SB Nation User Blog: jeffro

Greener Grass, Episode 9: How it Could Work in San Jose

jeffro — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:29:22 -0000

I am going all Journal of the Whills on you. The only difference is I actually completed all 9 Episodes (if you get this joke you are as big a geek as I and I love you for it).

To review... What other markets? What about the existing market? What specifics can we glean in San Jose? What are some potential spots in Oakland? What about attendance history? How do we make the fan experience awesome no matter where the stadium is built? Does transportation from the East Bay to the South Bay really suck? What sort of plan would keep the A's in Oakland?

This brings us to the final post I plan on making in this series that didn't start as a series... If San Jose then how?

The first step here is to identify the barriers to entry for the A's when it comes to the Capitol of Silicon Valley. Unlike Oakland, a stadium site and corporate support are not the expected challenges. I think we can all agree that MLB Territory designation is the highest hurdle. Second is the completed purchase of the land to be used for a stadium. Last is public support for the project.

To be honest, it is my belief that the second and third things on my list above will take care of themselves provided the first one does. As such, I am going to devote this post to MLB Territory, how the A's can get permission to go there and what a deal to cement the South Bay A's might look like.

MLB Territories are defined in Article VIII of the Major League Baseball Constitution (caution: this link is a PDF). Some common statements in the debate of MLB Territory as it relates to the A's and Giants are "All the other two team markets are shared so why isn't this one?" And, "The Giants own the rights to San Jose and can sue to block a move." There are other statements, but I think they all can be answered by looking at these two.

First, the two team markets that seem relevant to the territory discussion are Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and the Bay Area. The newest two team market (DC/Baltimore) is a different bird and we will get into that shortly. We all know what the Constitution says about the Bay Area: the A's get Contra Costa and Alameda Counties while the Giants get San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin Counties. But what about the other two team markets?

From the text of the MLB Constitution in Article VIII (Clubs and Territories), New York:

Chicago:

Los Angeles:

To save space, I have only included the language for one of the two teams in each market. That being said, the other team always has identical language with the exception of the last sentence (for obvious reasons).

In summary, it is true to state that the other two team markets are shared markets, more so than the Bay Area. The question then becomes how do the A's get permission? Can the Giants really sue to stop a move?

The answers to these two questions are also found in the MLB Constitution. First, how to get permission. Most things in MLB's business rules can be changed with a simple majority vote. There are two specific sections of the Constitution that deal with circumstances where a 3/4 majority is required to make changes. These are Article II, Section 9 (Election of the Commissioner) and Article V, Section 2(b). This second Article and Section contains eight separate clauses the last of which I have included the actual text below:

If you recall from above, Article VIII is what sets the territories of the Clubs. This means that to change territories a 3/4 vote of all the owners is what the A's would need.

But what if the Giants dissent? Who makes the call? This section of the Constitution provides the answer:

But what if the Giants don't like what Bud has to say? Bill Neukom is a lawyer you know? This is the relevant section of the MLB Constitution:

In other words, the Giants are contractually obligated to adhere to the arbitration decision of the Commissioner. To me, this does not mean that Bud Selig (if he decides San Jose is the way to go) will impose his will and take a territory from a team, it means he will broker a deal between two teams for a shared territory and get the support of the necessary owners to have it ratified. So what might that deal look like?

Admittedly, the deal between Los Natspos and the Orioles is not a case of apples v. apples when compared to the Heroic Nine in Green and Gold and the Black and Orange Bad Guys. The challenge that Peter Angelos had with the new Washington Club was media revenue, not operating territory. Because of this, the deal was not actually agreed upon until well after the Nationals were moving in. I don't expect that to be the case this time. If a deal is struck it will be in place prior to any announcement of a move. So what does that barrel of apples say about our bucket of oranges? Or, how is the Orioles deal relevant to a potential Giants deal?

First, let's look at what the Orioles got in the deal and why. There were three points:

MLB guaranteed a franchise value of $360 Million
MLB guaranteed media revenue by giving the Orioles controlling interest in a new regional sports network
MLB guaranteed over all revenue would not dip below $130 Million.

These three points addressed Angelos' concerns that the Orioles would lose value/revenue by losing some of it's fanbase (sound familiar?) and lose a dominant position in the television market (not really an issue with San Jose). In 2004, the season before the move, the Orioles were worth about $300 Million on revenues of about $130 Million (based on Forbes reports).That is where the numbers included in the deal came from.

So how did this deal work out for MLB? In 2009, the Orioles are worth $400 Million with revenues of $174 Million... looks like MLB won't have to be shelling out any cash to them based on the agreement. Meanwhile, the Nationals are worth almost 4 times as much as the Expos were. I'd call that a good deal for all involved and a sort of blueprint for any future deals of a similar nature.

What is a good deal in terms of the Bay Area? The Giants current value, per Forbes, is $471 Million on revenues of about $200 Million. So the deal starts at maintaining those revenues and guaranteeing a slight uptick in franchise value. The Orioles were guaranteed 20% in franchise appreciation over their present value in 2004, I'd expect less of a percentage for the Giants because the A's are already in direct competition for fans. The Giants other concern is paying a mortgage and this concern replaces the media domination the Orioles sought. So here are the deal points that should appease the Giants:

Franchise value guaranteed by MLB at $518 Million (a 10% increase).
Annual revenue guaranteed by MLB of $200 Million.
Annual payments by the A's to the Giants from year one of a new stadium through 2017 of $8.5 Million (or half the Giants mortgage).

This is a deal that should get the A's the right to pursue the South Bay. The question becomes "does the stadium debt the A's take on in San Jose plus the annual payments to the Giants erase the revenue gains they expect by moving into a new stadium?" Another question would be "does this total number compare favorably with whatever deal is structured in Oakland?" Only time will tell, I suppose.

In closing out these Greener Grass posts I want to thank everyone who has taken part in the discussions of each article. I didn't set out to write these with a plan for convincing people of any particular scenario outside of the fact that the A's are best served staying in the Bay Area. I hope that I have challenged your assumptions and that you have found these to be constructive on the whole. I have learned a tremendous amount about a lot of things in the course of writing these and I hope you have learned something in reading them.

Go A's!

Greener Grass, Episode 8: How it Could Work in Oaktown

jeffro — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:02:48 -0000

Let's be honest. The old axiom "possession is 9/10ths of the law" might not really apply to the City of Oakland and the A's. Well, really because the A's aren't a possession of the City, they are owned by Fisher and Wolff (and Gus Saperstein). And MLB's constitution doesn't allow municipalities to own teams. But folks who trot this line of reasoning out are not referring to real ownership, but more the symbolic ownership a fan base has of a team. Personally, I am pro Oakland keeping the A's as much as I am pro San Jose landing the team. Anywhere in the Bay Area is fine by me.

You have to be leery of Oakland's chances of keeping the A's when the Commissioner's frat brother is saying "San Jose is the way." Though, Lew seemed to be allowing for the possibility that Oakland will pan out on Chronicle Live. But you know what? If I was Oakland, I would be saying "so what?" I would be proud of who I was A's or no A's. This is not to say that the City shouldn't be putting forward a plan to keep the team. Here is what my plan would be, were I the guy who had to come up with a plan.

As per usual, a slight detour is in order. I'd like to invite all of y'alls to join me on an intimate tour of the City of Oakland. It is on March 28th and this is the route we shall be following.

The Oakland Half Marathon Route (via www.oaklandmarathon.com)

While we won't be visiting the specific location I believe will be included in Oakland's plan for a future A's home, we will be running nearby. Speaking of that place we are running nearby, a refresher picture of what I consider to be Oakland's best shot:

The Oakland Fire Department Training SIte (via obiwan2900)

In the picture above we have two distinct areas, one for stadium one for a park. I went through all of my opinions about how to build an excellent fan culture at this site with the frog in my pocket, who is absent today but sends some notes, a few weeks ago. What I didn't really talk about with this site, is how workable it is from a stadium building perspective.

So let's start with a tale of the tape. The area I have outlined above is a 22 acre conglomeration made of 17 lots. 13 of those lots are owned by private entities. The other 4 lots are comprised of two City owned parcels (this is about 6 acres and includes the OFD Training site), one owned by the Peralta Community College District and one owned by BART. All of this info I gathered at this website.

(frog's note: Before I let jeffro go all Pollyanaish on the site I feel like it is important to note that perhaps the largest hurdle is that three distinct Right's of Way run through this general area. I have been told by people who would know that the Utilities who own these ROW's are not exactly easy to work with. These could present major challenges.)

Of the 22 acres, only 20 are encompassed in my pretty Christmas color shapes above. The reason is that one of the City owned parcels actually extends below the freeway. So, reality says we are looking at 20 acres for potential development. How much would it cost you ask? After speaking with some folks who know about land values, and factoring in the value of the buildings on the 13 private lots, the total parcel is worth about $40 Million dollars. Oakland could tell Uncle Lew and Mr. Fisher to pony up for that, but of course they would really be screwing themselves if they did, so this is going to have to be purchased by the Redevelopment Agency, or CEDA as it is known in Oaktown. The City would lease the property back to the A's, just as proposed in San Jose and as is in San Francisco.

(frog's note: This may get boring if jeffro goes too deep into this, but the OFD site as he envisions it falls into two different Redevelopment Zones. This can be a hindrance, or a blessing, depending on who you ask. For the record let's just say it makes things a bit more complicated and leave it at that)

I just need a chart. I can't help it. Here is the Tale of Tape for the OFD Training site:

Some CEQA/EIR concerns. Besides the 18 month delay that is. Automobiles. As in how do they impact the neighborhood?

For instance: parking anyone? I mean as in where the heck do you park when there are 20 Acres for a stadium, some buildings and a park? The Coliseum is great for parking. Mainly because there are 105 acres with which to play and much of it is covered in asphalt specifically designed for the purpose of parking (or grilling and beer drinking while being parked).

A picture, with little numbers representing parking lots/garages:

Parking near OFD (via obiwan2900)

The "A" in the picture is to the left of the imagined home plate entrance with the site being the area framed and crossed in magenta. Across 880 you can see a small sea of asphalt, perhaps more a bay than a sea, or even an estuary. That is a spot where folks may be allowed to park in addition to the parking garages depicted by all the little numbers. Not to mention Jack London Square Amtrak is to the left of the site with parking and people coming on trains. And Lake Merritt BART across the freeway. While getting to the yard will require some walking (it is about 1.25 miles between the number "5" and the imagined ballpark) from all of these parking lots/garages, it looks to me that there is a lot of nearby options for parking.

That is not to say that parking is a non issue. There would most likely be the need for an additional parking garage somewhere nearby. A good estimate is 1,200 spaces (for premium season ticket holders, players, etc.). I am not sure where in the vicinity it would be built (I guess it could be shoe horned in and the park that was so central to my dreams of a cool culture goes bye bye), a safe bet is that the total cost of building a 1,200 space garage would be in the neighborhood of $30 million. I wouldn't expect for the A's to be willing to build the garage themselves, so the City's contribution so far is about $70 million ($40 million for the site plus $30 million for the garage).

Another automobile related issue... Freeway on/off ramps. The off ramps that serve this area are not designed to serve the amount of traffic a ballpark would bring. This is getting long so I am going to keep this part short. This website has all kinds of great info about transportation projects in Alameda County. Using these projects as a rough baseline, it will cost about $40 Million to bring this up to snuff. So the City would appear to need to find at least $110 Million to make this site work.

But what is the incentive for the A's? Is the $110 Million enough?

The San Jose Economic Impact Analysis is a good place to read tea leaves about the A's intentions. A $460 Million dollar investment to construct the stadium in Diridon is a good baseline. The problem is this... The A's say San Jose is the way to go because Oakland doesn't have significant corporate support nor a site. The $110 Million only addresses one of the two issues.

Another potential challenge here is that the construction of a stadium in this specific part of Oakland is most likely more expensive than the Diridon site in San Jose due to soil conditions (I am not that smart, I talked to an engineer friend of mine and he explained why but I only got "soil conditions" out of the whole explanation). So, worst case the stadium probably costs more like $500 Million. We can assume Cisco's naming rights deal will still apply and generate about $130 Million. This leaves $370 to cover.

The corporate base becomes a problem when it comes time to privately finance this chunk of change. While the facebook group is doing well with 25,000 members, Oakland Boosters realize that it is going to take real financial commitments from ticket buyers to get the stadium built. Charter Club style tickets for corporations would be a large part of the private financing mix as well as some kind of PSL programs for Average Joe's. In San Francisco, this accounted for 20% of the funding package. In that case it was $70 Million, in this case we are looking at $100 Million dollars that need to come from these presales.

I have to say one thing real quick: HOLY CRAP THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now back to the matter at hand. One other source for funding in the San Francisco case was TIF. it accounted for roughly 5% of the total package there and that would be $25 Million here.

So, if Oakland believes there is enough corporate support to help build the stadium... They should be willing to guarantee it. If I was the A's I would ask the City to guarantee up to $125 Million towards stadium construction, with $25 Million being TIF. The other $100 Million is really a bad number, because the City would only be liable for the difference of $100 Million minus actual presales. If there isn't really the corporate support in place as the A's contend then they don't have to worry about it so much from a funding perspective (future revenues might be a challenge). If there is the corporate support as Oakland contends, then they don't have to pay any of that money.

(Frog's note: I cringe because this sounds so much like the stupid Raiders deal)

At this point in our imagined scenario, it is up to the A's to cover $245 Million. That is basically the same percentage of total stadium construction costs that the Giants took a loan for when they built AT&T Park.

So, citizens of Oakland... I ask "Are you willing to drop something potentially as high as $235 Million, guaranteed to be at least $135 Million, to keep the A's?"

I honestly don't know if I would be okay with that, but I think that is the high level plan that keeps the A's in Oakland.

Greener Grass, Episode 7: Transportation Proclamation

jeffro — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:06:25 -0000

So far, the frog in my pocket and I have looked at potential relocation markets, Bay Area dynamics specifically, San Jose process progress, potential sites in Oaktown, attendance history in Oaktown, and stadium culture suggestions.

Today we want to talk about the biggest downside to the potential San Jose stadium: Transportation.

First, let's qualify this thesis a bit. Diridon is very well situated from a transportation perspective. There is a freeway within a 1/4 mile of the site. There is a Caltrain, VTA Light Rail and Amtrak station adjacent to the proposed site. Some would point to the eventual HSR terminal as well as BART to Silicon Valley extension as transportation strengths. We won't, however.

We won't for two reasons. First, these two initiatives are still in flux a bit. They are "working themselves out" so to speak. Second, even if they are completed in the original time frames, a stadium would be in Downtown San Jose for at least 5 years before BART or HSR. So what is an East Bay fan to do?

So let's assume it is one year from now. San Jose voters have given their approval to the City's plan for the stadium (details of which we can only infer at this point). MLB has decided that it is in the leagues best interest to keep the A's in the Bay Area and for this market to operate like LA, Chicago and NY and the entire 7 county territory is shared. In Short, Lew Wollf and the Fisher's are moving forward with San Jose. The frog in my pocket says that in this scenario the A's will be playing in downtown San Jose in April, 2014.

This means that the transportation landscape will be pretty much exactly as it is today, minus one new BART station closer to the South Bay but still nowhere near Diridon from a pedestrian perspective. Milpitas is anticipated to follow sometime after, like around 2018. Actually, the linked FAQ seems to imply the entire line being completed by 2018, which at this point means through the Berryessa Station. That puts Milpitas Station's opening around 2016.

A transit system map, just for fun:

The VTA Light Rail, at least the stations germane to our discussion (via obiwan2900)

So this means that the transportation situation in San Jose will be an evolving one. We, the frog in my pocket and I, are going to look at it in three phases. We will call them "Day One through 2016," "2016 through 2020," and "Utopia." So, without further adieu.

DO-2016

The first thing we will all have to do, us East Bay fans is admit we ain't getting there via single mode of transportation unless we drive all the way. That's no fun, to just post driving times we mean. So, we are going to assume that we have to take VTA Light Rail at some point in our journey.

It just occurred to us that "East Bay" is kind of a vast area. We are picking two cities in particular, Pleasanton (cause we live there) and Berkeley (cause Nico lives there) as starting points for our maptastic adventures.

One other stipulation. We are not going to count on shuttles from Fremont BART or any other such imaginary nonsense. Until, of course, it is no longer imaginary.

Berkeley first. My first thought is that traveling to San Jose from this city might be a virtual portal to a bygone era best depicted in one of my favorite movies ever. Or that dumb Babe Ruth pic staring John Goodman.

A Train Ride! (via obiwan2900)

Admittedly, there are problems with this plan. Like for instance, the latest return train on the Capitol Corridor is way before the game is over. It departs at 7:35 per the schedule found here (WARNING: it's a PDF). And, that only adds to the fact that you'd have to be on a train for 3 hours all told.

Second, Pleasanton. For this trip let's drive to a VTA station and train on in to the stadium? Shall we?

This is probably the best bet:

The I880 Light Rail Station (via obiwan2900)

The "A" in the picture above is a Light Rail station near the crossing on 880 and 237. How long would it take to get there from Pleasanton?

A Table showing driving times on Tuesdays trough Thursdays according 511.org (via obiwan2900)

Not so bad. 23 minutes on the quickest route. But according to the VTA trip planner, we'd actually have to leave at about 5:30 for this to get us to the ballpark in time for a weeknight game. Because it would take 52 minutes.Driving all the way is a much better option (thinking about time only, not carbon footprints) from the 680 corridor.

Driving all the way is much quicker from the 680 corridor (via obiwan2900)

So, from two East Bay spots in Phase 1, the transportation options suck raw eggs. Driving from Eastern Alameda County and Southern Contra Costa County isn't horrible, but no BART makes just about all mass transit options implausible. Driving from Berkeley sucks. 511.org puts weekday driving at about an hour and half from the land of the tree sitters. Basically, about as long as the train trip.

2016-2020

A brave new world! BART in Santa Clara County!!!!! Oh, wait. We are getting ahead of ourselves. Oh, wait we are supposed to be getting ahead of ourselves!

East Bay fans, 2016 is waaaaaayyyyy easier than the first 2 years of San JosA's. Why you ask? Cause all you have to do is jump on BART and head to Milpitas Station where you can grab a light rail train. Where is Milpitas Statsion you ask? A picture:

Montague VTA Light Rail ("A" marks the spot), the future connecting point of BART and Santa Clara County (via obiwan2900)

Joyus Day! Or not so fast, because actually taking BART and jumping on Light Rail will probably take longer than the train or the driving for our two East Bay spots. No official estimate could be found by me or the frog in my pocket. But Currently, from Pleasanton to Fremont takes about 30 minutes and then from Montague to downtown San Jose takes an hour... From Berkeley to Fremont takes 50 Minutes. We have to add in some time to go through Warm Springs and get to Milpitas. We have to add some to get from BART to Light Rail.

So even though we are making progress, it will take longer to get from our East Bay spots with the improvements in phase 2 than it took in phase 1. And it won't be anymore convenient than it was. So we make it through 6 years and the transportation situation will be pretty much as it is today. Moving right along...

Utopia

Some time after 2020 (assuming we all lived past 2012 and all) a transportation utopia awaits. Trains moving faster than Superman will be streaming into the depot from all corners of the great state of California. BART will make convenience an option for us East Bay types. Here is the map:

One mode of transport from anywhere! (via obiwan2900)

That'll be the day!

So in summary... people who think transportation is a problem for the East Bay fans are right. Hopefully something will be worked out (shuttles from BART, Capitol Corridor running later). Assuming San Jose is it.

Old McPherson is an A, e yi e yi yoooooooo

jeffro — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:13:08 -0000

From a dying Blogfather...

Hey, folks. The CVS/Food Bank event was awesome -- the Food Bank had hoped to collect somewhere between 200-350 pounds from our location, but our charming and articulate kids collected 707 pounds. 67MARQUEZ, gigglingone, and Wes7 showed up to lend their support as well as their cans. I woke up sick Saturday morning and went to bed sicker, which is why I'm crapping out and not writing a new post today.

Dallas McPherson. The next Jack Cust or just another failed journeyman? jeffro offers a snapshot of the A's latest acquisition:

Dallas is a coming to Oakland.

Dude has raked in the minor leagues, but not done so hot in the bigs.

Not so sure about his glove work. Those UZR numbers in the link above seem to swing a bunch though he is a total 10.2 at 3B.

What does AN think? I kind of like the low risk potential high reward.

Between McPherson, Patterson, Everidge, etc. (I refuse to write Chavez off, it tugs at me heart strings so) it seems this is the plan.

Poll

Do you like Old McPherson coming to Oakltown?

Yep. He has some potential upside

409 votes

Maybe.

175 votes

Nope. I wanted Beltre or some such.

68 votes

652 votes | Poll has closed

Greener Grass, Episode 6: It's All About Culture

jeffro — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:41:01 -0000

Does a ballpark have a culture? If so is it an extension of the fanbase or is it somehow manufactured by the stadium atmosphere? Maybe a mix of both?

We have been to a few big league parks. We plan on adding a few to our list next season (see June trip to the Midwest inter-league style).

Before last season, when the frog in my pocket and I journeyed to Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium, I was not really sure that a ballpark had a culture.

But we now know that there are definitely some characteristics we would like to see in a new Bay Area ballpark. And we think those characteristics would go a long way towards creating the best culture in the big leagues.

Below the fold, we shall bloviate on how a new stadium should look and feel (special thanks to cityplANner and vertig0 for their assistance, even if they didn't know they were giving it).

Some parks we have visited and some of those we plan to attend, well they have a real unique feel. Some things we like are the Milwaukee Brewer's fans and their proclivity for tailgating. Fans in Wrigleyville like to have a block party in support of their Cubs. Much like the Yawkey Way experience, where a city street is shut down and becomes an extension of the stadium, in Boston is like a Red Sox themed carnival with street vendors and booze a flowin'. In the capital of Yankeedom there is this bar that looks like doubles as a mechanics shop in the off hours.

These environments represent two distinct pregame atmospheres that many would argue are mutually exclusive. You can either have the large parking lot with barbecues (as exists here in Oaktown) or you have no "sea of asphalt" and bars where yuppies meet up and pretend to like baseball.

Additionally, in these places you have stadiums with quirky dimensions and interesting architecture. In some cases the quirky dimensions are the result of necessity due to the lot they were built on. In others, not so much. In all cases, cool architecture is welcome.

In our opinion, the pregame activities are not mutually exclusive. The architecture is important for setting the tone. And, the quirky dimensions should only be present when necessitated by the lot. These three aspects are central to our plan for creating the coolest culture in all of baseball.

First, how would we manage to capture tailgating and yuppie bardom in a single bound? For illustration purposes I have included a photo of the proposed development at Diridon:

This image is from Andrew Watkins, you can read more about him and his plan for Diridon here.

Admittedly, fellow A's fans, this will take some imagination on your part. The whole stadium will actually need to be moved to the right because there is a power substation under the left hand part of it and the current plan is to keep it there. Because of this, the weird looking pyramid I have crossed out will be non existent. Which is good cause it kind of looks like a futuristic pyramid inhabited by an evil race of faux Egyptians right out of a Tom Swift series 4 novel for young adults. Additionally, the stadium pictured is just a place holder. The repositioning would potentially create the need for some quirky dimensions.

The areas to focus on are the green oval behind left field and the red rectangle in the bottom. First, for the yuppies the green oval represents pregame snobville at it's best! A walkway between the back of the stands in left. If it is done right, the top floor of the building and the roof could peer over the bleachers down onto the emerald hued heaven we refer to as a baseball field. Incidentally, pregame snobville serves another purpose in my rambling fantasy of a new stadium... the Yankees are in town, 32,000 seats are sold rather easily. $4 dollar cover charge gets you into the roof top bar (if you are over 21) or the Skyline club on the top floor of the building (for all ages).

Now for the "blue collar barbecue crew." In the original plan that red rectangle would have been team offices. In the new and improved version that has taken shape in the Diridon Good Neighbor Meetings that will be a park. Why not "tailgate" on grass rather than a sea of asphalt? Sure you have to be able to park somewhere nearby to carry all the tailgating stuff and what not. It would be more like tailpicnicing, but does it not have a similar potential?

The green "future park" is the same as my red rectangle.

I understand these ideas are fairly specific to the Diridon plan. So not to hurt any of my Oakland Only friends feelings, let's pretend the City of Oakland's plan involved a site mentioned on Marine Layer's blog a while back. What about the Oakland Fire Department training site. The City owns a portion of it and it is zoned in a way that could be used to build a ballpark. An illustration:

From Oakland's City Zoning Map

So where would the tailpicnicing happen here? How about the yuppie zone/overflow seating? In the picture below the area outlined in red would be the park with barbecue pits and the area outlined in green would be for the ballpark/ancillary buildings. For this to happen it would require some existing business to move, which may or may not be a big deal. I imagine the roof top bar and top floor club over looking the outfield would be near 880 and the ballpark would have home plate in the general locale of the intersection of Oak and Embarcadero. Again this is just my concept to show a spot where it is feasible to build something like this in Oakland. I am not sure about infrastructure improvements/parking, but as you can see from that big ugly white box, Lake Merritt BART isn't that far of a walk down Oak.

OFD Training site and my highly technical rendering.

Slight detour time for me and the frog in my pocket. Who knows which franchise was the first to have a steel and concrete stadium? The kind everyone is trying to replicate these days with the funky looking short distances and high fences? Well, none other than our A's. I think the new stadium, any new A's stadium, should pay some homage to the historical precedent set by Shibe Park in Philadelphia. Look at it's splendor:

I love that tower looking thing and those arches.

So what is the appropriate way to pay homage to this place? Since we have other ideas for the outside of the stadium to discuss here in a minute, we think it has to be something inside the stadium. So what did the inside look like? Like this:

Picture courtesy of ballparksofbaseball.com

So what stands out to you? Besides the Alpo ad, I mean. And besides the cool upper deck and roof in Left Field which we already know can't be there if there is the roof top bar and such. How bout the whole Right Field wall? Scoreboard and all? It was 34 feet tall when the stadium eventually closed, while the scoreboard was 50 feet high, not counting the Ballantine Beer sign (wouldn't it be cool if that said Pyramid Ale instead?).

So what about the outside architecture? We have two ideas for that. First, let's assume the ballpark is being constructed at the OFD Training Site... Basically in Oakland and near the water. I say inspiration should then come from this:

East Brother Island Lighthouse

and this:

Santa Barbara Maritime Museum

There is also a cool Maritime museum in Vallejo that could serve as inspiration. The general idea here is to pay homage to the Port of Oakland and the nautical environ of the stadium. Imagine that tower behind home plate of Shibe Park replaced with a light house. And when of the Green and Gold hits a bomb imagine a cannon firing as if it was on the Admiral's ship in a fleet hunting pirates in the old world. It sure as hell would beat that damn fog horn in San Francisco.

But what if the A's end up near Diridon?

I imagine something like this:

Mission Santa Barbara

Or from another angle:

Maybe not with the crosses but one heck of a home plate gate, eh?

The idea here would be to pay homage to California's Missions from an architectural perspective. Think arches, adobe bricks and Spanish tile roofs.

So there it is in a large nutshell. A yuppie zone with a roof top bar peering over the outfield that doubles as overflow seating. A large park for "tailpicnicing." A right field fence and scoreboard that pay homage to the A's history as stadium pioneers. Architecture to pay homage to our port or the missions. All that is missing is strategically placed statues of Rickey Henderson, Dave Stewart, Catfish Hunter, Dennis Eckersley, Rollie Fingers, Walter Haas, Reggie Jackson, Jimmie Foxx, and Connie Mack.

That, my friends, would be the building blocks of the coolest fan culture in all of baseball. At least I think so. And so does the frog in my pocket. What ideas do you got?

Greener Grass, Episode 5: Attendance Fact and Fiction and Why Should We Care Anyway?

jeffro — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:56:01 -0000

Me and the frog in my pocket are tired of hearing some stuff.

We are tired of people saying "Oakland can't support big league teams." But we are also tired of hearing "If the A's had an owner who embraced Oakland the attendance wouldn't be so bad, The A's were one of the best when the Haas family owned the team." Another tired phrase "The A's attendance only looks bad now because of all the other new ballparks. Before those, the A's were always a good draw." And the related "If you build it, they will come."

To be honest, we are tired of this stuff cause no one ever backs it up with any sort of detailed evidence. We are just supposed to accept it as fact because it is, you know, conventional wisdom. I HATE conventional wisdom. Queue Deftones "My Own Summer" we are getting medieval on this stuff.

First and foremost, I think people who talk about attendance in Oakland are missing a large deal of the point. Not all of the point. People showing up in the stands is one of the key revenue streams of any team. It just isn't the key driver for any potential A's move away from the city that has been their home for more than 40 years.

The real reasons are lack of realistic sites and lack of corporate base. Specious as those claims may be (or not), we came today to talk attendance. Would a new stadium in Oakland be a big draw or a colossal dud? Can we gain any insight by looking back at past attendance trends across MLB? If so, which teams should we compare them too?

Let's start with the macro view, shall we? Since 1968 it is a fact that no other team has been below the median for season attendance more often than the A's. A chart, since we all love them so much.

Notice the pretty green cones. Excel charts are fun.

I could have used average attendance as a measure, but median is a bit more fair. If you don't know the difference the easiest way to explain it is that median removes outliers from the equation. Basically, median is measured in two equal parts of 50%. Half below, half above whereas averages can be whacked out by having two teams with 4 million spectators through the turnstiles while most other teams were below 3 million. This chart shows that since the A's came to Oakland they have been in the bottom 50% more than any other team. That sucks. But does that tell the whole story?

The Oakland A's didn't exist until 1968. Of this we can be certain. And almost immediately there was talk of relocating. To New Orleans, to Dallas, to Denver, to Portland... the Bay Area simply wasn't big enough for two teams. If you look at the 70's, a decade when the A's were in the playoffs 5 times and won the whole damn thing 3 seasons in a row, the numbers sort of back that up. Both the A's and Giants were in the bottom half for most of the decade, if not the whole decade.

This time I used green pyramids!

An age old axiom in baseball is "the best marketing plan is winning on the field." I call hogwash. Or at least hogwash as it relates to the 70's in Oakland. In the Decade of the Dynasty, the A's had the most impressive World Series record and still went a perfect 10 for 10 in sucking at the gates. The other dynastic teams, the Reds and Yankees, managed to stay out of the bottom 10. The Yankees had 3 seasons below the median in the decade, the Reds had zippo.

Wait?!?!?!?! Did I just say the Yankees were in the bottom half of attendance in three seasons in a single decade? You are damn tootin'! And dare I say it wasn't even their worst showing in a single decade? But this brings to mind an interesting question. Which team(s) has/have not been in the bottom half since 1968? Maybe even before 1968 for all I know, I didn't feel like looking. The answer shall come later.

Even with the Yankees being in the bottom half for 3 seasons, the 70's are hard to celebrate from an attendance perspective. As much as I love celebrating Yankees failure, A's failure makes it less cool.

Some arguments i have heard about the A's crappy attendance in the 70's: "The Bay Area became a two team market one decade too soon." Or "Charlie Finley sucked as an owner."

The veracity of these theories can be tested in the 80's, no? I smell a chart!

This time it's 3D columns!!!

First... The A's weren't amongst the 10 worst performers!!!! Hooray! The truth is, since I picked the bottom 10 (really 11 since we had so many ties) and they were tied for 12th it is kind of my arbitrary cut off line for the chart that we should be celebrating. But any reason to bust out Kool and the Gang is a good one.

Side note, related to Kool and the Gang: I knew i was not a huge Schott and Hoffman fan when they replaced "Celebration" with "Rock and Roll All Night." The nerve of some people. I remember the first game I was at when the A's won and nary a note of Kool and the Gang was heard... it took me a minute before finally realizing why I was pissed. Back to the relevant information now, sorry.

So, theory 1... The Bay Area became a two team market one decade too soon. I would argue that this is false. The Bay Area became a two team market at least 2 decades too soon, but I am not complaining! Primarily because the A's tied for 12th in being below the median, whilst the Giants just missed a perfect decade (they tried sooooo hard). 1989 was the only season that neither team in the Bay Area was in the bottom half. It could have been worse though... Through the 80's the Seattle Club (That's Bud speak for Mariners) had never had a season in which they weren't part of the bottom feeders. And they had a market all to their lonesome.

Theory 2. The Haas family took over in 1980. While they still had a decade with more below median years than above, they (with the help of Andy Dolich) grew season ticket holders from 300 to 13,000. I'd say there might be something to this theory. Wouldn't you? I don't know if this has anything to do with embracing Oakland, but someone from the current sales and marketing staff should call Andy Dolich and ask him about what strategies he used back in the 80's. Just saying it couldn't hurt.

But... What about the 90's? The Haas family still owned the team for part of that decade, no? Another chart you ask? Of course:

3D bars. I think the pyramids are coolest.

First, can I just say that part of those 5 other teams tied with the A's at 7 seasons below the median is the Yankees? I can, and I wouldn't even be lying. But something else is kind of funny. Is there a chart yet that hasn't included the Giants, Brewers, and Twins? Nope.

It's sad to see the A's back on the suckitude chart. To round out the tale of the Haas Family, they owned the team from before the 1981 season up until the 1996 season. That is 15 seasons. In that time the A's were above the median 7 times. I am not sure what that says about Oakland, though I am pretty sure it says a great deal about what good owners the Haas Family were. Especially considering the futility before despite winning records and championships and... well shall we look at the next decade?

I went retro with an oldschool excel chart. I love this stuff.

The bottom 10, sadly including our Green and Gold heroes, is led by a 6 way tie for a perfect decade. Heck, if it wasn't for the novelty of the first season in Washington, Los Natspos would have made it a 7 way tie. 9 seasons of suckitude across 3 different cities... Mind boggling. I look at these teams and I try to find some sort of commonality... Teams that have done fire sales? Check, but not all of them. Teams that have sucked for the most part? Check, but not all of them. Teams that have won division titles and been to the playoffs more than once? Check, but what the heck are they doing on here? Teams with brand new stadiums? Check... wait, what? Teams with World Series crowns? Check... It's like crazy the huge differences in circumstances between these 10 teams. So what does it tell us about the A's in Oakland?

I look at two teams on the list as potential barometers for the A's. The Pirates and White Sox. Why? Well because before the new stadium boom, those two teams were neck and neck with A's in the race for attendance futility. They have similar circumstances. The White Sox are team number 2 in a shared market. The Pirates new stadium has a reduced capacity (only slightly larger than the tarped Coliseum). Through 1999 the A's had 25 below median seasons. The White Sox had 23. The Pirates 24. Look at those teams as the cautionary tale that says, "a new stadium in the same place doesn't change any of the dynamics that existed before in a meaningful way."

But we, the frog in my pocket was napping through most this diatribe but is awake now, choose to look at the Giants (28), Indians(25), and Padres(21). Those teams were also neck and neck with A's and found their way entirely off the bottom 10 without leaving the city they play in. It's possible in Oakland. I doubt no matter what happens that the A's will go 40 consecutive years in the top 50%, like the Dodgers.

PS- I started a facebook page that is regional in nature as opposed to the San Jose or Oakland facebook pages. It is my goal to keep people up to speed with what is going on regionally through that page. Keep the A's in the Bay Area!

Greener Grass, Episode 4: The Biggest Off Season (Potential) Decision Doesn't Involve Free Agents

jeffro — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:11:31 -0000

Where is the grass greenest? Staying in the same city, we mean.

A simple question. No simple answer. The frog in my pocket and I are in a speculative mood today.

I wrote about this a while back (other markets, within the Bay Area, and San Jose's actions), it's time to do a Ken Korach style reset on the whole thing.

"We are in the top of the 4th inning, the score is Oakland..."

A slight detour, to read really good analysis about the potential future homes of our Green and Gold heroes, go here.

First and foremost this post is all about Oaktown. Or, the potential of a great city.

Many people question if Oakland is indeed a great city. What with the Mayor talking of sanctioning "sideshows" to further the "crime ridden" stigma and all, it is understandable. But Oakland really is a very cool town, go back to the link above titled "within the Bay Area" if you don't think there are good things to do in Oakland. Or you can join me on a personal tour next March in the Oakland Half Marathon and get a ground level view of some happening places.

But the question isn't, "Is there good stuff to do in Oakland?" The question is, "Is there a good place to build a ballpark in Oakland?" And after that, "What is the City of Oakland doing to help get a ballpark built?"

On Question number 1:

Chip Johnson recently wrote of a rumor that Lew Wolff was interested in building a ballpark at Middle Harbor Park. As the latest rumor, let's start there.

Not a bad view, eh?

Before we go getting gaga over the view, let us remember that this couldn't be the view over the outfield wall. Stadiums can't face west because of sun problems... mainly, the hitter wouldn't see a damn thing if that was behind the pitcher. An argument could be made that Oakland would be quite the spot for free agent pitchers with this view, but it is moot.

So, not so not moot points? An illustration!

That little green patch, below the words "San Francisco Bay" is the parkish part of Middle Harbor Park

Does anyone see any challenges in this illustration? For us, the distance between downtown, the Freeway, BART is kind of a big deal. Well, really for me, the frog in my pocket likes being away from all that stuff as he can just use the water to get to the park. I have pointed out to him that there are many big boats that come through there and he is but a little frog, so easily squished. He doesn't care.

In a nutshell, the challenges here are transportation and the Port of Oakland. The positives are big boats to look at, a potentially cool view of the Oakland skyline from inside the park and a the San Francisco skyline from around the park. But really, there is no there, there so I fear this is just a trial balloon. Developing the Port of Oakland with retail and residential and a ballpark... I am not so sure this makes a lot of economic sense for the City of Oakland.

Maybe somewhere else on the waterfront?

Site number 2 that has been rumored is Howard Terminal. Vertig0/Marine Layer did a really good piece on Howard Terminal. I am not going to try and replicate what he put there. It really speaks for itself. There are challenges. Those challenges were estimated to cost over $500 million (in the world famous HOK Study) to address way back in 2003, which eventually ruled the site out.

For the record, Howard Terminal is the blue portion labeled "67-68" just north of Jack London Square in the picture below

I think, if any waterfront site has any possibility of becoming reality, it is this one. It will be very expensive to make this happen. The City of Oakland would have to pony up a BUNCH of cash. I will say this is really hard to imagine in the current financial circumstances, but we are talking about many of the same "civic leaders" who worked out that excellent deal with the Raiders.

A quick caveat for some bloviation. As I look at the two potential places above, I have two thoughts:

The Oakland Waterfront is really already being used by a very important economic engine.
Why do the A's need to be on the waterfront anyway?

I want the A's to play in a spot that is better than the Giants place. I know, that is kind of irrational because the Giants place is really nice and something comparable is a good goal. But I would say, the best way to be better is to be different! Isn't that the key message of Moneyball? So how about a more urban locale?

Honestly, I haven't heard of much in the way of a truly urban site, like the doomed Uptown Site. One place that has been mentioned is the old Malibu Funzone/Homebase site just south of the Coliseum. It may look something like this:

Courtesy newballpark.blogspot.com

I really find this site uninspiring. I imagine that it may be able to someday create the sort of atmosphere you see outside of Fenway Park. The sort of Baseball Carnival that happens there at all home games. In the mock ups above, all that stuff behind the outfield could serve as a gathering spot with bars and eateries and such. It could potentially be more of a destination spot. There is good transportation.

There are problems though. One big one is that the entire lot cannot really be developed due to an EBMUD right of way. Through a section of the drawing above, there runs a thing called the "Southern Interceptor." This has been described to me as a "river of raw sewage" and that building something the scale of what is pictured is not a real possibility.

So, really the answer to Question 1 is, "Maybe there are good sites in Oakland." It kind of depends on Question 2, but maybe Howard Terminal? That'd be my first choice, but it may be too expensive.

Question 2... There are no real answers here. What is Oakland doing? What is Oakland willing to do? What should Oakland be willing to do? Where the heck is the plan already?

The online petition and facebook group are a little lame at this stage of the game. I signed up for the facebook group hoping to get some insight into what the actual plan is. I won't sign a petition that isn't for anything specific.

So anyway... to reset the game as my favorite Ken Korach does, "We are in the top of the 4th. The score is Oakland 1, San Jose 0. San Jose has all the bases occupied, nobody out and Clue Haywood at the plate. Oakland has Facebook Group on the hill. The lights are on but not yet taking..." Is there anyone warming up in the bullpen? Is it a kick ass Ricky Vaughn like plan for a ballpark? Inquiring minds want to know... Like, now already.

Poll

What is your preference for a future A's Stadium?

Only in Oakland

54 votes

Anywhere in the Bay Area

106 votes

Only in San Jose

38 votes

198 votes | Poll has closed

DLD 10/13/2009: Back to back, Jack. The return of the first "D."

jeffro — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:18 -0000

MLB Trade Rumors looks at our Green and Gold (and sometimes Black) heroes in their continuing Offseason Outlook series.

Our sometimes community member Mychael Urban takes a peep into his inbox. Bailey for ROY?

Huston, we have a problem. Carlos Gonzalez is clearly going to hit over 500 for the rest of his career. Damn you Matthew T. Holliday!

It's raining or something. Drive carefully.

Hey! I thought all the crime was in Oakland?

Who knew prehistoric pigs were such bad asses? Not I, until I watched Nat Geo last night anyway.

Anybody else want to dump?

DLD 10/12/2009: What a bunch of sloppy playoffs (in Bill and Ted Style)

jeffro — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:40:20 -0000

Dudes... Strange things are afoot at Circle K.

Jon "Most Excellent One" Papelbon gave up two inherited runners in a most heinous display of closerhood. He topped it off by giving up 3 more in the next inning... bogus

Another personage of historical significance to have a bad day, Nick Punto say it ain't so?!?!?! Piranha's are excellent on the base paths, wtf?!?!?!

And, it is the playoffs for the umpires too. In most non triumphant fashion CB Bucknor, Phil Cuzzi and Jerry Meals continued the egregious trend set forth by Randy Marsh in game 163.

One guy who hasn't been such a medieval dickweed this time around.

Dumpy dump dump dump dump.

DLD 9/18/2009: A paltry one indeed

jeffro — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:19:57 -0000

I wish these were really daily these days... And well... "Be the change you wish to see in the world," some famous guy once said. Here are some links for you all to peruse.

A good read right here at AN (as usual)

Give it up Roger and Whitney.

CityWalk, the phoenix of Oaktown.

Strangely enough, I wish this dude was a cop in my town.

As an A's fan, it was shocking that watching this whole thing go down made me an Angels fan for 15 seconds..

Dumpy, dump, dump