What in the world is Bill Madden talking about when he refers to the 'Marlins' mounting losses?' Does he know what the Marlins payroll was last season? Does he have an idea what their Revenue sharing and Central revenue funds were last year? How do sentences like that get by editors?

Neil I know you're opposed to the stadium for good reasons, but it's a bad idea to attach yourself, even indirectly, to arguments as poorly thought out as that one was.

Who, me? I thought I was holding it up to ridicule.

If Friday's City Commissioner meeting was available on pay-per-view, I'd buy it. In fact I'd pay double to see Chair Sanchez's furrowed brow in HD.

Miami isn't just a drug port, it's a drug all to itself. Get addicted!

I know Donald Fehr and Co would be unhappy with contraction, but in today's economic environment, there is little that they can do about it. You cannot force an entity to remain in business against its will (As for Congress, the clowns who bailed out AIG, Citi, BOA, GM & the rest need to keep their mouths and wallets shut (Otherwise, could you see Pelosi considering " a Shovel Ready" stimulus for the Bay Area, such as a new stadium for the A's? And while at it, helping her home city of San Francisco with the Niners Stadium at Hunters Point? Gimme a break)). The Marlins case is far more clear-cut, and easier to see than the A's. Sooner or later, they have to leave Dolphins Stadium (They cannot stay forever (This is not PERMANENT RENT CONTROL where landlords cannot evict, if Dolphins Stadium management want to evict them, they can at anytime, once the lease ends). Expecting them to play 162 games on the road, is not realistic either). The day can occur, when they declare bankruptcy, and simply go out of business. Oakland could end up in the same boat, if the City of Oakland is able to sign a deal with the Raiders, they could end up putting the A's in the Marlins boat, if they can't get to San Jose (With the economy the way it is, that is not a probability either).
The consolidation idea (Where teams pay the Marlins & A's some fixed amount (Say $100 million each)), makes a tremendous amount of sense, and it will not only improve the game (Making weaker teams more competitive), but it allows the owners of those franchises, to get a bit more back than pennies on the dollars.

I know Donald Fehr and Co would be unhappy with contraction, but in today's economic environment, there is little that they can do about it. You cannot force an entity to remain in business against its will (As for Congress, the clowns who bailed out AIG, Citi, BOA, GM & the rest need to keep their mouths and wallets shut (Otherwise, could you see Pelosi considering " a Shovel Ready" stimulus for the Bay Area, such as a new stadium for the A's? And while at it, helping her home city of San Francisco with the Niners Stadium at Hunters Point? Gimme a break)). The Marlins case is far more clear-cut, and easier to see than the A's. Sooner or later, they have to leave Dolphins Stadium (They cannot stay forever (This is not PERMANENT RENT CONTROL where landlords cannot evict, if Dolphins Stadium management want to evict them, they can at anytime, once the lease ends). Expecting them to play 162 games on the road, is not realistic either). The day can occur, when they declare bankruptcy, and simply go out of business. Oakland could end up in the same boat, if the City of Oakland is able to sign a deal with the Raiders, they could end up putting the A's in the Marlins boat, if they can't get to San Jose (With the economy the way it is, that is not a probability either).
The consolidation idea (Where teams pay the Marlins & A's some fixed amount (Say $100 million each)), makes a tremendous amount of sense, and it will not only improve the game (Making weaker teams more competitive), but it allows the owners of those franchises, to get a bit more back than pennies on the dollars.

Alvarez is now "appalled". But rest assured that he is not appalled at the horrific deal the taxpayers would get in the current Marlins Stadium contracts were approved.

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/929651.html

Somewhere, Joe Sanchez is nodding in agreement.

I am always amused when the subject of contraction comes up. But for the legalized monopoly major league baseball is allowed to continue operating under, there would be, at minimum, double the number of current franchises. As outlined in Stanley Eitzen's book "Fair and Foul," there were 16 major league baseball teams in 1901, when the U.S. population was 76 million. Based on the current population (over 300 million) and the inclusion of African-American players (and players from Latin America and Asia), there should be well over 60 teams in MLB.

The "C" word in MLB is always good for a laugh.

The idea of the amount of baseball franchises being predicated on population is silly, there are a tremendous amount of factors involved. If you want to go back to 1901, there was only one other team sport, college football. Today, you have the NFL, NBA, NHL and College Football ALL of which have seasons which overlap baseball, and compete with MLB for interest and potential athletes.
Not to mention, the differences between 1901 and today, are greater than ancient Rome amd 1901. This is a different UNIVERSE economically, technologically, morally, politically, socially, and yes, genetically, than 1901.
Perhaps the single biggest difference is the cost of the field itself. Shibe Park in Philadelphia which was the FIRST modern park, opened up in 1909 and COST $500,000. By comparison, Citizens Bank Park opened up in 2004, and cost $346 MILLION. Does anyone expect to design and fund 30 more stadiums at that price (Let alone, the New Yankee Stadium which costs over a BILLION)?
If that price cannot or will not be met (For whatever reason), or find a new home (Like the Montreal Expos), then franchises should be contracted, to strengthen the overall product.

Januz, while contraction MIGHT be an outside possibility I just don't see the A's being the second team to go down with the Marlins. If anything it'll be Tampa Bay. The A's have several other options already on the table for a stadium, an over 100 year history with the league, a fanbase that does come out to see a good team, and a local owner who has shown no indication in a loss of interest to the team.

Tampa on the other hand is a history-less franchise, owned by a NYC investor, that has never had any appreciable fan base or attendance and has suffered a setback not unlike the Marlins in their stadium search with few other stadium prospects on the horizon.

I mean consider, Tampa's attendance was 25th of 30 teams, one spot above Oakland's. Difference was Oakland was having their worst season in over 25 years, while Tampa made the World Series. Which team do you think they'll contract first ;)

Januz, my point is that due to the antitrust exemption that MLB enjoys, they are allowed to limit competition. As a result, this scarcity allows team owners to raise ticket prices, curry favorable media deals, and designate territories for franchises (which is the stumbling block of the A's relocating to San Jose, which has been designated as Giants territory).

There is plenty of baseball talent out there for more than 30 teams. Close to one third of major league rosters are composed of players born outside the United States. Add that to the increased population of the U.S. over the past century and its clear more teams would be around if MLB wasn't given the power to restrict entry. Obviously, it is to the benefit of the owners to restrict competition for it drives up the value of their franchises.

As far as the price of stadiums go, I would need to know the adjusted inflation rate to equate today's price to earlier stadiums. That said, there was no reason for the Phillies' ballpark to cost what it did. Owners want all the bells and whistles with new stadiums, which invariably drives the cost much higher.

"worst season in over 25 years"??????????????

random look in the in 90's ... '93 = 68 wins, '95 = 67 wins, '97 = 65 wins ... these are worse than the 75 wins last year aren't they???????????

oakland was 27th, not 26th in home attendance ...

can't believe how you distort FACTS to try to prove your lame points.

CONTRACT THE a's !!!!!

Januz, my point is that due to the antitrust exemption that MLB enjoys, they are allowed to limit competition. As a result, this scarcity allows team owners to raise ticket prices, curry favorable media deals, and designate territories for franchises (which is the stumbling block of the A's relocating to San Jose, which has been designated as Giants territory).

There is plenty of baseball talent out there for more than 30 teams. Close to one third of major league rosters are composed of players born outside the United States. Add that to the increased population of the U.S. over the past century and its clear more teams would be around if MLB wasn't given the power to restrict entry. Obviously, it is to the benefit of the owners to restrict competition for it drives up the value of their franchises.

As far as the price of stadiums go, I would need to know the adjusted inflation rate to equate today's price to earlier stadiums. That said, there was no reason for the Phillies' ballpark to cost what it did. Owners want all the bells and whistles with new stadiums, which invariably drives the cost much higher.

I am the first one to agree with you about the history of the A's, and the attendance in Tampa. But the point is that the lease in Tampa is not going to expire (Unlike Oakland). So the MLB does not have to worry about where Tampa will be playing.
I am sure that Wolff, will try and move the franchise to San Jose, but if he gets the same treatment he received in Fremont, then what? Does anyone think, he will want to lose $24 million again? In addition, does anyone actually think the City of Oakland, will tolerate losing the A's and Raiders. Or will they try and make a deal with Al Davis? If anyone thinks they don't care about the Raiders, think about "Mt. Davis" sometime.
With the bad economy, the opportunity to deal with negative situations thru contraction (Such as with the Marlins & A's) is never better.

Horace,
While I got their positions one off, Tampa was 26th, A's were 27th. My point still stands.

George, adjusted inflation rates, are just one factor that has to be calculated when looking at stadium costs. Environmental impact, construction issues (Particularly in the Bay Area, due to earthquake threats), wages, taxes, value of the dollar, lending difficulties, politics, location, legal issues (See Atlantic Yards) and land values are just a few factors that must be considered when deciding to build a stadium.
To be honest, ballparks are competing with the TV and other entertainment choices for dollars. So the "Bells & Whistles" are a necessary evil, to get people to spend money at the park (Particularly in a poor economic environment (Like in California with a 9.3% unemployment rate)).
Every sport has a limit on the amount of teams, that limit is determined by the free market. Too much competition is no better than too little, because the quality and interest is lessened. I can tell you, as a Yankee fan, I have more interest in 19 games against Boston, than seeing games against the Texas Rangers or Kansas City Royals. Even in Oakland, games against the Red Sox or Yankees, bring in more fans than say the Rangers or Royals. So if you cut those games against the Yankees and Sox, for new teams, who loses? Oakland.

And, of course, there's talk of moving the A's to Sacramento... And moving teams is preferable to closing them...

But I think Sacramento is a flat-out, full-throttle stupid idea. First off, Raley Field is not in Sacramento -- it's in West Sacramento, Yolo County. Only a few yards away, but it's not in Sac.

Yolo is too small, and all these counties in California are in trouble financially.

Traffic would be a nightmare.

And I doubt Raley Field could be modified to seat 40k or so; I think the first thing you'd do is bulldoze.

Not to mention the size of the TV market and the relatively small population of the West Sacramento area.

I remember a while back someone calculating what it would cost to rebuild Wrigley Field from scratch. The estimate came to around $75 million, as I recall. In mid-'90s dollars, but still.

Meanwhile, I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Expiring leases are a straw man. I can't imagine the city of Oakland would deliberately kick the A's out, and to be honest I have a hard time seeing Huizenga doing it to the Marlins either, though I imagine the negotiations for a lease extension would be pretty heated. If the teams want to stay, they can stay - the question is whether they'd want to, or whether they have a better option.

I think you're going to see the A's play footsie with San Jose and Sacramento while continuing to talk with Oakland, and the Marlins do a full-out Stadium Extortion Tour as they did a couple of years back. Assuming the city commission doesn't cave, mind you, which after the D.C. experience always has to be considered a possibility.

One of the factors I did not get into is the prospect of BOTH personal and corporate tax rates increasing in the country. This will really hurt sports teams owners (Because of their wealth). Regardless of if you are for or against it (Like I am), the point is, it is happening. If I am a guy like Wolff who already lost $24 million in Fremont, at what point, does owning the A's becoming counterproductive? I can't answer that question, but I have a 100% certainity that Wolff and every other sports team owner thinks about it everyday (Even the Steinbrenners who have their stadium built).
I feel pretty certain that Sacramento is NOT building anything for the A's (That pie in the sky plan for the Kings is not even going to be considered until AFTER the recession end (Which of course, no one knows)). That leaves San Jose, I can see all the "Code Pink", ACORN and other pressure groups preventing anything from being built, on the grounds of hurting "The Poor" " The Homeless" etc.
The Marlins case is even more clear, ownership is not staying in an area, when even getting an average of 20,000 per game is a lot.

your point still stands????????????

that the a's had their worst season in 25 years last year????? and that was the reason for the lousy attendance over the past 6 years????

check the FACTS my man!!!!

distortion over facts, that's the way wolff does it so I guess it's ok for you!!!!

Again I suggest you check your facts. The A's have actually had some very good attendance years in the last 6 years. In fact if I were to list them...:

2000 - 1.7 million (23rd of 30)
2001 - 2.1 million (19th of 30)
2002 - 2.1 million (18th of 30)
2003 - 2.2 million (16th of 30)
2004 - 2.2 million (19th of 30)
2005 - 2.1 million (19th of 30)
2006 - 2 million (26th of 30)
2007 - 1.9 million (26th of 30)
2008 - 1.6 million (26th of 30)

You'll notice where they peak and where they started to drop off, after the 2005 season where their performance slipped and when they started threatening to leave Oakland and their on field performance started to falter. And you're right, they're only at their worst on field in about 10 years. My mistake.

But if they field a winning team, magically the fans come back not unlike the 2000 to 2001 seasons. Also repairing the damage the aborted Fremont move did would help as well (unless of course they're serious about San Jose).

And as for the lease at the Coliseum, I doubt it would be any harder to negotiate a new lease this time than it was last time (as in it wasn't hard at all). So the A's stadium situation, while not ideal, is actually quite stable. Plus in many ways it is superior to some other franchises like Pittsburgh and San Francisco in that the A's aren't saddled in a very depressed economy with massive debts to repay on their newly constructed stadiums that aren't selling out. The A's may play in an old multipurpose mausoleum, but it's a cheap to rent old multipurpose mausoleum.

Dan, do you really believe that the A's are superior to the Giants in terms of economic viability of the franchise? Yes they have debt associated with the ballpark but they have a huge fanbase, a fantastic ballpark and loads of new revenue coming in by way of their Comcast partnership.

Man o Man, come on.

You're putting words in my mouth. If you re-read what I wrote I'm only talking stadium situations. I know the Giants have a bigger fanbase, and their deal with Comcast is better than the A's new deal with Comcast. But no matter how fantastic the Giants stadium is, it's also a huge expense for them right now as they continue pay it off especially while their attendance has been in a steady decline in the last several seasons.

Dan, no wonder folks accuse you of distorting the facts.

Giants attendance in the last several seasons:

'05 - 3.2M
'06 - 3.1M
'07 - 3.2M
'08 - 2.9M

Last season declined but was the first one ... "steady decline?"

Again, in your words, the A's stadium situation is better than the Giants? Again, come on!!!

If it's so much better than why in the hell is Wolff trying like crazy to get out of it?

If you're indicative of typical A's fans, no wonder they have the reputation that they do ... massive inferiority complex.

Wow!

Can you blame us, people are telling us our team should be contracted. Of course we have an inferiority complex. Luckily it's never extended to the field. How's that hunt for a world championship coming over in San Francisco ;)

If teams should be contracted, it should be in either the NBA or NHL. In both of those cases, teams are losing money at a horrific rate. Grand Forks North Dakota, at a population of 54,000, could support an NHL team better than either Nashville, Atlanta, or Florida.

In the NBA, get ready to say goodbye to the Clippers and Suns simply because both teams could be in major trouble. Even the Nets could be sent packing if the Atlantic Yards plan fails.

As for baseball, both the A's and Marlins are safe. For one, I can see Mark Cuban buying the A's in a fire sale and moving them to Dallas or San Antonio. Meanwhile, the Marlins could end up in Orlando if things don't go as planned on Friday. Heck, the Marlins could move to New York and become the NL's New York Whalers playing at old Yankee Stadium for about 4 years and Hank Steinbrenner can't do a thing about it unless the new stadium is destroyed or until the new stadium on Coney Island is finished. New York can support three teams and that has been proven in the past.

I just want to clearify one thing. The reason why I say that Grand Forks North Dakota can support a NHL Hockey team is because the economy is not as bad in North Dakota, and Eastern North Dakota is a hockey hotbed. If you add the rest of the state, South Dakota, and Western Minnesota, that should be a big enough fan base for the team.

I am no fan of either San Francisco or Oakland (I am a Yankee fan), so I can be objective. Oakland can support the team if all things are equal (Including outdrawing them by 7,000 in 1989, when BOTH teams were in the World Series). But the point is, sad to say, things are NOT equal. The Giants are in a modern facility, and the A's play in a facility that is the WORST for baseball, this side of Dolphins Stadium. The probability is this will not change soon (If ever). I remember when the Giants wanted a new stadium, and even though they footed the entire bill, many interest groups opposed even that (And the economy was good back then). I can imagine how difficult these groups would make things for the A's (Even if they also agreed to foot the entire bill)?
That is a major reason, why I believe Oakland should be contracted. I do not think they can overcome local opposition (See Fremont and the tree huggers in Berkeley who stayed in trees for over a year, to prevent them from being cut down, in order to expand and renovate the stadium (Although they finally got them out)).
The NHL & NBA are different animals. Places like Kansas City and Pittsburgh have (Or will have facilities available very soon). There is no new place for the Marlins and most likely, the A's to go to. So it is probably new local facilities, staying put (And maybe eventually b/k), or contraction. Contraction looks good to me.

Bill Simmons of ESPN touched on the NHL and NBA situation. He imagines that we may be on the brink of a new age of NBA relocation. Interesting read: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090227

Highlights:
"...of all the wildest predictions I heard in Phoenix, the craziest came from a connected executive who predicted that fifteen NHL teams would go under within the next two years (and was dead serious)"

"Looking at the next 15 months only, the consensus of people in the know was that multiple NBA franchises (guesses ranged from three to eight) will move cities, get sold to new owners or throw themselves on the mercy of the league (meaning the NBA would effectively take over operations of that franchise, kinda like what happens in the MLS or WNBA)"

"...cities with NBA-ready, modern arenas either finished or about to be finished that would love nothing more than stealing a team. Definitely Kansas City, Anaheim, San Jose, Louisville, Tulsa and Pittsburgh; possibly Columbus, St. Louis; and just for fun, let's throw in Montreal and London."

Um, Jessy? Dallas already has a team. And the old Yankee Stadium demolition is currently scheduled to begin this summer.

Other than that, your speculation is no wilder than anyone else's.

We can speculate about franchise relocations all we want. But the fact of the matter is that it is all insane to the average fan who has invested his emotional time to the team and now is left without a team to root for.

I can't imagine what is it like to be a fan of the following: Hartford Whalers, Charlotte Hornets, Quebec Nordiques, Montreal Expos, New Orleans Jazz, Cleveland Browns (the first one), Brooklyn Dodgers, Philadelphia Athletics, Winnipeg Jets, Minneapolis Lakers, Baltimore Colts and any other club that left its original city. The point of the matter is that the city where the team started its existence and began playing OUGHT TO MATTER! Those clubs I mentioned reflected a big part of what those cities wanted to present to the world, so much so that the nicknames reflected that.

I can now say that after 100+ years of comparing the league systems in both North America and Britain/Europe, that the system adopted in Britain/Europe is far superior to the one in use in North America. It is because Congress has allowed certain connected groups to determine who is and is not allowed to enter teams in professional sports that owners can pull the strings of the average fans, threatening to relocate as a way of leveraging expensive new stadia with tickets prices high for less-than-ideal views. I think the time has now come to open the floodgates. Let the Hamilton, Ontarios enter their own teams and compete if they so wish. Let the teams that play better keep their places in the highest level and let those who tank go down to the next level until they improve their performance. I think that sports like basketball and hockey are ripe for this experiment to take place. Territorial rights be damned. Real pro-freedom sports. Real competition. Let the colleges enter their own pro teams if they want as well.

Pro sports are going to have to learn these two words: Open system

Constant relocation threats and actual relocation just aren't sustainable. If people stop investing so much emotional input into these sports teams and start treating them as just another entertainment option then look out!

The British and Europeans do it better! Promotion/relegation. Clubs that are in the given communities for 100+ years. Clubs that are actually...clubs and not franchises, like we have here.

Januz,
While you are correct the bay area is a harder place to build a stadium, your characterization of using Berkeley isn't entirely accurate. Most people in the Bay Area consider Berkeley extreme, and most people in Berkeley considered those nutjobs in the trees extreme (people in SF were calling for them to be fire-hosed off the trees at various times etc...). So your comparison would only MAYBE be valid if the A's were trying to build in Berkeley.

San Jose for example might have some issues with a publicly funded stadium, which would have to come up for a vote to see if the city would provide any public money in any case (which may or may not pass). But I seriously doubt you'll find too much opposition beyond possibly some NIMBY's for a privately financed stadium in San Jose. Proof of both can be found in that the SJ Arena was built in the 90's with public money after a citywide vote and that the privately financed San Jose Earthquakes stadium is well on its way with little to no opposition.

Dean, I am not sure that Berkeley is that far left of San Francisco (Berkeley's Mayor referred to the "Marines As An Occupying Force" (He also supported the tree huggers), and the San Francisco Board Of Supervisors stopped a USS Missouri museum (Diane Feinstein (Hardly Ronald Reagan), said "This is not the San Francisco I knew"). Both cities are clearly anti-military). Throw in Comrade oops Mayor Ronald Dellums of Oakland, and you see the differences (If any), are very small.
I hope you are right, and the San Jose option is available (I defer to you, on knowledge of SJ, because I am not from that part of the country). But I know darn well, that the pressure groups/NIMBY's will do all they can to stop it, and as we have seen in Fremont and Santa Clara (Niners), they are very successful.
The selling points for the A's, are of course, the Sharks (The Stanley Cup favorite), and the renovated Stanford Stadium (Which was done under the radar), and that, along with the right coach (Jim Harbaugh), has given Stanford a top 20 recruiting class (Which MUST qualify as a MAJOR success). So interest in Bay Area Sports can be generated under the right circumstances. But the questions about the opposition groups, financing, and location, still remain.
Finally, it will require a lot of guts, political will, and a solid business plan for the A's to get to SJ. If not, the consolidation plan remains a viable alternative.

word.