if they’re not being actively shopped at the moment. Maybe that will change now, with both current owners looking for $500+ million paydays. MLB can also draw out the sales process to unbearable lengths (see: Astros, Padres) while it completes its “due diligence” on any buyer. And if higher sales prices are being propelled by new media deals, teams in small markets aren’t necessarily going to receive huge valuation bumps if their TV deals aren’t bumped in accordance.

The A’s could see something of a bump, but how much is very unclear. They’re locked into CSN California for at least another decade. Since the terms aren’t public, we don’t know if moving to San Jose would provide a bump, but I have to think that it does simply from the much larger, healthier pool of available advertisers in the South Bay. When prospective buyers look at the books, they’ll know this going in or find out soon enough. Wolff and John Fisher aren’t going bankrupt anytime soon, so if they wanted to sell they could hold out for as high an offer as they wanted. In any case, Selig would probably dissuade Lew Wolff from even considering a sale, stalling while he “figures out” a solution. On the flip side, the Giants could actually harden their stance on territorial rights, saying that it’s their only way to compete with a soon-to-be mega money Dodger franchise. At the very least, the news should force the Giants to make a commitment to Matt Cain, since the Dodgers would be well-positioned in six months to blow the Giants out of the water with an offer. To that I have to say, Welcome to the club, Giants. Enjoy your stay.

…

OT Note: The second game of the season vs. the Mariners will be shown live on MLB Network, as MLB has been so magnanimous as to lift its blackout. Oh thank you, capricious TV gods. /s

03.25.12
by

Moorad stepping down means Padres are for sale

Remember those groups that were rumored to be interested in buying the A’s, even though the A’s aren’t actually for sale? They may have a more realistic target now that Jeff Moorad has stepped down from his Padres CEO post. Although Moorad will stay on as a Vice Chairman, the new role appears to be little more than a placeholder as still-majority owner John Moores figures out what to do next.

The circumstances for Moorad’s departure are shrouded in mystery. It’s possible that, after all this time, enough owners had a grudge against the former agent that there was no way he’d get the gig. If so, that’s a cruel joke to play on the man, considering they and Commissioner Selig set in motion the “layaway” plan in 2009 that allowed Moorad to believe he’d buy the team in the first place. Another reason for getting rid of Moorad may be the allegation that he was looking to use upfront from the new Fox Sports San Diego-Padres broadcast rights deal to pay down debt, Frank McCourt-style.

At Gaslamp Ball, there’s a post with the notion that Moorad wanted to accelerate the sale so that Moores couldn’t get a taste of the new TV money, and when Moores found out how much that was, he suddenly wasn’t in such a hurry to sell the team. The new revenue stream should help Moores net a higher sale price than the $530 million negotiated in 2009. $600 million, anyone?

For now it appears that Moores is not in a hurry to sell the team. He’s got a nice new revenue stream, better profitability for the team and for himself, and he’s clear of his ugly divorce. He’ll meet with the minority partners, including Bob Piccinini, and tell them what his plans are, whether it’s to encourage them to bring in a new managing partner candidate or to sell their stakes back to him so that he can resell the team whole later. It’s clear that he’s done running a team, so a sale can be expected sooner rather than later.

That provides an opening for the many bidders who’ve lost out out on the Dodgers. The bidding list in LA is down to three, with no bid lower than $1.4 billion. The Dodgers will be a $300+ million annual revenue team once their next TV deal is made, whereas the Padres should be a $200 million revenue team with their new deal. Even at $600 million, the Padres look like a far better deal than the Dodgers, unless a bidder absolutely has to have the Dodgers or the team’s brand cachet. One of the parties supposedly interested in the A’s was an LA financier involved in the Dodger bidding, so it seems natural for him to turn his attention two hours south instead. (If you’re wondering, I don’t know who the second interested party is – yet.)

The Padres aren’t the only team up for sale. A rumor emerged last month that Peter Angelos was looking to offload the Orioles. Angelos is in the catbird seat there, as he has the $360 million guaranteed sale price for the franchise and ownership of MASN, the area’s regional sports network that carries both the O’s and Nats. He can sell either or both. If he sells only the team he should get $500 million. If he sells both he could get up to $1 billion. The team has denied the rumor.

Anything is potentially for sale for the right price, including any baseball team. It’s easy to say you’re interested in a team or to enter bidding. Getting a sale consummated? With the incredible amounts of money at stake, it’s a lot easier said than done.

03.24.12
by

Rosenthal calls “stAy” crowd flat-earthers

Another week, another media morsel. If it’s not the Giants leaking information out or Larry Baer defending the Giants’ territorial rights claims, it’s a national sports writer pleading Lew Wolff’s case or Lew himself answering questions. To me, it feels more like slow-motion tennis than baseball, and while I like tennis, this has gotten repetitive and tiresome.

This time it’s Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal again with a plan to resolve the A’s-Giants impasse. Rosenthal thinks that the Giants should be guaranteed a minimum revenue amount against potential losses incurred from an A’s-to-San Jose move. He cites the O’s-Nats deal as an example. However, while Peter Angelos got a $360 million sale price guarantee and $75 million to start up MASN, I don’t believe that he got an annual revenue guarantee ($130 million) as Rosenthal suggests. There’s a good deal of conflicting information on this. It’s sort of a moot point because the O’s cleared the supposed minimum in the first year of the agreement, 2005, and haven’t looked back. Forbes’ estimated revenue for 2011 was $179 million.

Guaranteeing revenue for the Giants is a different matter. According to Forbes, the Giants haven’t been below the $200 million revenue mark in three years. Last year the Giants were in the top ten at $230 million, whereas the average revenue was $211 million (median: $201 million). I have to think that MLB, in its desperation to get some kind of deal done, has floated a revenue guarantee number to the Giants, to which Baer has balked. I’ve argued frequently for some kind of compensation plan that includes revenue, but a revenue guarantee of $230 million gives me pause, so I imagine it gives Bud Selig and the other owners pause as well. Then again, Wolff is projecting a bump from $150-160 million to $230 million for the A’s, so for baseball the result should be a net positive.

Rosenthal also talked to Tulane law professor Gabe Feldman about the prospects of an offensive antitrust lawsuit against baseball. Feldman characterized such a suit’s chances as very slim, a “real longshot”. Also ready with a quote was San Jose City Councilman and future mayoral hopeful Sam Liccardo, who may see all of this baseball posturing end up as part of his election platform if the saga continues at its current pace.

The sucker punch is saved for the end:

Only a few hardy souls — a latter-day version of the flat-earth society — believe the Athletics still can make it in Oakland. San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area. A new ballpark in the city not only would transform the Athletics’ business model, but baseball’s as well.

There will be some Oakland defenders who say things like, “If you tell a lie long enough people believe it”. No, that’s not it. Sometimes a spade is a spade. If it wasn’t the case, Oakland wouldn’t be pinning its urban revival hopes on a pie-in-the-sky plan like Coliseum City. If it wasn’t truthful, Signature wouldn’t be trying to offload O29 on any Tom, Dick, or Harry who might be interested in land. It’s telling that one of the chief pro-Oakland arguments is that baseball doesn’t have the wherewithal to change T-rights on Wolff’s behalf. That’s all well and good, but how is that confidence-inspiring for Oakland?

03.22.12
by

Baer reaffirms T-rights claim

On a panel at the 2012 IMG World Congress of Sports, Giants CEO/President Larry Baer continued to flog the idea that the Giants own Santa Clara County. Via Sports Business Journal:

During a panel discussion, he cited a “territorial grant” that allows the Giants to market to Santa Clara County. Baer said the Giants franchise depends on revenue derived from there, with 35 to 45 percent of its market coming from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

I thought the number was 50%? Now it’s 35-45%. Two weeks ago it was 43% from Santa Clara County alone. No wonder we can’t keep these numbers straight. Baer can’t either.

Baer went on to cite how the Giants got it done with good ole’ sweat and gumption. He conveniently forgets one tiny little detail: When it comes to having billionaires ready to coalesce and save the franchise, Oakland is no San Francisco. The two groups that reportedly want to buy the A’s? Not from Oakland. Bob Piccinini? Not from Oakland. If the team is going to be saved in Oakland, someone will have to step up from Oakland. It’s one thing to talk about civic pride, another to have the means to act on it.

03.20.12
by

Dominoes are falling

One by one, the various ownership crises facing baseball and Commissioner Bud Selig are being resolved. Yesterday, the Mets settled with a trustee in the ongoing Madoff suit for at most $162 million, probably less when the final bill comes due. Compared to the threat of a $1 billion judgement against the team, it’s a bargain. They’ll get even more of a reprieve by not having to make any payments for four years.

The Mets managed to pay off $65 million in short-term debt, thanks to a $240 million selloff of minority shares in the team (8 x $30 million). While Sandy Alderson will have to run the team on the lean side for at least this season, prospects for a rebound are decent.

On the other coast, MLB and Frank McCourt have narrowed down the lister of bidders for the Dodgers to four groups. MLB’s favorite appears to be the group headed by Magic Johnson and former Nats president Stan Kasten, largely because the bid is local. McCourt’s favorite may be the bid by New York hedge fund magnate Steven Cohen. The Cohen bid boost may have gotten a boost thanks to Patrick Soon-Shiong, an LA billionaire whose sudden presence as a minority partner gives Cohen some local bonafides. Unlike the Johnson-Kasten syndicate bid, Cohen was going solo (until Soon-Shiong) and is ready to post an incredible $900 million cash as part of his $1.4 billion (not highest) bid. Ironically, Soon-Shiong picked up Magic’s minority share of the Lakers last year. Magic vacated that share and his executive position within the organization to get his ducks lined up for the Dodgers bid.

The other two bids are by Rams owner Stan Kroenke and a joint bid by possibly outgoing Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley and LA financier Tony Ressler, who initially headed separate bids. By the terms of McCourt’s divorce settlement, he must pick a winning bidder and close the sale by April 30 so that he can make a massive $131 million payment to his ex-wife, Jamie McCourt.

All of this movement should put the A’s situation truly on the front burner, press release wars and gossip aside. That doesn’t mean that Selig will be able to come to a mutually beneficial agreement for the A’s and Giants – for some time my argument has been that this is the obstacle, not gathering votes or self-serving agendas. With the next owners meetings coming in mid-May, perhaps this is the chance to truly address the issue once and for all. Selig deserves as much blame for allowing the Mets and Dodgers to fester as he gets credit for saving them from the financial disaster, but from both quantitative and qualitative measure both teams are worth more (and deserve more attention) than the A’s and Giants’ squabble. Let’s hope, then, that he’ll be able to muster enough resources to resolve the A’s problems once and for all, instead of playing the perennial game of kick-the-can with the green and gold. Seven years is long enough.