Lew Wolff says the A's are NOT throwing away '08
The Chronicle interviewed Mr. Wolff after the Swisher and Haren trade and here are some of the things he had to say about what's going on and the upcoming season.
"I'm expecting much better than a .500 season," he said.
"Look, at the end of the day, it's where you finish, but you've got to have a platform to get there," Wolff said. "Last year was a disappointment for me, not because the players didn't try, but we had so many things that didn't work out.
"I think we'll do better in '08 than '07. If we stayed with what we had, on paper it might have looked terrific, but then you're doing nothing; you're not proactive. We'll be very competitive and, with a little luck, will win more games than people are anticipating."
On the possibility of the A's still going after Bonds:
"Well, certainly, he's a fantastic player," Wolff said. "If you go through our proprietary program, he comes out extremely high among players. I don't think we're heading in that direction. We don't judge guilt until somebody else does. But right now, I think the idea is to build a younger club. Billy may change and feel differently, and that would be up to him."
"I don't want to rule anything out, but I'm giving you the straight scoop. He's really not on our radar." Wolff said.
On the Haren and Swisher trade and the prospects we got back:
Oakland's farm system was "pretty much in the bottom 10" before the trades, according to Wolff, who now says, "This moves us in the top 10, and that's important when the system provides your flow of players. It was re-established overnight. Though I hate to lose Dan or Swish, some of those (acquired) players are going to help us this year.
"We didn't want to have another year with the very same people and just hope and cross our fingers that nobody was going to be hurt. It was very depressing last year."
"The whole thing is, looking at it passionately, I think we've improved the ballclub. We've certainly improved the probability of improving the ballclub," Wolff said. "If none of these offers came to us, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. At the winter meetings, Billy wanted to make clear that if a team wanted to knock his socks off, he'd be willing to listen. You're always going to feel that way.
"I kept reading the articles, and it's, 'Oh, my God, they're throwing away the season.' I don't believe that's true at all. I'm not going to go out to the game with the idea we're going to lose. We'll have a pretty good team on the field."
and on the A's future home:
Wolff reiterated that he wouldn't keep the A's in Oakland if the Fremont plan collapses. Asked if that means the team would leave the Bay Area, he said, "I think we would have to leave the Bay Area, but I want to make sure you know I have not spent any time threatening that. I hate that. It's not the way we operate. The Fisher family (the majority owner) and myself, we want to stay here."
"The league wants to have baseball-specific venues," said Wolff, no fan of co-existing with the Raiders. "I don't know how we can get to where we want to be when, for example, they drag the stands onto the field in August, when we're trying to make a push for the playoffs."
you can read the whole article HERE.
0 recs |
51 comments
Comments
I've read your time,
and decided it isn't worth half the article.
<cue the sabermatricians to calculate what this means mathematically>
by Nico on Jan 13, 2008 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
been doing a lot of that lately, eh?
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2008 12:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I almost brought an apple to work today
just thought I'd tell you about it.
by JediLeroy on Jan 14, 2008 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The only intriguing statement...
is the one about leaving the bay. Bluff or no bluff?
by alox on Jan 13, 2008 5:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's my fear.
That's why I quit bellyaching about the Fremont move. Fremont is better than Las Vegas or some other NOn-norcal area.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 13, 2008 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Vertigo
will have some insight here. I keep wondering if it is indeed a bluff....who's the intended recipient? Oakland is a done deal, they know they no longer have a dog in the fight. Wolfe has made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are out of the question. That leaves Fremont. What the hell do they have to loose? You can't bluff them with something they've never had.
So who's Lew talking to? The County of Alameda? What do they stand to lose or gain if the A's leave?
by alox on Jan 13, 2008 9:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In Lew's defense
(betcha didn't expect that!) in this case it reads as though Lew didn't intend to deliver the relocation message so much as Shea forced the question. I believe Lew when he says that's not really in his A's Plans right now. That said, Lew's certainly made such hints before, and the leaving threat is a classic part of any stadium playbook, so it's gotta be in his Plan B's, at least.
Since alternate locales are either smaller and less lucrative (Portland, San Antonio), or fraught with obstacles (Vegas, Monterrey, Brooklyn), or both, I believe relocation threats are mostly empty bluffs. At the moment that's probably aimed at already favorable Alameda County pols like Haggerty and Steele, to get them to lean on Fremont more as needed. Later, should Fremont collapse, my assumption is that Lew'll try San Jose again. In which case the leaving California threats would be aimed at every state politician in a position to lean on McGowan and MLB regarding territorial rights.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 13, 2008 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Read the quotes another way
Wolff and Co. just spent 9 months redoing the plan to accommodate Fremont's concerns and to prepare for environmental issues. As far as I've heard, there is no Plan B. Hard to believe I know, but everything currently points to putting all of their eggs in the Fremont basket. If Fremont doesn't work out, they can try to salvage whatever they can and move it to another city or market. Two years ago I was under the impression that much of the plan was very portable. Now that the housing market's shaky, it's not very portable at all.
by vertig0 on Jan 13, 2008 11:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if the housing market makes the plan non-portable
... then wouldn't it also pose a threat to the plan as it stands in Fremont?
From the other side of the question, if Wolffisher were to abandon Fremont and look elsewhere, mightn't they potentially get better terms on land and development costs than what they're locked into with Fremont?
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2008 12:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
People discount smaller markets...
...but isn't Green Bay a small market?
Don't the Spurs love San Antonio, and the Blazers love Portland?
How many people live in Arlington?
There's a load of people who live in the Bay Area, but they're split between a big wide whack of different teams, sports, and entertainment options. There's value in being the only game in town, even if that town is smaller than others.
And, as always, I cannot let the opportunity pass without pointing to Vancouver as being a place where 3m people reside, with the nearest major league teams being Seattle and Toronto, and the only other major sporting team in town being the Canucks.
Heck, the local USL soccer team draws 6k people per game up here. The Canucks sell out every single game. Even the junior hockey Vancouver Giants have been known to draw 10k crowds.
And, it's the last Canadian city outside of Toronto that has an MLB-affiliated ball club.
Welcome, A's!
by Ozzz on Jan 14, 2008 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You'll notice that you didn't name any MLB cities
MLB needs larger markets to support it than other sports. It's the whole 81 x 45,000 thing ...
Green Bay works for the Packers because they derive most of their revenue from national TV broadcasts.
MLB is simply a different business from NFL/NBA/NHL.
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that and the fact
that basically every adult person in Green Bay either has season tickets, or would commit crimes of varying degrees up to and possibly including murder to get them.
I recall a playoff game-- I think it was in 2001 against the Niners-- where someone actually counted the number of empty seats and came up with something like eight. And I think it's safe to assume that of those eight, half were women in labor, and the other half were dead.
by PaulThomas on Jan 14, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but but but
AND, let's not forget there's an Olympic Games headed to Vancouver in 2010, which means infrastructure, corporate dollars, and new facilities all over.
AND, the short-season Low-A Vancouver Canadians have been known to outsell the Minnesota Twins and/or Florida Marlins at times.
AND, Seattle downtown population = 582k
Vancouver downtown population = 587k
Anyone going to call Seattle a small market?
by Ozzz on Jan 14, 2008 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
NHL ...
They have half as many games, half as few seats to fill and the salary cap is roughly half the payroll of the average MLB team.
The Vancouver Canadians averaged 3,418 people per game in 2007. The Florida Marlins averaged 16,919, the Twins averaged 28,350.
Vancouver Metro has 2.1 million people (2006 est)
Seattle Metro has 3.3 million people (2006 est)
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
here's a tangential question
Should MLB drastically (i.e., more than the 8 games to revert to the pre-61 schedule) reduce its season?
This could certainly work in tandem with the move to the smaller-venue, higher-per-seat-pricing, maximize-revenue-per-attendee, build-revenue-around-non-attendance-dependent-channels model.
It would also enable MLB to expand the roster of potential expansion/relo sites -- and to entertain the idea of further expansion of the number of franchises.
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's realistic ...
Would it have been better to never have gone to a 100+ game schedule? Maybe if they had 100 years of foresight -- but I still don't think so.
Baseball is still far too dependent on the revenue from attendance to make it happen. I don't see that changing ...
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, we can play this game all day.
On a sell-out night, which usually happens a few times a year, the C's do around 7k. In short-season Low-A ball.
The Expos would often come in around 3.5k before they shifted to DC. The Twins have touched 5-6k often enough over the last decade that the StPaul Saints in the indie leagues have beaten them on same day draw on a load of occasions.
As for Vancouver Metro - you're comparing apples and oranges. A 'metro' area isn't a set boundary that is based on acreage and is comparable between regions; it's a line that's handy for local officials to keep things straight between cities.
For example, Victoria is an hour away by ferry and has another 80,000 people to add to the mix (add another 25k from various others of the dozen or so islands between). There's another 40k in Whistler and its surrounds, about 45 mins north. There's 150k in Abbotsford, about 40 mins away, and Langley has 90k more just 30 mins east. 130k more come from Kelowna, which is about as far away as I drive to go to Mariners games. 70k more in Chilliwack... it goes on, especially if we rope in Alberta as a possible fanbase (which is far more likely than them supporting Toronto).
The fact of the matter is, Vancouver is the largest city in Western Canada, so it has a potential fanbase of not just local communities, but also Calgary, Edmonton, the prairies, the north - that's millions on top of the 2-3m that can be found within an hour's drive.
And anyone who knows anything about economics in Western Canada will tell you the place is EXPLODING with cash right now, and the population is booming all over... much to Eastern Canada's detriment.
by Ozzz on Jan 14, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And the Rivercats have outdrawn the A's ...
but no one in the know considers Sacramento a realistic option.
Every Major League city counts on populations outside of their immediate metropolitan area.
The Mariners count fans in Oregon, Idaho and beyond
The A's/Giants draw from much of the Central Valley, the northern Central Coast and Reno.
The Angels/Dodgers draw from the southern Central coast, the southern Central Valley, the desert (which has a LOT of people) and Las Vegas.
The Padres draw from Orange County.
The Diamondbacks draw fans from New Mexico and Nevada.
The Rockies draw fans from Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska.
And so forth and so on ...
I'm sure the Vancouver Athletics would benefit from fans beyond the immediate metro -- but what you've described wouldn't likely be more than they could expect anywhere else.
I quote metropolitan area figures because they are the most worthwhile figures that are readily available -- much more so than downtown population.
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oakland metro: 399,484
Vancouver metro: 2m+
I'm just sayin'.
by Ozzz on Jan 14, 2008 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oakland city: 399,484
The Bay Area has 7.2 million people (2006 est).
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
mm-hmm.
by Ozzz on Jan 15, 2008 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can the A's succeed in the East Bay?
A debatable question.
Could the A's succeed in Vancouver?
Highly doubtful. It's metro is bigger than Milwaukee, Kansas City and Cincinnati and comparable to cities like Miami,Tampa and Pittsburgh.
Is that the kind of company that the A's should be looking to get into?
by devo on Jan 15, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Cincinnati has been around forever, and has been mondo successful for much of that time. That the team is run like a church bake sale isn't the city's fault.
Baseball in Miami likewise - if Florida can manage to house a successful spring training league, and an entire short-season league all by itself, then clearly the area is not the reason that the Rays and Marlins suck ass, anymore than Montreal was the reason the Expos died off.
So do the Athletics want to get into that sort of company? I say, yes.
There are only so many New York's to go around - eventually you have to figure out a way to make a city of 2m or 3m come to the ballpark, and if that city has an entire half of a nation as a potential fanbase draw, that's a pretty good option IMO.
by Ozzz on Jan 15, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
St Louis is ~25% larger than Vancouver
while they have done very well with a fairly small market, it's considerably larger than Vancouver's.
There are 17 metros with just under 3 million or more people in the states, as of the 2000 census. Five of them have two teams. In addition, Toronto has 5.6 million.
From there, we're left with: (2007 attendance rank, 2006, 2005)
St Louis (4th, 4th, 3rd)
Denver (19th, 23rd, 26th)
Tampa (29th, 29th, 30th)
Pittsburgh (27th, 27th, 27th)
Cincinnati (24th, 22nd, 25th)
Kansas City (28th, 28th, 29th)
Milwaukee (12th, 17th, 18th)
So the Cardinals are making it work in a small market. The Brewers, with a great new stadium and a near playoff run managed one season above the median. The only other team that came close was the Rockies in their miracle season.
But lets go back to Toronto for a minute. Toronto enjoys the 5th largest population among metropolitan areas with only one team. Despite the large market and apparently having the eastern half of Canada as an extended fan base, they've found themselves in the back of the back in attendance for 8 consecutive years (that's all I bothered to check), topping at at #18.
If MLB needs some locations for teams, I'd recommend Brooklyn, Northern New Jersey and Ontario before trying to spin hay into gold.
by devo on Jan 15, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe - it's a massive risk
Let's see...
Vegas - market's dried up
Sac - market's dried up
Portland - market's not bad, but sites are disappearing fast
At least in Fremont the market's been fairly resilient to the downturn.
by vertig0 on Jan 14, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
After collecting myself from the floor...
no, I didn't expect that! To counter the empty threat assumption, the article noted that the A's were third in AL attendance. Could it be that they aren't looking towards a "large market"? Perhaps a "growing market" would suffice? Brooklyn is an intriguing ideal on the surface. It's a given that it's a baseball town. Are there significant changes to the population demographics since their beloved Dodgers ran out on them? Certainly there's no Robert Moses clogging the wheels of progress with a Federal redevelopment hammer. Then again, I can't imagine the village being part of any plan in Brooklyn.
I certainly like the idea of the team staying in Norther California. Hopefully plan B is nothing more than what you say...I wonder what kind of clout SJ has in the legislature?
by alox on Jan 14, 2008 9:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Lew will prove to be right,
and that the A's will have "much better than a .500 season". A .450 season is way better!!!
by Nico on Jan 13, 2008 5:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
thank you jim mora
""they drag the stands onto the field in August, when we're trying to make a push for the playoffs.""
playoffs. don't talk about playoffs. i just hope we can win a game.
by oakath on Jan 13, 2008 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
this comment
"We didn't want to have another year with the very same people and just hope and cross our fingers that nobody was going to be hurt. It was very depressing last year."
makes the whole thing sound like an over reaction to last year's injuries.
so now they have changed to "cross our fingers and hope these prospects pan out"
my biggest gripe is that with the addition of a right handed bat and better health the 2008 team would have been very strong. if the injuries returned and the season was lost the deals done in the last month could have been done in July if necessary.
by cvdoug on Jan 13, 2008 6:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
cvdoug, I feel the opposite way -
For years, the A's have banked too heavily on very bad health-risks to anchor the team. Frank Thomas worked out and 2006 worked out, but the core of the recent teams has included Harden, Crosby, Duchscherer, a now post three-surgeries and Chavez, and a now post-back-surgery Kotsay.
There are good risks and bad risks. The above are all bad risks - any year you go in hoping Harden is healthy, or hoping a guy can return strong from back surgery, is a bad risk.
I'm encouraged to see the A's brass saying things like "Let's not pin our hopes on Harden being healthy" and instead saying things like "We need a better plan."
The A's will be good again and it will be soon. I like that better than hoping they're good until Harden goes down.
by Nico on Jan 13, 2008 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Have to agree.
The A's rolled the dice on injured players becoming productive. Seems that lady luck called their bluff last year and cashed in all her chips. A new strategy does seem the wiser course to follow.
by alox on Jan 13, 2008 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Overreaction or just reaction?
Clearly it is a reaction to the injuries.
It's also a reaction to a off-season medical check-in to see how the players' recoveries were coming ... not that well.
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Budget....
For those that keep wondering why we talk about how much money players make, this is something to key on:
The payroll approached $80 million last year - "we were in the middle of the pack even though some of our fans think we spent only 50 cents," Wolff said - and it's currently just north of $60 million and is budgeted for $72 million, though Wolff claims he'd be willing to go higher.
That gives us a number (72 million) that the payroll could be this season. Sure makes it easy to talk about trades and signings when you know how much the team has to work with. It's easier to be realistic!
by mikev on Jan 13, 2008 8:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
Which also would seem to fuel the fire that the A's are cutting payroll. 80M to 72M may not seem like much in baseball parlance, but it's still a significant amount of money. As it stands, Wolfe seems to be implying that 12M will be added to the payroll before ST. Interesting.
by alox on Jan 13, 2008 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not a significant amount of money
Heck, I dropped 8 million behind the couch somewhere tonight, and bligh me if I'll be troubled to look for it. All those little cushion thingies in the way and everything.
by Nico on Jan 13, 2008 10:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How many times do we have to go over this?
Monopoly money is not considered "real".
by Amnesiac on Jan 13, 2008 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You've clearly never been to China ...
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or Canada.
Sorry Oz.
by alox on Jan 14, 2008 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, when's the next chez nico?
by The Dogfather on Jan 15, 2008 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just not sure where he's getting $60 million
Maybe for the team's entire baseball operations, or something. The current salaries are (assuming that Blanton doesn't get like $10 million in arbitration or something) probably less than $50 million.
That's a genuinely puzzling figure. It seems like too little for baseball ops (the draft alone would cost about $10 million, I'd think, and then there's scouting and international signing), yet far too much for MLB payroll.
by PaulThomas on Jan 13, 2008 11:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah ... I have $41.6m
with Blanton, Street and Gaudin pending.
(It's also a coupe hundred k low, as I have all pre-arbi players at $400k, which is going to be a bit lower than the average)
$50 million-ish total. That includes the $5.35 to the Braves/Kotsay.
I think he's just saying it, because he can. Reporters and fans are going to be more likely to quote is figure than to look up the real one.
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't an actual quote, though
Shea implies that Wolff said that, but it's not 100% clear to me that it wasn't Shea's own inference/mistaken sources/bad research.
Given how easy this information is to find, I find it a little hard to believe that Wolff would really think that no one would notice if he just blatantly added $20 million to the payroll. There has to be something else going on here.
by PaulThomas on Jan 14, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right ...
I guess Shea's just an idiot ...
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, the $80m figure includes the $5m paid
by Pitt for Kendall -- so if he's including that in last year's figure, he shouldn't be including the Kotsay money in this year's.
by devo on Jan 14, 2008 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I likes me some Lew.
Whether he's dropping a casual relocation threat or not, I like the way he tends to actually answer questions as honestly as you could expect.
The Bonds question would seem answered, there.
In terms of salary, I don't really mind if it's trimmed to $50m or less.
For mine, it means one thing - if the kids can play out of their skins and actually contend to the halfway point, there's $20m there to go find a nasty FA to complete the deal come the all-start break.
Of course, that's all unlikely, but let's not forget a certain Florida Marlins team of a few years back...
by Ozzz on Jan 14, 2008 10:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
{head explodes}
So far as I can tell, there's only one nasty FA worth upwards of $20M who would possibly be available at the ASB.
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, now that I think about it, *two*
{head explodes again}
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like him too.
He's such as charismatic grandfatherly type that it's difficult to subscribe dark motives to him. He does seem forthright when answering questions.
As far as the team goes, he really does seem to leave the operations to Crowley and Beane with no owner interference. I can only wish he were a little more hyper competitive along the vein of Arte down south. I tend to believe him when he says he will move the team out of state if he has to. Here's to hoping the myriad of competing Bay interests don't quash his plans.
by alox on Jan 14, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He does seem like a pretty good boss.
He clearly defers to Billy on baseball decisions, which is a huge plus, and he gives his key employees a stake in the team. I'm not so sure he's riding the right horse with Crowley and his merry band of marketeers, though. We seem like real followers in that arena.
by The Dogfather on Jan 15, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now that you mention it...
by alox on Jan 15, 2008 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 
























