Lewis Wolff Athletics Nation Interview: Part II
Yesterday was Part I of the Athletics Nation exclusive interview with A's managing general partner Lewis Wolff. Today is Part II.
Enjoy!
Blez: Would it be fair for the fans to give up on the A’s for a couple of seasons since most of them seem to think, probably rightly so, that the team won’t truly compete? These are hardcore fans that are saying this.
Wolff: Do I think it’s right? I think it’s their privilege. I would hope they wouldn’t. The fan we need is someone who understands us and feels like we did the right thing. The fan that wants to see Gio Gonzalez have a good game and then a bad game and a good game and to see where he’s going. But that’s a sophisticated fan. I’m not saying they need a Harvard degree. Also our venue is such that there is really no scarcity of seating. Even with the tarp. We have not filled up very often. Even during our playoff run. So the fans in Oakland have the luxury of going to the game if they want to and they don’t have to worry about getting a ticket. That luxury is nice for the fans and not so great for the owner. (laughs)
Blez: I’m going to get to the tarp and the Coliseum a little later, but how do you sell a team that is in rebuilding mode to a market that at times can be ambivalent? The Coliseum wasn’t even selling out when the A’s were the class of the AL a few seasons back. Does it take a World Series victory or even two to motivate these fans again? Or is this just a dead market?
Wolff: I do think that the proximity between us and the Giants hurts. They’ve actually moved closer to us. The six years prior to the year 2000, the Giants outdrew us by around a half a million on average per year. In 2000 they opened the new ballpark and the attendance has jumped and pretty much has stayed there. The difference is now about a million and a half although I haven’t checked it this year. That (the new venue) has something to do with it. Maybe not 100 percent. Secondly, Barry Bonds was a big attraction there and we didn’t have Barry Bonds. The other side of it is the demographic. Both the Giants and ourselves have a lot of water in front of us so there isn’t anyone else living there. A couple of other owners tease us that we may be the only inelastic demand team in baseball. That means that if you won the World Series, the next year would you have two and half or three million out there? In other words, our band of attendance has been approximately 1.7-2.1 million, win or lose that’s where we’ve been.
Blez: Does that make you feel helpless as an owner? It has to be really frustrating that no matter the product you put on the field you’re in the same range.
Wolff: It’s a very helpless feeling. It’s been the saddest thing. And I want to be careful here because the people who do come, they deserve whatever we can give them and we’ve tried to do that. I always laugh because we have $2 Wednesday night and dollar hot dogs with a limit of 10.
Blez: I was thinking I could go over that, easily.
Wolff: (laughing) I want to be able to drive the person home who eats all 10. But I don’t know too many ballparks that offer that opportunity. That’s just our current market. It’s challenging. All I would like is to have more fans and we have to earn that. We can’t ask them to just voluntarily show up. So our players when they go out on the field are stimulated by a full stadium. We have to earn that though. We can’t ask the fans to do our players a favor and come to a game. I’m not suggesting that. We have a 40-year-old facility which we share with a football team and we’re in a market that is somewhat lesser than the market 16 miles away. We have our challenges. We bought the team knowing that. But we did buy the team with the idea that we’d get a new venue in the general area. If we can produce that, we’ll do everyone a favor even though some say, well you’re moving to Fremont that’s like you’re moving to Las Vegas or something. We don’t consider it that way, but fans might. We’re not looking to have a huge increase in ticket price, we’re looking for a huge increase in attendance.

Blez: You mentioned Barry Bonds twice now. He’s been sitting out there the whole year. Would it hurt in a rebuilding year to have him here? People want to come out and see the circus sideshow that is the Bonds traveling circus.
Wolff: Yes, it would hurt. Look, Barry’s statistics for the year before were very high on our special rankings. He’s a great player. But he would need playing time and would he attract more people or would he not? We had just as many people telling us that they would never come to another game again if we signed Bonds.
Blez: People may say that now, but I honestly think it would be different if it actually happened.
Wolff: You’re right. It would fade. The answer is that if we felt we were competitive and going to be making a run at the playoffs, someone like him, and it wouldn’t have to be him necessarily because there were two or three others out there like him like Jason Bay.
Blez: But no one is the sideshow attraction that Bonds is.
Wolff: The sideshow could be putting all the players in dresses but I don’t want to do that and I don’t think Billy would want to either, just to have a sideshow. If we were to sign Bonds or anyone else, it would be to have them fit into our program. Then we might not be able to play Ryan Sweeney, just as an example. That wouldn’t work for us. Then we’re really cheating ourselves and the fans except for one period of press.
Blez: The thing that someone could very easily respond to that is by saying that you’re playing Frank Thomas right now and Thomas is similar in that he’s a designated hitter, he’s an older guy. The difference is that Bonds would sell tickets and fill up that stadium. It would increase media exposure for the team. I’m not saying it’s a good or bad thing, but it when you talk about filling the stadium that would be a way to do it.
Wolff: We thought about it and he’s a great player. I’m surprised no one has picked him up. But it really wasn’t an overriding issue for us. We want to build something even when you’re tempted to do something like that. As far as the DH side of it, we have Mike Sweeney too. We’re probably not going to do so much of that in the future. Piazza was fun to have but these guys tend to get hurt as they get older.
Blez: Just like Frank did.
Wolff: Frank is a jewel of a guy. And so was Mike. As I said, the idea is that we want to have a long-term consistent plan where people are saying, look at the A’s they’ve done so well for X number of years in a row. We’re not going to do that by bringing in a character actor for one role.
Blez: Does the transient nature of A’s players impact how dedicated the fans are in following the team? Everyone gets attached to a player. It’s human nature. Billy has always talked about rooting for the name on the front and not on the back and how important that is but you inevitably get attached to the players you see on the field. You’re a fan yourself. You love Nick Swisher. Does that make it a bit of a challenge in that it seems like every player someone might fall in love with as a player, outside of Eric Chavez, in the last 10 years or so, has left or been traded? Does that stop?
Wolff: You have to look back at when it started. In the sense that you need to look at other teams and see if they’ve produced lineups that have been consistent during that time span. That’s the first thing and I think you’ll find that you don’t have any more Stan Musial’s when every day I got up in St. Louis and knew he was going to be with the team, whether it was in last place or first place. With free agency, those days are gone. I think, at least on my watch with Billy, you should measure each and every trade. We had signed Nick and extended him to a great contract. We had to look at where we were going. We can’t just keep him because everyone loves him. We could have the nicest guys in baseball but we can’t do that. Billy always says to reporters, well, tell me which guy I should’ve kept and compare him with what we got for him. If you really get into it with a deep thinking fan, on balance, I think he’s done really spectacular. It’s going to be a test over the next couple of years but I think we’re loaded with young pitching and that seems to be the spine of every great team. Everyone is calling us about our pitchers. They’re going to have some bumps as they get used to the majors as it’s a big jump from Triple-A to the majors. But as far as keeping people since I’ve been there, Kendall is a great guy who I love but I think the replacement worked out well and I think he’s doing OK where he’s at. Barry (Zito) was someone we couldn’t afford to keep even if we wanted to. We measured him as we had him. Even if he won 20 games, we weren’t going to give a six or seven year deal. It just wasn’t going to happen. And any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us. We want to be younger and faster. We’re running more this year. We’re doing a lot of things that people may not see. One of my favorite ballplayers is (Chone) Figgins and we’re getting a couple of guys like that.
Blez: Like drafting Weeks in the first round. Patterson is another one.
Wolff: Yeah, right, good point.
TOMORROW: Lew discusses the impact of revenue sharing, the decision to sign Inoa and the decision to go into rebuilding mode.
Read Related
Comments
Thanks as always, Blez.
It seems like Wolff is not really crazy with the whole idea of “adding an aging former slugger as a DH for a year” idea. He probably soured on the idea after the $8 million Piazza bust and the 1.5 month DL-stint for Frank this season and ongoing saga of Mike Sweeney. Can’t say I really blame the guy.
However, I think Jason Giambi for a year or two would be a perfect signing for this team come the off-season, as a kind of stop-gap/bridge DH/1baseman with legit power and presence. But it certainly seems like Wolff wouldn’t be thrilled about that move, unfortunately…
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Aug 26, 2008 7:35 AM PDT 0 recs
I do not think that the price for Giambi as a stop-gap
would be that thrilling a number. This year we had too many of those types of players who could only DH. Bad news bears time. Base paths clogged up with slow runners. A total lack of power all around except for Jack Cust.. Not saying that Giambi could not play firstbase as well as DH.
Charlie Brown GO A'S WIN
by Charlie Brown on
Aug 26, 2008 5:26 PM PDT
up
0 recs
base-clogging sabotage!

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
soured because of piazza i can see, but thomas and sweeney are both pretty much playing for free.
i’m not sure why you’d point this out and then suggest jason giambi, he seems much more like a piazza than a thomas/sweeney in terms of the payroll hit.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on
Aug 26, 2008 5:43 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Good stuff, Blez
I’ve enjoyed the interview and the insight, and look forward to the next segment.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Aug 26, 2008 7:56 AM PDT 0 recs
excuses, excuses
If demand is perfectly inelastic, there’s an absolute ceiling on potential attendance, the overall market is too small to support two teams, A’s fans are fickle cheapskates, and the Bay Area is too full of tree-huggers to cover up the Bay with landfill for condos (which would also stem the raging tide of East Bay baseball fans kayaking to Warrantless Wiretap Park because it’s 3 miles closer to Berkeley as the crow flies or the seal swims) … then why build a new stadium at all? Why not get the hell out? Why buy the team in the first place?
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Aug 26, 2008 8:00 AM PDT 0 recs
That's what I was thinking
You get what you pay for… It is what it is… all over used cliche’s, but true. If you wanted an “Angels-Type Franchise”, you shoulda beat Arte Moreno to the punch.
by Colorado Fan on
Aug 26, 2008 8:40 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Not to mention the Montreal (let’s kill baseball in this city to make it easier to leave) treatment that Oakland’s getting.
by Cristobalm on
Aug 26, 2008 8:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Inelasticity is a two way street
If what Lew says is true, then attendance shouldn’t decline sharply either. Yet this year’s turnstile count clearly prove that untrue.
You can add to your “why” list: If the A’s are afflicted with IED, why bother marketing at all? Excuses abound.
Arte didn't get much Home Run Derby. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on
Aug 26, 2008 8:45 AM PDT
up
0 recs
+1 too all four comments above
And those who know me, know I don’t care for the “+1” thing. But great points all.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on
Aug 26, 2008 8:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs
You could say they aren't bothering
Most of the ad budget is spent on promotions. The number of player or brand-focused ads has dropped severely compared to previous years. Perhaps they knew going in not to hitch their wagons to players given future personnel moves.
The only reason to spend on promotions? Because fans are already conditioned to it, and to pull back from that would be an even greater PR nightmare.
by vertig0 on
Aug 26, 2008 9:00 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't see it that way at all.
The demand in the immediate area may be inelastic. I think the original intent all along has been to shift the A’s over 20 or 30 miles and market heavily to an underserved portion of the market. I never put much faith in the Oakland first mantra that ownership initially put out for public consumption either. I think Lew may have been sincere when he said it, but only because he sincerely believed no such site existed that would accommodate his requirements. He wanted it both ways, when in fact he knew it would only work one way. Not that I think he was playing a shell game either. I think he genuinely would like to take as many of the Oakland faithful with him when he moves the team in a southernly direction. That he would put himself through such contortions should at least indicate that he values his current fans.
Everything he cites about the current geographical positioning of the two teams is dead accurate. Why should he be raked over the coals for stating the business model as it really is? Love him, hate him, or be ambivalent about him, but at least admit he’s played his cards pretty straight with anyone who is paying attention to the framework of current realities. At least the A’s have an owner who is looking to the long term health of the team. If he is successful, he will have given Bay area fans a team with a secure long term future. What more can anyone really expect?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on
Aug 26, 2008 9:01 AM PDT
up
2 recs
+ eleventy. Well said!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 9:28 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Yes
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 9:29 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Unsurprisingly, I see it different
If Lew said Oakland first and believed it impossible, that is by definition insincere. No Great Pumpkin for you, Lew. The Swap Meet site proposal was a sham, in which Lew:
- Called getting a new BART station a deal breaker, though a BART station already existed less than a mile away. Lo and behold, in Fremont the same situation becomes an option which can be worked around.
- Announced a site plan which would require buying land from around 80 owners, before acquiring any land, then acting surprised when the owners suddenly wanted more money. By contrast, Lew Co. started buying land in Fremont before any announcement, thus allowing acquisition at industrial prices not residential ones.
- Announced Oakland’s last best chance to keep the A’s in the midst of the most dramatic Mayoral election the City had seen in decades, knowing that sports stadia were toxic for any Oakland politician due to the Raiders fiasco.
- Unveiled a park design which was curiously site generic—as though it could be dropped in to a totally different locale in a heartbeat.
Every subsequent action in the Coli, from tarping to seat re-pricing to the recalibration of discounts to reductions in kid seats and prices to seat section enforcement changes, has been aimed at making the lowest tier of ticket buyers feel unwelcome. Because those folks—us folks—aren’t part of the plan in Fremont. The days of the affordable low end experience are ending, and the Wolffish business model doesn’t include that segment of the fans in the new venue. That’s their right of course…it may well be the best bottom line approach…but it’s hardly meant to bring a huge segment of current fans along for the ride.
Arte didn't get much Home Run Derby. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on
Aug 26, 2008 10:11 AM PDT
up
1 recs
I have been waiting patiently for you....
Because I knew you would! ;)
The things you say could very well be true. But exactly how does their veracity affect reality if the original intent was to market the A’s as the, “San Jose A’s of Fremont”? Really, does it makes sense for Lew to build in Oakland and pick the very same fight with the Giants that the A’s have been loosing for the last 9 years? Especially when just down the road there exists a huge, virtually untapped (at least by direct marketing), non elastic market?
You know that you and I are on the same page concerning the financial impact on the average consumer. But Lew can hardly be faulted for an economic model that has been raging in baseball for the last 20 years….give or take a few. I’m also aware that you are realist enough to know when the inevitable has finally arrived. All I’m saying is that all the perceived negatives cannot be laid soley at the feet of Lew. When it’s all said and done, I believe that A’s fans will have been served well by having Lew as an owner. We could have done a whole helluva lot worse.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on
Aug 26, 2008 10:26 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't disagree with most of that
I don’t think Lew was ever sincere about Oakland, and I don’t agree that at least me and my ilk are well served by Lew as owner. I also don’t accept that Oakland versus SF is forever doomed to be a losing market share fight (see most of 1972 through 2000). But beyond those, sure. Lew’s following the economic model of most other modern franchises, he may be breaking some new ground (so to speak) in balllpark financing, and the SJ environs represent a big underserved market waiting to be tapped.
I simply believe that more could have been done, that a owner who actually cared about the East Bay could have built a new park here and made lots of money on the deal. He would have had to work harder and made somewhat less money than elsewhere, but it could have worked and would have been lucrative. I also think that Oakland retained a pretty special thing with its blue collar fan base and affordable opportunities, and I’m unwilling to let those go unlamented simply because the SF’s and Philly’s of the world have kissed theirs goodbye forever. Just ask a Candlestick Park Giants fan (who you’ll be hard-pressed to find inside AT&T).
Arte didn't get much Home Run Derby. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on
Aug 26, 2008 10:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Okay. Reasonable enough.
But then there’s this. If Lew were to have made the choices you outlined, would he not have been choosing the second best option? Is this something you would do for yourself? For your family? I think most likely not. How would those choices look in 20 years?
I feel you on the loss of the blue collar base. It’s demise is a sad thing that will eventually have repercussions.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on
Aug 26, 2008 11:11 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I think the ship had pretty much sailed on Oakland before Lew bought the team ...
to me it seems like the last, best chance was Uptown, which Schoffman did nothing to make happen and Jerry Brown actively worked to torpedo and since that land has been committed elsewhere, there really is no good site left.
Uptown would have been fantastic, though — could have made the owners a ton of money and would have been good for the city. I legitimately wonder if things might have been different had Wolfischer owned the team at that point.
I share your lament on the direction of MLB … much worse, that’s the direction of society as a whole as the distribution of income has shifted drastically towards the upper tier of earners. 40 years ago one could make just as much money selling to 2 or 3 working class people as one could selling to 1 rich person. Now, not a chance.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 11:16 AM PDT
up
3 recs
rec'd
Great post; especially the last paragraph. I’ve been hearing about the expanding gap between the rich and the poor for decades. Now here is real-world evidence that it’s not only expanding, but the expansion is self-perpetuating.
Wait … did what I just said make sense? I’m not sure, but what you said definitely does.
Brainless Automaton #439
by rubin sierra on
Aug 26, 2008 1:00 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't agree with all of the political conclusions he draws ...
but Paul Krugman’s, The Conscience of a Liberal gives a great overview of 20th century U.S. economic history. It turns out all of the nostalgia for the 50s and early 60s is well based …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 1:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
another good one
is Equality and Efficiency by Okun. A good primer into what have become the basic Democrat/Republican sides of economic policy. One of my bellweathers into whether you can have a real conversation with someone on economic policy is whether they’ve read the book or are at least familiar with its basic ideas (most people who have had any kind of economics instruction are, even if they wouldn’t say “Oh that’s Okun” – not that he made everything up, but he did write one of the primary books on the matter).
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 2:02 PM PDT
up
0 recs
yeah ...
But that economic model of 1972-2000 is gone and buried. People have been complaining about the Coliseum since I started going to games as a kid in the late 80s on the $4 bleacher tickets. The difference is that back then having a crappy stadium wasn’t a huge financial deficit. Now it most assuredly is.
Could the A’s theoretically someday be bigger than the Giants if they stay in Oakland? Maybe – but let’s remember that even when the A’s were at their absolute peak in the late 80s with a successful team, running the league’s highest payroll, they were still essentially neck and neck with the Giants in terms of popularity. That’s our peak – roughly even, and that’s only when EVERYTHING is going our way. And it doesn’t even really matter – I will say unequivocally that as long as the Giants are in AT&T and the A’s are in the Coliseum, the A’s will always be the bastard child no matter what. I can’t imagine anyone can really argue with that.
Now is he sincere about keeping them in Oakland? I don’t know. I’ve always thought Fremont was a bluff. But was it a bluff directed at the City of Oakland or is it laying the groundwork for a move elsewhere? Does he really care about the East Bay? I don’t know. For that matter does the East Bay really care about the A’s? There’s definitely a hard core group. But would there be rioting in the streets if they left? Well we don’t go to a bunch of games and apparently we don’t watch a bunch of games on TV, otherwise they would be getting more for the contract (yes I understand this is a two-way street).
My dream remains San Jose – they’re still close enough to get to a few games, they would be able to compete financially, and it would hamstring the Giants. Which is why it will never happen.
The blue-collar thing is tough – I mention above the $4 bleacher tickets that turned me into a fan when I was a kid. But that’s not Wolff – it’s baseball and MLB that priced themselves out of that game a long time ago. If Wolff wants the team as a business as a business to compete then that’s the way it goes. Whether a government-subsidized local Monopoly should be allowed/encouraged to market past the blue collar demographic is another question.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 11:17 AM PDT
up
0 recs
People have been complaining about the Coliseum since I started going to games as a kid in the late 80s on the $4 bleacher tickets. The difference is that back then having a crappy stadium wasn’t a huge financial deficit. Now it most assuredly is.
the coliseum was called the mausoleum back in the early 1970s. people around here romanticize the pre-mt davis coliseum, and it certainly was a much better ballpark back then, but it’s always been a bit of a badly designed dump.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on
Aug 26, 2008 1:14 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I think the biggest difference is the overall stadium situation in baseball
While the coliseum was bad then, it was fairly typical for its times. I think if the Reds were still in Riverfront, the Pirates in 3 rivers, the Mariners in the Kingdom, etc you wouldnt think about it as much.
The problem is that we have seen such a large percentage of teams get new, baseball only facilities while we are still in the same place.
So the Mt. Davis changes+misery losing its company makes it feel all the worse.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on
Aug 26, 2008 3:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Once the new NYC stadiums open ...
the Coliseum will be the 5th oldest park in the majors, behind Chicago, Boston, LA and Anaheim … Chicago, Boston and LA are cool, historical parks — Anaheim has been completely remodeled to make it a baseball stadium.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 3:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Exactly
Very few would trade Wrigley, Fenway, or Dodger stadium. And Anaheim is only about 2 years younger, and has actually had 2 major renovations (the Mt. Davisingof it for the Rams in the 70’s and the move back to baseball only in the late 90’s). Meanwhile, a bunch of the cookie cutter stadiums that were built after the coli have already gone the way of Oaks park and the Polo Grounds.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on
Aug 26, 2008 3:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
And of course when I said 2 years younger
I of course meant older-those words are interchangable, right?
I’m blaming the fact that young Miss Aces walked in mid post with a fresh banana shake for me.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on
Aug 26, 2008 3:52 PM PDT
up
0 recs
fresh banana shake--that'd throw me off, too.
< snerk >
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
by JediLeroy on
Aug 26, 2008 5:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs


