Phoneyball.

I think Peter Magowan would be more helpful in getting the A's a new stadium than Selig would. What if the A's played at Pac Bell as well? What's the history of two teams sharing a baseball ballpark?

There's quite a bit of such history, usually just for short stretches, Mike. But I don't understand the thrust of your post. Wouldn't McGowan's advice to the A's be, "build it with your own money"? I'm not sure that's the kind of help Schott's looking for.

If memory serves me, the yanks played at Shea for a summer during reconstruction of yank stadium, - 1976 maybe? I believe the Sox and Cubs shared wrigley for a few years - though maybe I'm thinking of the Bears and Cubs

The Cardinals were tennants of the Browns at Sportsmans Park for decades, no? I think that might be the only non-temporary case.

Yanks played at the Polo grounds for a while too. They didn't get thrown out until the Giants wanted to be able to play more Sunday games at home.

The powers that be in the East Bay don't trust Schott & Hoffman. And they sure don't trust Selig. Heck, neither do the fans.

The A's make a profit every year, and make the playoffs every year. How much more success could you possibly want???

The Yankees played at Shea in 1974 and 1975.

The Cubs and White Sox have always played in different parks.

He has to say this if he wants any chance of getting a stadium, however remote. He probably can't afford to build one himself, either, at least not without accumulating enough debt that the team *wouldn't* be able to remain this strong. But the A's have increased their payroll and attendence in each of the last four years, and I see no reason to doubt that that trend could continue, as long as Schott makes his target profit-- he seems to funnel the rest into the team. I get the impression that fans in the Bay Area are pretty fed-up with the Giants makeshift 2004 roster, too, which can only help the A's latch on to "transient" fans for awhile. I know from personal experience that northern California has more people who switch between the Giants and A's depending on who's good at the time than most two-team regions.

This is all in reference to the South Bay rights issue. Schott isn't lobbying Selig for money or support to build a new stadium, but to clear the way for the A's to be in San jose or Santa Clara.

Yes, but it's still all about a new stadium anyway. Suppose the A's gained the terriotorial rights to the South Bay: where are they going to play? A new stadium will still need to be built anyway, and taxpayer-funded stadium initiatives have failed in both San Jose and Santa Clara in recent years. If Schott doesn't come up with a private financing plan (and there's no evidence he's attempting to), it still comes down to yet another attempt to persuade the public sector to pony up. Living here, I frankly don't see the politics of that changing into the A's favor.

So basically I see all of this as much ado about nothing. What we know for certain is that the A's are very dissatisfied with their current stadium. What no one has is any kind of a realistic plan or strategy to do anything about it.

In his heart Macgowan wants the A's to contract, move, or otherwise dissappear.

But his debt service (and post-Barry attendance dropoff) might make him more pragmatic in re: leasing to the A's.

I think the assumption that the A's would be willing to share Pac Bell is questionable. I think a lot of the A's fan base these days revel in their working-class East Bay-ness, and I can't see them at the Big Phone eating garlic fries and buying $8 beers. The A's would have to turn over their fan base and end up with more of the SF/South Bay/Marin fans who go to Giants games at Pac Bell, which is a gamble IMO. Also, I doubt Magowan will give them a sweetheart deal, meaning the downside to that gamble is pretty big.

dmunk: I was only talking about Macgowan's willingness, not the A's.

I agree that the A's fan base does revel in its blue collar image (I count myself among them, I'm a left field bleacher bum). A good portion of them wouldn't cross the Bay as you suggest. But we are a dedicated lot and I think many would do so.

And BTW, Garlic fries sell pretty well at the 'Net even though there's only 1 booth that has them. And the beers are already $7.50....

I agree that the A's fan base does revel in its blue collar image (I count myself among them, I'm a left field bleacher bum). A good portion of them wouldn't cross the Bay as you suggest. But we are a dedicated lot and I think many would do so.

Indeed, and I think the pretentious "I'm wurkin' class, mun" image would go away pretty quickly if Schott made it known that it's either Pac Bell or Sacramento.

Sacramento really isn't an option... they'd completely lose the south bay, since it's only about an hour and a half from the east bay or the city, but driving through all that tacks on at least another hour of you drive up from San Jose. There's not nearly enough population north of Sacramento to offset that.

Traderdave- agreed, and good points about the fries and the beers. I grew up in the East Bay, and when I go to visit now, I get the impression from talking to A's fans that there's an Us vs. Them mentality. I don't feel like A's fans wouldn't be loyal enough to cross the Bridge, I just think there would be a sense of revulsion at going to the place where The Other Guys play.

As a Giants fan, I'd be all for an arrangement like this so ownership could loosen the pursestrings. It would also be great to know that any time I go home to visit, I'm assured of having a ballgame to go to (one team would virtually always have to be home to get in 162 home games between the two teams).

Flynn:

On a tangent, a good chunk of the bleacher crowd is from Sacramnto. I know of a few who make that drive 50+ times a year.

Boggles the mind...

The A's have lost and will continue to lose their best players, and they will be replaced with inferior, cheaper models, because they can not afford to keep the top guys. Is anybody willing to ######## that it's not true?

Sure, I'll take the bait.

Why can't the A's afford to keep their best players? Because their best players aren't merely good, they are outstanding. Tejada left after a MVP season; Giambi left a year after his. They're now two of the 15 or so highest-paid players in the game.

What other team has had two players like that who became FAs in consecutive years and managed to keep both? To keep one? The Mariners dealt Johnson, dealt Griffey and let A-Rod walk. The Rangers dealt Gonzalez and let Rodriguez walk. The Indians let Belle walk, let Ramirez walk and then let Thome walk. Apart from the Yankees and Red Sox, who are exceptions to every fiscal rule, *NO* team can afford to keep around multiple MVP-caliber players after their arb-eligibility periods.

In other words, the A's are in a sense victims of their own success. This past off-season, they essentially had to choose between Tejada and Chavez, and chose the latter. If they didn't have Chavez and had signed Tejada with the $66M they instead allocated that to EC, they wouldn't be "losing" as many great players -- but they would be retaining the same number.

That's one of the points of free agency, after all: teams cannot indefinitely retain the services of top talent as they could with the reserve clause. They have to decide where to allocate their resources, and they have to accept the fact that a dynasty of young players will eventually split up and go elsewhere (again, unless it's the Yankees).

On a tangent: I'm considering Boalt Hall (Berkeley) for law school in the fall. How convenient are Pac Bell and the Coliseum from the Berkeley area via public transportation? What are the typical ticket prices?

I've said many times that I think in the long run Sacramento is the best option for the A's.

Moving to the South Bay wouldn't solve their fundamental problem, which is sharing the immediate Bay Area fan base with the Giants, who have all the advantages. Whether they play in Oakland or San Jose, they're still slicing up the same size pie, and the Giants have the bigger knife.

Yes, moving to Sacramento would sacrifice the South Bay to the Giants, but the A's would be able to retain their Pleasanton/Walnut Creek Contra Costa base, and get all of the rapidly-growing northern Central Valley to boot. If they were based in Sacramento and marketed themselves as a regional franchise (as the Rockies or Cardinals do), cultivating fans in Reno and Fresno and Chico, I think their long-term viability would be pretty solid.

re: transit

Pac Bell: easy. Take BART to downtown SF, walk 3 blocks

A little self-interested there, Steve? :)

Moving to the South Bay wouldn't solve their fundamental problem, which is sharing the immediate Bay Area fan base with the Giants, who have all the advantages. Whether they play in Oakland or San Jose, they're still slicing up the same size pie, and the Giants have the bigger knife.

The Giants don't have all the advantages at all. The A's have outdrawn the Giants since their arrival in the Bay Area. The Giants have three large advantages.

1) Pac Bell

The A's have outdrawn the Giants since their arrival in the Bay Area.

Well, come on, Danny, that's kind of a careful cherry-picking of the data. The A's consistently outdrew the Giants in the 1980s, when they had better ballclubs and a better ballpark than the Giants. But the A's haven't matched the Giants' attendance since the early 90s, long before Pac Bell was on the scene.

And ballpark attendance is only part of the revenue stream; the Giants dwarf the A's in merchandising revenue and media revenue. Giants' TV and radio broadcasts draw vastly larger audiences.

Certainly, the Giants are at a high point right now, with Pac Bell being new and Bonds still active. Certainly things can change. But the geographic and cultural advantage of being based in San Francisco is real and lasting, and the larger media-driven fan base creates allegiances that won't quickly change. There certainly is room for two successful franchises in the Bay Area, but to say that they compete on equal footing is just not accurate.

For the A's to give the Giants another true run for their money financially, they will have to build a new ballpark, either in Oakland or the South Bay, that is as attractive as Pac Bell. How likely is this to happen? Under what scenario does it come to pass?

What MLB should think about isn't what's in the best interest of either (or any) individual franchise, but what's in the best interest of the sport in total. And leveraging the totality of the northern California/Reno market, rather than focusing on the immediate Bay Area, makes the most sense for the sport in the long run. The Giants and A's competing for the same fans makes less sense than them expanding to a larger total market.

I once ran the numbers on A's Giants attendance. Since 1968, the A's cumulatively outdrew the Giants through '01. Sometime during '02, the Giants cumulative post 68 draw passed the A's, due mainly of course to Pac Bell.

And the A's record over that time is demonstrably better....

I can't believe no one's pulled this quote out for highlighting yet.

"Selig hasn't been to the Coliseum since Schott bought the A's in 1995"

Unbelieveable. Is it too much to ask that the commish visit each park at least every other year? Especially when one flight could easily mean visiting two parks in two days?

Treder: "But the A's haven't matched the Giants' attendance since the early 90s, long before Pac Bell was on the scene."

Way to pluck some cherries of your own there Steve.

Seasons in which the A's outdrew the Giants:

1970, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992

Seasons in which the Giants outdrew the A's:

1968, 1969, 1971, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1986, 1987, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003

Way to pluck some cherries of your own there Steve.

Actually I would think that focusing on the attendance figures of the most recent 10 years is kind of the opposite of plucking cherries, but is instead concentrating on the most relevant and predictive facts.

Well, come on, Danny, that's kind of a careful cherry-picking of the data.

I wasn't aware that using the whole data set was careful cherry-picking.

The A's consistently outdrew the Giants in the 1980s, when they had better ballclubs and a better ballpark than the Giants. But the A's haven't matched the Giants' attendance since the early 90s, long before Pac Bell was on the scene.

The A's dominated in attendance from the 80s until 1993, when they started to suck. The Giants signed Bonds for 1993, won 103 games, and started drawing more fans. From 1994-1999, a period in which the Giants drastically outplayed the A's, the attendance gap wasn't that large. Over those 6 years, the Giants averaged 20,500 fans per game while the A's averaged 15,200 fanse per game. That looks like a normal cycle where one team in the area is more successful than the other.

Then Pac-Bell was built and the Giants started doubling the A's attendance. It's clear that the Giants were not the "dominant" team in the Bay Area until they got their new park.

Can the A's get a new park in the South Bay despite public votes against it? It's certainly happened elsewhere.

Do the A's not have a viable long term situation in the South Bay? They finished in the upper half of the AL in attendance last year while playing in a shitty park and being outshined by Bonds. I think it's a good bet they'd be at least as successful in the South Bay.

What MLB should think about isn't what's in the best interest of either (or any) individual franchise, but what's in the best interest of the sport in total. And leveraging the totality of the northern California/Reno market, rather than focusing on the immediate Bay Area, makes the most sense for the sport in the long run. The Giants and A's competing for the same fans makes less sense than them expanding to a larger total market.

Ah, now I see your real point. Before, you said "I've said many times that I think in the long run Sacramento is the best option for the A's." But it's clear from your latest post that you're not actually interested in the success of the A's. You're interested in the "success of baseball." That's a noble argument, but it also entails sacrificing success for the A's for success for the Giants.

If the A's moved to Sacramento, the Giants and A's would have more fans overall, but the Giants would increase their fanbase whil the A's would decrease theirs. As a fan of the A's, I don't like that situation at all. Why not move the Giants back to NYC and leave the Bay Area for the A's? Surely it's in the best interest of baseball.

Let's be factual.

The A's dominated in attendance from the 80s until 1993

From 1980 through 1992, the A's average attendance was 23,271. The Giants' was 17,949. The A's superiority was 29.6%

From 1994-1999, a period in which the Giants drastically outplayed the A's, the attendance gap wasn't that large. Over those 6 years, the Giants averaged 20,500 fans per game while the A's averaged 15,200 fanse per game. That looks like a normal cycle where one team in the area is more successful than the other.

That difference (and why you're leaving out 1993, in which the Giants significantly outdrew the A's, is an open question) is 34.9%. Why is it that the A's 30% advantage is "dominating" while the Giants' 35% advantage is "a normal cycle"?

Then Pac-Bell was built and the Giants started doubling the A's attendance.

Except for 2000, the Giants have never "doubled" the A's attendance. Overall for 2000-2003, the Giants have averaged a little over 40,000 a game, the A's a bit under 25,000.

Can the A's get a new park in the South Bay despite public votes against it? It's certainly happened elsewhere.

Yes, it has. Is it going to happen in the South Bay? Please present the realistic scenario.

You're interested in the "success of baseball." That's a noble argument, but it also entails sacrificing success for the A's for success for the Giants.

So what? Objectively, if it's the best thing for MLB, it's the best thing for MLB. And moreover, I'm not at all convinced that moving the A's to Sacramento truly would sacrifice their success at all.

Why not move the Giants back to NYC and leave the Bay Area for the A's? Surely it's in the best interest of baseball.

I fail to see how it would be in the best interest of baseball, but if it were, then MLB should enact it -- regardless of whether I as a Giants' fan would be happy about it.

Practically speaking, objectively speaking, not as a fan of any particular franchise, do you think it is in the best interest of MLB to have the Giants and A's continue to split one very large market, or to expand the total market size?

And why tote up the numbers of years one out-drew the other? Is that not more cherry-picking data so as to appear to serve your arguement? Why is it not more germaine to ask total attendence for the era? Ticket sales represent real dollars coming into a ballclub; no one wins a bonus pot each year for outdrawing the other, so who out-drew who in more years is really immaterial.

Further limiting one's data to short-term may or may not be more relevant. Limiting one's data might also increase the impact of any confounding issues in that data. Now, the value of the data's temporal proximity might out-weigh the detriment any confounding issues, and I think you could make a sound argument to support exactly that, but there's a lot of merit in the longitudinal data here, too.

And with the recent happenings related to budgetary issues in CA I cannot fathom where any person holding elective office could make such a proposal with a straight face.

Precisely, which is why even public funding for a new ballpark in Sacramento would be a real uphill battle -- as it well should be, of course.

But at least in Sacramento, real estate costs would be less than in San Jose or Oakland, and one could make the case with a semi-straight face that developing a major league baseball stadium helps propel the Sacramento area economically. It would still be ########, but it might have a slightly better chance of being swallowed than in the Bay Area.

There is also the easy to overlook fact that the NetAss is a horrible place to watch a game. It was serviceable-to-quite-good in the pre-Mt. Davis days, but since then it's been mortally compromised. The A's and their fans deserve better. (Oakland, however, with it's clueless and malignant bureaucrats, probably doesn't.)

So why are they pleading for Oakland/South Florida to hand over $400 million in corporate welfare? Since it's obviously not about competitiveness, it must be about profits.

Beautifully put, Mr. Brattain.

The irony of all of this is that since it is the case that there is precious little likelihood that a new ballpark is going to be built for the A's in San Jose, Sacramento, or Oakland, the very likely scenario is that the A's will continue, for the forseeable future, to play in the huge-and-dreary Coliseum, much to poor, poor Steve Schott's dismay. You know, that ridiculous joke of a ballpark that has prevented the A's from being able to put competitive teams on the field for so many years now ...

There is also the easy to overlook fact that the NetAss is a horrible place to watch a game. It was serviceable-to-quite-good in the pre-Mt. Davis days, but since then it's been mortally compromised. The A's and their fans deserve better. (Oakland, however, with it's clueless and malignant bureaucrats, probably doesn't.)

As a poor college student, I personally think NetAss is a fantastic place to watch a game. C&CEnterprises; might be interested in this as well, since at $2 a ticket, I can go to every Wednesday games. The empty seats can actually be a good thing, because the A's ushers aren't very thorough (they leave their posts between innings), allowing enterprising folk such as myself to spend $2 to sit along the third-base line. Since there are always a few empty seats, even down low, there isn't much danger of being kicked out by the actual ticketholders - you can just move down to the next row.

Maybe I'm one of the guys with an "us against them" A's fan mentality, but I don't want the A's going anywhere anytime soon, especially if its gonna cost some part of our pathetically-run state a couple hundred million to make it happen.

I'm with #61. My g/f has season tickets to both the A's and Giants, and I actually prefer going to the Coliseum -- the fans are better, the food is cheaper, and the weather is unquestionably superior. Pac^H^H^HSBC Park is a gem, but the ambience leaves me cold.

#37: it's dead easy to get to either park from Berkeley. And Boalt Hall is a fab school, congrats.

'jfb

John, thanks for putting up the link to your blog (and why the hell didn't I see it sooner?). Good stuff. From Sunday 4 April:

When they say: "His teammates claim he's great in the clubhouse."

What they mean is: "His teammates are scared stiff that he'll take a fungo bat to their heads if they diss him in the press."

Carl Everett to the white courtesy phone, please.

But then you had to end with:

P.S. Go Leafs Go.

For that you deserve a damn good thrashing.

/h@bz r00l!!1!

I just read your blog, John -- funny stuff. One handed, too -- right hand working the mouse, left arm cradling my loudly colicky daughter.

Draw your own conclusions....

Damn, North Side, that was a great post.

"What he said."

#68, you make an excellent argument. But I don't want to drive to freakin' Sacramento to see my Twins, dammit!

'jfb

I'd like the A's to stay in Oakland, just because it's cheap baseball and easy to see the Red Sox play once or twice a year.

But Schott (who has more money than Magowan, IIRC) needs to put the pedal to the metal and pay for a new park, or stop whining. Their marketing dept needs to improve too - the ads are funny but it seems no one has realized more games need to be on more radio and TV stations, although getting Hank Greenwald (who has lost a LOT of weight) was a nice PR move.

Schott would be fine with the Coliseum, if it didn't have the Raiders gaining all the lux box revenue. I hate football.

Practically speaking, objectively speaking, not as a fan of any particular franchise, do you think it is in the best interest of MLB to have the Giants and A's continue to split one very large market, or to expand the total market size?

Practically, objectively speaking: I think it's best for baseball to have two teams in the 5th largest media market in the country. By your logic, there's no reason not to move the Mets to Portland or the White Sox to San Antonio, since this would increase the total number of people near a team.

Even if you assume the A's only have 30-40% of the Bay Area market, that's still a better market than any of the alternatives (aside from NY/NJ/DC).

The A's could win 3 world series in a row and they still would not outdraw the Pac Bell Park Giants.

I don't agree with this statement, but I don't see how the A's not outdrawing one of the top 3 teams in the league in terms of attendance is a reason for them to move.

The A's finished 6th in the AL in attendance last year. Their attendance has increased for 5 consecutive years, as has their payroll. Both will increase again this year. The A's, even if they are forced to stay at the NetAss, are better off than almost half of the league.

Practically, objectively speaking: I think it's best for baseball to have two teams in the 5th largest media market in the country.

Well, I agree with this. I think MLB would be better off with more franchises than it currently has. Best of all for MLB would be to have 2 teams in the immediate Bay Area, and one in Sacramento. And another one or perhaps two in NYC. And one in DC, and one in Montreal.

But that really isn't the question we're addressing here. The question here is given the actual A's and Giants franchises in the existing actual Northern California markets, how should they best be deployed to maximize total revenue generation for MLB? I don't see how having 2 teams share 1 market, no matter how large it is, is preferable to having the 2 teams cover not only that market but an additional one as well.

Even if you assume the A's only have 30-40% of the Bay Area market, that's still a better market than any of the alternatives (aside from NY/NJ/DC).

I don't know that this is true, but let's assume it is. Once again you're looking at this solely from the perspective of what's best for the A's, and the question I'm asking is what's best for MLB. If indeed the A's are getting 30-40% of the Bay Area market, that means MLB is getting 100% of the Bay Area market, but only a fraction of the Sacramento/Northern Central Valley market. Putting the A's in Sacramento wouldn't reduce MLB's access to the Bay Area market, and it would add many additional potential customers.

The A's, even if they are forced to stay at the NetAss, are better off than almost half of the league.

Good for them. But again the question for the league (and MLB generally) is how best to increase total revenues. I fail to see how neglecting a new market is a good way to do that.

I think these two statements are contradictory.

1) Best of all for MLB would be to have 2 teams in the immediate Bay Area, and one in Sacramento. And another one or perhaps two in NYC.

and

2) I don't see how having 2 teams share 1 market, no matter how large it is, is preferable to having the 2 teams cover not only that market but an additional one as well.

MLB can always expand to previously untapped markets, even if it means Boise and Waterville. By your second statement, it seems that you think there should never be two teams in New York.

Argh, Danny ... please don't take what I said to its absurd extreme. Sacramento ain't Boise or Waterville.

How about if I put it this way: "I don't see how having 2 teams share the immediate Bay Area market, despite its great size, is preferable to having the 2 teams cover not only the immediate Bay Area but the Sacramento/Northern Central Valley market as well."

How about that?

Are you now able to respond to the content of my query? :-)

I am responding to the content. I think it's better for MLB to have two teams in the Bay Area than 1 in SF and 1 in Sacto.

I don't understand how you can say the A's should move, but not say the Mets and White Sox should move.

I think it's better for MLB to have two teams in the Bay Area than 1 in SF and 1 in Sacto.

Well, then my analysis differs from yours.

I don't understand how you can say the A's should move, but not say the Mets and White Sox should move.

First of all, I never said that the Mets and White Sox shouldn't move. We haven't been discussing them.

Second of all, Chicago and New York are different markets than the Bay Area. Each situation deserves to be assessed individually.

You know that if I were Budzilla, I would have long ago expanded baseball into the new markets while keeping the current teams in the current markets. You know that my optimal solution would be for both the Giants and the A's to stay in the Bay Area, and for a new team to go into Sacramento. I've aleady said that.

But the question at hand remains, given the two teams in the current actual situation, where should they be best deployed to exploit the total Northern California market? My opinion is that moving the A's to Sacramento represents the best long-term approach. Obviously you aren't persuaded by my impeccable powers of logic. Peace. :-)

Steve,

I assure you I'm not intentionally being difficult.

First of all, I never said that the Mets and White Sox shouldn't move. We haven't been discussing them.

I would assume you would take the chance here to say that you think they should move, if that's your position.

I agree that baseball would make more money if they had more teams. I also think they would make more money by having the A's stay in Oakland than by having them move to Sacramento. I think this for the same reason I think MLB is better off with the Mets in NYC than in Portland. Having one team in NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, or the Bay Area would be advantageuous to that one team, but I think a second team maximizes the potential of the market.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree, since I can't imagine what evidence would persuade either of us.

I would assume you would take the chance here to say that you think they should move, if that's your position.

Actually, no, I wouldn't say that. Both Chicago and New York are bigger and better baseball markets than the Bay Area; in NYC's case, vastly bigger. Plus, in neither place is there a natural, obvious place they would move -- as there is for the A's to Sacramento -- that would leverage some of their current fanbase while developing a new one as well.