Lewis Wolff Athletics Nation Interview: Part III
Yesterday you read part II. Monday was part I.
Here is Part III. Enjoy.
Blez: Bob Costas reported on his Costas Now show that MLB teams start out with $40 million due to revenue sharing. Is that fairly accurate because it would mean that the A's are close to breaking even before even selling a ticket given the current payroll?
Wolff: I think we're closer to $30, but that number is probably OK when you factor in everything. Salaries aren't the only expense we have though. We have to buy bats, balls. We have to have an accountant or two. (laughing)
Blez: Those ash bats are making things especially expensive. It feels like a different era in baseball then when you're talking about payroll versus revenue sharing.
Wolff: We would rather be a contributor to revenue sharing. Or at least neutral, so just having revenue sharing isn't a reason to be in the business.
Blez: But doesn't it encourage you to spend more?
Wolff: Oh yes.

Blez: Is that something where you feel more free to do something like the (Michel) Inoa signing?
Wolff: That was just what I was going to say. I look at salaries in three ways. One is the draft picks. Two are the free agents. And three other opportunities like Inoa. If you take revenue sharing and put it in your pocket, I think that's despicable. And Major League Baseball, plus the union, watches that very carefully. It's hard for us to compete in free agency. If some guy says he wants $25 million a year for four years, that's not for us. Even if we had the stadium filled, it would be very hard to do that. It would be easier if we had a ballpark that had a bunch of the sources of income that come along with that. So we go out to the Dominican and with a lot of thought, more than most people do in their own businesses, we decide to pay this young man $4.25 million as a bonus. He's 16-years-old. I met his parents and they didn't speak English but the mother was the athlete. She was a softball pitcher. What Billy's thought was, along with the guys around him, this guy would be in the top ten in the draft. When you go to pick a draft choice, the league can't tell you what to pay, but they give you guidance. Everyone knows about it. So maybe the first guy gets a bonus of $3 million and it goes down from there. The rich clubs can go, and everyone gets mad at them, but they can say everyone is saying $3 million and we'll give them $9 million or $6 million or something like that. Up until this year, we have never, to my knowledge, gone over guidance. Because that is a way we think we should be a part of the whole partnership. In various years, other people do. This year, we did go over. We signed our top five picks at guidance or below. But the more people do that the more quality we'll have. If you pass on a guy, you keep him out of baseball for a year. Then the Yankees can come along and take him later and pay him three times what he was asking for up at the top. So what we're trying to do, like other teams, we're trying to look at international, draft and free agency as one bundle of money and where we spend it. So it isn't that our payroll is only $50 million this year. We probably spent two or three times what we spent over the last few years on the international market. And we finally beefed it up. It's a great way because when they come up, we have them for six years. So this idea of leaving isn't going to be quite the same because you have the three years at a fixed salary and then you have three years of arbitration. Our goal is that if they do well, sort of like with Swisher, instead of arbitration we'll give you X, Y, Z for three or four years so we can probably lock someone up for seven or eight years. Because if you take arbitration there's a risk that you might get hurt, so they might as well take a little bit less now and go to bed at night and not worry that I'm not secure. We're in that balance and we're going to make it work. Players will be with us six to eight years that way.
Blez: Do you view the Inoa signing as pretty risky since he's so very young?
Wolff: Yeah, I think it is. But I'd rather risk that on a young player than committing six years to some outrageous situation where the guy is 33 and he's going to be 38 at the end. We look at this very closely. It's a balance.
Blez: Did you offer the baseball operations, meaning Billy and his team, any resistance when they informed you they wanted to start moving forward with the rebuilding process?
Wolff: No. It was so logical to me that even I could understand it. (laughing) It was really logical because if you look at the other side of it. What happens if we didn't do it? Where would we be? Other teams didn't have the trading fodder that we had. They really have a problem if they don't have anything to rebuild from. It was just the opposite because it was so logical. There were so many people involved with this. Billy Owens and the staff. Billy (Beane) relies much more on scouts than that book (Moneyball) suggests.
Blez: You mentioned the inelasticity of the market. And you seem to have a set number of people regardless of whether you win or lose. Does that make it much easier to make the decision to go into rebuilding mode?
Wolff: Well yes, it sure does. That (the inelasticity) isn't just my ownership. I looked back 10, 12 years. Yeah it does because it's sad, and I don't want to penalize the fans who come, because there is no reason to come if you aren't going to get what you want. We have to earn that right. But I have to tell you the year after the playoffs we had to think that fans were thinking, gee whiz they have those guys coming back whether we changed it or not. We didn't have any change in whether or not we had fans signing up for season tickets or advertising. It's inelastic. The word is a facetious word but it should be that the better you do, the more people want to come. We may be the one or few teams in the Major Leagues that are in a market area that is saturated to a point where it's inelastic. I use that a little bit facetiously.
Blez: I saved this until later because this is your baby, but you recently seemed frustrated, I think it was during a Rick Hurd interview, about the slow pace of the Fremont stadium progress. Do you still believe that Fremont will happen?
Wolff: If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't be doing it. I was in an owner's meeting last week in Washington D.C. and one guy said to me, "Well in our state they may put a law in that there can be no public money to help sports teams." I wanted to raise my hand and say, "Well in California there is going to be a law that no private money can do it." (laughing) I think Rick Hurd helped me because it got attention to the issue. Our problem isn't with the city. We don't want to be in a city that doesn't want us and we think they want us. There are so many constituencies that are outside.
Blez: That aren't a part of the city you mean?
Wolff: That aren't city functions that want their piece of the pie where they think we're giving a gift. We're paying for everything we're asking for. All we're asking for is the process to help us. I wasn't faulting the city. I don't want to call out any one thing. But there's a bunch of other governmental things and non-governmental that would like a voice in baseball and sports. So it's sort of piling on. So if we're going to devote four acres to some public use in our ballpark, that public use might want 10 acres. I'm used to this. I've been doing this all my life. This one is just a little odd. Especially with what we're contributing to the area. I don't care what the economists say, I'll be happy to debate any economist on this. If our scheme could go ahead, even if it isn't in the same exact form it is. It certainly isn't going to drain the community of anything, it's going to add to it; jobs and tax revenue and identity. California is very tough. If we were building a hospital, we'd have the same problems. I give a speech that's called, "If there's a cure for cancer in California, someone would be against it." (laughs) I think the progress is fine. It would be nice to have a process that moves faster. There's no reason not to move it faster. It's not like we're displacing anyone and it's our own land. It's strange but the reality is that it is hard to do it.
Blez: This is all a little complicated for the average fan, but you mentioned that there was seemingly too many hands in the cookie jar when it comes to getting the ballpark done. Are those the biggest obstacles remaining to getting it done and finally having a groundbreaking?
Wolff: My analogy is that, and I stole this from a friend of mine who was heading Chrysler when they were having their problems many years ago, all the banks came along, 20 or 30 banks or whatever they had and he tells me that he went to the meeting with them and brought a bunch of fake hand grenades. He put one in front of each one of the bankers' seats and asked, "Which one of you want to pull the pin?" (laughing) I don't think this is quite as serious an issue here yet the answer is that it's up to us, not these constituencies to bring them together. We have a lot of power to do that in the sense that we're not trying to build a nuclear power plant. We're not going to hurt anyone with what we're doing. But if some merchant or national retailer says that we're going to mess up their street up seven days a year for day games for 45 minutes and wants to make a big deal out of that, we have to counter that. The question is why we have to counter that, but that's the nature of it. If a major employer there wants to have their trucks come in at a certain time, do we add to that? One of the things that no one notices or says much about is that the property that we're on was zoned and is ready for four and half million square feet of office space. What we're putting on is less obtrusive than that. And we only operate, not including playoffs, less than 90 days a year. It's crazy that people are attributing our 90 days as if we were flooding the area 365 a year. Not all people are saying this but the smarter people see it very clearly. I'll be very direct about it. There are ones that want their day in the sun and want to exert their power or whatever it is. There are very few of those and we'll get past them. It's just, why do we have to?
Blez: How much of your day do you spend getting this project up and to a point where you can finally start the groundbreaking and building?
Wolff: Actually I'm just the gray hair. I've got my son on this who has pretty much given up his development career. He's working on this in the Bay Area. He's on this every day with our staff. We don't want that to interfere with the baseball operation. We also have our soccer venue situation. I guess if you can build one, you can build two. I never measure by time and how much we spend. I measure by how we perform. So if we need a better radio station and we get one, I say, give me a check mark or a plus for that one. It's getting across the goal line that's important to me whether it takes an hour or 1,000 hours. Same thing with Billy. They're very productive. I don't measure how much time they put in. I never liked that. I used to be in the consulting business and you get paid by the hour. An hour of one guy could be 10 times worth what an hour of mine would be worth. (laughing) The answer is that I don't really keep track.
Blez: Do you think things have been pushed back in terms of the timetable of the stadium opening? Originally it was talked about possibly 2011 with more likely being 2012.
Wolff: Yes, I think so. For no legitimate reason, but yes. I'm prejudiced on this topic. My worry isn't so much the stadium. Baseball is baseball and we're going to build this great franchise thanks to Billy and other owners, they're growing in value whether we do anything or not. That isn't the goal. But I worry about California. I worry about a state where the process has become the end product. Too many people live off the process. If a community needs a hospital, it shouldn't be delayed by someone at the end of the block who doesn't want a hospital and files lawsuits and doing whatever to stall the process. There should be a better way, forget about baseball, to get something done that is proper to be there. I'm not saying they should forget about environment and traffic, but the report should be done within a reasonable timetable. The original environmental studies needed to be done and submitted within a 12-month period and by the time all the attorneys and government people and all the people who don't want anything good to happen, it's now an extremely long process. And I'd rather be spending the money on ballplayers.
Blez: The environmental impact report...
Wolff: It's almost done.
Blez: OK, I was wondering if it had been released yet.
Wolff: It takes a year, but they've had one on this project before a few years ago. You'll get someone on the other side who will say there should be 10 environmental impact reports before they do anything. Baseball is not my issue here. It's bigger than that. Much bigger.
Blez: So does it frustrate you to a point where you want to throw up your hands and say, that's it I'm done with California, Vegas here I come. I'm not saying specifically Vegas, but I'm just using that as an alternative.
Wolff: No because I've been doing this stuff, not on this scale, all my business life. I would like us to have another option in the Bay Area if it's good, but we don't as of today. And therefore we're not leveraging anything. I could fly to Las Vegas and meet with the mayor or whomever, but that isn't our nature. I have to also admit to you that in thinking about it, and baseball doesn't want a team in Vegas, but I'm not sure Vegas is a good baseball town because it would require a dome stadium and this and that and it's a transient population. We're in the hotel business so we know some of the key people and there was a great site at one point with Harrah's, but I want to be where we're at if at all possible.
Blez: Is it basically Fremont or bust right now?
Wolff: If I say that and you print it then the guy who has one of the hand grenades will say, "Ooooh". (laughs) Our focus is this. We don't have any other options that are in our mind directly. I like the Fremont location. I don't think it's as big a traffic deal or anything as what could be built there. The answer is that's about it. In Alameda County, I don't think there's another site we could do and we're not going to go to Contra Costa County. Those are the only two territories we have from baseball.
Blez: If you could go back in the process which you obviously can't at this point and explore other options including other locations in Oakland, would you do just that? From everything that you've told me, it sounds like you think Oakland is simply too close to San Francisco.
Wolff: I think it is, but I don't think that's the issue. I spent over two years, and it didn't cost me anything, helping the former owners, but I could not find a way to get it done in Oakland.
Blez: For what reasons?
Wolff: There was no real property available. And Oakland has a huge number of other priorities from security to education to health and so on. Both mayors while I was there, Jerry Brown and Ron Dellums, said look whatever we can do, let us know. Even to acquire a piece of land that we paid for was difficult. It was almost impossible. It just bothers me because it's in the path of growth. It's got great weather. The Coliseum site is fantastic. I don't know if we could do any better if we had a new stadium or not, but it certainly is a great location relative to BART, the freeway system, the airport and visibility. But it loses $20-30 million a year on their bond issue. Everywhere we turned there was a major stumbling block. And no one has come back and said, we can deliver this site to you. I think that most of the professional people who work at the city and whatnot recognize the difficulty of getting something done at this scale in Oakland.
Blez: If you had to put a percentage chance that you thought the Fremont stadium was going to happen, what would that be?
Wolff: Happen at all as opposed to not happening?
Blez: Yes.
Wolff: I'd say where I thought it was 75 percent, it's probably more like 65 percent now. But as we get through more things it changes almost daily. I would say that our chances of staying in the Bay Area in a new stadium if we can't get Fremont but I think we can get it, are probably very high. I think baseball would have to say that they want us to stay here and have to open up our territories in some manner. But that isn't the overriding issue.
Blez: You were interviewed by the Angels broadcasters during an Angels game and since I live in the area now, I have to listen to those guys but I heard the interview. You had said something to the effect of, "of Fremont" if the Fremont move happens. I think most people have speculated that the name of the team will wind up being the San Jose Athletics of Fremont in thinking that was enough of a differentiation between the team and the San Francisco market. A lot of people also speculate that you love San Jose area.
Wolff: I'm in love with any place I can build a building. (laughing) That's actually totally wrong.
Blez: People have said that that is why Fremont is so appealing to you because of the proximity to San Jose.
Wolff: That's true, but unless someone else has another site for me anywhere in Alameda County, and the only reason we got a site there is because Cisco didn't want it anymore. The answer was that I hadn't even thought of that until this piece of property became available. I didn't say, let's go move closer to San Jose. It's a matter of where we can go. This really is not an array of choices. However I do think that on the naming thing there are 10 different names out there, including keeping our Oakland fanbase. We're really not thinking about that at this point. Someone said that the Silicon Valley name could help get more corporations but this is a fun thing that we're going to sort of leave to the end. Listen, I made my career in San Jose and I love San Jose. It's got some issues to it too, it's got a public vote you need if you get help and things don't happen there overnight either.
Blez: I've read where people have said that this project is becoming a bit more of a nightmare because of the downturn in the real estate market. Because so much of this project was dependent on the real estate built around it, and I know that you were planning on having commercial and residential around it to fund things. Is that an accurate statement to make?
Wolff: No, for a couple of reasons. We are not foolish enough to go into any long-term project with only one option in terms of how we finance it. Somebody thinks we are, then they're wrong. So the housing element was critical and interesting, and we don't know that if by the time we get going again that it won't be booming again. We've got some other options which I'd prefer not to discuss but they're logical business options. And we have our own resources. So we're not without capital if we need to do something. Listen 3,000 townhomes don't sell in 20 minutes even in a good market. So it's a matter of how you flow funds. The best part about us is that we can say if it takes an extra five years to sell these homes, we'll bridge it now and you can take us out when that happens. You know, things like that.
Blez: In other words, be creative.
Wolff: Creative is a good word for it. Creative but realistic.
Blez: You mentioned leaving the team in good shape for your son and the Fisher family. Are you in this as an A's owner for the long haul?
Wolff: Absolutely. I tend to be a hypochondriac and I get off the phone with someone my age who is ill and I say well, there is an end. I hope it doesn't come for many years, but I like succession planning. Billy's twins, I've got them taking Billy's job.
Blez: (laughing) Wow, you really are in it for the long haul. My question to that would be who winds up taking it, Brayden or Tinsley?
Wolff: I think it's both of them. (laughing) Sort of like the McCourts.
Blez: The two Beanes are better than one theory. I can get behind that. You said 65 percent for Fremont and while that's better than 50/50 odds...
Wolff: Well, I probably shouldn't do percentages since one day I feel pretty good the next day I don't. Then the next day we conquer something else. We're trying to move forward every single day. Some days we can't because someone wants to push us behind but we are not weak in terms of our dedication.
Blez: What's a more realistic timeframe for the stadium now?
Wolff: I don't want to quote it because I just don't know. I just don't know.
Blez: A's fans are obviously anxious about this.
Wolff: They're not nearly as anxious as I am. (laughing) I can guarantee there's not one as anxious as I am. Look we also want to build the most spectacular ballpark in baseball. We want to take full advantage of technology without, as my son says, getting rid of the smell of the hot dog. We have so many things we haven't even started yet. We're not going to put up a B+ when we can get a solid A. It just isn't going to happen. Why spend $400-500 million and not do it right? The owner of the Washington Nationals, and it sounds crazy, took Mike Crowley and I on a private tour of their new ballpark. We've been sharing information with him as the guy has never owned a ball team, Ted Lerner. He sort of inherited a free stadium in that it was there and built by the public. He had a chance to modify it a little bit. He was there late. But he says, you've got to see the women's restroom. I said, what the hell do I want to see the women's restroom for? But a lot of times women go to a restroom and the stall door is closed then they don't know if someone is in there or not. Talk about getting down to minutiae. There was no one there when I was there of course and I go in and they've got something like 60 stalls in this one restroom. The doors were fitted as to when you're finished they stay half open so you know it's vacant. The speed of what that does to getting in and out is incredible. And I mentioned this to my son and he said, oh my God, I have to worry about that? That's the kind of detail we want in this thing. And it will never be perfect. There is no perfect ballpark.
Blez: You mentioned the Nationals stadium. Do you have a favorite stadium in MLB where you say, that team nailed it, I want to emulate what they did?
Wolff: We've also looked at a lot of arenas too. We think that some of the more inventive things have happened inside arenas. For example, I think I've mentioned this before, but we're going to have the lowest boxes in baseball and they're going to be four-person boxes so you don't have to buy 20 seats. Things of that nature. We will have the closest to the field fans, including Wrigley Field and Boston. We have so many features that it's driving me crazy that I can't get to them. Instead we have to worry about someone who is worried that a truck will be noisy at three in the morning delivering our hot dogs. It's not a retro ballpark and it's not a copy of a space ship. Every seat will have a reason to be there. We have sections for families which would go at a special rate. We just have so many things going on that I feel like I haven't even started the good part and I'm walking uphill.
Blez: Feeling like Sisyphus at this point.
Wolff: Right, exactly. It's the ballpark that interests me.
Blez: What are some of the arenas that interest you?
Wolff: Well arenas have these small boxes. They have terrific ways that they handle their concession stands, when you have 18,000 people you have to do it quickly. You should probably have a similar interview with my son one of these days because he's much more into the details.
Blez: Since the A's seem to be stuck at the Coliseum for the foreseeable future...
Wolff: I didn't use the word "stuck" so don't attribute that to me.
Blez: That was my word.
Wolff: Look we want to be as happy and as good a thing there as we can be until we can't be there any longer. We might be there a lot longer than we're anticipating if something happens.
Blez: You've sat out in the bleachers (at the Coliseum).
Wolff: I've been dying to do that but every time I go to a game I have people with me. And that day I just happened to be by myself. I had more fun that day than I've had since I've gone to other games.
TOMORROW: The Athletics Nation exclusive interview with A's managing general partner Lewis Wolff comes to a conclusion as he discusses one of the funniest interactions with a fan that I may have heard, his working relationship with Billy Beane and finishes with a pitch as to why fans should still come out and see the rebuilding A's.
0 recs |
148 comments
Comments
I'm not so sure about this attitude
"The word is a facetious word but it should be that the better you do, the more people want to come. We may be the one or few teams in the Major Leagues that are in a market area that is saturated to a point where it’s inelastic. I use that a little bit facetiously. "
I mean, in general, yeah, the better you do, the more people want to come. But when you’re invisible on the radio, and you’re invisible on TV, and you do things like tarp off the cheap seats, and your organization rates about a 2 on the competency scale when it comes to marketing, then, no, people aren’t going to want to come.
Is he right in that there’s a degree of market saturation that prevents them from drawing, like, say, the Yankees or Red Sox? Well sure. But if they weren’t such an invisible entity, there shouldn’t really be any reason a good A’s team can’t at least draw somewhere close with, say, the Giants, ballpark and all.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on
Aug 27, 2008 7:24 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Inelastic
This has been bothering me so much I finally decided to use this account, something I have not done since well before AN 2. How can he ignore the fact that an entire section of the stadium was closed? The tarps forced people who were used to paying 8 bucks into a section twice as expensive and with only marginally better seats (especially considering how easy it was to sneak into the second deck).
I think most people on this site could have told Wolff that closing the most popular section for youth and casual fans was a bad idea for attendance. With the third deck I could talk friends who were Giants fans into going to A’s games, now I can barely talk fellow A’s fans into going… We are just broke college students now, but will be the future fan base. It is incredibly misleading to say that demand is inelastic with the changes that have occured, and his point of view on that really bothers me. Everything else is interesting though, thank you both for doing this!!
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not that I disagree that it sucks for the fans ...
but since tarping the third deck, the average ticket price has nearly doubled (up to 8th in the league). If attendance goes down 10% but price goes up 90% … well, you can do the math … I don’t think Lew Wolfe is concerned about the ~2k per game loss of attendance due to the tarp.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 11:04 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And they'll point to the money saved by not needing as many ushers/security folks staffing...
…a mostly empty upper deck.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 3:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually, Lew called those savings minimal
in a previous interview with Blez.
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 27, 2008 3:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe that's why he said prices wouldn't go up much in Fremont...
…they’re being pre-emptively raised before they get to Fremont.
"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds
by UncleLeo on
Aug 27, 2008 10:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They have been raised ...
doesn’t mean they won’t continue t o be raised … we’ll see …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 28, 2008 12:17 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dude, how broke are you?
I can get $9 seats to any game I want to and sit anywhere I want to. Check your prices. Maybe dust off the link to oaklandathletics.com. Did that increase in $1 really break your bank? If so, I’m sorry. If not, it’s just another example of the “whiny and fickle” nature of a cheapskate. You have to pay $13 to go to the movies – the A’s (notwithstanding Cal football) are the best deal in town.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 11:05 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Amen to that
it’s about time someone else other than myself have said this.
by sf drift king on
Aug 29, 2008 12:24 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Do any of you go to the games?
There has been maybe one game all year I haven’t been able to WALK up and score a $9 ticket and then proceed to sit pretty much anywhere within reason. I go to a lot of games.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 11:06 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Let me Clarify...
I’m not saying the tickets are expensive per se, I was simply pointing out that the closing of an entire section has probably affected attendance, despite making the ALCS the previous year. The increase in attendance that resulted from finally advancing past the ALDS was overshadowed by the closing of the third deck. Also, the $9 tickets are for the plaza level outfield, which are not baseball seats. Now I personally know that one could pay that price and sit in the second deck without fear, but the casual fan probably does not. What I was trying to say is that the casual fan is now less likely to go to games, and although the hardcore fan (who has disposable time and income) would be excited about the teams playoff success, those who are less fortunate than us are now excluded.
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 11:33 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
2006 ALCS appearance was "overshadowed" by the closing of the third deck?
Really? Don’t think so.
Also, if I remember correctly, the third deck was closed PRIOR to the 2006 season. Argument is flawed in my opinion.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 11:44 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Again missing my point...
When looking at average attendance since 2005 we see a distinct pattern starting at 26,040, dropping to 24,402 in 2006, and continuing that trend to 23,726 in 2007 (According to Baseball Almanac). Now I am not saying closing the 3rd deck is a bad idea, it makes sense from a business stand point. I am merely trying to say that it is unfair to put all the attendance blame on us, the fans. It is over simplistic to claim that demand for Oakland A’s baseball is “inelastic”. There are other factors that played a role in this regression in attendance, and it is again over simplistic to assume building a new stadium will increase attendance as well. Would resigning Thomas our MVP have helped attendance? Would not increasing food, ticket and parking prices have helped attendance? Again I am not saying any of these aspects are necessarily beneficial, (can you imagine if we matched the Jay’s deal, yikes!) I am just trying to explain that from my point of view demand has been hurt by some of the changes that have taken place under Wolff’s tenure, and to not acknowledge those changes is unfair.
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 12:23 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'll agree with you that it's not acceptable to place all the blame on us as the fans...
Growing up near Anaheim, I attended hundreds of Angels games when only “real” (see those in existence prior to 2002) attended Angel games. I didn’t like the Angels, but I loved baseball. The Angels had attendance problems then and it has clearly changed since then. Arte Moreno has done many things to increase attendance and he has done a masterful job at doing so. The A’s can do the same thing and building the new stadium is ONE of MANY things they need to do. While the demographics are tilted in the Angels’ favor, the A’s can move the market if they really tried. The stadium, in and of itself, will not cure all of our problems and I hope Lew can see that. He’d be ignorant to think the new stadium would be end all be all. I’ve been harping on this for ages and I truly believe that the A’s from a PR/Marketing/Business standpoint are very horribly run. We both clearly agree on that front.
However, I do not and can not agree with you that the low income earning fan has been priced out. That is a bogus argument in my opinion.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Too many of the A's recent moves or lack thereof have been lame knock offs
of other teams’ ideas. (see that lame trumpet puppet (er, rally monkey wannabe) and the all you can eat section). The A’s are behind the curve in this respect and really need to start becoming innovative and think outside of the box. I really do believe Lew is moving the team in this direction and I am thankful about that. The move to CSN West is definitely a step in the right direction. It takes a while to get the ball moving – Lew is trying.
I get tired of hearing people harp on the negative instead of 1) offering proactive ideas or 2) looking at the positives.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I see now where I lost you
I can not argue that lower income fans (including families) are being priced out, but I can speak from my personal experience. That is, that a lot of people I grew up with, have been turned off by some of the recent changes. The casual fan; whether they be a marginal sports fan, a bored person, or a giants fan who wants to see cheap baseball are less likely to come out to games because of the third deck being closed. I personally disliked the move, and was insulted by the all you can eat section, but still attend games because I am obsessed with this team. Is baseball in Oakland still relatively affordable? Absolutely. But that does not mean that the changes that have taken place should be ignored when talking about attendance issues. I also agree that Wolff is a good owner, he seems to have the best interests of the franchise in priority which is all I can ask for. However, I feel I have the right to question any move he makes, especially when they impact attendance, something he claims is only affected by the city the team is located in. Hopefully that was less confusing!
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 12:57 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things should they be doing?
Can you contact them to suggest it? I’m serious.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 3:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Uh, see my thoughts on this from last year in response
to that random dude from KICU who stops by every so often.
Cutting beer prices was the first thing Moreno did. Sure it was marginal at best, something like $1/beer, but it was a statement that he actually gave a shit about the fans.
Better marketing, better PR, better radio, get rid of Kuiper, innovative giveaways, ….that’s all off the top of my head. They have paid employees that can think about this stuff. If I was getting paid I could think of hundreds of things.
Oh yeah, can robert buan, who had the audacity to propose rooting for the Angels in the postseason as the topic of his extra innings show last night.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 3:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
NOW who's "entitled"?
Why should ownership pay for cheap beer, non-crappy (and numerous-enough) giveaways, free content for non-game-attendees (radio and tv), improve free broadcasting content, and engage in more dynamic outreach to the lazy/planning-deficient audience segments? What makes us entitled to those things?
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 4:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The third deck was closed starting in 2006, yes
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 3:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right on the money
(and BTW, having that handle since before AN 2.0 is mighty prescient of you…any tips on what the stock market’s gonna do next spring?)
The tarping got rid of around 12,000 of the most affordable seats. So while bargain seats do still exist, of course, there are only about 40% as many of them as there used to be. And most of those are in the obstructed view bleachers. Devo’s quite right, that attendance drop juxtaposed with the price rise doesn’t cost Lew a farthing….but it costs a lot of low income folks, seniors, and kids a chance to see as many ballgames.
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 27, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm really dismayed with the line of reasoning that Wolff is out to screw the fan
who can only afford cheap seats. Were the cheap seats selling out before the tarping? Do the cheap seats sell out now? Answers to both questions are NO.
Simply amazing to me that you guys believe this garbage you are spewing. Price is not an issue. Plenty of cheap seats go unsold day in and day out. If these seats were selling out consistently, then you might have an argument. Until that happens I’m not buying it.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 12:17 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well the lower bleachers do sell out regularly
and all of the other cheap seats are really, really bad seats …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 12:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not necessarily, front row plaza seats are great seats (especially in CF)
I’m not sure if the bleachers sell out. Regardless, the $9 seats should be viewed as a ticket to sit anywhere and not to sit in that specific seat.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 12:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You can't often buy the very best seats in any section ...
day of game …
Some people (not me), especially parents with young children, prefer to abide by the rules.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 1:05 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Exactly
If you have done it once you know that security seldom goes farther than halfway up the second deck sections to check tickets, but that does not help families, or casual fans who might not know.
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 1:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're not liiiiiiiiisteninggggg!
There are many fewer cheap seats than there used to be. And a much higher fraction of those that are left are lousy obstructed views. No one’s saying there aren’t cheap opportunities…what we’re saying is that there are fewer, worse ones, which often dissuades low budget fans from coming as often.
Let me give you a real example. I used to take my young kids to 6-8 games a year. Now, if I decide I want to do that, if the six sections of Plaza OFs are sold out, as they do for many kid-demand games, my choice is a lower or upper bleacher seat. Well, the uppers are probably the worst seats anywhere in MLB in the last 40 years, possibly excepting RFK and Mile High in those teams’ move-in years. Besides that, the upper bleachers (where I sit myself at times), are not the most young kid friendly place around. The lower bleachers are general admission…if I’m not willing to enter the park an hour before first pitch, the leavings are also poor.
Yes, those are surmountable obstacles, but I’m a hardcore, Coliseum-savvy fan. I now take my kids to one or two fireworks games each year, for which I buy tickets months ahead of time. That’s a dozen tickets Lew’s losing…and if I was a casual, maybe-I’ll-try-taking-my-kids-once low-budget fan, and I ran into the above, I’d probably just blow it off.
Which is what Lew’s doing to the likes of me. It’s not that he’s evil and out to screw the fans (has anyone said that?). It’s that blowing off my segment of the market is an unavoidable consequence of Lew’s low attendance/high revenue plans. Capisce?
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 27, 2008 1:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I love the lower bleachers ...
but if I had young children, I would not take them there … aside from the general admission issue …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 1:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I took my 5 year old to a game and we sat in the bleachers. It was awesome.
Sure, he only made it 4 innings, but that included watching batting practice for an hour and checking out the stadium.
Oh, and one of the cute chicks that is a RF Bleacher regular gave him a BP home run ball.
I definitely have no reservations about the bleachers with a child.
by mikev on
Aug 27, 2008 5:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I haven't actually set in the RF bleachers in many years ...
but the left field bleachers can get a little PG-13 pretty regularly …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 8:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I am listening. Even if there are MANY fewer cheap seats
those MANY fewer are still not being sold out. That is THE bottom line. I really don’t have any sympathy for this argument. Should uncle Lew start subsidizing game tickets so everyone can take their kids. Cheap seats go unsold almost every game of the year.
Also, as a fall back argument, if you really wanted to buy ensure yourself tickets to the kid friendly days I am 200% certain if you bought them a week, two at max, in advance you’d have NO PROBLEM securing your seats.
Laziness, lack of planning, and entitlement are really what we are talking about here.
This is the same argument of the guy who complains that the Cal v. USC game was sold out last year (or any year) and he had to pay $200/ticket to sit in the rain. You know what buddy, learn when tickets go on sale, and buy them when they go on sale. You won’t have any problems securing a seat. Plan ahead and there are plenty deals to be had.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 1:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Im so glad you used that example
Cal Football is a great example of how bay area sports demand is ELASTIC. (Hopefully Wolff is reading this) On September 20th 2003, I paid exactly $0 for my ticket, and saw one of the greatest games of my life, as Cal shocked #3 USC in triple OT. Two years later, no one was giving away free tickets for the game, so I bought a $15 youth ticket. Last year (as you mentioned) tickets were nearly impossible to get. It just goes to show you that a competitive team can draw fans. Yes there are many alternatives to sports in the bay area, but if you win they will come, as evidenced by Jeff Tedford’s bears.
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 1:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Demand for football games and baseball games are very, very different things ...
If Cal, Stanford, the 49ers and the Raiders each sold out every single home game, they would have less combined attendance than the A’s are going to draw this year.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 1:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah
It was a joke, but the story is true!
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 1:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Great... as if that wasn't obvious.
A’s have 99 problems and pricing out there fans isn’t one.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 1:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That same game that was impossible to get tickets for, last year's
USC v. Cal game, wasn’t in reality impossible. Tix were available up to a month after they went on sale. Yet come game time people were griping that tix were ridiculously priced. If said person would have bought tix when they were available at $45 they wouldn’t have that problem. Instead they are too lazy and bitch and moan about scalpers. Scalpers take advantage of your laziness.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 1:52 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It was a joke!!
Get it? the tarps? Never mind…
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 2:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just to clarify, whom are you calling lazy and self-entitled?
FSU? All day-of fans? Some day-of fans? All/some fans w/household incomes in the 5 digits?
And how does your “lack of planning” insult square w/buying tix as short as a week in advance?
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 1:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'm not directing that at anyone. However, it could apply to those who are complaining that lew has priced them out.
So ridiculous.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 1:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Look -- the idea isn't that the changes made it impossible to attend games ...
it’s that it made it more difficult, more expensive and generally less fan friendly.
We all still manage to get to games, yes, but some of us — people who live in Sacramento, people who have unpredictable schedules, people who cannot afford to lay out cash months in advance, etc — find it quite a bit more difficult and less attractive to go to games under the reconfigured layout.
Next Wednesday I’m going to a Rivercats playoff game, sitting nearly as close to the field as I would in front row seats in Oakland … with tickets I paid $15 a piece for. I’ll drink better, cheaper beer than I can buy in Oakland. That’s a fan friendly experience.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 2:13 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, but the minors are more fan friendly by default...
…if you’re just comparing prices.
River Cats games are fun to go to aside from that anyway.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 3:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In my experience ... aside from the players on the field, they're superior in every way ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 3:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Minors, to me, are a better place for a family anyway.
Not just because it’s cheaper, but also because most of them do things to make going there fun and worth it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 4:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
minors are what makes a family
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 4:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, hopefully they aren't MAKING a family....
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on
Aug 28, 2008 12:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
EXPLAIN how the hell they are more difficult. Please do.
More difficult cause I have to pay $1/game more? More difficult because I can still buy a cheap walk up ticket? More difficult because cheap seats may have obstructed views?
You guys/gals gotta be kidding me. What does Lew owe you people? If I were an owner, and these thoughts were representative of the fan base, I’d sure as hell be looking to move the team.
Devo, comparing AAA baseball to Major League Baseball (although the A’s are currently fielding AAAA quality baseball) is comparing apples to oranges.
It’s cheaper because nobody who can afford/desires not to live in sacramento, stockton, or anywhere else that there is minor league baseball is generally not going to go to the games unless they are cheaper and fan friendly.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 3:59 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
More difficult because affordable seats aren't worth sitting in ...
You can’t watch the game from most of the upper bleachers. More difficult because you have to plan further in advance to attend in demand games — which is where virtually all of the loss of attendance has come from. More difficult because its harder to get excited about a team that does very little to express appreciation for its fans.
They don’t owe us a thing — that’s true. But for nearly 4 decades the upper deck was available, featuring a lot of good, affordable seats. It really made it feel like the A’s were a team that was there for the community, affordable and available to everyone. Throughout the mid 90s, when my parents would take me and my brother to games, we always sat in the upper deck — in the seats my parents paid for — and always had a great time, no matter how bad the team got. It was fantastic. That’s gone now. Sure, today’s versions of my parents could teach their kids that its okay to break the rules, as long as you don’t get caught, sure, they could buy seats where you cannot actually see the field — but both of those options suck. They don’t owe us anything — but sometimes we should be concerned about more than just what we’re owed and instead focus on what is best for our community.
The Rivercats consistently lead the minor leagues in attendance. The team has typically been better than average — but they’ve had their down years, too, and, well, until September rolls around, most fans don’t really care about Ws and Ls. They provide an easy, welcoming, fan friendly experience — and they are very profitable. Why isn’t that a model that the A’s could get closer to?
And Sacramento is a fantastic place to live — even for those of us who could afford to live in the metropolitan coastal enclave of our choice.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 4:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You are mistaken about "In Deman Games"
“More difficult because you have to plan further in advance to attend in demand games”
I attended those “In demand games” against the Yankees and Redsox, and several of those games did not sell out to my amazement. And this was when the A’s was still in the playoff chase.
by sf drift king on
Aug 29, 2008 12:43 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No, sorry, you're still not getting it
It’s not that Lew’s priced me out—I go to 20+ games a year. And it’s not that Wolffish owe me and my ilk the right to buy cheap seats whenever and wherever we want…he can price his product however he chooses (though I will note that 90% of MLB history has been supported by working class fans and their kids, and writing off that market may bite baseball in the ass some day)
The point is this: for Lew to complain about “inelastic demand” while he’s raised prices, cut supply, and put up other barriers to fans attending games is, to put it nicely, disingenuous. Or, to use a baseball term, horseshit.
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 27, 2008 2:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm no economics expert ...
but wouldn’t the basic idea that the number of tickets sold has only dropped by 10% or so while prices have increased by 90% or so mean that demand is very elastic?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 27, 2008 2:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Seems that way to me
Or, proved more positively, that ticket sales increased 50% from 1999 and 2001 also shows elasticity of demand.
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 27, 2008 3:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dude, the A's were complete garbage in 1998.
Of course more tickets are going to sell when the team gets better. You are taking what wolff says too literally. He is stating that unless the A’s are SUPER good or SUPER bad ticket sales are gonna be within a certain range.
I do believe that he is waiving the white flag by declaring all revenue related problems as being attributable to the stadium – a convenient crutch for him to stand on if you will. However, I do believe him to an extent and unlike many people here I don’t think he’s made it more difficult to go to the games.
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 4:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No... it's the other way around
Inelastic demand means (don’t ask me why… it’s just jargon) that large changes in price make only small changes in quantity consumed. The classic example of this is cigarettes— you can pretty much hose smokers as much as you want price-wise and they’ll still pay, because they’re addicts who can’t help themselves.
FSU has neatly inverted causality in his post above. It’s precisely the inelasticity of demand that makes moves like tarping off the upper deck and raising ticket prices logical. It’s microeconomics 101— when demand is inelastic, lower supply until it’s not inelastic anymore, and you will make more money.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 27, 2008 6:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's pretty clearly not how Wolff's using the term
He says—like 3 or 4 times so far in this interview—that demand for A’s tickets is inelastic, unaffected by team success. I rebut that this is untrue historically, and further that ownership’s actions to depress demand (of raw attendance numbers, not of revenue) make Wolff’s inelasticity complaints a bunch of crap.
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 27, 2008 8:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right, that's what he meant by "facetiously"
The definition Paul gives is the proper one, and Lew knows that. He’s using it facetiously when he talks about lack of attendance response to the team making the playoffs. He doesn’t mean inelastic in the standard economic sense there; he’s making a wry comparison.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on
Aug 28, 2008 12:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're giving him more linguistic credit than he deserves
Since he uses the word precisely the same way several times earlier in the interview, without any suggestion of facetiousness. And he’s wrong and self-serving in each context.
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 28, 2008 2:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No waaaay are the upper bleachers worse than every single anywhere
Not even close.
I’ve been to one game in Oakland where I bought upper-bleachers. I was also at one game at Petco where I had bleachers. Petco was orders of magnitude worse. It’s one thing to have small dead zones on the field that you can’t see. It’s another thing entirely to be unable to see AN
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 27, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Cut me off
anyway, it’s another thing entirely to be unable to see ANYTHING because there’s a bloody fence in your way and you’re at ground level.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 27, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The only places at Petco I know of where you can be at ground level are...
…in the LF corner coming out of the team shop or in the sandbox just to the right of dead center. Both of those areas are the way they are intentionally.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 3:38 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OK, so they were intentionally shitty seats
Your point is?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 27, 2008 6:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There has to be a point?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 6:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I hate being in a seat where I can't see AN
Seriously, though — has anyone here ever sat in the topmost deck of Candlestick in the outfield? Back in the late ’90s, a friend offered me free tix to a Giants game, and they were in the last row of the stadium in dead-straightaway CF. Worst. Seats. Ever.
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 2:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I sat there once
No obstructions, but it was too far away to see the ball.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on
Aug 27, 2008 2:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree with "no obstructions"
A good quarter of the outfield was occluded.
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 3:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Depends when you went
Before Macgowan the Candlestick outfield wall was an 8 or 10 foot hit chain link fence, which didn’t much obstruct views from the permanent seats in the Stick bowl. Afterwards, as part of the new owner group’s really smart plan to make Candlestick better
while seeking a new stadium (I know, imagine!), they put in all those bleacher sections behind a much nicer outfield wall. That did block some of the more distant OF seats.
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 27, 2008 4:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, those seats were closer to home plate in the Coli than to home plate in The Stick!
"If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now."
by McFood on
Aug 27, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
indeed
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 3:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I sat
in Mt. Davis for Game 1 of the ‘03 ALDS. I never sat topmost outfield deck at the Stick, but I can imagine they’re at least similar.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on
Aug 27, 2008 4:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm really dismayed with the line of reasoning that
all of the cumulative small negatives don’t add up.
The A’s have done many things over the years to chase away fans, a few at a time, and not so much to gain new fans. The result is using the word “inelastic” as a crutch.
by cvdoug on
Aug 27, 2008 10:13 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
(and BTW, having that handle since before AN 2.0 is mighty prescient of you…any tips on what the stock market’s gonna do next spring?)
ggonzalezz? joined august 21, 2008?
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 27, 2008 12:46 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I had to change my name, I could not recover my account from old AN. However, I would recommend buying stock in GM, they seem to be doing super awesome
by GGonzalezz on
Aug 27, 2008 12:59 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if fans filled those 12,000 seats
then I’m sure they wouldn’t have been tarped over. They prob had a few thousand up there every game and it wasn’t cost effective to keep it open.
by sf drift king on
Aug 29, 2008 12:31 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think he makes some more good points
Definitely about the way California seems to be about some things when it comes to projects, no doubt about that.
Interesting perspectives on the draft/free agency/Inoa-type stuff. I think the things people miss when they complain that the A’s don’t spend money is that they don’t just spend it on a bunch of people the team is going to be watching in an A’s uniform right away. They take more of the long view with some of them and that’s something that’s easy to forget when it takes a player three or four years to come to Oakland.
This was a long part and I’m sure there are other things people are going to pick and choose out of it to talk about.
I still hope the ballpark in Fremont works. A lot of the stuff I’ve seen about it, I’m just excited. One thing is for sure – with the fans as close as they’ll be, it’ll have an impact on offense. Definitely see if you can interview Wolff’s son sometime, Blez.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 7:40 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Well
“I think the things people miss when they complain that the A’s don’t spend money is that they don’t just spend it on a bunch of people the team is going to be watching in an A’s uniform right away. They take more of the long view with some of them and that’s something that’s easy to forget when it takes a player three or four years to come to Oakland.”
That’s what they did this year. But it was literally like the first year they had ever done so. Of course, it wasn’t really under Lew’s watch that they were notoriously cheap, but the A’s, as an organization pre-Lew, were penny-pinchers from the major league payroll right down to what they spent in the draft. Hard to blame the general fan population for thinking that’s still the case.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on
Aug 27, 2008 7:56 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
True
Like I said in another thread, some people are bemoaning the fact the A’s are trading MLB players for minor leaguers and prospects, but they weren’t doing that when they were playoff-bound. They were trading minor leaguers for rent-a-players. That’s a bit part of why the system got so depleted to begin with.
Now the team needs to rebuild both at the Major and Minor League level and this is the path they choose to quickly do it within a calendar year and people complain that they don’t go out and get a bat or something at the trading deadline. Like that’s going to help now?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 8:06 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
big part, not bit part
And more than anything else, the complaint that “the A’s don’t spend any money!” is more like “the A’s don’t spend money on what I think they should!”
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 8:07 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes
That part of the interview really disappointed me, because he appears to buy into the notion that slot money is actually a concept worth paying some kind of attention to. While it’s nice that the A’s were willing to break slot this year, the system is not worthy of close to that level of respect.
Now, it may be that Lew is simply being politic and toeing the public party line, but it seemed far too ingenuous for my taste. It’s a broken system and a failure and anyone who thinks about it for half a second can see that.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 27, 2008 2:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
agree on the merits, but if Lew wants the political juice to elbow into San Jose, he plays nice
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 3:59 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the slot system is really going to see the floodgates opened with Strasburg next year.
What’s to prevent him and Boras from announcing prior to the draft that his bonus demand is a $15MM-20MM major league contract?
If he did get that much, he might drop past the first few picks. And it’ll be very publicized and ugly because he’s the consensus No. 1 guy, yet he’d be falling down a few slots.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an NBA-style slot system and draft-pick trading in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement in 2011. It would be a major concession on the Union’s behalf, but it could happen if the owners gave back something of great value, too.
"Innings eater? Depends on whether you want delicious innings or burnt, moldy innings. Kirk Saarloos is the Hot Pockets of inning eaters." - Gallagher's Watermelons
by notsellingjeans on
Aug 27, 2008 5:24 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't really even see how it's a concession on the part of the union
for two reasons— first, if it’s rationally negotiated so that players are paid what they’re worth, they’re no worse off than they are now (same pot of money, just a different allocation). And second, the players in the draft are not union members and, with only a few exceptions per year, will not be union members for years to come (and in 90% of cases, will never be union members).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Aug 27, 2008 6:31 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, I sure hope it happens.
I think it would be very much for the good of the game if, in the new CBA:
1. The International signings were combined into the Rule 4 (North American) Draft, to clean up some of the scandal and underhanded dealings in Latin America;
2. There was an NBA-style slotting system for every pick in the draft, which eliminated all posturing and got players drafted in the round they deserved and out to their respective minor league teams immediately in the summer they were drafted;
3. They allowed trading of draft picks, so that if the worst team had the No. 1 overall and didn’t want to pay the 10MM slot bonus figure for the No. 1 overall pick in 2012, they could trade down.
"Innings eater? Depends on whether you want delicious innings or burnt, moldy innings. Kirk Saarloos is the Hot Pockets of inning eaters." - Gallagher's Watermelons
by notsellingjeans on
Aug 27, 2008 7:20 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the union doesn't care about the draft
Or, more specifically, they will only care when money that would be going to players in the union (i.e. major leaguers) is being diverted to players not in the union and who may never be (i.e. everyone in the draft). If amateur players start getting really big contracts like the aforementioned $20MM, the union will go with a salary cap in two seconds. They’re probably amenable to it now – they’re just treating it as a concession so they can trade it for some cookies in the bargaining process.
by jdr on
Aug 27, 2008 6:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the A's still don't spend any money
4.25 for Inoa, 1.1 for Hunter, $600k for Dixon, $700k for Coleman? Wow, back up the trucks. Throw in another $500k-1m and we’ve just bought a year of Carlos Silva.
by jdr on
Aug 27, 2008 7:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I for one am shocked
That Wolff thinks building projects should be pushed through faster.
by jdr on
Aug 27, 2008 6:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, Lew, but what about the Men's Rooms?
Circular troughs, like at baggage claim? A moving belt? A view of the field from the seats?
Details, man —Details!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 27, 2008 7:41 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I really enjoyed your comments in the prior interview thread.
I hope Blez takes Lew up on his suggestion that he interview his son. Perhaps he can be convinced of the inherent wisdom of selling beer in the mens room. One stop shop and what not…
"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 8:18 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We could just pour it directly into the trough, and cut out the middle man.
As to the other — I hope we do get to see such an interview with Cousin whoever, and thanks, man.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 27, 2008 8:49 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Combination urinal trough/waterslide! "Hey Mom! Can I go again?"
"If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now."
by McFood on
Aug 27, 2008 3:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sounds like a couple of warning shots
were fitted into that interview. Lew is very careful with his words concerning territorial rights and their potential for abridgment. He also appears to be making an appeal to public entities to reign in some of his more petty detractors in close proximity to the proposed site. I wonder who’s causing him the biggest belly ache?
"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 8:12 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
This is what I got out of it too. It sounded to me like in his heart of hearts, he's prefer to be in
San Jose proper, and he doesn’t consider the Giants territorial rights anything close to sacrosanct.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Aug 27, 2008 8:53 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Me too....
I’ll you one thing: If the A’s were somehow able to get permission to build a stadium in San Jose, they would sell out that mofo every single game!
by mrod on
Aug 27, 2008 10:45 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I meant to say
“I’ll tell you one thing!”.
by mrod on
Aug 27, 2008 11:10 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fremont is San Jose,
at least as far as the park project goes. I think one of the biggest reasons the Giants have been muted concerning the relocation has been Boss Selig making it plain to them what his next move will be if the project fails.
"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 2:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
+1
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 3:59 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I doubt this
I think the Giants are muted because it doesn’t do them any good to complain. Fremont is Alameda County and the A’s have territorial rights to it. It doesn’t do them any good to start complaining about another team exerting their territorial rights when they have been so stern about no one invading theirs (San Jose).
I’m not sure Selig really wants the A’s in San Jose. As I’ve stated before, it would really really hamstring the Giants and might even turn them into (an albeit some what stronger version of) the A’s because they would be geographically isolated – the A’s would have the East Bay and the South Bay and the Giants would just have San Francisco and the North Bay. I’d take those A’s rights over the Giants rights in a second and the Giants realize that. A really massive portion of their fanbase is the South Bay.
I still think Selig’s dream world is the A’s in another region entirely.
by jdr on
Aug 27, 2008 6:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There are no good relocation sites though
I think the Giants would be fine with the A’s in San Jose. I’ll bet they’d still have 20,000 season ticket holders – far above the level the A’s are accustomed to.
"Innings eater? Depends on whether you want delicious innings or burnt, moldy innings. Kirk Saarloos is the Hot Pockets of inning eaters." - Gallagher's Watermelons
by notsellingjeans on
Aug 27, 2008 7:22 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"I think the Giants would be fine"
by “fine”, I meant economically, not that “they’d be happy about it.”
"Innings eater? Depends on whether you want delicious innings or burnt, moldy innings. Kirk Saarloos is the Hot Pockets of inning eaters." - Gallagher's Watermelons
by notsellingjeans on
Aug 27, 2008 7:22 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
this is disagree with
But we’ve all been over this ground before. Pure population isn’t the only thing that matters. There are regions comparable in size to the East Bay that are also underserved sports-wise and wouldn’t be splitting a market. Portland is the obvious example – same size, only one major sports team (no summer team), affluent enough, and the MLB team would be soaking up all the available corporate/advertising dollars in the region. If the A’s left Oakland most the money they’re getting right now wouldn’t disappear, it would just go to the Giants. And all the Portland money would go to the A’s. It all just means more money for MLB.
by jdr on
Aug 27, 2008 7:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agree and (partially) disagree.
Agree 100% with your assessment of the territory part. For years the Giants have basically mocked the A’s and said “Build in Fremont, we won’t care”, then the A’s go and do just that.
The 2nd paragraph I partially disagree on. The San Jose A’s would weaken somewhat the Giants’ fan base, but they’re gain back the northbay and most of northern California as a whole. I think Sacramento, for example, would swing solidly into Giants territory as far as fan interest goes. It wouldn’t make up entirely for losing San Jose, but I believe it’d close a big part of the gap. The A’s, on the other hand, would come to be viewed as more of a central coast or central California team.
The biggest hit to the Giants, though, would be corporate. That could hurt.
"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds
by UncleLeo on
Aug 27, 2008 11:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Second paragraph? Really????
You think that Sacramento cares that the A’s are currently roughly 4 miles further away than the Giants? You think we care about an extra 20 miles?
No, of course not. Sacramento is already solidly in the Giants camp — not because of proximity — who cares if it’s 84 miles away or 88 miles away — but because of the same reasons that virtually all of Northern California is solidly in the Giants camp — they’re the team with the cool stadium, they’re the original team, they’re the team with the big payroll, they’re the team with the premium radio and tv packages, they’re the team that can afford to have big stars, they’re the team that doesn’t play their games in an industrial wasteland, they’re the team that people from outside the city aren’t afraid of walking in the area around the stadium, etc, etc, etc …
A couple of miles one way or the other doesn’t matter (for those folks outside of the immediate area — it will matter positively for San Jose fans and negatively for Oakland fans). If the new stadium addresses the numerous advantages the Giants have over the A’s, the A’s will be competetive outside of their immediate market. If not, they won’t. Period. if the A’s can shed the image of the red headed stepchild — that is bad for the Giants — no matter where that stadium may be (assuming it is in the greater Bay Area).
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Aug 28, 2008 12:24 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
from earlier news reports, I think it was the local big box stores re parking
This is the first I’ve heard of QOL trucks-at-3-am complaints from the general public (or their elected/self-appointed representatives). (And why, exactly, would Lew need to have his franks delivered in the dead of night unless he had something to hide …)
But you know what? You decide to build outside an urban core (even with zoned commercial land), in proximity to sub/exurban communities accustomed to swinging big zoning sticks, this is the process you get.
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 10:42 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Big Problem number 1, albeit across the Bay:
(Bill Neukom, the new MacGowan)
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 27, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hm. not familiar with him
any relation to Duke?

by oakinboston on
Aug 27, 2008 10:58 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's the retired General Counsel of Micro$oft, now the Giaunts' GMP, and a guy who has pretty aggressive ideas ...
… about how to hold onto a number one position in a market.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 27, 2008 11:12 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know about that...
but I think the Giants’ rebuilding plans are based on the development process of Duke Nukem Forever
by calgbear on
Aug 27, 2008 11:39 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the new *who*?

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 11:39 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“Dirty Old Town” would make a great theme song for the A’s.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on
Aug 27, 2008 11:49 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the "warning shots"
were fired in the men’s room……………
by mrod on
Aug 27, 2008 10:50 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wasn't it Lew Wolff
who walked him there in the first place?
by mrod on
Aug 27, 2008 11:05 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Outstanding segment BTW Blez. Probably the best I've ever read of your interviews.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Aug 27, 2008 8:53 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
It's not a copy of a space ship?
And here I was looking forward to the special no-gravity seats at the new ballpark. Man.
by whiteshoes40 on
Aug 27, 2008 10:27 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
no gravity seats?
How about a no gravity outfield? Switch it on when we’re batting and we might finally develop some power!
by RickeySteals on
Aug 27, 2008 11:56 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is an AMAZING series of posts.
What a great interview. Might be the best yet.
So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one
by baseballgirl on
Aug 27, 2008 10:34 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I like our owner.
Is that okay, to like our owner?
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on
Aug 27, 2008 10:34 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I like him, too.
Any guy who is an ownership figure that gets out there withe fans in the bleachers is alright w/ me.
by mrod on
Aug 27, 2008 10:47 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Great job Blez
He sounds like an extremely intelligent guy who trusts his employees and passionately cares about the business and product. The ideal boss.
"Innings eater? Depends on whether you want delicious innings or burnt, moldy innings. Kirk Saarloos is the Hot Pockets of inning eaters." - Gallagher's Watermelons
by notsellingjeans on
Aug 27, 2008 5:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like him
I’m just hyper-aware that his best interests are not necessarily our best interests.
by jdr on
Aug 27, 2008 6:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
AWESOME read!
Lew is the man. Unless he is telling bold face lies, which I believe he isn’t, Lew is in it for the long haul. He has me sold, he sure has.
What other option does he have, but Fremont?
by 33SwisherSweet on
Aug 27, 2008 10:42 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Nice, Blez, verrrry nice!
The restroom story speaks volumes about the “low-cost” fixes that need to be done to the Oakland Coliseum. I know it is the “joint powers” who are responsible, but somehow it should get attention.
Interesting reveal of facts regarding the planning process and jumps and obstacles. Truer words were never spoken when Lew said,
But I worry about California. I worry about a state where the process has become the end product. Too many people live off the process. If a community needs a hospital, it shouldn’t be delayed by someone at the end of the block who doesn’t want a hospital and files lawsuits and doing whatever to stall the process.
You notice that every ship docking at the Port of Oakland doesn’t have to file an “EIR” or get public input to go forward with unloading (even though the unloading of MULTI-MILLION TONS of Chinese goods is having a huge impact everywhere in the USA).
No better reason than the quagmire in Fremont than to build a “floating stadium” in South Korea, float it over in sections, and position it just east of the cranes at the Port of Oakland. However, I think SK shipbuilders are booked for years, steel prices have doubled in the last ten months…why didn’t anyone LISTEN to me in 2005-2006???!!!
"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 27, 2008 10:45 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, it has the same problems with the playing field as the Coli
at or below sea level!!
Is there a “North Pacific Gyre” station on BART now, just past Millbrae??
"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 27, 2008 11:52 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
In Alameda County, I don’t think there’s another site we could do and we’re not going to go to Contra Costa County. Those are the only two territories we have from baseball.
Wolff: I’d say where I thought it was 75 percent, it’s probably more like 65 percent now. But as we get through more things it changes almost daily. I would say that our chances of staying in the Bay Area in a new stadium if we can’t get Fremont but I think we can get it, are probably very high. I think baseball would have to say that they want us to stay here and have to open up our territories in some manner. But that isn’t the overriding issue.
exaggerate the problems with the fremont ballpark, hoping mlb will expand the a’s territory? maybe get san jose back?
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 27, 2008 12:37 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
My original conspiracy theory
was that Fremont was a fake plan, and that Lew’s actual intent was San Jose. I quickly abandoned that—Wolffish are obviously serious in their Fremont plans—but there can’t be any doubt that, all other things being equal, Lew would prefer San Jose hands down. Let’s not forget that Lew repeatedly asked Macgowan about buying them out for SJ rights, even while Lew claimed otherwise and was still negotiating with both Oakland and Fremont.
MLB could make SJ available with the stroke of a pen. Not saying they will—Selig passed frat pal Wolff through the other owners with unprecedented quickness, in large part because Lew was unlikely to fight the t-rights issue. But the league could do it tomorrow if they so chose.
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 27, 2008 1:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know the contractual relationships among teams and with the league, or how much power Selig has to act unilaterally with his pen ...
… but wouldn’t you think MLB would rather have the A’s in SJ — such that if they could’ve transfered those rights they would’ve done so by now, and don’t you think the Giaunts have already drafted their lawsuit against the league if it acts in any way to deprive them of territorial rights they think have value?
It seems to me the Giaunts would have to be paid something to relinquish those rights, and that with ol’ “Choke off Netscape’s air supply” Neukom aboard, there’s not enough gold in Fort Knox to make a deal.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 27, 2008 1:31 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If the A's Move to San Jose do the Giants thing that would be all bad?
I mean, they would lose San Jose… but they already have the hardcore fans from there anyways. San Jose isn’t that close to their park. Bu t they would gain a lot of pure baseball fans from the East bay that is really close to their ballpark.
Giants should just give it up if they’re smart.
by cyke17 on
Aug 27, 2008 1:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Look what happend to the East Bay fan when the Raiders left.
Most to the niners.
by cyke17 on
Aug 27, 2008 1:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The MLB charter prohibits
law suits against other teams. The TR’s exist solely at MLB’s discretion Should the league choose to eliminate them, there’s not much the Giants could do about it. They would rant and rave….and eventually receive compensation via the Orioles precedent, but that’s about it.
"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 2:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So, they'd need an Expensive lawyer, instead of just any lawyer.
Good. I hates me some Giaunts.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 27, 2008 3:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
SFG's Suit would not be directed against another team (the A's)...
But against MLB itself for ‘taking’ the Giants rights to the region; the commissioner himself in all likelihood (A’s might get joined as co-defendant?). Whatever the MLB charter states regarding litigation, there is precedent for an MLB club successfully suing the league (see my comment below).
I agree that if the above hypothetical situation occurred, the result would be a settlement granting the Giants a O’s/GNats-type split of media rights and revenue from the A’s resulting South Bay operations.
by bruinhoo on
Aug 29, 2008 12:01 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As I stated above
I’m surprised so many people think MLB wants the A’s in San Jose.
by jdr on
Aug 27, 2008 6:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why would that be such a reach?
They are not a monolithic group. The other owners are lot more interested in net contributors to the shared revenue model rather than recipients. The A’s in SJ are an incentive to most other teams as they would most likely be contributors to the league welfare system sooner rather than later. Selig is walking a fine line with the owners. He won’t task the Giants until it becomes unavoidable. Hence the Fremont compromise.
"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 28, 2008 7:23 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Somebody tell the Dogfather
that MLB teams are forbidden from suing the league or each other per the basic franchise agreement.
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 27, 2008 1:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They could do that, but then he'd have to believe that territorial rights can't just be removed by fiat.
Are these terms written somewhere that non-parties can see them?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Aug 27, 2008 1:52 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
True, but not true...
The franchise agreement may claim to bar teams from suing other teams or MLB, but this does not stop a team from suing when its rights under the agreement are claimed to be violated. For example, the Cubs successfully sued MLB in the 1980’s (?) regarding a proposed realignment scheme which violated the club’s rights (looking for my sports law notes to back this one up).
by bruinhoo on
Aug 28, 2008 11:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. v Vincent (1992)
My class notes regarding this case are brief (my casebook is locked up on the other side of the country); from what I can recall, Fay Vincent attempted to implement a National League realignment scheme effective for the 1993 season. Among other things, this would have moved the Cubs from the NL East to the NL West, a move which under the NL Charter required the approval of the Cubs, which was not given.
Vincent attempted to move forward with realignment regardless, claiming that his power under the franchise agreement as MLB Commissioner trumped the Cubs’ rights under the NL Charter. The Cubs filed suit against the Commissioner/MLB; the court issued a temporary injunction barring the league from implementing this realignment plan. The case was dismissed after Selig replaced Vincent, and the now-effective 3 division plan was proposed.
Not to say that a suit by the Giants re. San Jose rights would have merit or not, but there is precedent for a team suing MLB if it believes that the commissioner has breached its rights.
by bruinhoo on
Aug 28, 2008 11:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Insightful interview
What one gets from this interview is that the A’s are lucky to have an owner who understands the business side of baseball (team control, salary arbitration, etc.) but doesn’t micro-manage, like the O’s Peter Angelos, and veto deals or go sign Albert Belle without telling his staff.
Second, very few business people are willing to go into that level of detail in public about an ongoing project and its obstacles. People should appreciate his willingness to share details. Can you imagine George Steinbrenner, or even most CEOs, sitting down and doing this type of interview?
by SA on
Aug 27, 2008 1:18 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
This is a phenomenal interview, Blez.
Many thanks to Unle Lew for doing it. I’ve gained a large measure of insight and respect for the man. By all means follow his suggestion to interview Wolff Jr. PLEASE!
"If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now."
by McFood on
Aug 27, 2008 3:09 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs

Polynesian Sauce may not be available in all locations.
by Englishmajor on
Aug 27, 2008 3:23 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
+1
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on
Aug 27, 2008 4:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So the first pic +1 equals Two Lews?
Because the workers have nothing, Two Lews, but their chains.
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 27, 2008 5:05 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They're not saying "boo," they're saying "Lew!"
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on
Aug 27, 2008 5:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that was a Two-Lews low trick

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Aug 27, 2008 5:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Who's the pervert spanking the nice lady?
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 27, 2008 6:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs



















