This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
March 30, 2010
Blogger: MLB report will send A's to San Jose
This barely rises to the level of rumor, but: Former Oakland city economic advisor-turned-San Francisco Chronicle blogger Zennie Abraham reports this morning that Bud Selig's Oakland A's stadium commission will report back within three days, and will recommend that the team be moved to San Jose.
Abraham's source? "A source." No indication even of whether this source is "close to the negotiations" or anything, as Abraham spends most of his blog item arguing that moving the A's would be a mistake, given their "Worldwide" fan base. (Which would make sense, as the franchise has already played just about everywhere in the world.)
That Selig's Gang of Three would recommend San Jose as an A's destination, if true, wouldn't be surprising, given its further-ahead stadium deal and relatively untapped market; the bigger question remains what price Selig will make A's owner Lew Wolff have to pay to the San Francisco Giants if he wants to get a deal done. Is Rob Neyer right that the commission report won't be released until Selig has worked out a deal acceptable to all parties? We could maybe find out this week — unless, as Abraham insists, "MLB elects to delay the release of the report after this blog post." It takes a clever blogger to take credit for predicting things that don't happen...
Wow Neil, you must've pissed Zennie Abraham off. He dedicated an entire article after the one you link to, to bashing Field of Schemes and yourself.
Posted by Dan on March 30, 2010 05:01 PM
Yeah, I was thinking of posting a comment there, but SFGate won't let me register for some reason:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=60225
Needless to say, the operative word above is "relatively" untapped — South Bay residents do go to Giants games, but not in the same numbers they would if they had a team in San Jose. Not that necessarily makes a San Jose move a win for the A's — as I've written here many times, they'd still have to both pay off the Giants and pay for building a stadium — but that's not MLB's problem.
Posted by Neil on March 30, 2010 05:15 PM
Oh, now it's letting me register. Must be the time difference.
Posted by Neil on March 30, 2010 05:16 PM
Well if it's any consolation he's been debunked by his own paper/website (at least for now since it's always possible MLB is putting out disinformation as a cover in response to Abraham).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/athletics/detail?entry_id=60216>a=commentslistpos
Posted by Dan on March 30, 2010 05:57 PM
Just for the record Neil,
South Bay residents who go to Giants games ARE GIANTS FANS! And they will continue to go to Giants games regardless of if the A's are in San Jose or not; it's called fan loyalty. Could things change over a generation or two? Perhaps. But the same will probably happen with A's fans in Oakland and the North Bay as well, as the Giants will now be more convenient to them. Also for the record, IT IS MLB's problem as it relates to compensation for the Giants, and it won't be the "extortion" you are always describing. Again, what's in the best interest of ALL of MLB; not just the Giants. Peace.
somebody had better have a really big pot of money, because San Jose is a hundred million in the hole this year, and has a chance at declaring bankruptcy in the next couple of years.
Posted by ballfifteen on March 30, 2010 07:51 PM
What city isn't in financial trouble right now. Many of the states are, many cities are, hell many countries are. The entire financial system is teetering on the edge unless you're a big corporation.
Posted by Dan on March 30, 2010 08:11 PM
Well the difference here Neil is that Wolff will pay for the stadium himself with the naming rights agreement for Cisco Field and he is planning to build the Earthquakes stadium in San Jose. It makes sense for all parties involved and they can just look to the Orioles/Nationals deal for a fee and add inflation to it. Now all MLB has to do is get the Rays moved to Tampa, FL and the preferred site.
Posted by Bay Area on March 30, 2010 09:51 PM
Umm... naming rights isn't going to pay for a stadium by itself, and the Orioles/Nats deal was over TV rights only, not territorial rights. If it were otherwise, I agree, the A's would already be in San Jose by now, but it's not.
Posted by Neil on March 30, 2010 11:06 PM
I'd be very concerned if i was a SJ taxpayer and voter about this deal. Wolff has historically hid the details of his deals and has yet to reveal how he intends to do this. also from the San Jose EIR
"It is anticipated that the City Council will place a ballot measure before the San Jos� electorate regarding the use of public funds for construction of a stadium. Pursuant to provisions of the San Jos� Municipal Code, the City may utilize tax dollars to participate in the building of the stadium only after obtaining a majority vote of the electorate approving that expenditure"
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/eir/Ballpark_PP05-214/Draft_SEIR_MainDoc.pdf
Posted by A'sObserver on March 31, 2010 12:52 AM
I'd be very concerned if i was a SJ taxpayer and voter about this deal. Wolff has historically hid the details of his deals and has yet to reveal how he intends to do this. also from the San Jose EIR
"It is anticipated that the City Council will place a ballot measure before the San Jos� electorate regarding the use of public funds for construction of a stadium. Pursuant to provisions of the San Jos� Municipal Code, the City may utilize tax dollars to participate in the building of the stadium only after obtaining a majority vote of the electorate approving that expenditure"
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/eir/Ballpark_PP05-214/Draft_SEIR_MainDoc.pdf
Posted by A'sObserver on March 31, 2010 12:52 AM
I wouldn't be. If public funds are to be used it will be going before the electorate. As it is the city and the team have stated that only private funds would be used but that it would still likely go before the electorate. Either way San Jose's voters get their say. There's little to be concerned about unless you fear the democratic process.
Posted by Dan on March 31, 2010 01:16 AM
There will be 'public funds' used, but they will be redevelopment funds, which can only be used for redevelopment anyways. The Public Contribution will likely take the form of the land the ballpark will be built on, and infrastructure improvements around the area the stadium would be built, which arguably would need to be done anyways in preparation for the High Speed Rail and BART stations that are planned/being built there.
Posted by Zonis on March 31, 2010 03:00 PM
You ought to be concerned, even if it is going before the electorate. I say that because of the disinformation campaign the 49ers are waging in Santa Clara. The same thing will happen in San Jose if the public gets a vote. You'd have to be a registered voter in Santa Clara to get all of the misleading garbage in the mail from the 49ers and deal with the misleading information published in the Santa Clara Weekly - see today's Milestones, in which the owner of the paper states that the Stadium Authority is a joint agency between the city and the 49ers, the 49ers are responsible for all of the Stadium Authority's debt, and the 49ers will cover all operational losses. None of that is true, but the 49ers sure are promoting that disinformation. They can say whatever they want in the campaign because of freedom of speech.
I wouldn't wish this type of a campaign on San Jose.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on April 1, 2010 03:16 AM
Difference is SCT that other than infrastructure upgrades, most of which would be needed anyway due to the new BART and HSR station, there isn't any public money going into the SJ stadium. Sure the city will hide the fact it's been buying land for the stadium to sit on for years, but fact is the land will still be owned by the city, so it's not like they'll be giving it to the A's. Please don't let the situation in Santa Clara blind you to the reality that the situation in San Jose is FAR different than the snow job being sold to Santa Clarans.
Posted by Dan on April 2, 2010 07:17 PM
It's actually the same snow job, although the dollar amounts are different - as well as the pockets that are being picked.
And to rationalize a loser like a San Jose ballpark by claiming that it will be complemented by High-Speed Rail is the height of foolishness. With State finances in the shape they are in, there is no way that we'll be able to afford the debt service on the HSR bonds. Nasty little secret: Prop 1A was sold to CA voters on the claim that we'd be done after $9.6B was blown, and another $9.3B in debt service was paid - now, come to find out that HSR can't be completed for much less than $43B. The HSR people will back, hands out for more money, over and over again. HSR will never be any kind of an ornament for a baseball park in San Jose. Not gonna happen.
(What you're really saying is that someone's actually going to blow several hundred dollars in trainfare to watch an A's game in San Jose. They aren't.)
Overall: It's a logically deficient way to justify a bad decision on a ballpark in San Jose. Sorry. Just doesn't work.
Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org
-=0=-