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.
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 9:29 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
0 recs
dammit. how did I miss that one?
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Perhaps you were shakin' yer banana?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 5:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
or
my 
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
or
your 
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 6:17 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
or
my 
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 6:20 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Baitin' your Macaca?
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 6:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Kraken
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 9:09 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Isn't Kauffman in KC older?
Not that it really disproves the point; it’s been extensively remodeled and is, unlike the Coliseum, apparently pretty nice to watch a baseball game. Just wondering.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 26, 2008 4:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nope ... it openned in 1973 ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 4:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Gotta say, having been to Kauffman I'm glad I went there.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 7:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is there any real evidence that so-called "blue collar Oakland" Ever comprised the A's' mainstay fanbase?
It seems to be assumed, but I don’t know it to be true. It’s certainly my impression that it hasn’t been true for quite a while — much longer than Unca Lew has owned the team.
I also think there’s a world of difference between targeting one group and driving another group away. I may seek one type of customer, but if another wants to throw money my way do I run him off with a broom? Not very likely.
Finally, I wonder why anyone would say: let’s see, I could build a stadium as close to the growth and the under-served market as I practically can, and make money at what I’m good at doing, or I could work a lot harder and assume a great deal more risk to invest in a moribund economic area, with a preoccupied, do-nothing city administration chasing some mythical beast called the Blue Collar Oakland, and make a lot less money even if I find him? Let’s do the latter!
Is there a model for that? The Haases? The beloved icons who spent way too much and sold the team in desperation on the verge of personal and team financial ruin after numerous cash-hemorhaging years? Damn the torpedoes!.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Documentation
Any documentation to support the contentions that the Haases …
1) were on the verge of personal ruin when they sold the team?
2) were on the verge of putting the entire team into financial ruin?
If you have such documentation, only then will I grant you that the Haases “spent way too much.” And even if a greater level of investment has failed in the past as you say it has, it doesn’t necessarily follow that such a strategy would fail again today, given the revenue-sharing checks that owners get today that were nonexistent 20 years ago.
Brainless Automaton #439
by rubin sierra on
Aug 26, 2008 12:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have it on pretty good authority, but it was verbal and I don't know where I'd go to corroborate it.
I realize that “trust me” is lousy evidence, but that’s what I got.
I also think that anybody who relies on the kindness of greedy strangers to make ends meet, and uses that as a foundation of his longterm business strategy is a fool. Things change. Also, the Haases were spending, not investing.
An owner would also be a fool to pursue more risk for a lot less potential gain. Would you, if it was your money?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 1:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not sure that Haas was ever on the verge of personal financial ruin ...
He died a very, very rich man and his family maintains a very, very high standard of living and continues their legacy of virtually unparalleled generosity.
The team was losing money in the last couple years of his ownership, though, but dropping guys like Ruben Sierra, Rickey Henderson and Eck from the payroll, as the team did under Schoffman would have more than cover that gap.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 1:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's not only this.
Lew is the managing partner only. He doesn’t even have a majority interest in the team. Does anyone actually believe that the Fischers would sit by idly while he makes philanthropic investments with their money? And it’s not just the owners who have a financial stake in this endeavor either. There will be plenty of hands in the pot before all is said and done. All of them will want their pound of fleshly lucre too. In short, second best option is not an option at all. At least not a realistic one.
"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 1:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think we all understand ... and if we don't, we should ...
that when we speak of Wolff, we’re speaking of him as the face and voice of the ownership group — not as the ultimate decision maker.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 1:38 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I was trying to make the point
that even if Lew wanted to act philanthropically towards Oakland, he would be powerless to do so. I thought it might be worth pointing out that he’s not acting soley in his own interests.
"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 27, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For the zillionth time
no one is denying that Wolff is a shrewd businessman and that his long-term plans for the team and stadium will probably make him and his partners lots of money. In fact, those of us who are critical of some of his moves are generally among the first to acknowledge that.
The problem is that many people seem willing to conflate the interests of Wolff and Fisher (as profit-minded individuals), the interests of the Oakland A’s (as an abstract entity), and the interests of the fans (as a motley collection of common folk). There is little doubt that their Fremont plan, if they can pull it off, will make a boatload of money for the former. And it’s probable, though not as certain as some seem to think, that it will end up being a good move for The Franchise. But it’s a decidedly mixed bag for us, the fans, and I don’t see what’s wrong with pointing that out. We all need to look out for our own interests, just as Lew looks out for his.
I would also add that, even though we might agree that a marketplace ruled by the profit motive is the best way for society to function, that doesn’t mean that we should completely ignore any ethical gradations in the way that different people pursue those motives. There are corporations that manage to treat their employees, customers, and communities decently and still make a healthy profit, and others that take a ruthless slash-and-burn approach to everything around them in the goal of squeezing out an extra penny. Do you really draw no ethical distinction at all between those two extremes? Just to be clear, Lew Wolff may very well be more of the former than the latter. But, again, even if that’s true, it’s not a reason to refrain from criticizing some of the things he’s done to the current fanbase.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on
Aug 26, 2008 1:59 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
While I would agree about the repetition, gawd knows, I don't think I started it. .
I also agree, of course, that each party’s interests are different. And that different business people have different ethics. All that stuff is both very basic and very much beside any point made above, which simply goes to rational longterm business decision-making.
What I don’t understand is folks who pine for a by-gone era of genteel ownership, low player expense, publicly financed stadia and therefore cheap tickets, AND who both acknowledge the passing of that era AND blame current ownership for dealing in the current stark economic realities of the game. And who are willing to tell others that they just oughtta work harder and accept more risk with their money to stay in the town that forgot to take care of its own business. I have trouble with the irrationality of that. And I have trouble understanding what “ethics” has to do with it.
It is important to close the loop and understand that, without a healthy business, there is no A’s team in the Bay Area, and that the current situation is simply unsustainable. To believe otherwise is to ask for something for nothing — a subsidy what would have to come from somebody. I don’t volunteer, and I suspect you don’t, either. So why should Unca Lew?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 2:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fundamentally
I guess we just disagree on whether Oakland does/can/will adequately support the A’s. As far as I can tell, the franchise and the legalized monopoly of which it is a part are doing just fine.
And equally fundamentally, I believe that the cost of a new stadium or any other facility should be borne by the party that is going to profit from it in the long run. Which, for the most part, is the team and its owners. Strangely enough, they rarely volunteer to do so.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on
Aug 26, 2008 3:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
MLB has a limited, tenuous antitrust exemption -- but it competes.
There is in-kind competition with the Gigis and others and all manner of competition for the spectator sports and wider entertainment dollar. And if a new league was started, it’d have few barriers to entry. I’m not sure how the “legalized monopoly” insulates the A’s from market discipline or the need to make sound business decisions.
As to Oakland’s support of the team — if you’re speaking of the City government, what has it done (sweet nothing, methinks) to retain the team? It has also failed to capitalize on its natural assets to grow economically or population-wise — esp vs to other Bay Area communities like San Jose. If we’re talking fan base from within the City limits, as above, I’m guessing — can’t prove it — that for a long time the fan base has been East Bay-wide. I would also guess that the growth, such as it is, has been from outside the City for much longer than Unca Lew’s been the HMFiC.
The wider world and its opportunities have left Oakland in the dust — we can all (including me) wish it wasn’t so, but we can’t wish it away. Nor do I think Wolfe should be blamed for acting on the reality.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 5:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
building a new stadium in Oakland could provide a massive one-time boost to local industry
Imagine the big score if the “takeover robbers” were to hit the upscale crowd at the new stadium!
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Careful, man -- lest ye, too, be ostrichized by the City Limits crowd.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 5:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just so long as they don't Ostlerize me
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Despite grover's wishes, you will Never blend-in.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 5:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
{ahem}
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Okay, so I jumped the Xmas season.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 6:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wait
The fact that an enormous, multi-billion dollar group of corporations already exists in a market, self-consciously limiting new entries into that market, isn’t a barrier to entry?
Barrier to entry doesn’t (necessarily) mean that you’re legally barred from setting up a competitive business. It means that it would be economically idiotic for anyone to actually do it. Yes, I can legally buy the business up the street and turn it into a Mexican restaurant. The 15 other Mexican restaurants within walking distance are still a barrier to entry…
I literally do not see how anyone could assert with a straight face that MLB and its franchises do not control the baseball market. The only sense in which it is not a monopoly is that they are somewhat internally competitive. And for what it’s worth, even an oligopoly provides substantial protection from “market discipline”.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 26, 2008 8:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe because it's hard to find another major sports league that Hasn't spawned a rival? Is that straight enough?
Now, it’s a minor part of my point above, but I’ll play.
NFL begat AFL and WFL and that pro wrasslin’ league and Arena football, NBA begat ABA, NHL begat WHL, etc. Each new league came in by serving previously under-served markets and luring away stars from the other league. Maybe they eventually failed (WFL) or were absorbed (ABA, WHL) or merged as relative equals (AFL), but they entered and competed, successfully for some time, and made money.
In baseball now, there are cities like $1000/ticket New York and Boston where the MLB franchise provides an economic umbrella under which a new league could come in and only charge say, $250/ticket. Chicago and LA/SD might could support another team. Then there are cities like San Jose and Nawlins that got nobody major, but which support major league teams in other sports, and what of Mexico City, Monterey, somewhere in the Caribbean, Maricaibo, Vegas, Portland, SLC, OKC, Omaha, the Carolinas, TN etc.? It could be done, and it has been done in other sports under conditions like these. Quality would suffer, as lots of AAAA players would find their way to the majors, but I think it could work.
And as to the larger point re competition, when you get to your Section 2 monopolization materials in Antitrust next year, you’ll become familiar with the concept of cross-elasticity of demand — which overcomes much of the oligopoly concern (it’s a line of precedent that starts with the DuPont cellophane case). If more of product B gets sold when product A’s price goes up, then they compete. MLB, esp. here, competes with all the other ways people can spend their leisure time and their dollars. If the price of baseball goes too high, more people play golf, go fishing, take up wind-surfing, follow lacrosse or arena football, etc. Not all competition is in-kind — indeed, most of it isn’t. Lotsa choices out there means lotsa market discipline.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 27, 2008 6:47 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yes owners should generally pay for new stadiums and whatnot
but countries/states/counties/cities provide all sorts of incentives to attract companies or to keep them from moving elsewhere.
what has oakland done along those lines for the a’s? and more importantly how does that compare to other cities with professional sports teams?
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 5:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
also Oakland is a hell of a lot less blue collar than it was 20 years ago
And we have to understand that when we’re talking about the corporate dollars that are supposed to fund luxury boxes and advertising and so on, that money doesn’t come without a wealthy fan base for those corporations to market to. If those fans aren’t there, neither is Cisco or whoever. It’s a self-sustaining cycle – a team tries to attract wealthy fans vis-a-vis building a new stadium. Corporations want to market to wealthy fans so they put money into the stadium/team. In turn the wealthy fans show up. The corporations market to them. Everyone else is priced out.
If Cisco helps build a new stadium in Fremont or San Jose or wherever, they aren’t doing it to reach Joe Sixpack who works at the scrap yard or whichever mythical blue collar fan we’re talking about. Witness every new baseball stadium that’s been built during this whole cycle. Nobody’s going to mess with that success cycle, especially people who are paying a couple hundred million dollars for a team. You’ll notice Cisco has zero interest in marketing the current A’s team, despite the fact that the door has never been open wider. They want that new stadium and the fan base that will come with it.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
America is a hell of a lot less blue collar than it was 20 years ago ...
but Oakland is still pretty strongly working class … they may work in retail, service or office jobs now, but so what?
I don’t think anyone particularly cares what job the fans have — the idea is to make baseball accessible to fans of all economic stripes — not just those with six figure incomes.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 2:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well that's what we wish
At $50 a ticket I sure as hell won’t be going to many games. But that’s obviously not what MLB’s interested in. They want revenue, whoever it comes from, and they’ve found that they can maximize that by marketing to the wealthier class. I’m not defending it – I’m the one who started off the whole anti-trust exemption explosion during the draft thread. If MLB is going to behave as if it’s a purely money-making enterprise, then that’s exactly how it should be treated. No more special favors, no subsidized stadiums, no tax breaks, no anti-trust exemption. It’s not as if they’re plowing money back into the community or creating thousands of jobs. All that money is going straight back to the owners.
But it’s the reality. MLB doesn’t give a rip what jobs people have. Most/all cities are predominantly working class. MLB doesn’t care. What they want are those 20,000 people (an extremely small percentage of any city/region) who are going to buy season tickets at $100+/game a pop. And the fact of the matter is that any major region has 20,000 people who can afford to do that. The teams just have to attract them. It isn’t pretty but it’s what’s been happening.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 3:13 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think a lot of what you say is true ...
but I also see a bit of a straight talker who does not know how many houses he owns thing going on here …
Lew talks a good game, no question. And he answers harmless questions in a frank straightforward manner — which is certainly better than the alternative. But as FSU lays out, I don’t think he was at all sincere with his swap meet proposal and … while I have many parallels to draw to that original reference … lets just say it’s more important to be straightforward than to talk straightforward.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 11:09 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Context
Given the existing conditions, demand is inelastic. It also was for the Giants at the ’Stick. Build a new park and you have a better chance of bringing in casual fans.
The last question was rhetorical, right?
by vertig0 on
Aug 26, 2008 8:11 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, given the expense of parking
at the game, the traffic to the game, the area where you find yourself at night, after the game, and the “parking garage” interior of the Coliseum, the A’s FO has set themselves up in a very narrow area of the “demand curve”. These may not be factors at other ballparks, but the A’s mkting minds have to recognize which marketing values are not just “common” to all baseball clubs, but what priority they have to be placed in Oakland, California, for affecting demand.
The “supply” side of the equation is also important…otherwise, why would the Raiders draw 34,000 to a pre-season game that meant nothing…an exhibition with mostly unknown players, versus the idea of seeing the best team (ostensibly) in baseball, in Tampa Bay? I think the difference is that (1) core football fans go for the “tailgating” as much as the game itself (2) going to any specific baseball game is not so much a priority, as “the next one will be along soon”. For a lot of people I speak to in the Bay Area about “going to the game”, they often mix the decision of attending a game between both teams! Then they factor in speed of getting to the game, parking, walking to a restaurant or bar after the game, weather at night….the fact that neither team is truly dominating, or truly awful, is not so much a factor.
What the A’s cannot generate no matter what marketing campaign they choose, is the “legacy momentum”, where great-grandfathers can say they attended Fenway, or Yankee Stadium. This was not important to baseball in the 1960s…even Fenway had tiny crowds for the losing teams, but today it is a huge reason why the NY-Boston teams have overflowing attendance, and the teams like the A’s have less.
I think “a new stadium” will create a “new stadium demand” that lasts for years, but only for years. Look at Baltimore, Toronto. They had stellar attendance for quite some time with their new stadiums, but it eventually fades. I believe for the Athletics, “new stadium demand” will be much shorter than the Giants had with theirs, because of the Fremont location. It will not be a “downtown stadium” like Seattle, San Francisco, it will be a logistical nightmare to get there, and it will be miles from public transit as it exists, and it will not support nearby restaurants, etc., like the SF stadium.
I realize Lew Wolff admires and studies the success of other franchises. But Oakland must be regarded with a “clean sheet” as to factors that both “draw” fans as well as “diminishes repeat attendance”. Copying the “all you can eat” idea is not going to be wildly successful as it was in Dodger Stadium because the elements that make it a “hit” there, are not present at the Oakland Coliseum.
Instead of looking at other baseball clubs, I really think Oakland management should visit the food store chain Andronico’s management, and see what they did to appeal to food shoppers in a cut throat environment. How do they thrive, while charging 20-50% more for their groceries versus the big chains? How could they justify expensive upgrades to “visuals” to make the stores generate more traffic? The “Andronico’s” store chain used to be very undistinguished, selling an undistinguished line of national branded goods. They invested in upping quality and the Bay Area responded.
What could the Oakland Athletics learn about the Bay Area demographics, from Andronico’s??
BTW, great job on the interview, Blez!! Congrats!!
"You can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a firefly and still have room enough for three caraway seeds and a producer's heart."
Fred Allen
by One won lost won on
Aug 26, 2008 10:19 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"You" use "quotes" a "lot"
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 10:20 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
perhaps
Guilty as charged!
I speculate that that is because when I use a phrase like “legacy momentum” I want to alert the reader that the meaning of that phrase may reside outside the actual words in and of themselves.
Anyway, this is a free sports blog. As Vert says, it needs to be regarded in “context”. 8^))
"You can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a firefly and still have room enough for three caraway seeds and a producer's heart."
Fred Allen
by One won lost won on
Aug 26, 2008 10:27 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Mmmm, interesting
I think I see and agree with a lot of where he’s coming from, but I’m a more sophisticated, deeper-thinking fan. ;-)
Though, I don’t think this part of the interview will really change anyone’s minds about him all that much. The ones who like him will probably think he explained his point of view well and go along with it, while the ones who don’t will most likely just see another set of slimy excuses.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 8:22 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Its ten hot dogs per VIST
BTW, It’s not a 10 hot dog limit. Its 10 per visit. Oh, and they are overpriced at a buck. Tasteless and half the time the cheap buns break. I figure your costs are probably $.20/dog, or cheaper. Does Lou Wolff or Billy Beane serve those dogs to their children or grandchildren??? I doubt it. (Evil smile.)
America has given much to baseball. Subsidies. Anti-trust exemption. It all falls right into the balance sheet of the teams, not to the fans or The Game; then the owners speculate in ever inflated buying and selling of teams. And they EXPECT the fans to make the cash flow based on the price the owners paid, not supply-and-demand in the marketplace. They talk like free marketeers and love the profits (though the owners never will open their books), but they want to the public take the risks and the blame when the market is not there for their mediocre value proposition.
I’d like to see the owners (and the media) experience what its like to be a fan; stand in line for the smelly unventilated bathrooms or miss two innings to buy a Dr. Pepper.
Or the continual erosion of season ticket benefits while prices WAY outpace inflation and product value. Spank your best customers because you consider them inelastic. That is the worst and greediest business practice going. In most businesses, YOUR BEST CUSTOMERS ARE GOLD AND THEY GET THE BENEFITS NOT THE PUNISHMENT.
We had the Haas family and saw how good owners can be too, when greed and salesmanship doesn’t define their relationship with the marketplace.
The sport is great and will survive despite the greed and self-serving monopoly business practices.
The market in the Bay Area is way big enough, although the economy is in a ferocious downturn. At least take some responsibility for the inside-the-box anti-customer climate and I will cut you some slack for the anti-business climate in oakland politics.
Even if it means building a small temporary stadium al la Frank Youell Field in the 1960’s for the Raiders with light rail service from BART. Git er done. Make Larry Ellison a partner, he can take a Jet Boat to games from Foster City.
And that means you too, Ron Dellums, your first move was to take a huge raise from strapped taxpayers, where’s your ideas to save Oakland’s great franchise and all the ancillary benefits that come with it???
God I’m tired of political salespeople and PR firms. Lets get to it. I’ve done my part with my 4 season tickets out of my shrinking after tax cash.
by ExGiantsFan on
Aug 26, 2008 8:40 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
"I want to be able to drive the person home who eats all 10"
No, Lew, you really don’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 8:47 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
lol
Every day is just a little worse than the previous, that means every day is the worst day of my life.
by shooting4life on
Aug 26, 2008 8:54 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Frequent stops?
"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 9:06 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Frequent heartburn?
try Lew Shuttle Service OTC
by oakinboston on
Aug 26, 2008 9:20 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Let's Vent
Polynesian Sauce may not be available in all locations.
by Englishmajor on
Aug 26, 2008 11:31 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Admittedly,
I feel a little disconnected, having not grown up in the Bay Area, and having lived in Boston for the last 6 years. Clearly when it comes to local issues of advertising/attendance/etc, I cannot comment on the A’s with the perspective you all have (despite all these things still being important to me, as they are important to the success of my team).
For what it is worth, however, I feel a little better inside reading Lew’s comments and getting the sense that he is a smart, candid guy, and that cares about many of the things that I care about regarding the A’s. I see how some of his positions are causing friction with the fan base, even this fan base, which I regard as the most intelligent out there, and that makes me kraut. er, sad. But he does a number of things the RIGHT way.
For our small market, I think we are lucky to have Lew. It could be a lot worse.
by oakinboston on
Aug 26, 2008 9:32 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
"It could be a lot worse"
Yes, as in Hal Hofmann being half an owner. What was that guy’s philosophy? We never knew.
"You can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a firefly and still have room enough for three caraway seeds and a producer's heart."
Fred Allen
by One won lost won on
Aug 26, 2008 10:30 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oooops I meant "Ken Hoffman"
I used the name of an Albany realtor…gaaaaaaahh!!
"You can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a firefly and still have room enough for three caraway seeds and a producer's heart."
Fred Allen
by One won lost won on
Aug 26, 2008 10:33 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A little tired
The deliberate misread of the drop in attendance this year is disingenous at best, and a bit tiresome as well. This past offseason, they traded away or let go several fan favorites, and at the same time raised ticket prices. Now it’s all golly gee whiz, look at our poor attendance this year, it must be because Oakland isn’t good baseball country. While I grant that the Giants are living proof that a good venue can make up for a lousy team, the Coliseum isn’t the only problem this year. It would be nice to see the ownership admit that, instead of pretending to be baffled by the small crowds.
"If you make up your mind not to be happy, there's no reason why you shouldn't have a fairly good time." -Edith Wharton (The Last Asset)
by Oakville Athletic on
Aug 26, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah but the crowds have been terrible since the early 90s
With small fluctuations based on how good the team is. Without looking at the numbers, I would expect that attendance for the first half of the season was within the well established range (read: not sufficient to support a healthy franchise) and that there’s been a small dip since the trades and the record went into the toilet for various reasons.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 2:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I see both sides of the argument
I’m excited the A’s are going to have a bright future for years if they stick with this rebuilding plan. I also want the young studs to be able to stay for years in an A’s uniform and not be traded four to five years into their careers here. Bottom line for me is the A’s need a new stadium and I don’t care if it’s in San Jose, Fremont, Oakland, or frigging Sacramento! I will go to the games no matter because this is my team and I live and die with them. Nice interviews as well, Blez. Kep them coming sir…..-M-Rod
by mrod on
Aug 26, 2008 11:04 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
People talk about the attendance, but if I recall, the A's didn't even sell out all
the ALDS games in 2006, and the presales for 2007 were terrible.
by theblackpearl on
Aug 26, 2008 11:36 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Not sure on that
They only had the one ALDS game against the Twins: 35,694.
Against Detroit in the ALCS they had two: 35,655 and 36,168.
Capacity is supposed to be 34,077 but they can add at least a thousand SRO tickets and must’ve found more room for the playoffs.
It is true that even after the ALCS appearance attendance saw no spike. In fact, by the time the season finished with the A’s under .500, they drew less (1,921,844) than the year before (1,976,625), or a difference of -676 a game.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 11:54 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's what frustrates me
I might be biased in the fact that I sat down with Lew, but his frustration over the jump in season ticket subscribers from the ALCS 2006 to 2007 was really palpable. I also think that he did a ton of research as the stadium location expert for Schott before he decided to buy the team. I honestly believe that he felt that there was no spot in Oakland that was a realistic option.
by Blez on
Aug 26, 2008 12:00 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
so you're endorsing FSU's swap-meet-site-was-a-sham hypothesis?
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 12:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not sure
I don’t remember when that timing was…if I remember correctly, I think it was a proposal Lew threw out there only to quickly find out that there were so many issues surrounding it. Maybe I’m just naive in trusting him but I tend to believe people until they prove they can’t be trusted.
by Blez on
Aug 26, 2008 1:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What about the parking lot build?
They said building in the NW corner of the parking lot, across from the Lexus dealer, north of the Oracle Arena, was good…then, no, simply cannot. Would have to move a “power transformer” or “substation”…DARN!!
Really? Thwarted by a substation of PG&E? They don’t, like build tons of them everywhere, all the time??
"You can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a firefly and still have room enough for three caraway seeds and a producer's heart."
Fred Allen
by One won lost won on
Aug 28, 2008 12:16 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not quite
The power issue was related to the underground lines that feed the stadium and arena. The explanation was that digging up and reburying the lines would cause upheaval. You can decide for yourself whether that’s a valid excuse.
FWIW I advocated building on the old HomeBase site south of the Coliseum. I was told that the owners were developing the site. That was three years ago. No development yet.
by vertig0 on
Aug 28, 2008 12:45 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think that old HomeBase site would work
and I think it would work well.
Traffic and streets around there are kind of “messed up” aren’t they? I have not driven near that old “HomeBase” store site since the 20th century.
I’m kind of hazy on the actual mechanics, but I think the A’s could work out some sort of “mass employment” for a lot of residents near the stadium, for games. Some sort of “glad handing” effort to greet visitors, then they cheer on the A’s during the game, then help with the exit situation.
"You can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a firefly and still have room enough for three caraway seeds and a producer's heart."
Fred Allen
by One won lost won on
Aug 28, 2008 5:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
playoff games
nor did we sell out the 2002 playoff series vs. the Twins. If fans don’t show up for games, then they have no right to complain.
by sf drift king on
Aug 26, 2008 7:05 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Whether it's an excuse or not, there were also some midweek day games in that series and the...
…one against Boston, if I remember right. That can make it a little difficult to sell out.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 7:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
whatever dood
the proof is in the attendance. cheapest tix in the league and we can’t come close to selling out a 34,000 stadium. And you people continue to bitch about tarp??
by sf drift king on
Aug 26, 2008 11:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not bitching about tarp.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 12:22 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You bitch tarp ...
I love lamp …
But you’re flat out wrong about the “cheapest tix in the league” thing. They are actually the eighth most expensive.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 12:37 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Suprised by Wolf
I for one would only expect a jump in attendance if you had been out of the playoffs for a long while and then made the playoffs. By ‘06 the A’s had already made the playoffs several times there was no new feeling on which to build, combined with the “failure” aspect from the sweep by the Tigers that was all too familiar. Kind of just ran through my mind right now, if we had beaten the Tigers we likely would have won the world series that year as we would have been a better team than the Cardinals and would have had a better than 50% chance at winning it. A bit surreal. Of course we would also still have Ken Macha as manager which for some may or may not have been a good thing.
by jasonlbe on
Aug 26, 2008 12:33 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know about the attendance thing
Starting with the last year they didn’t make the playoffs before their run in the early part of the decade, here’s their total attendance figures with what they’ve done each year:
Year Record Result Attendance Average AL Rank ---- ------ ------ ---------- ------- ------- 1999 87-75 2 1,434,610 17,711 12th of 14 2000 91-70 DIV, 1 1,603,744 19,922 11th of 14 2001 102-60 WC, 2 2,133,277 26,337 7th of 14 2002 103-59 DIV, 1 2,169,811 26,788 8th of 14 2003 96-66 DIV, 1 2,216,596 27,365 6th of 14 2004 91-71 2 2,201,516 27,179 7th of 14 2005 88-74 2 2,109,118 26,038 8th of 14 2006 93-69 DIV, 1 1,976,625 24,403 12th of 14 2007 76-86 3 1,921,844 23,726 12th of 14
As you indicated, there was a jump after the 2000 season – quite a big one, in fact. That held steady through 2005, the second of two straight years missing the playoffs. Beginning with 2006, we saw the drop of about 2,000 fans a game, about 130,000 overall. Even though they went further in 2006 than they did the other playoff years, it was not reflected in their overall attendance last year.
This year they’re on pace to get back down to about where they were in 2000 (20,998 right now) and next year I wouldn’t be surprised if it was back to 1999’s times. 1996 was their low point, just 14,178 a game. When the team is good and they sustain it, they can draw almost double that. However, it’s a struggle and when you consider the fact some of those games before 2006 were bolstered by 50,000+ crowds, it skews the figures just a bit. Now they have an artificial capacity of about 34,000 and they’re filling it to 59% this year compared to 71% in 2006/07. Add in the higher overall capacity before and they were in the 50% area previously.
It’s no secret this is a major part of the plans for a stadium that will only hold around 32,000. There’s no point in building a place that seats 50,000 when you only get that much when certain teams are in town or if you make the playoffs. Whatever the case, a consistent playoff team should be able to do better than 27,000 a game. Even when they went to the World Series three straight years from 1988-90, their high was 35,805 in 1990, which was at least good for 2nd in the AL.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 1:19 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The drop from 2005/2006
is attributable entirely to the artificial scarcity created by the tarps.
The top 13 attendances in 2005 were: 40331, 40485, 40774, 41180, 42705, 43874, 44633, 44815, 45131, 45712, 46763, 46812, 47385.
The top 13 attendances in 2006 were: 34077, 34077, 34077, 34077, 35077, 35077, 35077, 35077, 35077, 35077, 35077, 35077, 35077.
That’s a difference of around 120,000 right there just because extra tickets weren’t available for the most popular games.
Combine that with the fact that the majority of inexpensive seats were eliminated for all games, and it seems pretty clear that attendance probably would have been up at least a little bit if the upper deck had remained open.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on
Aug 26, 2008 2:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good catch
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 2:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
By the way, this year is looking less artificial thanks to the tarps
Technically the two Japan games (44,735 & 44,628) count, but their top ten in Oakland this year so far are:
36067, 36067, 35067, 33841, 33468, 31673, 31372, 29352, 29294, 29051.
With the way the team’s been in the second half, I don’t expect these totals to change very much.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 2:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The A's
They need to build a stadium on a man-made island in the bay. This would really give the Giants the middle finger and put to rest any economic inelasticity with the coolest stadium ever created! Haha its a reach i know…
by 916baller on
Aug 26, 2008 12:36 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I believe our favorite primate has been pushing that plan for years. Except his floats (the island, that is).
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And they could run a BART tunnel straight to it
And screw the second Bay Bridge, it would also go straight to the new ballpark. Hotel accommodations on Alcatraz. As long as they had the floating island tethered just inside Alameda County it would be fine.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 2:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
no, no, no
You want it to be an oceangoing vessel flying under Central American registry — avoid US taxes, and, if you float out beyond the US maritime border, you can have slot machines and high-stakes poker.
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 2:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it could be floated out beyond the maritime border every night
So as to not establish residency and so peeps can play the slots, and then just return for games.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 3:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
this is obviously the best idea anyone has come up with
time to write a memo
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 3:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:09 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
2005 man?
You were way ahead of the curve. I’ve only come around this afternoon. In the last 2-3 hours for that matter.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 5:20 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that's me, always ahead of the curve ... and behind the fastball
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're Dan Johnson?
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on
Aug 26, 2008 5:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ow!
I just got fresh banana shake in my eye!
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Banana shake necklace?
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on
Aug 26, 2008 6:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bunnane?
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 9:11 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
though I wonder if they Bay is deep enough to float A's Island
If I recall we have a few physics guys around here – how much would Orca the Floating Stadium weigh and how deep would the Bay have to be to float it?
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 5:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And how many horsepower to tow it under the GGB against the tide?
And how many fog-outs would there be? And could we continuously reposition so the sun was always in the opponents’ eyes?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 26, 2008 5:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I can see Daric Barton's next injury...
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on
Aug 26, 2008 6:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The only way for the A's to compete is to have a state of the art stadium near a major metropolitan center.
The Giants moved to PacBell park or whatever it is called now, and they provided a scenic (spelling) location where people can go to an afternoon game then quickly go downtown and have dinner or play. They can also go have a nice dinner then go to the park and watch a game. PacBell park is easy to get to for everyone in SF and in the eastbay and it is a better location with a nice view.
This is what draws a lot of fans. They don’t care about the costs as much as the entertainment and the location. If the A’s would have been able to get a new ballpark next to Jack London Sq then we would be talking a different story now.
I am not sure the location in Fremont is that good but it is a lot better than what we now have in Oakland. That and the fact that the City of Oakland never really supported the A’s I don’t blame Lew for wanting to move to Fremont or even better in San Jose.
This is, of course, my personal, perfect, unbiased opinion.!
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on
Aug 26, 2008 2:57 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Jack London was our best Oakland option
If they’d been able to get in there 10-15 years ago and been in on the revitalization who knows what would have happened. But that ship has sailed, the well has been poisoned, etc.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have a question
in regard to management not willing to give big contracts (as referred to Barry Zito by Mr. Wolf in the interview.) Do you think Wolf more so Billy Beane would jump at an opportunity to sign Albert Pujols to a long term deal? He flat out mashes, I’m a bit bias becasue I am a Cardinals fan. (A’s are my favorite AL team). But, I think he is a dream Billy Beane player. What do you think? Would he give El Hombre 7 years?
by 916baller on
Aug 26, 2008 3:26 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Pujols is already signed for a long time
And the Cardinals would never ever let him go. This reminds me of listening to a radio broadcast five or so years ago when the A’s were still the bomb. A caller was saying the A’s problems were very simple and easily solved – they should just trade for Vladimir Guerrero. Ta daa!
Since this would obviously never happen, perhaps you’re asking as a pure hypothetical as in “were the A’s able to develop a player like Pujols, would they let him go?” The only thing we can compare it to is Giambi, who wasn’t as good but was still just about the best with the bat for a few years. They made an effort to sign him but couldn’t match up with the Yankees. Then he proceeded to perform on the low end of acceptable considering his contract. So I’d say yes, in the off chance that a Pujols comes through the system and they’re bidding in a vacuum with no other team competing, they would try to sign him.
by jdr on
Aug 26, 2008 3:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I interpreted Lew's comment as pertaining specifically to pitchers
I wouldn’t rule out, theoretically, a 6-7 year deal to Pujols (or A-Rod, had he been available and said, "You know, I’d like to play for Oakland for $14million/year).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on
Aug 26, 2008 4:45 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the biggest baseball contracts
never seem to work out with pitchers. with a hitter it can be a decent deal if the player performs at a hall of fame level (a-rod, manny).
so basically no to all pitchers and yes only to hitters who are a good bet to consistently put up hof numbers.
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 5:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Greg Maddux has been worth every penny he has been paid and then quite a few ...
so has Roger Clemens … to name a couple of extreme examples …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 26, 2008 9:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
were those two signed to very big contracts, like park/dreifort/hampton/zito level in terms of $ and years?
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 11:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maddux signed two 5 year contracts with the Braves ...
the first was the biggest contract ever signed in terms of dollars per year, at the time. Since then the years have been smaller. Had he signed a 15 year contract with the Braves at the time of that first contract, though, it would have been a success.
Clemens’ longest contract was six years and paid him a very handsome sum.
Those examples you tossed out there (perhaps with the exception of Dreifort) were all clearly bad contracts at the time of signing given out by bad/desperate teams to pitchers with serious warts …
The point is — yes — give the money to Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Tim Hudson, Johan Santana, etc — just like you would give the money to A-Rod or Manny — spend premium dollars on premium players — that’ll usually work out well. Don’t spend premium dollars on merely above average players — that’s just dumb …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 12:48 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Peferct copy and paste job..
for the next bandwagon jumper:
“…..any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us”
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
by ST on
Aug 26, 2008 3:37 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
At the risk of pissing a lot of people off...
(Man, my posts carry that disclaimer a lot more these days…)
… I dispute whether someone who would bail on their team and wait until they were competitive before paying attention again could actually call themselves a “hardcore” fan. I would certainly hope that, as this team’s contingent of fans is pretty woefully small as it is, a little loyalty through the thin years isn’t too much to ask.
Great interview, way to not just give in on the Bonds angle, even though I despise the idea of him playing for the A’s.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on
Aug 26, 2008 4:33 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you're confusing "hardcore" with "die-hard"
Eg. I would characterize myself as the former (I pay a lot of attention to the player personnel, sometimes write lengthy blog posts, know something about advanced stats, etc.) but not the latter… I don’t feel any special obligation to attend or watch games when the team is terrible, because it just isn’t fun for me.
I suspect those segments of the fan population don’t overlap all that much.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 26, 2008 4:45 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For me, I think the term "addicted" applies -
often I watch, only to neglect other responsibilities, then get mad and throw sharp objects vaguely in Poochini’s direction, and say to myself, “I really shouldn’t watch every game,” and then check the time of the next game and plan my life accordingly.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on
Aug 26, 2008 4:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To me, that speaks to the difference between...
… a hardcore baseball fan and a hardcore A’s fan. Baseball generates a lot of interest in me. The A’s generate in me an obsessive-compulsive need to watch every game and a crippling lack of will to self-actualize.
Semantics, though, right?
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on
Aug 26, 2008 6:21 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What about Marco?
He says that all the trades they’ve done they’ve gotten some good prospects in return, and you can’t not trade someone just because everyone loves them. what about marco scutaro? everyone loved him, but we got nothing in return for him. a couple of low level prospects. thats the trade where we were really ripped off as fans.
by rollonubears on
Aug 26, 2008 4:48 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
you have GOT to be kidding
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 26, 2008 5:20 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the a's didn't get good prospects for scutaro
because in order to get good prospects you have to give up a good player. marco is a nice guy and a fan favorite, but he’s not going to bring back adam lind.
also, when beane and jp and exchanging players (gaudin, scutaro) i’m not sure it can be judged in the same way as other trades.
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 6:04 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
While I agree with the above sentiments of Messrs xbhaskarx and monkeyball...
… perhaps rollonubears is suggesting that since Scoot wasn’t all that great of a player and wasn’t going to bring back a helluva lot in a trade anyway, why trade him at all? Why not just hang on to him because he’s a fan favorite?
“Salary, salary,” you say. And you would be right.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on
Aug 26, 2008 6:24 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What were you expecting to get for him?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 26, 2008 7:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I didn't like what Lew had to say.
He gave off a bad vibe.
by IM4Oakgal on
Aug 26, 2008 9:21 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs

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 11:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm wondering how many fans who like experience of an affordable baseball product
in Oakland would take to a minor league team — either in the PCL or California League. It’s working pretty well in Brooklyn — and with the revitalization there, it’s become a good prospective major league market.
A number of the old industrial and agricultural towns like Oakland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Kansas City and maybe Baltimore haven’t really kept up with the newfangled globally relevant markets like San Jose or Seattle. They weren’t really big baseball towns to begin with, unlike St Louis or Cincinnati. They’re falling further behind the stronger markets, not closing the gap. I can’t see them ever competing on a sustainable basis without a lot of revenue sharing, unless they really turn their economies and urban centers around.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Aug 27, 2008 5:46 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs




















