|
Post by mikecubs on Aug 20, 2014 22:03:57 GMT -6
Bud Selig: Oakland A's situation 'complicated'In his last scheduled visit here as Major League Baseball commissioner, Bud Selig lamented Tuesday that the A's quest for a new stadium will remain an unfinished item on his to-do list. " Do I wish it would have been solved? Of course I do. I wish it had. And I understand people's frustration," Selig said. "But is there anything I could have done differently? I don't think so.
"I'm toughest on myself, and I would say, 'I wish I could have done this or that.' But I can't say that here, because it really wouldn't be honest." Selig, 80, will retire in January after a 22-year tenure that ranks second in baseball history to Kenesaw Mountain Landis (24 years). He noted that 22 ballparks were built under his watch but leaves with Tampa and Oakland still waiting for the kind of modern facility that has helped the game enjoy unprecedented economic success elsewhere.
"Yeah, I'd like to be perfect. I don't mind telling you that I'm a perfectionist at heart," Selig said. "Listen, one of the reasons for the resurgence of this sport is the building of new stadiums. There's no question about that.
"(But) this was complicated. I know people don't understand that, but it is. If it were easy, and if it were easy in Tampa, then I would have been 24 for 24. I had hopes in both places."
The A's have struggled for attendance at O.Co Coliseum, which the team shares with football's Raiders. San Jose has offered land for a ballpark, but the Giants have prevented the move by arguing that they hold the territorial rights in that region, a matter that has wound up in court. The impasse looks much as it did in spring of 2009 when Selig first appointed a committee to analyze the A's hopes of securing a new stadium. As Selig said then: "The A's cannot and will not continue indefinitely in their current situation." Five years later, and with just a few months left in office, Selig said that the current litigation puts "everything on hold, and that's just a fact of life." In the meantime, the A's and Oakland officials agreed to a lease extension that could keep the team at O.co Coliseum through 2024. The agreement gives the A's a measure of stability as they remain blocked by Major League Baseball from moving to San Jose. And it offers a window for Oakland officials to make their case to owner Lew Wolff that he should build a ballpark at the Coliseum site. " This team needs a new ballpark," Selig said. "(The Coliseum) reminds me of County Stadium in its final days, and of Shea Stadium. And that's not a compliment." Last week, owners voted Rob Manfred, 55, to be Selig's successor. Selig's longtime deputy will officially take over Jan. 25 and is expected to receive a three-year contract. Selig hopes that the Manfred's experience working on the Oakland issue all these years will eventually lead to a resolution. "He's been intimately involved," Selig said. "That's the good thing I think: Rob has been very involved in the lease extension and everything else. So at least the transition is good and constructive and will facilitate that." A's manager Bob Melvin is a Selig fan. The two go back a long way -- Melvin's great aunt, Estie Epstein, used to play bridge with the parents of Selig's wife. That connection later helped Melvin get his post-playing career start. "So I've known him for quite awhile and admired what he's done. Baseball's better for his service," Melvin said. The manager credited Selig's major changes -- such as interleague play, revenue sharing and instant replay -- for creating a harmonious state of the game. "For an old-school guy, he's really had an eye on some of the new-school things," Melvin said. "It's been an incredible run, and he's been a great commissioner." www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_26367443/bud-selig-oakland-situation-complicated
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 20, 2014 0:30:08 GMT -6
Another blow to the Oakland A's! They lost their triple A affiliate the Sacramento Rivercats to the San Francisco Giants. Sacramento is an excellent minor league city and semi close to the bay area. Marcos Breton: How the River Cats gambled to become the Giants’ Triple-A teamIn the end, it worked out exactly as the Savage family wanted: The River Cats, their family business and Sacramento’s Triple-A baseball team, will be affiliated with the San Francisco Giants – ending a 15-year partnership with the Oakland A’s. But by the time the closely followed switch was announced Thursday morning to the cheers of Giants fans and the scorn of some A’s fans, the Savages had endured a nerve-wracking 48 hours trying to close the deal. “It’s going to pay off for us, but it was a real risk,” said Jeff Savage, president of a River Cats franchise founded by his late father, Art. Until Tuesday, baseball rules barred Savage and his mother, Susan, the River Cats’ CEO and majority owner, from telling anyone what they were thinking. And it was only on Tuesday that the rules allowed the Savages to call the Giants without the fear of being sanctioned for tampering with what had been an exclusive arrangement between San Francisco and Fresno. When the A’s came calling this spring, the Savages decided to wait. They had been hearing from enough of their patrons already that the Giants’ fan base in Sacramento was much bigger than Oakland’s. “ Our fans were overwhelmingly leaning toward the Giants or they didn’t care which big-league team we were affiliated with,” Jeff Savage said. Then last spring, The New York Times published an interactive map based on Facebook metrics that showed the Giants to be the overwhelming favorite of baseball fans from Fresno to southern Oregon and to most of Nevada. The Giants’ TV ratings also are far higher than the A’s in Sacramento and beyond.
Jeff Savage said he and his mother felt they owed it to their fans – and to the franchise that Art Savage had built – to explore going with the Giants.
But there were two major obstacles: First, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in late May that the River Cats had rebuffed the A’s request to renew early. Citing anonymous sources, the Chronicle raised the possibility of an affiliate switch to the Giants. Because major- and minor-league baseball do not want franchises openly coveting one team while still under contract to another – rules enforced with stiff fines – the Savages had to stay quiet when the Chronicle story broke. They were pilloried by a segment of A’s fans on social media sites. There is bad blood on the part of some A’s fans toward the Giants for many reasons, including: the Giants gleaming stadium compared to the old one the A’s play in; the Giants blocking the A’s path to a more lucrative home in San Jose; the Giants winning two World Series since 2010 and the A’s not having won one since 1989 – when they beat the Giants.
Some A’s fans even see Giants as a kind of evil empire of rich snobs that looks down on blue-collar fans with the A’s. “I couldn’t talk about it with our season-ticket holders, who I love,” Jeff Savage said of the potential to move to the Giants. As for the catcalls from fans and the persistent media calls that weren’t returned until now, “That was really challenging.” The Savages called the Giants shortly after midnight Monday. Later Tuesday morning, a Giants contingent led by team CEO Larry Baer paid the Savages a call. The meetings were intense and lasted most of Tuesday. With the clock ticking and other teams making deals to switch affiliations, the danger for the River Cats was clear: If somehow the Giants decided to stay in their longtime home in Fresno, the River Cats faced the prospect of losing the A’s, missing out on the Giants and being left to make a deal with big-league teams that had no connection to Sacramento fans. If that had happened, the Savages would have angered their A’s fan base while failing to deliver the Giants to Giants fans who were led to believe by media speculation that the San Francisco club was planting a flag in Sacramento. The most stressful time came Tuesday night, when no deal with the Giants had been struck. It was clear the Giants were interested, but they were also very sensitive to longtime partners in Fresno. “Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin went out of her way in the last five years to show Fresno’s commitment to the Giants,” said Bobby Evans, a Giants assistant general manager. “Her leadership was very persuasive, and it was very difficult for us to leave.” The Giants and River Cats agreed in principle to a 2-year deal late Wednesday, but the Giants felt strongly about giving Swearengin and the owners of the Fresno Grizzlies a heads-up before the deal went public. It was signed Thursday morning, and both the Savages and the Giants were happy and relieved to get it done. The A’s moved their Triple-A operations to Nashville, Tenn. “ What we want to do is to take every element we use to market the Giants and make it part of our presence in Sacramento,” Baer said Thursday. The Giants are known as a marketing powerhouse, and Baer said the team might open stores that sell Giants merchandise in Sacramento.
“Sacramento has always been a hotbed for the Giants,” Baer said. He added that Sacramento would begin to see current and former Giants players making regular appearances in the capital region. The Giants have a hugely successful program that provides uniforms, equipment and playing fields to at-risk kids called The Junior Giants. Two of the bigger Junior Giants chapters are in Sacramento and West Sacramento, and Giants officials say they have more than 20,000 kids playing under the Junior Giants banner in Northern and Central California. Both Baer and Jeff Savage expressed a hope that the Giants would be able to play occasional exhibitions at Raley Field. Though the River Cats benefited from successful teams stocked with A’s prospects, the Giants minor-league outfit has sent many heralded players to the big leagues as well. Currently, there are 15 former Giants prospects on the big-league roster, including stars such as Buster Posey, Brandon Belt, Brandon Crawford, Pablo Sandoval, Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Madison Bumgarner and Sergio Romo. One of the most recent and successful graduates of the Giants system is catcher Andrew Susac, a Roseville resident and Jesuit High School graduate. “When (Posey) was in Fresno, he lit us up,” Savage said. “All the homegrown talent that has gone through the Giants system is pretty impressive.” The River Cats name will not change, and Giants officials will be introduced to the Sacramento media at a 10 a.m. news conference Friday at Raley Field. Savage spent part of Thursday reminding fans that the organization they’ve known since 2000 will remain the same, except that different players will be on the field. “We’re still going to be about providing affordable, family-friendly entertainment,” Savage said. “We had a lot of pent-up nervousness for a long time. It was very stressful, but we are very excited … I think the Giants can help us and we can help the Giants expand their footprint in Sacramento.” www.sacbee.com/2014/09/18/6718830/marcos-breton-how-the-river-cats.html
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 20, 2014 0:37:16 GMT -6
check out the poll on the link I posted.
59% are in favor of being the Giants affiliate 12% don't care either way 28% would have stuck with the A's
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Sept 21, 2014 10:14:34 GMT -6
^ If so many people in Oakland are ok with team leaving the League should be exploring the option of moving them to Montreal. The Montreal Athetiques has a nice ring to it.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 22, 2014 0:45:38 GMT -6
^^^ That poll was in the SACRAMENTO Bee not an Oakland newspaper. Still it's bad news for the A's though. Giants dominate not only the Bay area but anyplace close to the Bay area and it's going to get worst in Sacramento now.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 28, 2015 12:41:13 GMT -6
Wolff wants surface parking over garages and development at Coliseum
Here we go again with that nasty word: infrastructure.
Lew Wolff told Matthew Artz today that not only was he not interested in Coliseum City, he felt there isn’t enough space at the 120-acre Coliseum for development the City desires and the surface parking the team needs. That’s a major revelation because Wolff’s vision not only precludes other development in what’s considered a potentially high-density transit hub area, it goes against the City’s goals for the Coliseum.
There’s a lot that’s being unsaid by Wolff, who demurred on questions about financing and multiple venues. Let’s focus on what he said.
The only way it could work, Wolff said, would be to build multilevel parking garages, but that would leave fans waiting in long lines to exit the garages and begin their drives home.
‘Parking is a key issue for us,’ Wolff said. ‘We want surface parking surrounding the ballpark wherever we build it unless we’re in the heart of a downtown.’
…
‘We said it before he even came on the scene that we are going to 100 percent control our own destiny, period,’ Wolff said. ‘We don’t need a third party involved.’
First off, let’s be clear about how much land is available: 141 publicly owned acres in the area bounded by 66th Ave, Hegenberger Rd, 880, and Damon Slough. Take away 18 for the existing Coliseum or its replacement, and 8 for the arena if it stays. There’s other stuff like the sewer interceptor and power lines, but we’ll leave that out for now. The remaining land totals 115 acres.
As Andy Dolich notes in the same article, garages are ill-suited because they’re expensive and don’t get utilized well. Parking garages cost around $20,000 per space to build. ROI can be difficult to achieve unless those garages can be filled nearly everyday. But the City is supposed to fund infrastructure like garages at Coliseum City, so why is this such a big deal? The surface parking requirement, which Raiders owner Mark Davis has also communicated at times, stands in the way of the City’s plans for Coliseum City, whether you’re talking 120, 200, or 800 acres. The Coliseum City plan has 13,000 event parking spaces in it, only 4,200 of which are surface spaces mostly in the south lots out to Hegenberger.
Shouldn’t 4,200 (or maybe 5-6,000) spaces be enough for most A’s games when taken with a few thousand new garage spots? Especially if the TPMP (Transportation & Parking Management Plan) were conceived in a way to manage traffic from these various lots and garages? Especially if it’s only a single venue such as a ballpark? Let’s say that the A’s average 30,000 in attendance at a new ballpark. According to BART, 15-20% of fans take the service. Let’s make it 20%. That means 24,000 will come in cars. At 3 per car, the A’s would need 8,000 spaces. So they’d need some 2-3,000 additional spaces, maybe half of those in garages, the rest in a remote lot on the other side of the complex where people would have to walk through the retail/commercial area to get to the game. That way you have everyone covered: 1.Fans who want direct access to the ballpark and the quickest in-out (4,200 surface spaces adjacent to ballpark, south) 2.Fans who want to have dinner/drinks at a restaurant nearby (3,000 garage spaces, perhaps with validation, center) 3.Fans who want cheap parking and don’t mind walking through the business district (3,000 remote surface spaces, north)
If you look at the parking depiction above, it’s not hard to see how that would come together. Put the ballpark where the football stadium is and the remote parking where the ballpark is and you have the basic concept. The idea presupposes that the arena is no longer there either.
The problem, as ever, is that no one wants to pay for any infrastructure like parking. A 2,000-space garage is bad enough, and it’s merely a piece of the $300 million of infrastructure. Wolff has suggested that he’d take care of the Mt. Davis debt, but if he has to pay for infrastructure too it starts to become too much. The City has suggested a slew of taxes that would pay for it through huge Mello-Roos and infrastructure financing districts, but that isn’t certain. Some of those taxes would eat into A’s revenues, so again it becomes a question of cost-benefit for the A’s.
In the end, if the A’s and the City/County are going to make this work they’ll have to come to a compromise. Whether the A’s claim a large piece of the land for ballpark and parking and leave the rest for the development, or the A’s control development rights to the whole thing, they’ll have to come half way. That also means the City will have to dial down its pie-in-the-sky dreams of a bustling second downtown anchored by multiple sports venues for something a little less ambitious. There probably is a way to accommodate both Wolff’s and Oakland’s goals. It’ll take a lengthy negotiation, which I should remind you, hasn’t happened yet. In fact, we’re not even close to negotiating yet.
newballpark.org/2015/02/25/wolff-wants-surface-parking-over-garages-and-development-at-coliseum/#comments
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 28, 2015 21:25:06 GMT -6
Tim Kawakami: Oakland and A’s only have each otherIt’s Oakland. Other teams in other sports have other options, but for the A’s, the singular serious option is to remain in Oakland and try to get a new stadium built on the Coliseum site (or elsewhere in the city). This is the way it is now — as reinforced by recent events — and this is the way it has been from the start of the process, probably about 2,000 years ago, it seems. The A’s and Oakland are two less-than-invincible fiscal entities, but they remain each other’s best chance to get something significant done. Everybody else has other better options, almost certainly including the Raiders, but Oakland and the A’s have each other, and not much else. That’s just about as simple as it can get, right? New baseball commissioner Rob Manfred has reinforced that Oakland remains the central focus of A’s stadium options, and he implied that the Raiders-Carson situation could clarify a lot of things. By clarify, he’s referring to the possibility of getting the Raiders out of the Oakland talks, which would free Oakland to concentrate solely on the A’s (since the Warriors have already established that they’re moving to San Francisco by 2018).
So, just like everybody, Major League Baseball and the A’s are waiting on the Chargers-Raiders deal, waiting on Oakland city and county officials to re-engage with the Raiders one last time to rebuild on the Coliseum site (which would shove out the A’s, presumably, at least temporarily) and waiting on other L.A.-area developments, including the Rams’ project in Inglewood, which may or may not try to incorporate the Raiders or Chargers. As I said about the Carson Play as it involved the Raiders and Oakland … it was the true starting gun for the final sprint, and now the A’s are in it, too, in a secondary way. Again: If the Raiders go to L.A., suddenly a new Coliseum for the A’s seems a lot more workable because the city and county wouldn’t have the worry about what to do with the Raiders, how to accommodate both, pay for both and negotiate with both. Simultaneously.
That’s impossible. That’s what Manfred means.
I would assume Manfred didn’t mean to suggest that the A’s and Oakland MUST get a deal done… or that the A’s can’t look at other options… or that San Jose is totally closed to them. Well, check that: Every logical analysis of the last few years leads to a very direct conclusion that San Jose is not a realistic option for the A’s and never really has been. That was before Bud Selig set up the blue-ribbon commission to look at the situation, that was during the commission’s long process, and that’s now, with the de-commissioning and the status quo upheld. In fact, I heard years ago that the commission essentially was backing any and all Giants territorial rights over San Jose, and by issuing no report or any public finding, the commission was saying that there is no reason to pursue the question any further. The Giants have territorial rights over Santa Clara County. To get that reversed, the A’s would need a three-fourths vote of MLB owners, and there is no way they’re getting that. Note to A’s co-owner Lew Wolff: San Jose is closed, which you should’ve figured out at least a year ago or more. Oh, there was that lovely little legal excursion by San Jose–suing MLB, purportedly against Wolff’s wishes–and that served two purposes… 1) It hardened the votes AGAINST the A’s in any potential San Jose territorial rights vote; 2) When most of it got tossed out of federal court (pending appeals), it solidified everything MLB and the Giants have argued about San Jose: It’s closed to the A’s. So I guess some thanks to the San Jose city elders for doing that. Gained them nothing, except clarifying the totality of the A’s/San Jose futility. It’s all Oakland now as it always has been for the A’s. www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20150225/tim-kawakami-oakland-and-as-only-have-each-other
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Mar 1, 2015 8:23:05 GMT -6
Tim Kawakami: Oakland and A’s only have each otherIt’s Oakland. Other teams in other sports have other options, but for the A’s, the singular serious option is to remain in Oakland and try to get a new stadium built on the Coliseum site (or elsewhere in the city). This is the way it is now — as reinforced by recent events — and this is the way it has been from the start of the process, probably about 2,000 years ago, it seems. The A’s and Oakland are two less-than-invincible fiscal entities, but they remain each other’s best chance to get something significant done. Everybody else has other better options, almost certainly including the Raiders, but Oakland and the A’s have each other, and not much else. That’s just about as simple as it can get, right? New baseball commissioner Rob Manfred has reinforced that Oakland remains the central focus of A’s stadium options, and he implied that the Raiders-Carson situation could clarify a lot of things. By clarify, he’s referring to the possibility of getting the Raiders out of the Oakland talks, which would free Oakland to concentrate solely on the A’s (since the Warriors have already established that they’re moving to San Francisco by 2018).
So, just like everybody, Major League Baseball and the A’s are waiting on the Chargers-Raiders deal, waiting on Oakland city and county officials to re-engage with the Raiders one last time to rebuild on the Coliseum site (which would shove out the A’s, presumably, at least temporarily) and waiting on other L.A.-area developments, including the Rams’ project in Inglewood, which may or may not try to incorporate the Raiders or Chargers. As I said about the Carson Play as it involved the Raiders and Oakland … it was the true starting gun for the final sprint, and now the A’s are in it, too, in a secondary way. Again: If the Raiders go to L.A., suddenly a new Coliseum for the A’s seems a lot more workable because the city and county wouldn’t have the worry about what to do with the Raiders, how to accommodate both, pay for both and negotiate with both. Simultaneously.
That’s impossible. That’s what Manfred means.
I would assume Manfred didn’t mean to suggest that the A’s and Oakland MUST get a deal done… or that the A’s can’t look at other options… or that San Jose is totally closed to them. Well, check that: Every logical analysis of the last few years leads to a very direct conclusion that San Jose is not a realistic option for the A’s and never really has been. That was before Bud Selig set up the blue-ribbon commission to look at the situation, that was during the commission’s long process, and that’s now, with the de-commissioning and the status quo upheld. In fact, I heard years ago that the commission essentially was backing any and all Giants territorial rights over San Jose, and by issuing no report or any public finding, the commission was saying that there is no reason to pursue the question any further. The Giants have territorial rights over Santa Clara County. To get that reversed, the A’s would need a three-fourths vote of MLB owners, and there is no way they’re getting that. Note to A’s co-owner Lew Wolff: San Jose is closed, which you should’ve figured out at least a year ago or more. Oh, there was that lovely little legal excursion by San Jose–suing MLB, purportedly against Wolff’s wishes–and that served two purposes… 1) It hardened the votes AGAINST the A’s in any potential San Jose territorial rights vote; 2) When most of it got tossed out of federal court (pending appeals), it solidified everything MLB and the Giants have argued about San Jose: It’s closed to the A’s. So I guess some thanks to the San Jose city elders for doing that. Gained them nothing, except clarifying the totality of the A’s/San Jose futility. It’s all Oakland now as it always has been for the A’s. www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20150225/tim-kawakami-oakland-and-as-only-have-each-other Confirming what we already know. Its one or the other but not both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 13:50:29 GMT -6
Bring the A's back to Philly!
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Mar 1, 2015 15:03:25 GMT -6
^ Its going to be interesting if Oakland decides to put their eggs in the Raiders basket. What would ha[ppen to the A's Montreal isn't ready and there is nowhere else really ready or able to host an MLB franchise.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Mar 1, 2015 16:58:19 GMT -6
MLB would force the Giants to accept the A's at AT&T park until a resolution was worked out for San Jose.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Mar 1, 2015 17:53:03 GMT -6
? Well if Im not mistaken the As signed a 10 year lease agreement last year so they have time to find a new ballpark. I meant more along the lines of a long term facility and if Montreal would be the only main city in the bidding or if MLB would force the Giants hand on the Bay area.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Mar 1, 2015 18:52:05 GMT -6
That 10 year lease isn't concrete. If the Raiders get a new stadium the A's get kicked out and are homeless. There is an out clause for this.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Mar 1, 2015 19:40:27 GMT -6
^ So if Oakland bails on the Athletics does that make San Jose a sure thing?
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Mar 1, 2015 20:00:19 GMT -6
No, MLB could always push for a suburb like Freemont. Wolf was once going to build a ballpark there but NIMBYS killed it. If they do pick San Jose there will still be a major fight. The Giants won't give in but MLB could try and push the Giants into a deal. Right now since Oakland is the easy option without a fight they will push for that. Only hope of moving to San Jose is IF Oakland is truly dumb enough to pick the Raiders. Only then MLB MIGHT come to the Giants and say hey we have to work something out here we are out of options.
|
|