05.18.11
by

Wall Street Journal piece explains everything you already know

Tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal more-or-less has an article by the paper’s Silicon Valley reporter, John Letzing, that resets all of the current, relevant information about the San Jose’s ballpark pursuit.

The takeaways are these:

  • Lew Wolff declined to comment, deferring instead to A’s broadcasting veep Ken Pries.
  • Giants spokesperson Staci Slaughter likewise refrained from comment on territorial rights.
  • Oakland’s Dan Lindheim gave his brief statement in support of keeping the A’s, then declined further comment.
  • Pries, for his part, said Wolff may not be willing to fund construction of a ballpark in Oakland.
  • Longtime ballpark opponent Marc Morris thinks there are better uses for ballpark project money.

Then there’s this, which was sourced from San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s letter from Monday:

Last week, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed wrote to Mr. Selig, noting that seven years had passed since the A’s first considered moving to San Jose and added: “Despite your lengthy deliberative process, success is still achievable,” according to a copy of the letter Mr. Reed released.

Remember that Wolff joined the A’s in the venue development capacity in 2003, then exercised an option to buy the team in 2005. Also remember that then-Mayor Ron Gonzales made his ill-fated pitch at spring training in front of Phoenix Muni in March 2005. I even started this blog in March 2005. Obviously, something’s up with that, right?

Well, no.

Wolff’s job from 2003 until 2009 was to search all over the East Bay, including Oakland and Fremont. That he did, though the veracity with which he did his search will always be up for debate. If Gonzales came calling in 2004 or 2005, Wolff could take the call but he couldn’t work out any details, just as Wolff and Reed can’t do now. Back in 2004, Diridon was not the preferred site. In fact, it was considered one of the most difficult sites to make work simply because it had multiple owners, so it required multiple negotiations to acquire the entire site. The possibility or relocating the PG&E substation was also considered problematic. Territorial rights perhaps moreso. If someone’s looking for some great pipedream involving Wolff and Diridon – it wasn’t there.

However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping San Jose a fallback option. Any businessman worth his salt would. As 2005 became 2006 and so on, Wolff focused on Fremont instead of Oakland because of the difficulty doing the land deal at Coliseum North – again, related to potentially complex negotiations with multiple landowners instead of one. When the economic collapse killed the major tenets of the Pacific Commons deal, Wolff went to Warm Springs and met a ton of hostility there. Knowing that he’d have to figure out a more “sure thing” in terms of financing a ballpark, he went to San Jose.

The thing I continually puzzle over is this obsession with Wolff’s intent, whether it was in 2003, 2005, 2009, or now. All I know is that Wolff’s intent is to build a ballpark. He was willing to forego San Jose if he could get cheap land and a financing mechanism in place in Fremont or Oakland. That blew up and he had to adapt. If he’s wrong in his assessment that it can’t be done in Oakland, Selig and his committee should able to prove Oakland’s economic fitness. If not, San Jose should not be dismissed. It’s much, much too late in this saga to worry which city’s first, and whose citizens are being offended. It’s time to lay cards on the table. If Wolff’s bluffing, we’ll know. If either Oakland’s or San Jose’s hand is a loser, we’ll know. Like Wolff, I’d rather get a decision than hang in the ether for years. Because when that decision comes we can focus on whatever gets built, whenever that is. And we can start healing the rift that has created by this whole mess.

Added 8:42 PM – At San Jose Inside, Josh Koehn considers the impact of San Jose putting Mayor Reed’s pension reform measure and a ballpark measure on the same ballot.

Added 5/19 10:30 AM – Dave Newhouse wrote about what happened after Andy Dolich’s email was hacked. (Interestingly, I got one of those emails too but recognized it as a Nigerian prince-type scam immediately so I deleted it.) Dolich maintains that the solution for the A’s (and Raiders/49ers) is at the Coliseum, whereas San Jose would be too costly due to T-rights and Victory Court doesn’t have the funding to get it done.

05.18.11
by

Blame it on the rain

Lately baseball writers have been looking far and wide to figure out what is keeping fans away from ballparks this year. Poor weather is the most often blamed culprit, thanks to 30-and-counting rainouts this season, 9 more than the entire total in 2010. Frank McCourt is also shouldering much of the blame, since the malaise hovering over the Dodgers is driving fans away from Chavez Ravine. Worse, the optics of ballparks with much worse (unannounced) turnstile counts than ticket sales makes the problem that much more apparent.

MLB isn’t alone in this regard. The NFL posted two straight annual attendance declines before bouncing back last year. NBA attendance has been flagging while the NHL has surged post-lockout. With the economy still spotty in many places, on-site pro sports consumption is considered something of a luxury for many consumers, making long-term commitments a tough sell in tough times.

We’re just past the quarter pole of the season, so I figured it was a good time to take a look at this. I’ve sampled off attendance statistics throughout the league, cutting off the last two seasons at May 20, 2010 and yesterday, respectively. The high number of rainouts this year and the generally irregular nature of the schedule makes it difficult to get a completely even comparison, so this was as close as I could get. While the Dodgers are the obvious trending team, when you look at the table below you might see something different.

Gains for last year’s two World Series participants, Texas and San Francisco, have more than made up for the Dodgers’ decline. In fact, the top five gainers have surpassed the losses incurred by the top five losers. Yet league attendance has gone down nearly 1% per game. The Dodgers are part of the economic foundation of the league, and once McCourt is rightfully ousted and a another owner enters the picture, the team’s attendance will be well on its way to recovery. So what’s the real problem?

If anything, the problem is the number of no-shows. Only the league and the teams know the actual number of people entering each stadium. If the announced crowd is double that of the actual number of people who show up, that could add up hundreds of thousands lost each game in terms of concessions and merchandise revenue. Take the A’s, for instance. The last two crowds were announced to be over 10,000, even though it was abundantly clear that far less than 10,000 were present. 5,000 no-shows x $10 per fan spent = $50,000. The A’s are used to this, so they staff accordingly for it and make it up on the back end thanks to revenue sharing. On the other hand, the Dodgers might have as many as 20,000 no-shows for a home date. 20,000 no-shows x $10 per fan spent = $200,000, and that might be conservative. Get 50 home dates like that, and suddenly the Dodgers have lost $10 million over the course of the season. If there’s anything that should provide impetus for Bud Selig to act on getting the Dodgers settled ASAP, that’s it.

As for the weather, that’s going to remain a tricky issue as the season progresses. The May 11 A’s-Rangers rainout had only one realistic makeup date thanks to complexities within the schedule. That date was July 7, which was confirmed earlier this week. Since teams can’t play more than 20 dates in a row and off days are scheduled to prevent that, putting a makeup date in one of those late season off days creates a risk of playing that kind of really long streak. The unbalanced schedule doesn’t help either because there’s no guarantee that one team will play an interdivisional opponent late in the season in a way that a makeup game can be accommodated. Worse, rainouts that are made up the following day as part of a doubleheader aren’t counted as part of attendance, which makes them a net loss on their own. Teams in the Midwest and East Coast are going so far as to preemptively postpone games, with upset fans reporting that the actual conditions at the cancelled game time weren’t as bad as feared.

We could run into a situation in which this season, which is to end on a Wednesday (September 28), may be strung out one or two days later to properly account for all teams in contention fulfilling a 162-game schedule. That would incredibly ironic because this season started on March 31/April 1 to ensure that the regular season part ended early and the postseason wouldn’t stretch too far into November. Looks like Selig and the competition committee might run into a solution for the rainouts that doesn’t solve their postseason problem. Maybe Selig is looking forward to a prolonged NFL lockout, which would cause MLB to be the only major pro sport on broadcast TV come November (NBA/NHL are relegated to cable then, and the NBA may also be in a lockout).

05.16.11
by

News for 5/16/11

The Houston Astros and current owner Drayton McLane have announced that the team is being sold to Houston businessman Jim Crane for $680 million. Approval should take 30-60 days. Among the hangups were discussions over the Astros’ share of a new regional sports network to be shared with the Houston Rockets.

The Maloofs have agreed to share the Sacramento Kings’ financial data with pro-arena interests in the Capitol. This is a departure from other teams in other leagues who are generally reticent to share such data. As part of ongoing CBA discussions, owners have similarly shared data with the players’ union.

George Vukasin, Jr. of Peerless Coffee alerted me to this editorial in the Trib about eminent domain. A bill passed in 2007 tightens controls over how eminent doman can used to the point that “blight” has to be more clearly defined than it has in the past. Both Oakland and San Jose could be affected by these restrictions enough that land acquisitions could be further delayed or even stopped altogether.

Sacramento’s Matthew Mahood was named CEO of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce. As for whether this will make a difference for San Jose’s pursuit of the A’s, Mayor Chuck Reed said this:

“The issue of the A’s stadium is way beyond what the chamber president can do,” Mayor Chuck Reed said. “It’s all between Lew (Wolff) and Major League Baseball.”

April’s radio ratings are scheduled for release today. We’ll get to see how the KBWF and KTRB shakeups have affected the Bay Area’s sports radio landscape. Update 2:17 PM – And they’re out.

As long as KBWF’s only permanent host is Chris Townsend, KBWF will struggle to gain listeners. Hopefully they can get that straightened out in short order. It’s a long game, and if the first goal is to supplant 1050, mission accomplished. I know that many have been clamoring for Rick Tittle to take the 10-1 slot. I’d rather him take a night slot with a more established name at midday.

Update 3:30 PM – ESPN is reporting that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the NFL owners a stay in the lockout, meaning the lockout is still on. They have also asked the owners to submit a new proposal to the players. The two sides are in mediation today and it looks like the session will be extended several hours longer to accommodate the new proposal. Retired players rep Carl Eller said on SportsCenter that progress is being made, which could be very promising. Both the NBA and MLB are watching these talks carefully (NBA moreso).

Added 5/17 11:15 AM – From Baseball San Jose (via LoneStranger), San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed sent a letter to Bud Selig asking for a decision.

Governor Jerry Brown sent out his revised budget proposal for May, which continues to include a call to dismantle all redevelopment agencies despite growing revenues statewide.

05.13.11
by

SJ Mayor Reed plays hardball with unions

As part of an effort to control upwardly spiraling pensions, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed has called for the City to declare a state of fiscal emergency. This comes after months of ongoing negotiations with several public employee unions, which have yielded mixed results. Should this action pass with the City Council, in November voters would be allowed to approve or deny a major overhaul of existing benefits.

San Jose is not alone in facing increasing pension costs, as shown by recent statements by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Oakland Mayor Jean Quan. Reed is taking what could be regarded as the most radical step by throwing his hands in the air and taking it to the voters. There’s some degree of negotiation tactics in doing this move, whether it yields results is another thing altogether. While it’s clear steps need to be taken, I’m not a fan of this tactic since it follows the pattern of “legislation by vote” that has turned Sacramento into gridlock. Internal struggles should have internal solutions, whether through collective bargaining negotiations or mediation. It’ll be interesting to see if this goes on the ballot, since it will set a precedent many cities may follow in short order.

It’s possible that a ballpark measure could be on the November ballot, though MLB has not given any suggestion that it would allow that to occur. Without polling, it’s hard to tell what impact a pension reform ballot measure would have on a ballpark measure. You’d have fiscal conservatives and union backers coming out in droves and in opposition. If I were in the group backing the ballpark, I’d seriously consider redoing polling during the summer to see how this fiscal issue impacts the ballpark. If a ballpark vote were to be held in the following primary (February or June), then it might be a different story. Then again, fiscal conservatives may be out en masse again because it is the presidential primary. Either way, the pulse taken last summer loses weight with each passing month.

05.13.11
by

Wolff on Monty Show interview is up (updated with notes)

If you didn’t get a chance to listen to Lew Wolff on The Monty Show at 8, the good people at Sports Radio 95.7 got the MP3 version out in a hurry. Download it and give it a listen. Then come back here and comment away.

My thoughts:

I think we actually got some new insight into how MLB’s panel is operating. Wolff said that the committee hasn’t contacted him about Victory Court or any other Oakland option. Combine that with the zero communication between Wolff and the City of Oakland, and it has me wondering if the committee is supposed to be keeping everyone at arms length. While Victory Court is being evaluated and the EIR process is happening (note the updated counter on the right) any additional talks among the parties would be premature at best. Wolff is only going to act based on the panel’s recommendations and Selig’s actions. I don’t think that’s the way this should be progressing, but that appears to be the game.

As Jeffrey pointed out, the panel is looking at financing, which is the make-or-break issue for Oakland. Oakland can minimize site and infrastructure costs by reducing footprint (and needed parcel buys) and limiting new parking construction cost, both of which have been done in San Jose. I figure panel is not going to recommend that Wolff builds at Victory Court unless the financing pencils out, because MLB is not going to put a team’s ownership in a bad debt position just to satiate local critics. For reasons explained previously, it’s a bad assumption to think that the money in San Jose is easily transferable to Oakland.

Undoubtedly, the ongoing redevelopment saga will factor in. If SB 286 passes and both Oakland and San Jose require votes for their stadium projects, how would that affect the panel’s perspective? Adding a vote requirement complicate the timeline for Oakland, since it’s not a given that they’ll be able to line up EIR certification and ballot deadline perfectly. Consider the following timeline:

  • SB 286 passes and is signed into law by Governor Brown (as opposed to scrapping redevelopment altogether) this June.
  • Victory Court Draft EIR emerges, also in June. (hypothetical date)
  • 60-day review and comment period puts us in August.
  • EIR staff takes another 3 months to respond to questions and comments. That puts us in November.
  • Final EIR is distributed in December.
  • Final EIR comment period is 45-60 days, puts us at February 2012.
  • Currently the 2012 primary is scheduled for February 7, though a bill (AB 80) is working its way through the legislature that might push the date back to June. If it passes, Oakland could get its vote in June. If not, November or a special election/vote-by-mail.
  • That puts a Victory Court opening day at 2016 unless Oakland is simultaneously doing additional site acquisition, which Mayor Quan has indicated they aren’t. It also messes with the Raiders’ new Coliseum project because the A’s would have to play at the current Coliseum through 2015. The Raiders’ stadium would also require its own vote. Now that’s tangled.

The redevelopment stuff wasn’t discussed in the Wolff interview, but it may provide insight into how the panel is doing its work. As long as these pieces keep moving and the earth shifts, it’s going to be hard to make a decision until everything settles.

Sidebar: Wolff started the interview by plugging the film Jews and Baseball: An American Love Story, which is playing as part of the Silicon Valley Jewish Film Festival. The film will play at the Camera 3 theater at 7 PM. After the showing there will be panel with Wolff, retired player Shawn Green, and A’s play-by-play man Ken Korach as the moderator.

05.12.11
by

Could Cisco’s shift affect Wolff’s plans?

Merc columnist Scott Herhold recaps various political and economic happenings of the past few months and describes how they could impact San Jose’s and Lew Wolff’s ballpark plans. I won’t rehash all of them since we’ve covered them in great detail here. The thrust of Herhold’s piece is relevant: how long does this opportunity last? He also touches on a related issue that may or may not have real implications for the A’s: Is the Cisco in “Cisco Field” in jeopardy?

The story started a month ago, when Cisco Systems abruptly announced that it was killing its consumer video camera division, Flip Video. Flip was acquired by Cisco in 2009 for over half a billion dollars in stock. The acquisition was part of Cisco’s continuing attempts (and frequent failures) at breaking into the consumer space. Cisco is best known for making equipment that acts as the backbone of the internet, and CEO John Chambers’ desire to expand the brand into a more consumer-aware mindset came via acquisitions of companies like Flip/Pure Digital, Scientific Atlanta (cable boxes) and Linksys (home networking).

These acquisitions have had mixed results at best. While it’s generally acknowledged that smartphones with better-and-better cameras would eat into Flip’s market, Flip was clearly the leader in its market and it might have made more sense to either sell or spin off the division, which was based in Irvine, not San Jose. Cable boxes don’t seem to be getting better as a result of the Scientific Atlanta buy, and while Linksys hasn’t lost market share since it was bought by Cisco, it hasn’t really expanded share much either.

Cisco’s handling of consumer-oriented properties has made shareholders and institutional investors wonder whether Cisco is getting distracted from its core competencies. Frankly, it has and Chambers has admitted as much. It’s possible that shuttering Flip won’t be the last move the company makes, as Chambers reset growth expectations from 17% to 12% for this year. Cisco could sell all three of Flip/Pure Digital, Scientific Atlanta, and Linksys without even batting an eye, since according to Forbes, the equity value of all three combined is only 5% of the Cisco’s equity value. Such a move might impress investors enough to convince them that Cisco’s retrenching is not just all talk.

But what about the other stuff that Cisco’s doing? No, not routers and switches. What about the ads? These days you can’t watch a game broadcast on ESPN without seeing a Cisco TV ad. Cisco is pushing its Telepresence video conferencing product everywhere, from cute, quirky ads with actress Ellen Page to MLB Network’s Ballpark Cam to product placement in NCIS. Telepresence is not a consumer product, it’s aimed at businesses and enterprises, and is a major part of the company’s future. It’s unlikely that kind of advertising is going away. (Update: One analyst thinks Cisco should cut its marketing budget by 25%.)

Cisco Field is supposed to be a showcase for (when it opens) current and future technologies, a chance to make all of its “hidden” technologies more tangible for the public. Could Cisco abandon this quest in order to focus better? Perhaps. There’s only one problem with that. Right now it doesn’t cost Cisco a dime to have its name on this vaportecture Downtown San Jose ballpark. Cisco get mentions here and there by local and national media, and it’s all gravy. If a ballpark deal comes to fruition, they could drop the deal and let someone else pay for the privilege. However, let’s put this in perspective. Last year, Cisco’s operating income was $11 billion (on $31 billion in revenue). Naming rights for the Pacific Commons ballpark was to be $4 million per year. That puts the value of naming rights at 0.3% of income, practically a rounding error for a company of Cisco’s size. Yet if they moved forward they’d get huge exposure both locally and nationally. They’d also be able to elbow out a competitor the same way a ballclub might pick up a guy on waivers near the deadline just to keep him away from another team.

It might be that Cisco loses stature as the ubiquitous networking giant as competitors such as Juniper and Brocade start to horn in on segments Cisco has historically dominated. It doesn’t look like a situation in which Cisco is in any real trouble, nothing it can’t innovate its way out of. When you really sit down to think what Cisco is trying to accomplish with Cisco Field, if it doesn’t have great technologies to showcase, well there isn’t much point in putting your name on the building, is there? And if that’s the case, someone else will pay for the privilege to show off its own wares.

05.12.11
by

The 15,000-seat question

Two weeks ago the City of Sacramento got a one-year reprieve. Today it’s Glendale, AZ, as the lucky city to get one year to fix its problems. Glendale’s City Council approved a $25 million subsidy to keep the Phoenix Coyotes at Jobing.com Arena. This follows another $25 million spent last year in hopes of keeping the Coyotes in the desert. Despite the exhorbitant sums spent to keep the team afloat, the NHL (which currently owns team) is giving that one year to find new ownership to take over and keep the team in Phoenix long term. Chicago-based businessman Matthew Hulsizer was in talks to buy the Coyotes, but part of his partnership pulled out today and Hulsizer is rumored to follow suit. If the league can’t find a suitable bidder, the team will probably head north of the border.

Unlike the Sacramento Kings, the Coyotes have been a perennial poor attendance performer. Over the last 10 seasons, they’ve averaged over 15,000 fans per game twice. The last two seasons brought in averages of 11,989 and 12,208. The Wayne Gretzky era failed to bring in fans via either the Great One’s name recognition or him GM/coaching prowess, no thanks to then-owner Jerry Moyes’ ongoing money problems. When the NHL took over, it wasn’t expected that getting a new owner would take too terribly long. RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie pushed to move the team to Hamilton, Ontario, but a court order struck the sale down and upheld the major four sports’ rights to determine franchise (re)location.

Now it’s two years after the Balsillie decision and Coyotes fans are still waiting for a savior owner. Attendance continues to be poor despite the team making the Stanley Cup Playoffs the last two years, perhaps a product of the continued uncertainty. The year reprieve prevents bidder True North from buying the team and moving it to Winnipeg, the city that just happens to be where the Coyotes are originally from. Instead, True North may be turn to Atlanta, where the Thrashers are also flailing financially while being bad at the gate. A Q&A posted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution paints a grim future for the Thrashers, who don’t appear to be lease-bound to Philips Arena in any significant way.

The only problem with a Winnipeg move at this point is the capacity of its arena, MTS Centre (really good website BTW). The venue was built after the Jets moved to Phoenix to become the Coyotes and had a small capacity in keeping with its minor league tenant (Manitoba Moose) and Winnipeg’s status as a small market backwater, or so some may have thought. MTS Centre maxes out at 15,015 for hockey, and there is scant space for expansion. Last year the hockey press box in the rafters was expanded to “NHL size” though True North didn’t admit that was the motivation. Unmodified, the arena would be 2,000 seats short of any other modern NHL arena, which would limit its revenue-generating capability.

Then again, what if 15,015 (or a few hundred more) is enough? MLB ballparks range from 37,000 to 50,000 right now, though MLB teams aren’t as dependent on selling out venues as the indoor sports are. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman seemed to support “right-sizing” venues, as evidenced by this quote from December 2009:

“While we play to 93 to 94 per cent capacity, we’d like to play to 100 per cent capacity,” Bettman said. “A 15,000-16,000 seat arena might work better in some markets than a 19,000-seat arena.”

In Glendale and Atlanta, they’re playing to nowhere near 93-94%, more like 70-80%. MTS Centre was built relatively cheaply (C$133 million) and they might be able to put a few hundred penthouse seats (like those at HP Pavilion) opposite the new press box for a few million bucks. The reborn fanbase would have an easier time selling out the arena, which is slightly smaller than the old Winnipeg Arena it replaced. In 2010 True North built MTS Iceplex, a hockey training facility which also can’t have been built to lure a NHL team, obviously. Cost certainty built into the current CBA makes it much easier for a small market franchise to function – as long as they sell well.

It’s clear that Bettman has been stalling in Phoenix in hopes of saving that market, just as David Stern is doing with the New Orleans Hornets by having the league buy the team. Both markets are affected by not having really passionate, willing local bidders in ownership (an issue for another day). If neither team works out, it’ll be tragic for those fanbases but it won’t be the first time. Ask Vancouver Grizzlies fans. Or Atlanta Flames, Hartford Whalers, and Seattle SuperSonics fans. Having a team is not a God-given right, and that fact becomes more self-evident every year.

05.10.11
by

Dueling Vikings stadium proposals

The competing stadium proposals by the City of Minneapolis and the Vikings/Ramsey County can be summed up this way:

Two football teams are tied 0-0 late in the fourth quarter. Despite the fact that neither team is behind, both offenses decide the best way to score is to repeatedly throw hail mary passes until they have to punt.

The first salvo came from Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. His $895 million retractable dome stadium on the site of the Metrodome would contribute $195 million via the extension of an existing sales tax (0.15%) used for convention center upgrades. If you’re wondering why that percentage looks familiar, that’s because Target Field was partly funded using an 0.15% sales tax hike. That’s not where the similarities end, though, as Rybak is trying to muscle the tax extension through without requiring a vote, just as was done with the ballpark. Apparently funding referenda for sports facilities have no teeth in the Twin Cities. While the replacement stadium was being built, the Vikings would spend three years at TCF Bank Stadium, home of the U. of Minnesota. Oh, and they’d have to spend $400 million on their own plus forego revenues by playing the interim at a smaller stadium.

Naturally, the Vikings aren’t too keen on Rybak’s proposal so today they’ve put out their own. They’re partnering with neighboring Ramsey County (Saint Paul) to build a 200+ acre stadium, training facility, and ancillary development at the abandoned ammunition plant at Arden Hills, 10 miles north of either of the Twin Cities’ downtowns. The Arden Hills plan would cost $1.2 billion, including up to $200 million in new roads and infrastructure. Arden Hills would require a substantially smaller contribution from the team, though they won’t say how much. Ramsey County would pony up its own large amount via its own 0.5% sales tax hike (yikes). Besides the lower contribution, the team would also not have to play at TCF for three years since the Metrodome would remain intact until the new stadium opened.

Not to be forgotten is the last line item in the above table. Somehow Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor got his own renovation of Target Center as part of the Minneapolis deal. The plan would add several club facilities, a club level, and renovate existing concourses. The T-Wolves would pay $60 million to keep Target Center “up-to-date.” I can see why Taylor would want this. The T-Wolves aren’t a big revenue team so every additional bit of new gate and arena revenue can help. But they’re pushing this as if there’s a need for two ultra-modern arenas in a market with population of 3.2 million. That’s more than a bit much.

Both of the stadium proposals have a very short time for approval, two weeks at best. Only one can pass because both require a $300 million state chunk, which is not politically popular at this juncture. If neither passes? I suppose that the sides will have to draw up better plays.

05.09.11
by

Another interleague plan

As part of Bud Selig’s in-plane tweaking of baseball, he’s drawn up several realignment concepts. A month ago we discussed two concepts and the motivations behind them. This time, we’re focusing on one seemingly simple plan that will assuredly draw both proponents and detractors. Conveniently, he’ll get to throw a few things against the wall at the owners meetings this week and see what sticks.

As much as we’ve focused on the plight of the A’s, Rays, Dodgers, and Mets, there is one ownership situation that’s flying under the radar. Jim Crane, who tried previously to buy the Astros and last year, the Rangers, is the only bidder of the Houston franchise this time around. He’s expected to be rewarded for his patience with a rather smooth, drama-free purchase. Longtime owner Drayton McLane has been looking to get out for a while, and Crane is the only guy bidding going into this week.

Crane’s n00b owner position puts Selig in a position where he could take care of realignment and interleague play in one fell swoop by switching the Astros to the AL West starting in 2012. Any pain for the franchise would be cushioned by automatically gaining a new in-state division rival in the Rangers. Also, remember that under the old two-division-per-league alignment, Houston was in the NL West.

The problem with going to fifteen teams in each league is that at least one interleague series would have to be played at all times (barring off days). Those already predisposed to disliking interleague play will hate this even more because it ceases to sequester interleague games into their own period (late May/June). However, it allows schedulers to stretch out the series so that highlighted interleague matchups are always featured on the weekends to maximize revenue.

To that end, I’ve mocked up a schedule of interleague games for next year. To quiet down the criticism, the actual number of interleague games would be reduced from 18 (for AL teams) or 15 (for some NL teams) to 12, including each team’s natural rivalry games. A cut of the schedule is below, with a link to the full schedule if you can click on the graphic.

Looking at the schedule, you’ll notice that during the first half of the season there are often two interleague series occurring simultaneously during the week. In the second half, that dies down. If the league wanted to go to 18 interleague games per team, additional series could be scheduled in this manner throughout the rest of the season. It has its issues, but as a compromise plan it might work. At least it would fix the ridiculous 15/18 game imbalance in the NL, which to my knowledge no one in the media has really critiqued nearly enough.

Added 3:30 PM – Table showing game distribution per division and interleague.


05.06.11
by

News for 5/6/11 (updated)

After the rush of last week, this week is fairly light on news.

The Dodgers and Frank McCourt continue to make headlines off the field, managing to overshadow Andre Ethier’s 2930-game hitting streak.

  • It’s been widely reported that the team will not be able to make payroll on May 31, which will force MLB to bail the Dodgers out. Right now all financial decisions are going through MLB appointee Tom Schieffer. McCourt’s argument has been that Bud Selig’s unwillingness to approve a new media deal from Fox is causing this problem. It is likely that MLB will loan the team money to take care of payroll for the rest of the season, but the price paid will be the complete takeover of the team.
  • McCourt’s newly hired Vice Chairman, Steve Sokoroff, is McCourt’s trash-talking heel. Earlier in the week, Sokoroff accused Schieffer of not acting promptly to approve a security increase at Dodger Stadium in the wake of the death of Osama Bin Laden. Schieffer supplied an email to MLB showing that he approved the request in two minutes, which understandably got MLB very upset. McCourt was forced to apologize for Sokoroff, and probably lost whatever allies he had within the league in the process.
  • A rumor gaining traction has the NFL looking at the Dodger Stadium site as a future stadium home, either by replacing or sitting alongside the existing ballpark. AEG would be the party to make it happen. Whether it’s a swap or two stadia, the concept doesn’t make much sense from AEG’s perspective. One of the reasons to have a domed football stadium is that it serves a second, nearly as important purpose: it replaces and extends the convention center. A ballpark or any open-air stadium won’t work for that purpose. What’s more, AEG probably isn’t interested in pushing a bunch of pedestrian and vehicle traffic to Chavez Ravine, they’d like to keep it downtown. If anything, a football stadium at Chavez Ravine next to Dodger Stadium without any links to AEG might make the most sense of any deal. A NFL stadium could follow the same cost-saving construction principles (building into a hill) employed at Dodger Stadium and advertised for the City of Industry stadium, while displacing only 1,200 parking spaces and utilizing other existing infrastructure at the same time.
  • Even the financial investigation is getting bogged down. MLB wants hard or disc copies of financial records. The Dodgers will only allow auditors access to a “virtual data room” from which nothing can be removed. The IAEA had an easier time getting through inspections in Iraq than this.

The planned Las Vegas National Sports Center could move from Downtown to The Strip, right behind Mandalay Bay. Texas developer Chris Milam bought a large, undeveloped lot across the I-15 freeway from Mandalay Bay and has already signed the Las Vegas 51’s AAA franchise to move down there. Updated 9:33 PM – The 51’s have been sold to Milam, making the impetus to build LVNSC greater.

During the last A’s-Angels series in Anaheim, did anyone notice how the batter’s eye was redone? Instead of a tarp and a painted wall, there appears to be some turf up top and trees up front. I wonder if anyone’s done an analysis to see how batter’s eye changes affect team batting pre/post.

OT – Gus Johnson won’t be working CBS’s NCAA hoops tourney coverage anymore. Not cool.

Updated 9:44 PM – Look to next week for things to heat up a little as the next owners meetings are set for Wednesday and Thursday. The Dodgers may be the #1 discussion topic even though they aren’t on the agenda, with the Mets and a potential new minority owner #2. CBA framework will probably be close to finalized, and the A’s/Rays’ situations might make the talks (don’t count on it). From the LA Times’ Bill Shaikin:

The Dodgers’ situation is not on the agenda for next week’s meeting, and no action is expected with regard to the team, according to two people familiar with plans for the meeting but not authorized to discuss them publicly.

However, the Dodgers currently lack the cash to meet the May 31 payroll, a scenario that could trigger an ownership change, a legal confrontation between McCourt and Selig, or both.

If the Dodgers fail to meet the payroll, the commissioner’s office would pay the salaries, with McCourt almost certainly asked to sell the team. If he were to refuse, the league constitution specifically provides for “involuntary termination” of the franchise if the owner fails to repay any debts to the league within 30 days.