07.14.10
by

Altogether Now

Not to be forgotten, at least one Oakland official is expressing his frustration at Bud Selig and his Merry Trio’s sixteen months of work (and counting), courtesy of Chris Metinko of the Trib:

“I think these people are playing us,” Oakland Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente said Wednesday. “The best thing (Major League Baseball) can do is pit one city against the other. I feel this is all being orchestrated.”

De La Fuente’s comments come just days after San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed expressed similar dismay over MLB’s long, drawn-out study.

…

De La Fuente, who also serves on the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board that controls the stadium in Oakland, said he has not heard anything from MLB in several weeks and echoed Reed’s comments about the cities being held hostage.

“At the end of the day, we should not be held hostage by baseball,” De La Fuente said.

In honor of the collective anger emanating from at least two corners of the Bay Area, I present the following video gem (watch out for some profanity):

In light of the rather elaborate plan hatched and executed by Miami’s new trio, it’s worth asking: How much of this process is real?

07.13.10
by

Calling a bluff

There’s a reason why I don’t play much poker anymore. Frankly, I suck at it. I have no poker face. Apparently, we’re about to find out if San Jose has a good poker face too, because Bud Selig just announced that he is not going to bend to their will.

But, Selig said he would not let an Aug. 3 deadline from the San Jose City Council affect the committee’s timeline. San Jose officials have said they require a commitment from Major League Baseball by that date in order to put a stadium referendum on the November ballot.

If San Jose decides to table the measure, that’s not going to be further impetus for MLB to act. It’s amazing to me how stubborn they are about this. They have been slowly plowing away with their head down for five years now. Maybe they received some kind of promise from Selig when he visited a couple of years ago. Somehow I doubt it. Maybe Wolff told them that he’d work the channels and take care of the lodge, which sounds more likely. Whatever the real machinations are, San Jose will have to decide soon how truly serious about this they are. That means taking a bit of a risk and having faith in the citizenry.

MLB is the hot girl who gets all the attention in school, and San Jose is the average looking guy who is barely acknowledged by her. If he wants to take her to the senior prom, he needs to do all the prom stuff – rent the tux, get a limo, corsage, maybe a hotel room… otherwise she’ll find someone else. Perhaps her slacker ex-boyfriend.

Let’s keep this in proper perspective. The cost for San Jose to be in this is minimal compared to the way so many other American cities have been absolutely pillaged by pro sports leagues and franchises over the last thirty years. So come on, SJ, man up. Get the limo.

Selig also addressed a rumor about his panel perhaps working out a ballpark deal with Oakland:

Selig also denied suspicions that the three-person committee has overstepped its original information-gathering objective and has engaged in active talks to broker a new ballpark in Oakland.

Can’t fault the slacker dude from trying to get the girl back. Does this plot sound more John Hughes or Richard Linklater? Kevin Smith?

07.13.10
by

Coming to a head

Tuesday’s Merc article by Tracy Seipel indicates a sense a desperation among the San Jose boosters and Wolff, in that they need Bud Selig to render a decision on T-rights in order for San Jose to move forward with a ballot measure. In weighs Roger Noll, who feels that Selig hasn’t acted prudently on behalf of either the A’s or Giants.

Roger Noll, a professor of sports economics at Stanford University, said Wolff’s frustration means “Selig isn’t doing the job of a commissioner, which is getting the Giants and the A’s to talk together.” He has predicted the two teams could strike a financial settlement for the territorial rights.

“It’s very difficult to reach a deal without the commissioner coming in and saying, ‘Look, I want a deal… and you guys need to work it out,'” said Noll. “‘And if you don’t, I will impose one on you.”’

Now that would be fantastic for the pro-San Jose folks. Unfortunately, it’s not realistic. From what I’ve gathered, there has been little discussion about prioritizing this issue. Even if Wolff brought it up at the brief owner’s meetings and in the process set himself on fire to get everyone’s attention, I still don’t think Selig and the owners would take action immediately. I could be wrong on this, but I’m going with what I’ve been stating the last six months: San Jose has to get its ducks in a row first, then the owners can talk. Unfair? Yes. Unexpected? Not in the least.

The question arising from this is: What risk is there to the political process if MLB doesn’t take action in time? Well, that’s not easy to quantify. Perhaps some group is taking a poll now on this, but I suspect that trying to explain the history and vagaries of MLB’s Santa Clara County territorial rights to the voting populace would be an exercise in futility. The last polls taken support a ballpark in a general way, so what’s the hold-up? In all likelihood, it’s the ballot language. The measure has a limit of 75 words, and the pols must have numerous drafts on hand, wanting the most ironclad (yet deliberately vague) version in place before they go to the voters. That’s the irony in all of this. MLB won’t budge until SJ has its ducks in a row, and SJ doesn’t want to move unless it has an indication from MLB that it wants to move forward. SJ doesn’t want the extra cost associated with a spring off year special election, and November 2011 is more than merely cutting it close, it’s practically late given a likely construction schedule.

It sounds like an impasse, except that MLB knows that it has survived just fine without a franchise in San Jose for the last century. Can SJ afford to be a little more patient? We’ll find out soon enough.

Note: The article mentions a new grassroots anti-stadium group called Better Sense San Jose. The site has been up since April or May and has a decidedly fiscal slant, though like Stand for San Jose, I’m skeptical as to who’s behind it. WHOIS lookups on the domain owner are blocked, whereas the contact address appears to be a P.O. Box at a UPS Store in the Rose Garden neighborhood. Come on, people, it’s okay to let the public know who you are.

07.12.10
by

Selig speaks, actually says something

LA TImes baseball scribe Bill Shaikin has a fairly lengthy interview with one H.R. “Bud” Selig on the eve of the All Star Game. I say “fairly” because the Times has chosen to split the interview into ten (!) parts to hike up pageviews. In any case, Shaikin got Selig to comment a little on the SF-Oakland-San Jose love triangle on page 4. Here’s the excerpt with some interspersed commentary by yours truly.

Q: George Mitchell delivered the report you commissioned on baseball’s steroid era — 700 interviews, 115,000 pages of documents — in 21 months. It has been 16 months since you commissioned a report on the Oakland Athletics’ stadium situation, an issue that does not appear anywhere near as complex. The A’s still want to move to San Jose; the San Francisco Giants still say no. Why have you not been able to broker a deal between the A’s and the Giants?

A: …Now, as far as the San Francisco-Oakland thing: It’s complicated. I like both parties a great deal. We have territorial rules. I put a committee together that has the qualifications to understand. They’re still hard at work. They’ve still got things to do. This has a lot of ramifications to it.

Eventually, I will make a decision. What I want to say — because I’m generally very deliberate, as everybody knows — is that I didn’t want to have anybody say at the end, ‘Did you look at this? Did you look at that? What about X? What about Y?’

Selig is basically saying that he has all the cards here, so he doesn’t have to do anything right away. If  San Jose is balking at putting a measure on the ballot without the decision, tough luck. Why should he put himself out and start making sausage with the owners when SJ hasn’t gotten everything done yet?

Q: Why is it not as simple as: The Giants claim their business will be severely damaged if the A’s move to San Jose, so you quantify how much their business is hurt and write them a check?

A: It isn’t that simple. You’ve got two parties involved here. There are a lot of questions that people raise about damage. It’s up to us to check everything out. There are a lot of questions the other clubs can ask — and I will ask — before we can make any move. I know that people want a decision. I understand that. But my job is to get it right. If it takes a little longer than people thought, so be it.

Ergo, “I really don’t want to open up this can of worms because of the effect on the NY teams. At least not until someone in the Bay Area has their act together.”

Q: The A’s and Tampa Bay Rays are the two teams still looking for a new ballpark. When the collective bargaining agreement expires next year, so does the moratorium on contraction. If the ballpark situations are not resolved, would you consider folding the A’s and Rays?

A: No, I wouldn’t. I think we have moved past that.

It’s too late to talk contraction until the after the next CBA begins.

We’re going into 16 years of labor peace. I regard that as maybe the prime reason for the growth of the sport.

Do you really think Selig wants two contracted teams as part of his legacy?

I love the new ballparks. I love revenue sharing. I love interleague play and the wild card. But I don’t think we understood how those labor confrontations were damaging us, whether it was 1972, 1973, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1990 or 1994.

There’s no need to fundamentally change the current CBA. The only people complaining are fans (and some owners) of small market teams. Everyone else (owners, players’ union) is reasonably happy.

There is no question that both of those teams need new ballparks. We’ll just have to work our way through it. Tampa has done a marvelous job running their team. [General Manager] Billy Beane has done a terrific job in Oakland. With the economics of baseball today, you’ve got to have a new stadium.

It’s hard to infer too much from this. I’ve always held that Selig will not retire until the Tampa Bay and Oakland situations are resolved one way or another. Since contraction is not happening, it has to be ballparks – somewhere. Once the Rangers’ situation is figured out, I expect Selig and DuPuy to spend a lot of time and resources on TB/OAK.

I’ll leave with one of the more revolting developments from Shaikin’s excellent interview:

I [Selig] was a Yankee fan when I was growing up here [Milwaukee].

Does he deserve a pass because Milwaukee didn’t have a major league franchise when he was a kid?

07.12.10
by

Another weekend, another op-ed

Following up on last week’s volley by San Jose booster Larry Stone, Oakland supporter and one-time A’s executive Andy Dolich fires back on the home city’s behalf. He brings up a great point in showing how Oakland has been counted out time and time again, only to emerge as still having its teams. His tack is left a bit wanting, as he repeatedly mines the not-so-recent past for Oakland’s success while not pointing at all to the future, or recent failures. His only hint at the future is a hope that someone will swoop in and buy the A’s out from the Wolff/Fisher group.

The A’s will most likely get their new stadium in Oakland because the A’s will follow the Giants example. In the Giants’ darkest moment, a group came together to keep the team in its rightful place in San Francisco. Oakland elected officials and private, civic-minded business leaders will find a way to build a new ballpark. When fans of the Green and Gold are celebrating their fifth world championship, it will be in Oakland.

I’ve heard this multiple times, yet I’ve never heard it articulated in any meaningful way. Is the idea to wait out the process, hope San Jose fails, Wolff gives up, and sells the team in short order to an Oakland-only interest (that MLB approves of)? It’s not impossible, but it’s not really a strategy. It’s like waiting for your boss to give you a promotion at work even though you’ve been playing Farmville at your desk everytime he drops by. Moreover, is Dolich suggesting that he would be part of the angel ownership group, just as he was part of the Piccinini group? If that happened, then suddenly there would be something concrete. It’s hard to say what other pieces would be part of such an investor group, but at least one would have to be a billionaire in order to carry the weight required to get a new ballpark deal done. Hell, I would love to start that rumor myself, but it would be completely out of thin air.

Speaking of a new ballpark, Dolich cites the Giants the prime example to get something done in Oakland.

It took the Giants 16 years and four failed elections to get their gem of a privately financed jewel at China Basin. It’s a bear to build a new sports venue in today’s California, no matter how much rose coloring you add to your glasses or how much of the owners’ privately funded millions are put into the project.

Point of distinction: When the Giants proposed their “privately financed jewel,” it took only one election to get it approved. The previous three initiatives all involved publicly financed venues in either San Francisco or Santa Clara County. Big difference. Whether in Oakland or San Jose, it’s not hard to envision a ballpark happening once a Yes vote is obtained. Oakland does not have a voting requirement for a stadium, which boosters like to point out frequently, but at the same time it’s remarkably bad form to spend up $50-100 million on land and infrastructure in a budget crunch without getting public approval, especially in light of the Coliseum renovation debacle.

If Oakland and its boosters really want to get citizens of the city and the region out of its collective apathy or disaffection, they need to articulate how this can all be done. It doesn’t have to be done now, but it needs to be done steadily and completely. I’ve received conflicting reports on whether that’s happening, though Mark Purdy, in his latest repetitious plea to Bud Selig, thinks the MLB panel may be working with Oakland interests on such a plan. Personally, I hope that it is happening, whether it’s to perform due diligence throughout the East Bay or to create a viable Plan B if San Jose doesn’t work out. In the constant battling between the two factions, it’s easy to lose sight of the goal of keeping the A’s in the Bay Area. I don’t tire of the posturing since that’s all it is, posturing. Soon, the dog days will be upon us and work will begin anew.

07.10.10
by

OT – The Lebron Show

In an episode of the first season of Mad Men, ambitious account man Pete Campbell finds some potentially damaging information about his boss, Don Draper. Feeling spurned over not being offered the “Head of Account Services” position, Campbell decides to use this information to blackmail Draper into giving him the job. Campbell tries to spin the threat as an opportunity for Draper to see that Campbell truly deserves the position, dismissing the blackmail threat entirely. He even pleads with Draper that he deserves the job, even though it is abundantly clear that he is too green, too spoiled, and far too entitled to have earned it.

That scene took place in a somewhat romanticized version of the early 60’s, when men were men and they drank like fish at work. It’s not hard to see something like that having played out for real in cutthroat Manhattan, during an era when America and Americans were feeling their oats, Ayn Rand style. So it’s not illogical to believe that in roughly 50 years, treachery and egotrips by the spoiled have progressed to the farce seen Thursday at a Boys and Girls Club in wealthy, suburban Greenwich, CT.

Looking back on it now, “The Decision” starring Lebron James was no more than a meant-to-be dramatic climax to an elaborate ruse set up by James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and their respective handlers and agents. There were clues in the interview with Wade and Bosh 24 hours prior, when Bosh was asked about what James would do and Bosh nearly blew the whole thing, laughing as he wished his friend luck. Another hint came when various reporters, trying to sniff out the story, found out that Wade was travelling to various suitor teams as a spy for the Miami Heat, meeting with the other teams to gauge their situations instead of truly making himself available. Then in the final hours before the hourlong farce, stories were unleashed about a full-page ad welcoming the trio in the Miami Herald that was put up and taken down (call it a crossover move), along with rumors about Lebron renting several cabanas on South Beach for his triumphant arrival.

The point of this very long con? To keep the league from thinking the trio’s actions were collusion. It’s one thing for teams to act in a collusive manner, since they toe that line on a regular basis. For three of the game’s best players to do it and believe that they could pull it off is a caper unlike any since the Lufthansa heist – and better, it played out (mostly) publicly. If David Stern had known early on that this was possible, he would’ve put the clamps on it early on. Now that it’s happened, he’ll probably just spin it into some kind of leverage in the NBA’s upcoming collective bargaining sessions.

It used to be that when playing a team sport, you danced with the one who brought you. That meant fealty to a team that drafted you, paid you your first pro salary, and if the team was run correctly, surrounded you with the necessary talent to make your own talent shine. The collective decision of James, Wade, and Bosh was an effective “SCREW YOU” to the system, redefining forever what it means to be a free agent. Not only did the players decide together where they’d play, they have also become their own team general managers in the process. As brilliant as Pat Riley is, he and his staff have been reduced to being accountants, merely clearing cap space for the stars, while the stars are in turn refocusing their efforts on recruiting near-retirement veterans and other castaways to “share the sacrifice for a greater goal.” Defenders point to the fact that James and his cohorts took less money to make the deal happen, but they all will get recompense from Florida’s lack of state income tax and their own early opt-outs in only four years.

It’s ironic that the seed for this collusion germinated at the Olympics in Beijing, where the Redeem Team truly put individual statistics aside to win back the hoops gold medal. At some point between then and Thursday, James decided that he could no longer trust either Cleveland’s management (or another team’s) to risk his prime years wasting away on a team that just fell short of the brass ring. He took the if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em approach, which has disappointed more than a few old-school players and legends. It’s unfortunate that Lebron, sensing his career clock ticking louder with each passing day, chose to compromise instead of carving out his legacy on only his terms. The strange thing is that the compromise is being done to push for multiple championships – and in the NBA that doesn’t mean a mere two or three, but rather five, six, or more – a number that would catapult him into a discussion with the greatest: Russell, Jordan, Magic, Kareem. Bird, and in the future, Kobe.

What’s disappointing is that everyone in pro sports gets to a point where he is presented with a fight-or-flight opportunity, and it’s how he reacts to that situation that establishes his legacy. Lebron’s response was clearly flight. In the other major sports, there are too many dependencies to create this kind of situation frequently. In baseball, a hitter may have 25-35 plate appearances during a series. A quarterback may drop back 40 times in a playoff game. A soccer striker may have only a couple of shots at the goal in a match. In basketball, a scorer will get perhaps 150 field goal attempts per series and easily double or triple the number of possessions.

Strangely, I am more fascinated with the NBA’s offseason machinations than MLB’s. The NBA’s soft cap makes the disparity between haves and have-nots less striking than baseball. Unlike MLB, in the NBA teams can trade just about anything: players, picks, draft rights, even cap exceptions. I love “caponomics” more than I love sabermetrics, which makes me a bit perverse, I know, and this charade has only fed my hunger in a terrible, guilty pleasure manner. Still, I can’t help but be bothered by the idea that what these three players have done has served to reduce competition. These players (yes, Wade and Bosh are both guilty too) have chosen to share the burden, which is admirable in a way, but to not have the will or fortitude to carry the burden on their own for a little longer is more than a little disappointing. In a sport where The Man carries the team and cries out for help when needed, it’s hard to claim that you are The Man when you are, in effect, The Help.

07.06.10
by

Let’s pool money and buy the Rangers

If, unlike me, you have nine figures burning a hole in your pocket, you may be interested in participating in a July 16 auction for the mired-in-bankruptcy Texas Rangers. The neverending saga of the Rangers sale may be finally coming to a close, as the frontrunning Greenberg-Ryan group has its price established at $502 million, with any new auction bids required to be greater by at least $20 million.

The interesting backstory is that a previous suitor may reemerge in the group fronted by Houston trucking magnate Jim Crane, who actually outbid Greenberg-Ryan. From the Dallas Morning News article (link up top):

Lenders also claimed that Houston businessman Jim Crane had been the highest bidder last winter, but that baseball commissioner Bud Selig forbade negotiations with Crane.

Instead of the Rangers’ “pre-packaged” bankruptcy plan sailing smoothly through bankruptcy court in Fort Worth, Bankruptcy Judge Michael Lynn appointed William K. Snyder as the team’s chief restructuring officer. Last week, Snyder recommended a new round of bidding.

If anything, this appears to be a last-ditch attempt to wring out more money to creditors than anything else. The Greenberg-Ryan group’s bid, in combination with $75 million guaranteed by previous owner Hicks Sports Group, would get the number just over the $576 million that is owed.

Though the Rangers are doing well on the field right now, it’s clear that the team is struggling to make ends meet. Capmaker New Era claims that the Rangers are over $100k in arrears, and that the bankruptcy could wipe out the bill. I’ve got a solution: Make the Rangers play without caps for the rest of the season! That’ll go over well during the coming oppressive Texas summer heat (mitigated by the high percentage of night games played).

07.03.10
by

The day has come… for a proxy fight

It’s too bad that per the ML Constitution, teams and owners aren’t allowed to sue each other. They’re not even allowed to have open sniping in the local papers or even a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Instead, we have Bill Neukom sending lawyers down to San Jose to fight for the Giants (big and little). For the A’s, it’s County Assessor Larry Stone penning an op-ed in today’s  edition of San Francisco’s paper.

In Stone’s plea to Neukom to call the dogs off, he mentions that the A’s have proposed their own solution for determining compensation for South Bay territorial rights.

As I understand it, the A’s have agreed that following the opening of a San Jose ballpark, the Giants would have the right to ask Major League Baseball to arbitrate any damages to their fan base or revenue that were caused by the new stadium. Neukom has apparently rejected this fair and simple approach, most likely because projections conducted in a fair manner just might show that the San Jose ballpark would have a positive impact on the orange and black.

Obviously, Neukom would reject such a deal as it doesn’t involve a massive upfront payoff, the kind many believe it would take for the move to happen. However, by continuing to take such an intransigent stance, Neukom risks allowing Bud Selig and his committee to dictate compensation terms. Here’s are the four main tenets I expect to be the framework regarding the committee’s report:

  • The A’s hurt the Giants when they moved to Oakland in 1968 because it split the market in two.
  • The Giants hurt the A’s when they moved to a downtown SF ballpark in 2000 because they suddenly had a new venue that was more accessible to everyone in the Bay Area.
  • Trading the higher population of the East Bay and access to the North Bay for the South Bay’s corporate money and lower population is essentially a wash.
  • San Jose’s progress in terms of getting pieces of a stadium deal in place put it in advantageous position.

That last part is not to say that Oakland isn’t making its own progress as it formally acquired the OFDT site from CEDA, but as long as there’s no EIR or negotiations with private landowners it’s well behind. That said, what would you consider fair  compensation given the four points above? Is it at all clear cut?

06.25.10
by

Tampa Tribune checks in on relocation prospects

As part of recent coverage of the Rays’ desires to leave the Trop, the Tampa Tribune took a look at four cities who had been and could be future relocation candidates. While the four (San Antonio, Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas) still have boosters or other groups waiting in the wings, to say that they’re ready to pluck the Rays (or A’s) from their current respective homes is a bit of a stretch.

Hat tip to Field of Schemes.