08.11.10
by

Maury Brown on KNBR-1050

The Biz of Baseball‘s Maury Brown will be on The Ticket KNBR-1050 with Damon Bruce on Thursday at 1:30 PM. Don’t miss it, even though I will. Earlier in the week, Maury tried to make sense of the T-rights situation, covering all of the angles.

Consider this the open thread for whatever is discussed. I’ll try to participate once I hear the podcast version.

Quick aside: As I got into Dallas today, one of the big topics of conversation was a question posed to Rangers’ frontman Nolan Ryan about having a retractable roof on Rangers Ballpark. I tweeted Maury about this, he said he heard little, neither had I until today. Now it appears that the issue has legs, turning into a debate about what’s a more sensible investment: Cliff Lee or a roof? Or is it no Lee without a roof? I was there. In person I saw the seemingly indefatigable Lee run out of gas in the 7th, thanks to the nearly 50,000-person communal sauna enjoyed in Arlington tonight. Both teams’ closers are presumed to be unavailable for tomorrow, both bullpens are taxed. It’s what we’ve come to expect out of Texas in August.

08.09.10
by

Day 2: Train in Vain

The trouble with doing a trip such as the one I planned via train is the nature of the rail system in the United States. Even though Western Europe, Japan, and China have elegant, efficient high speed rail systems and additional feeders that work well in concert, we’re still struggling in this country to get even one state moving in that direction. Part of the deterioration of the US rail system comes from neglect, another part comes from the populace feeling that until recently trains were largely a 19th century technology. Finally, there’s the feeling that for many types of travel, such as coast-to-coast flights, rail isn’t fast enough to compete. High speed rail in particular has a sweet spot of 400-500 miles max before it starts to lose out to planes in terms of time savings.

Even if high speed rail were to become a viable, time and cost-efficient alternative to air travel, something would be lost in the process. Right now, I’m on a 28-hour journey, half of it through West Texas. There’s no 3G coverage out here, and it’s easy to go an hour without seeing a building, let alone civilization. Yet I’m relaxed. The next stop is two hours away, where we’ll all have a chance to get off the train and stretch our legs. Onboard, there are no restrictive seat belts. The coach seats have 50 inches of leg room, so much that my short legs can barely reach the foot rest in front of me. There’s plenty of room to recline, and I can get up and move about the train as much as I like. I’ve spent much of the trip so far in the observation lounge car, where I’ve plugged all of my portable electronic devices at a booth and have gone to work. I got a snack down below and had a dining car immediately next door.

Last night, I met a gentleman who was looking at my ballpark pictures while I was working and decided to strike up a conversation. It turns out that he made it to AAA in the Cleveland organization before being called to serve in Korea, where he was in the Air Force. After his service ended, he decided against pursuing a major league career, instead choosing to start a family and settle down in Southern California. He admired how quickly I manipulated files on my machine, while I thanked him for his service and for giving a bit of his own history. I didn’t get chance to mention to him that the end of his baseball career may have coincided with the last World Series won by the Indians in 1954. Coincidence? Hmmm…

Perhaps trains are of a different age, where people weren’t in such a goddamn hurry. Riding a train certainly won’t make me turn my back on new technology. Yet it’s nice to know that there are still ways to travel in which the journey is appreciated every bit as much as the destination. That is the essence of train travel.

08.09.10
by

Day 1: Chase Field

  • 8/8. Game time- 1:10 PM
  • Attendance: 27,856
  • Conditions: 76 degrees, roof closed (97 degrees outside)
  • Matchup: San Diego Padres at Arizona Diamondbacks
  • Starting pitchers: Mat Latos vs. Dan Haren Joe Saunders
  • Result: SD 10, ARI 1, W – Latos (12-5), L – Saunders (7-11)
  • Ticket purchased: $16 bleacher ticket (Sec 140, Row 34, Seat 16; includes $1 gameday surcharge)
  • Beer of choice: Leinenkugel Classic Amber, 12 oz. – $4
  • Food: Fatburger with cheese – $6.75, Value corn dog – $1.50
  • Travel cost: $3.50 for Valley Metro light rail/bus day pass, used on light rail from Tempe (30 min. ride)
  • Other: $1.50 1L bottled water brought into park
  • Total spent: $33.25

12 years into its life, Chase Field (formerly BankOne Ballpark or The “BOB”) has settled in like a comfortable old shoe. No longer is it considered a tremendous engineering marvel, now that the other retractable dome in Glendale has captured the region’s imagination. What appeared at first like strange affectations or quirks in the outfield dimensions have become familiar and not particularly offensive. Thousands upon thousands have ascended and descended the mountain range known as the upper deck, and lived to tell others that they did not, in fact, need sherpas.

Getting There

Regardless of how well the now red-clad snakes do on the field, the stadium is an institution, its massive, hangar-like steel roof visible for miles around the valley. A few years ago, Valley Metro opened a light rail line, linking Downtown Phoenix and some neighborhoods north to Tempe, ASU, and Mesa. Color me pleasantly surprised when I encountered very full trains in both directions, even the inbound train I took over 90 minutes prior to the first pitch. If you’re driving, cash lots run from $6 to $12 depending on how close you want to be. A garage on the opposite side of tracks south of the ballpark has a footbridge for direct access by suite holders.

Westbound trains drop fans off two blocks from the ballpark, whereas eastbound trains stop roughly at the location where the above picture was taken. This makes using the train a rather painless experience from those who live within a short, often dry-heat enduring walk, or those who may use a station-adjacent Park-n-Ride lot. One way fare is $1.75, $3.50 for an all day pass good on Valley Metro buses as well.

The ballpark is laid out in Phoenix’s grid from west to east, with the field orientation facing north. Satellite and overhead photos with the roof closed give the appearance of a rectangular football stadium, not a ballpark. Only a nub sticking out on the south face gives a hint at how a baseball grandstand is shoehorned in there. Fans enter on either the west or east face from large, landscaped plazas. The west side has sports bar called Sliders across the plaza. A recording booth for sports radio station KTAR-620 AM is attached. A dozen or more ticket windows are set up in the southeast corner. Throughout my short journey, I did not see or encounter a ticket scalper, though I must admit I wasn’t actively looking for one.

Ticketing

I sidled up to the ticket window with my eye on one of the cheaper seats. The offerings were plentiful:

  • Outfield Reserved (Upper Deck LF/RF corners): $9
  • Bullpen Reserved (Lower Deck LF/RF corners): $15
  • Bleachers (Lower Deck LF/RF outfield): $15
  • Infield Reserve (Upper Deck infield/baselines): $15

As an Oakland bleacher bum, I couldn’t help but get a reasonably priced, $15 bleacher ticket (Sec 140, Row 34, Seat 16). The bleachers are aluminum benches with backs and upholders. Riser depth is the same as the regular seats, making it easy to run between the bleachers and the regular seat sections. I was not pleased to see that the D-backs charge an additional $1 gameday service fee on top of the published price, bringing my ticket cost to $16. It’s still better than dealing with Ticketmaster or Tickets.com, at least for games that are definitely not expected to be sellouts. In hindsight, I probably should’ve gotten the $9 ticket since it was so easy to move around.

From where I sat, I initially had a serious glare problem from the combination of lights and clerestory windows in the roof. It took a few innings to properly adjust so that I could pick up ball flight. It’s not a problem that would seriously affect outfielders.

Concessions

Food offerings at Chase Field are middling with little variety. A Fatburger stand is behind the LF bleachers. All burgers are cooked to order with your choice of toppings, just like the restaurant. The 1/3-lb. burger was $6.75 and was pretty close to what a Fatburger in a restaurant would taste like. Regular ballpark fare rules otherwise, with $5 D-back Dogs and $3.75 sodas, all Pepsi stuff. There’s also a value menu at most stands, consisting of a $1.50 hot dog/corn dog, $1.50 small popcorn, or $1.50 milk or small soda. That’s an excellent deal, and worthy of a thumbs up.

Beer has three pricing tiers. Just about every stand that offers draft beer has a $4, 12-ounce beer on hand, which is usually Coors Light. For $9 a large is offered, in which case a better beer such as Blue Moon Belgian White (also a Molson Coors product) is available. For more discriminating beer lovers, most of the beer stands also have 22-ounce bottles of Fat Tire and Sierra Nevada on hand for $10.50. I choose to get beer from the Leinenkugel stand, just around the corner from Fatburger. Leinenkugel, or “Leinie” to those in the know, is owned by SAB Miller and makes different kinds of craft lager beers. I got the $4 classic leinie, an amber by name and while not as interesting or flavorful as notable craft brew amber ales, is more than a step above the usual Big Three swill. Note: Maricopa County is looking to sell countywide pouring rights to the highest bidder.

Circulation

For some strange reason, only one set of escalators were built at Chase Field, at the West main entrance. Since fans have to exit the air conditioned confines to use the escalator, it doesn’t get heavy use. Ramps and stairs are well marked but also well concealed. Fans enter in on the Main Concourse, with the field 25 feet below MC. The Upper Concourse is over 46 feet above the MC. The MC and UC sandwich the Press Level (lower mezzanine) and the the Insight Diamond Level (upper mezzanine). Interestingly, two sets of elevators in LF and RF are available to the general public. The location of a large play area in the upper deck translates to a mall-like scene where tons of families use the LF elevators heavily. In right field, where there is an unadorned plaza, the elevators are only lightly used. Other elevators elsewhere in the stadium are intended for accessibility uses and are clearly marked as such.

Concourses are the stadium average 30 feet wide, though unlike the Coliseum they don’t include the transitional areas for fans entering or leaving the seating sections, as well as the wheelchair rows. That makes the whole place feel much less cramped, leaving plenty of room for alternative uses, best exemplified by the following picture:

Do you really need to ask what the girl was singing? “Love Story” by Taylor Swift, of course.

While I went through the seating bowl taking pictures, the ushers were extremely friendly and courteous. After the game started, they stayed the same – and not a single one checked for a ticket. I didn’t have time to do a significant seat upgrade, but I was able to get down to the lower boxes around the infield in the 5th inning. By that time the Pads had gotten a big inning thanks to some D-backs defensive miscues, prompting some fans to leave. It also helps that there is no cordoned off field level club area.

Alas, I didn’t stay long. I came not to merely check out the stadium, but to also hike to the top. Chase Field is notorious for its expansive upper deck, which has a minimum of 32 rows and maxes out at 40 in certain locations. If that isn’t bad enough, the pitch (rise) of the seating rows is at least 21 inches, making it the steepest of any ballpark west of the Mississippi. (The Coliseum has only 17 rows in the upper deck, with a pitch of 17-18 inches.)

I noticed that a couple dozen people were hanging out in the upper reaches, so I figured it was time to reach the summit. I made my way to the top, where I was congratulated by a young family. It’s the top row where fans have access to windows looking out on the metro area. Unfortunately, the views aren’t particularly exciting from the east side. From the west side, you can get a good look at Downtown Phoenix. Strangely, the seats behind the plate feel somewhat isolated from the rest of the ballpark as the ceiling is lower. If you’re willing to deal with the climb, it’s a cheap way to go at $15 ($9 in the outfield).

Other observations

  • The sound system is extremely echo-prone. I’d been here before when the roof was open and noticed the same thing.
  • The scoreboard, upon the second or third AB for each batter, displays a “back of the baseball card” show of stats. No advanced stats or peripherals, however.
  • Overhangs are modest, 12 rows over the lower deck for the club level, and 6 rows over the club level for the upper deck.
  • When the park opened, I really hated the Buck Showalter-influenced field dimensions. I realized sometime later that Jerry Colangelo was just trying to squeeze as much revenue out of the outfield as possible.
  • The park is due for some upgrades in the next decade, including a new field level club and better growing lights for the oft-brownish field. The scoreboards were revamped some time ago and need nothing.

Wrap-up

Yes, it’s a dome. Can’t get around it. But you also can’t get around sweltering heat, even if it’s dry heat. MLB and Colangelo were smart to get the ballpark built in time for the 1998 season, instead of having the D-backs play at a beefed up Phoenix Muni or some other spring training facility. The fans like it, the amenities are good, and the transit and parking convenience make it one of the better urban ballparks in the nation. No, the upper deck can’t be fixed. So far, MLB has stood firm in its stance to keep the All Star Game at Chase Field in 2011, despite boycott threats over SB 1070 (which has had an injunction neuter the most controversial parts for now). Small changes may be in the offing if/when All Star Weekend happens, though it probably won’t be much to enhance the fan experience. Until then, Chase Field remains perfectly serviceable and pleasant for snakes and Phoenix MLB fans, and that’s something that would’ve been considered inconceivable 30 years ago.

08.05.10
by

Again I have to ask, “Is the process legitimate?”

Monte Poole has a column out tonight calling San Jose the “underdog,” which by extension would make Oakland the “favorite.” Which is fair, considering the amount of work that has to be done to get any team to move, let alone the A’s. There is something in the column around which I’d like to center the discussion.

“I’ll admit, 16 to 18 months ago, the team seemed on its way out of Oakland,” says Doug Boxer, vice chairman of the Oakland planning commission and co-founder of Let’s Go Oakland, a group formed to keep the A’s in the city. “We saw it as a ‘check the box’ process.

“But it has become apparent this is a real process. There has been correspondence with the commissioner. Oakland is providing relevant and real data showing the A’s can make it work here.”

Poole doesn’t say whether or not he thinks the process is legitimate. Boxer deserves credit for believing that it is.

However, there are lots of pro-Oakland folks who either believe that the whole thing is rigged and Oakland is doomed, or that it’s legitimate and Oakland will win out due to its work and difficulty in getting a San Jose deal to happen. The thing is, you can’t have it both ways. As outlined in my chart, if Oakland is deemed incapable of hosting the A’s long term, they will be out the door, by hook or crook. It may take several years, even a decade. An ownership change wouldn’t matter, since the problems would be related to the market, not an owner. Put it this way: the Giants got a lot of crap for financing $170 million for China Basin. Do you think MLB would approve a new pro-Oakland ownership group knowing that it would have to fund $350 million or more (after naming rights) for an Oakland ballpark, even if it felt that the regional support wasn’t there? Not likely.

The only way this works out the best for Oakland is if:

  • A) The process is real and legitimate
  • B) MLB rules that Oakland and the East Bay are enough to support the A’s
  • C) Wolff/Fisher are so frustrated that they sell instead of waiting it out until after the 2017 season, when debt service for AT&T Park would end

That’s a lot of “what-ifs” to hinge your hopes on. If this is all legitimate, that’s what you have to believe. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “I trust MLB to do the right thing” and then claim that it’s rigged if the decision doesn’t come out your way. If it’s fair, you should be prepared to live with the ruling, good or bad. And if it isn’t, you should be calling B.S. on the whole thing from when the charade started in March 2009. Otherwise, your so-called principles don’t amount to a hill of beans.

08.03.10
by

Stay classy, Rangers + Greenberg-Ryan group wins

After tonight’s EXTREMELY frustrating effort, my heart has been somewhat warmed by this letter to the editor of the Ft. Worth Star Telegram:

I want my brick back

Way back when the Rangers’ ballpark was built, there was a public campaign requesting donations for bricks near the entrance to the stadium. I was a willing donor, and my donated bricks were inscribed with names of several of my granddaughters.

Attending a recent game with my oldest granddaughter, my wife noticed the bricks are missing, and she was told the brick surfaces became uneven and were replaced with pavement.

Am I on the list of Rangers creditors?

— Jan Fersing, Fort Worth

Wow. Just wow. I bet some bean counter saw a number of complaints about the uneven surfaces and felt that there was a lawsuit risk, thereby justifying the paving over of the bricks. I will be investigating this on my visit.

Update on Rangers auction: After much delay this morning, the auction has begun. Despite what appeared to be a last-minute deal put together by the Greenberg-Ryan group, the auction opened with two groups: Greenberg-Ryan and a group with one-time suitor Jim Crane and Mark Cuban. Follow Maury Brown (@BizballMaury) and the Star Telegram’s Anthony Andro (@aandro) for play-by-play.

Update 8/4 10:47 PM – Greenberg-Ryan group has won. Crane-Cuban group had one last chance but backed off. Final tally: $385 million in cash, plus $12 million in escrow and $220 million in assumed debt.

08.03.10
by

SJ City Council Session 8/3

Yes, they are having a session as previously scheduled. And yes, it will have a ballpark related issue on the agenda, though isn’t quite as impactful as approving a ballot measure. Instead, the Council will take up the matter of amended negotiating principles, which can be found on the last four pages of this memo. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, to be certain, but there are a few details worth pointing out. (Sorry, can’t cut-n-paste the memo.) 

Notice that it authorizes the remainder of land acquisitions, but doesn’t say what methods would be used to make the acquisitions.

Mayor Reed has given his introductory statement, followed by motions of support by Councilmembers Liccardo and Herrera. Former Mayor Susan Hammer is speaking now, to be followed by Michael Mulcahy. Marc Morris (Better Sense San Jose) is also speaking. Lots of pro-business supporters have shown up, including SVLG’s Carl Guardino, who also spoke in favor.

2:35 PM – Public comments are over. Limited council discussion. Negotiating principles approved unanimously. BBSJ folks leaving, SJFD members filling the chambers. This might get interesting.

08.02.10
by

News for the week of 8/1

This may be the only post of the week from me. I’ve got a lot of work to cram before I head out on the trip.

And now for the news:

The Merc’s Scott Herhold analyzes the political calculus of San Jose’s efforts of the last week.

Matier and Ross report on AT&T playing hardball with San Jose on the $12 million Diridon property.

City Councilman Sam Liccardo, whose downtown district includes the ballpark site near Diridon Station, says it’s troubling that a company “that depends so heavily on public good will” would attempt to “rake taxpayers over the coals.”

Nonsense, says AT&T California spokesman Ryan Rauzon. He says the center – which employs more than 100 people and serves as a maintenance and storage yard for a fleet of vehicles – is vital “to making sure we take care of our customers.”

“The land obviously is not for sale,” he said.

Councilman Liccardo might be better served finding a suitable landing spot for AT&T. I’ve mentioned before that I’ve been in work centers like the one that’s in question here. They are not central offices, so they don’t have tons of expensive switching equipment. They are, ironically, offices, with training facilities and conference rooms. More importantly, they have large parking lots to hold the various trucks that run around the service area. San Jose will either have to put resources into finding another centrally located spot with enough parking to make it work, or use eminent domain, which would be approved with the March vote. Note: AT&T is a sponsor of both the A’s and Giants, so it’s not a situation where the company is beholden to one team or another.

Over at The Biz of Baseball, Maury Brown’s covering the Rangers’ ownership debacle like a champ. There’s coverage of Mark Cuban and FOX perhaps being bidders on Wednesday. Get your popcorn ready. There are even threats that the Rangers would lose Josh Hamilton and Cliff Lee if the Greenberg-Ryan group were not the winner. Whatever, given the incredible job that FOX did owning the Dodgers, GOOOOOOO FOXXXXXXXX!!!!!

If you didn’t catch it last week, ESPN has a feature on health code violations by stadiums in the US and Canada. Bay Area facilities tended to perform among the best in the nation, though the Coliseum was the worst at 34%.

FWIW, I’m bringing in food tonight.

07.28.10
by

Reed pulls measure from November ballot

The press release in its entirety is quoted below.

Mayor Reed Pulls Proposal to Place Downtown Ballpark Measure on November Ballot

Decision comes after Major League Baseball offers to help cover the added cost for a possible special election and hints that a decision on territorial rights may come in time for a spring vote

San Jose, Calif. – Mayor Chuck Reed has announced that he is pulling his request that the city’s Rules Committee place a downtown ballpark initiative on the November 2, 2010 ballot, following a discussion with A’s owner Lew Wolff. The decision comes after Major League Baseball (MLB) President Bob DuPuy, speaking on behalf of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, also agreed to help cover the taxpayer cost if a special election is required in the spring.

“I pursued a November election because I believe the citizens of San Jose deserve to have their voices heard.  We have strong community support to build a privately-funded ballpark, which would be a catalyst for thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue to fund vital city services,” said Mayor Chuck Reed.  “After discussing our options with Lew Wolff, other elected officials and members of Pro Baseball San Jose, we have decided to forgo a November ballot measure.”

Mayor Reed will still be asking the City Council to adopt a resolution of support for allowing the Athletics to move to San Jose that incorporates the Mayor’s proposed amendments to the city’s ballpark Negotiating Principles.

Lew Wolff praised the strong leadership of Mayor Reed. “I’m grateful that San Jose has shown a gritty determination to help us build a new ballpark for our franchise. We appreciate the strong leadership of both the Mayor and Commissioner Selig,” Wolff said. “We look forward to a final decision from the Commissioner, and will vigorously pursue an election next year if that decision is a positive one,” he added.

Since April 2009, city leaders have been working in partnership with the Athletics on a possible relocation to San Jose. In that time, the city has developed a set of negotiating principles for a new stadium, completed an economic analysis and environmental impact review for a downtown ballpark, and met with members of a special MLB Committee formed to study ballpark options for the Athletics. However, city leaders have been waiting for a response from MLB regarding territorial rights that currently prevent the Athletics from moving to San Jose.

“The initial push to hold a November vote sent a strong signal to league officials that San Jose is serious about attracting a Major League ballclub and that it’s time to move forward with the process,” said San Jose City Councilmember Sam Liccardo, who represents downtown. “The Commissioner’s offer to help pay for a possible election in the spring was the first indication that the league is inching closer to a decision on territorial rights.”

Mayor Reed and Councilmembers Rose Herrera, Sam Liccardo and Nancy Pyle had originally proposed placing the San Jose Downtown Ballpark and Jobs Measure on the November 2010 ballot to avoid the added expense of a special election. Placing a measure on this November’s ballot would have cost several hundred thousand dollars while holding a special election is estimated to cost more than one million dollars.  Specific estimates are set by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters when a measure is submitted for placement on the ballot.  Voter approval is required to use city land or funds in conjunction with a downtown ballpark, and after this November, the next regularly-scheduled election in San Jose is not until June 2012.

Background:

The San Jose Downtown Ballpark and Jobs Measure required that the A’s would be responsible for 100% of the cost of building, operating and maintaining a new Major League Baseball ballpark. No new taxes could be raised to bring baseball to San Jose.

Ballpark Economic Impacts

A September 2009 Economic Impact Study commissioned by the City of San Jose states that the estimated $490 million private investment in a new downtown ballpark would bring positive economic benefits to the City:
–          More than 2,000 annual jobs (full, part-time, seasonal) of which 970 would be new jobs in San Jose as a result of the project
–          $2.9 billion total economic output for the local economy over a 30-year period
–          128 million in annual net economic impact as a result of direct spending on operations (that is partially re-spent in San Jose)
–          $5 million in annual revenues for local governments, including approximately $3 million to the City of San Jose’s General Fund and Redevelopment Agency

Following a discussion with Athletics owner Lew Wolff, Mayor Reed informed MLB President Bob DuPuy of his decision this morning and will rescind his request that the Rules Committee place the ballpark ballot measure on the agenda for the August 3 City Council Meeting. The Rules Committee will still decide today whether to place the proposed ballpark Negotiating Principles amendments on the August 3 agenda.
The Rules Committee will still meet today to discuss four other proposed ballot measures:
1. Reforming binding arbitration for police officers and firefighters;
2. Instituting a tax on medical marijuana;
3. Raising the sales tax by ¼ percent; and
4. Changing minimum benefits and contribution formulas for employee pensions

Now I can have lunch.

07.28.10
by

A session for concessions

As was advertised last week, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed met with MLB COO Bob DuPuy to clear the air about the City’s move towards a November vote. What came out of it was an urging by DuPuy and his boss, Commissioner Bud Selig, to delay the vote until next March, which MLB promised it would partially fund. The idea is that Selig’s panel would complete its work and then allow him to render a decision which would allow San Jose to move forward (or not).

Unfortunately, no one in my household was a fly on the wall for the proceedings, so we have no idea what was said outside of the statement. What was said (and not printed) is the real story. Thing is, you could fill in the gaps there largely based on your own A’s worldview, framed by a simple question:

Is this process truly legitimate?

(I started out with some paragraphs explaining this, then scrapped them in favor of a table.)

Chances are that you fall into one of the green or yellow cells, depending on which city you are leaning towards. In organizing views in this manner, there is no obvious middle ground even though there are many that fill the “keep ’em in the Bay Area” crowd. The point of the table is that if you spend enough time analyzing the issues and assigning values to the various challenges and benefits each city carries, you’ll probably see yourself on one side of the fence or another. You may waver from time to time depending on the news cycle, which is perfectly acceptable given the lack of real insight the public has into the situation. If there’s anything we’ve learned throughout all of this, it’s that city governments have the transparency of an eggshell, whereas MLB has that of a brick wall.

(Note: Contraction is off the table for now. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be revisited by 2013, though I’m sticking with my thought that it’s too expensive to pull off for MLB – for the owners and legally for the league.)

All right, so I’ve set up everyone’s relative worldview. Whatever your thinking is, it colors the way you view today’s news. In the immediate moments after the Mayor’s press release, I checked to see what the fallout would be here and in the media. SJ Councilman Sam Liccardo was quick to spin the news as positive for the city, in that it forced MLB to act. Mark Purdy just came out with a column in agreement with the councilman. And late last week, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and City Council President Jane Brunner jointly released a letter to MLB outlining the steps that the City has taken to retain the A’s. Here are the bullet points of the letter (made available to BANG late today):

  • Met with your Committee extensively over the 16 month period Identified three waterfront sites which each meet the physical and infrastructural needs for a 21st Century ballpark as identified by your Committee Generated detailed diligence materials on each of the three sites regarding
    o environmental conditions
    o infrastructure conditions
    o transportation access
    o parking studies
  • Generated a detailed land-use plan identifying key milestones and reviewing Oakland’s entitlement processes
  • Demonstrated that the City/Redevelopment Agency has the financial capacity to uphold its end of any negotiated transaction
  • Generated over 130 letters of support for keeping the A’s in Oakland from members of the East Bay private sector including business, labor and community leaders
  • Secured over $500,000 in deposits from 35 corporate entities expressing interest in luxury suites, sponsorship opportunities and, most significantly, naming rights for a new waterfront ballpark
  • Organized a grass-roots effort through Facebook with over 40,000 members committed to keeping the A’s in Oakland (see http://www.facebook.com/letsgooakland)
  • Commissioned and published an Economic and Fiscal study which found that a new waterfront ballpark in Oakland would generate thousands of jobs, generate $2.6 billion in economic activity, increase property values around the ballpark by $4.7 billion, and generate over $240 million for Oakland’s general fund

When you add up the avalanche of press releases and responses, the picture starts to become clear. The horserace that wasn’t supposed to happen, that MLB was supposedly trying to avoid, is here. And now’s when it gets interesting. It’s a mistake to read too much into the little machinations that occur. For instance, MLB offering money for a spring 2011 election is nothing as it’ll come out of Selig’s enormous discretionary fund. It just means that the pro and anti-ballpark forces will have 6 more months to add to their campaign warchests. It’s also a mistake to think that either Oakland or San Jose are in an advantageous position relative to each other.

What’s going to happen? Well, first I expect the SJ City Council to put off the vote, as suggested by Selig/DuPuy. And yes, they’ll take up the offer because it’s free money for what could be a one-issue special election. At the same time, Oakland will get its shot to put together the JLS ballpark deal. The schedule probably won’t be kind, maybe 12-18 months. Maybe as little as 9 months. It may or may not be enough to complete and certify an EIR. More important, they’ll be asked to line up those sponsors and business interests, as referred to in the Dellums/Brunner letter. It’ll be imperative that they execute on this, though I expect that if Don Perata is elected Mayor, his willingness to get in the machine will help. (It should be pointed out that the keeping the A’s is not a plank in any of the leading mayoral candidates’ platforms.) As a concession, MLB may ask Oakland and the Coliseum JPA to add 1-2 years to the A’s lease, which is due to expire after the 2013 season. This would have several cascading effects:

  • The A’s could move into an JLS ballpark in 2015 or 2016 if necessary. Or a San Jose ballpark if it doesn’t work out.
  • The Raiders would suddenly be in a pickle, as they probably don’t want to stay in the current Coliseum config for 2 more years beyond their lease. They could either move to Santa Clara if the 49ers’ stadium is built, or they could play hardball with the JPA and push for a revamped/new Coliseum. Then Oakland and the JPA would have to choose between the two teams.
  • Discussions with Oakland/East Bay-based sponsors, which until now have been under wraps, will have to be more public. Especially the naming rights sponsor, which would probably have to replace Cisco (I’d expect them to go with the Niners stadium instead).
  • Oakland interests could no longer claim that MLB hasn’t given The Town a shot.

None of that is good news if you’re Lew Wolff or a Baseball San Jose booster. Assuming that the process does have integrity, it’s the best way to be above reproach. However, Oakland will have little time to get everything together, a process that has taken San Jose fits and starts totaling 5 years. Oakland pols will have to somehow avoid the idea that they’re ramming a stadium deal through, in a city that is already enormously sensitive to bad stadium deals and doubly sensitive to huge budget cuts. Make enough early mistakes and MLB could kill the contest early. Keep in mind that as nice as 35 corporate sponsors and $500k in deposits sounds, Oakland’s going to need a lot more than that to make the math work on a $450 million ballpark, perhaps $20 million a year in commitments. For now a good first step would be to authorize an EIR. Some of the pledged sponsor money redirected towards the EIR would be a good gesture as it wouldn’t hurt the City fiscally.

Of course, if you think that MLB is prone to cronyism or otherwise rigged this, the endgame is quite different. Rigged for what, though? After all, the whole time San Jose will still be there, sitting and waiting for Oakland to fail, with MLB given a few more months to come up with a T-rights settlement between the Giants and A’s.

07.27.10
by

Major release from MLB: SJ, stop the vote

So it turns out Bud Selig isn’t Claude Rains after all. I had asked why MLB hadn’t simply requested that San Jose delay the vote, and it turns out that it took a weekend for them to make the call. From Mayor Reed’s office:

MLB President Bob DuPuy informed me today that Commissioner Selig has requested that the San Jose City Council refrain from placing a Downtown Ballpark Measure on the November 2010 ballot so that MLB’s special committee can complete its work. He also committed that, if a special election is required in the spring, MLB would help pay for it.

Mr. DuPuy also shared that he appreciated the amount of work the City has done and the level of excitement that the San Jose community has shown in attracting a Major League ballclub.

I informed Mr. DuPuy that I would consider the league’s request and talk with Lew Wolff. We also pledged to continue our conversation in the coming days.

How ’bout dem apples?