Making sense of Wolff's latest Coliseum letter

Last Friday, we got the first taste of what could be a long and uncertain process surrounding the A's negotiations with the JPA on the Coliseum lease. The lease expires in less than a year, after the 2013 season.

First, the Los Angeles Times published a story. It said Wolff was looking to extend the lease to 2018. Wolff followed up with a letter describing some of his lease terms. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan also released a statement on her Facebook page, saying she is enthusiastic about keeping the A's in Oakland.

Looking back it, we question how Wolff played this one. But that really isn't new. He has made similar mistakes since buying the team nearly eight years ago. Since then, he frequently has claimed Oakland hasn't presented viable sites, such as in 2006, when he announced his Fremont stadium plans or, in 2009, when Wolff wrote a letter, saying he did not want to "cover old ground" in Oakland. 

Of course, much of what he claimed isn't true. In the past three years alone, Oakland has touted three sites that could work for the A's (Victory Court, Howard Terminal and the Coliseum parking lot), and each time Wolff has refused to work with Oakland officials. He instead has stayed focused on his pipe dream in the South Bay.

As the years have passed by, it has become apparent that a move to the South Bay will not happen. And Wolff and co-owner John Fisher, as a result, have definitely lost some leverage here. As the organization has tried to bend the city and A's fans over a barrel with constant threats to move, the JPA now has the opportunity to make certain demands for a new lease agreement. Nothing wrong with that, is there? Why would there be? It's not personal, Sonny, it's business. And the A's are/have been doing the exact same thing.

Occasionally, Wolff has threatened to move the A's out of the Bay Area or even out of state. But where could the A's go? Remember, that because of the anti-trust exemption that MLB, and only MLB, possesses, a team's owners does NOT have the freedom to just pick up and move, like NBA or NFL owners have. That gives MLB Commissioner Bud Selig more power on franchise relocations than other league commissioners, and he can stop any franchise moves that he doesn't prefer. 

That is why, when Wolff threatens to move the A's in his recent letter, it makes very little sense. Yes, a lease where the A's are forced to cough up a few bucks will impact his precious revenue streams. But any temporary move might negatively affect the A's annual revenue greater than any lease payments, because it will be difficult to find a sweetheart lease more team-friendly than the one the A's have had at the Coliseum for nearly 20 years. Threats of building a temporary structure are empty as well because not only will that cost at least $50 million, it will also need site planning, a time-consuming EIR, etc. And if it's out of the East Bay, it will require MLB approval, which just takes us back to square one.  Even temporary buildings cannot just pop up quickly in a city, that's why there are strict and time-consuming land-use laws in California. Besides, do you really think the notoriously cheap Wolff and Fisher are going to spend that kind of money on a temporry building? They weren't willing to spend a measly extra few million last season, during the team's first pennant race in half a decade. (Remember, they didn't acquire Stephen Drew's big contract for the stretch drive until they dumped Kurt Suzuki's big contract. It was a big roll of the dice to go with a rookie catcher, Derek Norris, to lead four rookie pitchers during a pennant race, but the owners' penny-pinching won out over baseball logic.) 

But we digress ...

As with all contracts, the devil is in the details for  the A's lease agreement talks. We shall wait and see what the two sides can agree upon. But like it or not, Lew is getting close to the point where he is going to have to commit or sell. Either one would be the sensible thing to do. Yet, those are the two possible solutions he quite insensibly is resisting. 

Wolff and Fisher holding the A's hostage

Well, another owners meeting will be held in February and there's no reason to believe anything worthwhile will come out of it regarding the A's stadium situation. It'll be the same as all the others, just as nothing happened at the November meeting. (Unless you count Lew Wolff's daughter's ex-boyfriend writing in support of his hometown and Wolff as "progress.")  

Actually, one thing did happen: Bud Selig dropped an 'F bomb' when sportswriters asked him about the three-person committee studying the A's stadium situation. What did Selig's uncharacteristic public anger signify, if anything?

Ray Ratto wrote that "the A's-to-San Jose topic ... remains a question Selig cannot answer, because Selig hasn't the power to fix it." In other words, if you're Lew Wolff and you're saying it's San Jose or bust, then it's clearly already a bust. 

Even more telling, check out these Nov. 13 Tweets from Howard Bryant, ESPN's national baseball writer, and a former A's beat reporter for the San Jose Mercury News: 

"MLB is not convinced the public money and infrastructure (public trains, etc.) is there in SJ + SJ redevelopment $ is in ?"

Bryant also swatted down any claims that Wolff will just sell or move the team out of state: 

"MLB has stated repeatedly it doesn't like Vegas and the others (San Jose, Portland, San Antonio, Charlotte, Montreal) are all problematic..."

In MLB's eyes, the San Jose plan has some fatal flaws and Wolff will never allowed to move there -- according to Bryant. But he's not the only sportswriter reporting this. In August, during yet another ownership meeting, ESPN.com's Jayson Stark wrote this:

...if it wasn't clear before now, it's more obvious than ever that, in the words of one baseball official, that moving the A's to San Jose is, most likely, "never going to happen."

One sports attorney who has looked into this told Rumblings that the Giants have "a hell of a case" -- centered around a document signed by the commissioner defining their territorial rights to include San Jose. And that's critical, because any move by the A's, or by the sport, to ignore or override those territorial rights could open a messy can of larvae for baseball.

How? Well, if the Giants' territorial rights were suddenly deemed to no longer apply, it could set a precedent that might inspire some other team to attempt to move to New York or Southern California, by arguing the territorial rights of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers and Angels were no longer valid, either.

So if the A's aren't bound for San Jose, what is likely to happen to them? Behind the scenes, baseball people are predicting they'll eventually have to give up on this battle and settle for a new, Pittsburgh-size park in Oakland -- and then do their best to beat up on the Giants in interleague play.

So, there you have it. For the umpteenth time. In just a few months, it will be the 4-year anniversary of the formation of the three-person committee to study the A's stadium situation. That must be the second-worst job in the world. Four years. No progress. And there is the answer to Lew Wolff's stadium question. 

Or to paraphrase a great quote from a Silicon Valley movie: 

"You know you really don't need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this. If you were going to move to San Jose, you would have moved to San Jose."  

Jack London Square revving up, primed for ballpark to anchor it

The Oakland Tribune's George Avalos this week wrote a story of the renaissance going on at Jack London Square. The Square, which for decades has been Oakland's entertainment district, is right next to Howard Terminal, the waterfront site that many believe will one day be the future home of the Oakland A's.

But the news story focuses on the here-and-now of Jack London Square, especially its sizzling scene of new restaurants and taverns. Avalos writes:

"... a developer named (Jim) Ellis has begun to orchestrate a project that could change the face of downtown Oakland ... and transform the waterfront. ...Jack London Square is undergoing a $400 million revival that is bringing to the waterfront new restaurants, entertainment, retail, offices, a hotel and parking."

New companies have moved in, including solar installer Sungevity, and new restaurants such as Bocanova, Hahn's Hibachi, Haven and Miss Pearl's Restaurant & Lounge. The Forge, a pizza and artisan beer establishment, will open next year, Avalos writes. 

"All of the restaurants that we have opened are doing really well," Ellis says in the article. "It's a testament to the emerging dining scene in Oakland."

More new development is planned at Jack London Square, too. Jack London Market -- a public market featuring fruits, vegetables, meat, seafood, coffee, baked goods, cheese and prepared foods -- is expected to be a place to dine and shop. According to the article, "other unfinished business is a site for retail and office space and a 250-room hotel at the east end of the project."

Plus, next year, a new restaurant owner is moving into the Miss Pearl's Jam House space, right next to -- you guessed it -- the Howard Terminal site. Now if only there was some kind of new big project that would anchor all of the new energy and entrepreneurial activity going on at Jack London Square. Like, say, a new A's ballpark. It almost makes too much sense.   

The Facts Have a Pro-Oakland Bias

In the seven years since they bought the team, John Fisher and Lew Wolff have given countless reasons for trying to move the A's out of Oakland. Unfortunately for them, none of their arguments are backed up with facts. Let us count the ways that Fisher and Wolff have been completely wrong:

First, Wolff said frequently that Oakland was "too built up" and that there was not enough available land to accommodate a new ballpark. Not true. In fact, a 2009 study revealed that Oakland has "1,200 acres of vacant or underutilized land."

Next, Wolff often says he needs a new ballpark to pay for all the free agents the new revenue will pay for. But, actually, Wolff is on record saying that once they get a new ballpark, "It will be business as usual. We have a staff, led by [GM] Billy Beane, that is very, very bottom-line oriented. Billy loves doing it that way. Frankly, it’s more fun." In other words, expect the penny-pinching to last just about forever, as long as Wolff remains the owners.

Also, Wolff has repeatedly questioned Oakland's corporate support, saying it's inadequate. This is simply not true. Oakland and the East Bay region have plenty of corporate support to support a new Oakland ballpark. In fact, Blanca Torres of the SF Business Times reports that Oakland's tech business scene is much stronger than people give it credit for. Also, if the South Bay counts companies from towns all over the 650 and 408 area codes, Oakland should be allowed to do the same, drawing corporate support from all over Alameda and Contra Costa counties. For corporations, Oakland and the East Bay have literally dozens, led by Clorox, Chevron, Safeway, Dreyer's Ice Cream, Pandora, Cost-Plus, Pixar, Ask.com, and huge solar companies such as BrightSource and SunGevity. And there are dozens of others.

Wolff also likes to say that the A's can't attract or retain their free agents in Oakland. This also is not true. They re-signed Coco Crisp last year, for instance. The A's also outbid other teams for Cuban star Yoenis Cespedes and only let free agents like Josh Willingham go because the team didn't want to keep him. Willingham wanted to stay. Also,.The Oakland Tribune's Joe Stiglich wrote an article in January that refuted Wolff's and Beane's whining about this. Here's what Stiglich wrote:

"Two agents -- who each have represented major leaguers for many years -- said the A's stadium gets overblown as a factor that's kept many free agents away. What is frustrating for them is that none of them believe that they can win (with the A's)," said one agent, requesting anonymity."   

Also, manager Bob Melvin has done a great job in making the clubhouse fun again, but for more than four years, former manager Bob Geren was so unpopular that he was a major hindrance to attracting free agents, according to former A's players.

Wolff and Billy Beane also have said the A's are losing money in Oakland. But Forbes Magazine -- not exactly an anti-business publication -- says the A's have averaged around $20 million per year in net profit over the past four years. Even sportswriter Ray Ratto called out Wolff and Beane on that issue last year, saying:

The A’s are clearly playing the extort-a-ballpark game yet again ... We’ve never believed that, and we never will. The A’s are deliciously profitable every year because of the revenue sharing pixie. ... Nice try, but the smart folks aren’t buying.

In addition, Wolff and his increasingly desperate apologists like to say that Oakland leaders simply haven't done enough work to keep the A's in town. But that's not true, either. The facts actually reflect that ever since the Haas family sold the team, Oakland leaders have tried time and again to work with the A's. But time and again, Steve Schott and then Lew Wolff stiff-armed Oakland's political and business leaders and have refused to work with them. It's all chronicled and can be found by clicking here.

And that's the short list. There are plenty of other examples of Wolff's, ahem, non-reality. The bottom line is that Wolff keeps giving excuses for his refusal to work with Oakland, but the problem for him has always been that none of what he says is true. In fact, his statements are usually just a simple Google search away from being easily refuted.

Stay tuned, folks. This offseason is about to get even more interesting. Just a hunch.

S.J. Quakes turn to Oakland for corporate support

John Fisher and Lew Wolff like to say Oakland doesn't have the corporate support the A's need, and so, they must move to the more corporate-rich South Bay. Well, let's just chalk that up as yet one more Fisher/Wolff statement that is not backed up by fact. Want proof? Look no further than their MLS team, the San Jose Earthquakes. If there are so many South Bay companies clamoring to give away money for sports sponsorships, then why is one of the Earthquakes main sponsors an Oakland-based corporation? That's right, as the Quakes headed into the MLS playoffs in October, they inked a deal for Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente to be the Quakes' "presenting sponsor for the MLS Cup Playoffs." It's not the first time the San Jose Quakes and Oakland's Kaiser have hooked up. In April, Kaiser Permanente agreed to sponsor the Quakes' Get EQ Fit program, which promotes youth fitness. Kaiser then officially sponsored the team's Health and Wellness Night on May 19 at Buck Shaw Stadium in Santa Clara.

To review, Fisher and Wolff say they "need" to move the Oakland A's to San Jose so the A's can benefit from South Bay companies. But as soon as Fisher and Wolff have a team in the South Bay, their best and most public corporate partnership comes from Oakland and the East Bay. ... Wait, what?

Here's another head-scratcher: If Kaiser is willing to partner with a San Jose sports team, why isn't the Oakland-based company partnering with the Oakland A's? We know that Kaiser has a strong partnership with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, so the Oakland company has no aversion to baseball. In fact, we all know that Kaiser really wants to be an A's corporate sponsor and is working to keep the A's in Oakland. We know that because Kaiser was one of several Oakland companies that joined Clorox CEO Don Knauss to say so publicly last May, when they reached out to Wolff and Fisher.

Hmmm, so you have an Oakland-based corporation offering to be a sponsor for the A's, but the A's owners apparently aren't interested. Yet, when those same owners are running a San Jose team, suddenly that Oakland company's money becomes perfectly fine to partner with. Is there any doubt now why A's fans don't trust Fisher and Wolff? Nothing they say is ever backed up by fact.

You get the point. There is plenty of corporate support in Oakland and the East Bay to support the A's. All the A's owners need to do is pick up the phone and contact them. It'd be easy ... just ask the San Jose Earthquakes.  

Oakland Needs a Willing Partner

As we head in to December, we don't seem to be any closer to a resolution to this standoff than we were four years ago. Lew Wolff is not getting San Jose any time soon, and yet is steadfast in his refusal to acknowledge the A's current city as a solid place to play. We're also coming up on Baseball Oakland's three-year anniversary and we thank each and every one of you for keeping the fight alive.

One of the strongest criticisms of Oakland from its detractors is the lack of a "visible, publicly available plan." But what Wolff, John Fisher and their apologists have never acknowledged is that's quite difficult, if not impossible, to do so without a committed partner. Wolff and Fisher have never worked sincerely with Oakland and, so, their questions on the matter answer themselves. As much as we love this town, MLB owes Oakland absolutely nothing and could have told us to pound sand years ago if we had nothing of substance to bring to the table. So while nothing has been made public, we can pretty much assure you that things are moving behind the scenes. 

Oakland just needs a willing partner. That partner has to be the Oakland A's, and we have every reason to treat the managing general partner of that franchise as a hostile adversary to that process. Ever since he wrote this press release in 2009, can you honestly tell me with a straight face that Wolff is willing to listen to anything in Oakland? San Jose is where he has wanted to go since he bought the team, putting together partnerships and land deals as early as 2004. Oakland could put together a huge complete plan, one that takes into account funding, renderings, transit, environmental issues and everything under the sun but could end up in a position worse off than before if Wolff makes a very public "Hell, no!"  

There is a city where this very same scenario played out:  Sacramento. Sacramento is facing the prospect of losing the Kings like we are with the A's. Like Oakland, they pulled together a grassroots effort called Think Big Sacramento. Think Big had broad support from Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento area businesses, fans and citizens. However, the Maloofs pretty much killed the deal, leaving Sacramento in limbo and Kevin Johnson to declare the project dead. 

People, this is the last thing we need in Oakland. Someone as negatively biased as Wolff and Fisher, who repeatedly say the A's "have no future in Oakland" in order to convince MLB, is not going to listen to anything that Oakland says or does. As much as we want big PowerPoint presentations and pretty pictures, its almost foolish to try and show too much and have it all fall apart. This is chess, not checkers, and Oakland's leaders are playing their hand wisely for the time-being. It has been six years since Lew Wolff declared Oakland done and "tried" in Fremont and, yet, the A's are still here. We will continue to advocate for Oakland and its fans until this is all resolved with the A's staying in their correct home: Oakland.

Oakland's Economy Continues to Heat Up

Oakland continues to be a hotbed of economic activity. The city thrived even in the years after the severe downturn of 2008, when Oakland seemed immune to the terrible national economy. In those years, dozens of new restaurants and bars opened downtown and elsewhere around the city. Now, as the economy continues to show signs of life, new housing and office buildings are planned -- showing how Oakland's economy continues to heat up along with it.

Blanca Torres of the San Francisco Business Times recently reported that developer Seth Hamalian is buying land in Oakland's revitalized Uptown district, where he has plans to build a 28-story housing tower. Hamalian said: "I grew up in Oakland, so I've always been really passionate about its future as a fabulous city."

The tower would be just the latest housing in Uptown's hotter-than-hot neighborhood. As Torres reports:

The site is also a couple of blocks from recent developments including Forest City's 665-unit Uptown apartments, Essex Property Trust’s 104-unit 100 Grand, Signature Development Group’s retail and 132 units of housing at Broadway Grand and Canyon Johnson’s 88-unit Uptown Place, a condo development now selling units.

In the meantime, Uptown keeps creating new bars and restaurants. Fauna opened up last month next to Flora along Telegraph Ave. A few blocks away, Hopscotch opened to rave reviews a few months ago. Other eateries and taverns keep popping up all over town. In Old Oakland, Borgo Italia, a new trattoria, opened at the corner of 9th St. and Washington -- joining the nearby Mexican  eatery, Cosecha Cafe. Also in Old Oakland, Miss Ollie's is getting close to opening, and so is Rosamunde, which has locations in San Francisco and Brooklyn.  

Couple these new developments with the tens of thousands of people who attend Art Murmur each First Friday of the month and you have a thriving arts, food, nightlife and entertainment scene in Oakland. It's a great city that is just getting even better. 

Sell, Baby, Sell

Nov. 1 was an ugly milestone for A's fans. That was the 17th anniversary of when Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann officially became A's owners after acquiring the team from the Haas family. Ever since that autumn day in 1995, A's owners like Schott (and now Lew Wolff and John Fisher) have been threatening to move the team to the South Bay. Yep, loyal Oakland baseball fans have been mistreated by ownership for 17 years.

It would be criminal if they were subjected to an 18th year.

But with Wolff and Fisher at the helm, refusing year in and year out to work with willing Oakland and Alameda County leaders, it appears we're headed in that direction. In March, it will be the four-year anniversary of the creation of the three-person committee that Commissioner Bud Selig put together to study the A's stadium situation.

As of now, it's been three years and eight months since then and still there is no ruling. We understand why people say Selig is a roadblock to the A's progress on a new stadium. But we argue that Wolff is just as much of an obstacle. He refuses to work with the city of Oakland on a new stadium, saying he wants a ruling, even if it's a 'no', before he figures out what he'll do next. What Wolff doesn't seem to get is that nearly four years without an answer is indeed already a 'no' answer.

If the territorial rights to Santa Clara County were a love interest, Wolff long ago would have been arrested for stalking. This uncertainty over the team's future has been a big hindrance to improving attendance -- along with Wolff's and Fisher's refusal to do any sustained marketing and their failure to reach out to the East Bay business community.

Multiple sources have said there are interested well-heeled ownership groups who want to buy the A's and keep them in Oakland at a new waterfront ballpark.Yet, Wolff continues to stubbornly hold on for his years-old pipe dream of moving the franchise to the South Bay.

A's fans deserve better than the uncertainty they've been subjected to for nearly 20 years. Yet, the problem can be solved easily if Wolff and Fisher would only sell the A's. Please sell, guys. It's the right thing to do.
  

September Attendance is a Non-Issue

In September of 1997, when the San Francisco Giants were on their way to winning the National League West division, they had four home games where they drew just 13,100 fans or less. In fact, they had one game -- on Sept. 4 -- where they drew just 8,565 fans.

In the last month of 1998 -- a year after winning the West -- the Giants tied for the Wild Card. And they had seven home games where they drew just 16,795 fans or less. Game attendance bottomed out at 10,160 on Sept. 1, and even on Sept. 23rd -- the season's 158th game -- the Giants drew just 13,915 fans.

The bad attendance in the heat of a pennant race had Giants owners, the media and MLB officials worried that the Giants were making a huge mistake by bankrolling their new downtown ballpark, which was set to open just 18 months after this very disappointing attendance.

Well, we all know how it turned out. Pacific Bell Park opened in 2000 and was (and still is) a huge success. The Giants did a 180 at the box office, drawing 3.3 million fans and winning the NL West.

Why do we care?

Well, as we get ready to post this 30 minutes before the A's first game of the last home stand of the year, we know damn well that Lew Wolff is desperate to badmouth A's fans and to make an issue out of attendance in these last six games. Just look at last weekend in the Big Apple, when instead of trying to sell tickets by talking about how excited he is by the team's surprising success, Wolff just whined to the New York press.

No matter what the attendance numbers are this week, Wolff will try to blame it all on the city of Oakland and loyal A's fans. Problem for Wolff is that his argument is baseless and doesn't hold up. As the Giants owners can tell you, they were getting terrible attendance in September during pennant races right up until their new ballpark opened. 

Wolff can have that in Oakland, too. But he stubbornly refuses to work with Oakland politicians on a new Oakland ballpark. Oakland isn't the obstacle to a new ballpark and sold out crowds. Wolff is. He'll try to make September attendance an issue. It's not. Just ask the Giants. 

A's Attendance History Bodes Well for Oakland's Future Ballpark

Lew Wolff often says attendance in Oakland is partly why he wants to move the A's to the South Bay. Like every other excuse Wolff gives, it doesn't hold up under factual scrutiny. The reason is simple. If San Francisco can take its image as a windblown, flake-filled terrible baseball town and transform it almost overnight into a great baseball city, then certainly Oakland can do the same. Before the Giants moved into Pacific Bell Park (now AT&T Park), their attendance was terrible as they shared the Bay Area market from 1968 to 1999. Meanwhile, A's attendance in Oakland during this period was better than San Francisco's, more often than not.

Oh, we're not saying A's attendance over the years has been perfect. Far from it. But we are definitely saying that the A's attendance, when studied in a larger context, indicates that the A's could match or exceed the Giants' post-2000 success once they move into a new Oakland ballpark. How do we know this? Well, first, the answer definitely is NOT found by looking solely at the A's attendance in a narrow vacuum. No, the answer instead is found by studying the issue in its proper context -- that is, the history of Oakland AND San Francisco attendance -- and by studying the A's and Giants' attendance when nearly all things were equal between the two teams and their similar multi-purpose stadiums. The last time that was the case was from 1968 to 1999 -- pre-AT&T Park. Check it out.

The Giants' attendance from 1968 to 1999 was remarkably awful. For single seasons, the Giants:

• Drew more than 2 million fans only three times.
• Drew above the National League average only once.
• Drew above the National League median only twice.
• Never drew better than 4th among National League teams, and they did that only once.
• Finished in the bottom third among National League teams in 23 of 32 seasons.
• Finished at least third-to-last among National League teams in 15 of 32 seasons.

By comparison, from 1968 to 1999, the A's:

• Drew more than 2 million fans six times. (Twice as many times as the Giants)
• Drew above the American League average six times (Much better than what the Giants did in the National League)
• Drew above the American League median at least seven times. (NOTE: You could argue it occurred nine times, but in two seasons, they're just slightly above the borderline, so to be generous, we'll toss those seasons out. Seven times is still way more than what the Giants achieved in the National League.) 
• Outdrew the Giants 17-15 in those 32 seasons, and outdrew the Giants 17-8 in the first 25 seasons they shared this market.
• Drew 2.9 million fans in 1990, setting a Bay Area single-season attendance record that held for a decade. The New York Yankees did not reach that milestone until 1998, eight years AFTER Oakland accomplished this.

The difference is pretty clear. The A's attendance was much better than the Giants in the 32 years they shared this market, when nearly all things were equal with the teams' multi-purpose stadiums. As a result, San Francisco for decades was considered a terrible baseball town. The old joke was that San Francisco was the only city that would cheer Kruschev and boo Willie Mays. The joke was bolstered by the fact that the Giants (before AT&T Park) rarely made the playoffs and consistently had awful attendance. It's no wonder they almost moved to other cities on several occasions, including 1992, when they were all but gone to Tampa.

What change occurred that allowed San Francisco to transform its image as a baseball town? Just one but crucial element: Ownership.

After the '92 season, unpopular owner Bob Lurie sold the team to an ownership group led by Peter Magowan, who immediately did several things that Lurie never did. Namely, the new owners:

• Announced that they would never leave San Francisco.
• Stopped badmouthing their stadium and Bay Area fans.
• Improved the Candlestick Park experience by serving better food, installing a new bleacher section in left field, playing more day games and having employees pick up food wrappers blown on the field to try to remove the stadium's windblown image.
• Spent money on players and consistently tried to win.
• And marketed their team in ways that showed they had a good feel for their unique fan base.

In short, in a sport that is built almost entirely on nostalgia and tradition, Magowan & Co. rightly concluded that there was no need to throw away more than 40 years of San Francisco baseball nostalgia and tradition. In fact, they decided it was something on which to build. Even though the Giants attendance was mediocre-to-awful right up until they moved into their new ballpark in 2000, the team's owners took a leap of faith and it has paid off beautifully for them.
   
The same thing easily could happen in Oakland. After all, the A's in Oakland were more successful at the box office than the Giants in S.F. during the years they were on mostly equal footing in terms of ownership and stadiums. So, it's logical to figure the A's will match or exceed the Giants again in a new Oakland ballpark, as soon as their ownership and stadium situations are equal once more. The problem now is, the A's ballpark situation will never improve until its ownership situation improves. And the A's ownership won't improve until Wolff and John Fisher sell the team -- just as the Giants needed Bob Lurie to sell to Magowan & Co. in order for moving threats to stop and for AT&T Park to be built.   

Last attendance stat of the day: From 1988-2005, the A's drew 2 million fans in 11 seasons out of 18. They haven't drawn 2 million fans since. Hmmm, who bought the A's in 2005? Yep, Wolff and Fisher.

Long story short, Oakland can get this done. We just need the current A's owners to get out of their own way. It's all in the numbers.

Oakland Leaders Have Worked for Years to Keep the A's

When people say Oakland leaders haven't done enough to keep the A's in Oakland, well, that is simply not true. As a reminder of that fact, we thought we'd dust off one of our blogs from earlier this year. Here it is:

Since 1995, the city of Oakland has tried time and again to reach out to A's owners to build a new Oakland ballpark. And time and again, A's owners Steve Schott and Lew Wolff kept chasing their South Bay pipe dream and refused to work with Oakland officials. Please check out this timeline, with links to verify the facts, of Oakland’s repeated efforts in trying to keep the A's in town:

1995 - Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann buy the A’s from Walter Haas Jr. Wally Haas said his family made "substantial sacrifices" in the sale to ensure the new A's owners keep the A's in Oakland. But almost immediately, Schott and Hofmann threaten to move and renegotiate their lease with Oakland, Alameda County and the Oakland Coliseum due to changes made to the stadium for the returning Raiders. Oakland and county officials try to please the new owners by agreeing to pay $11 million to Schott and Hofmann, and up to $20 million in baseball-related stadium improvements over the life of the lease.

1998 - Schott and Hoffman put the team up for sale. The Oakland city council and Alameda County officials start working with Schott and Hoffman and MLB to choose a suitable buyer.

1999 - Oakland/Alameda County officials spend a year working with A’s owners and the office of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig on finding a new local owner for the A’s. Oakland officials select a group led by ex-A’s marketing guru Andy Dolich and produce store magnate Robert Piccinini. In September 1999, Mayor Jerry Brown and other city officials fly to Cooperstown, N.Y., to support the local ownership group that would keep the team in Oakland. Instead of finalizing the deal, the MLB owners table the vote and make no decision. Needless to say, Oakland officials are surprised and A’s fans are furious. After getting nowhere for a few months after that, Dolich and Piccinini finally give up and the ownership group dissolves. 

2001 - After Steve Schott attends a Santa Clara City Council meeting saying he wants to move the A’s there, Oakland and Alameda County officials respond, saying again that they want to work with the A’s on building a new ballpark in Oakland. Schott does not publicly respond.

2001 – A report that Schott and Hofmann are on the verge of selling the A’s to Hollywood producers with Las Vegas ties shocks Oakland city officials like such as City Manager Robert Bobb, who had met with A’s owners just a week before about extending their Oakland lease. 

2001 – City Manager Robert Bobb hires HOK Architects to study ballpark sites in Oakland and other parts of the East Bay with the goal of keeping the A’s in Oakland.

2002 - Robert Bobb tries to interest the A’s in the Uptown site, located in downtown Oakland. A’s owners Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann never publicly support the site and never show up at an Oakland City Council meeting. Since then, A’s owners and officials have appeared at city council meetings in Santa Clara, Fremont and San Jose in support of ballpark plans in those cities. 

2002 - A’s fans hold a rally outside Oakland City Hall before a City Council meeting where HOK Architects gave a presentation on ballpark sites. No one from the A’s front office attends either the rally or the meeting. When asked about building a new ballpark in Oakland a few weeks later, Schott insults the city by saying, "Basically, they're for 0 for 2" on stadium plans.

2005 - Ex-Oakland Councilman Dick Spees approaches Lew Wolff and offers to lead a booster group comprised of Oakland business leaders to help get a ballpark built in Oakland. Wolff rejects Spees’ efforts, telling him that he wants to do it alone. (Oakland Tribune 2/7/05)

2005 - Oakland Councilmen Larry Reid and Ignacio De La Fuente react favorably and enthusiastically to Lew Wolff’s presentation to redevelop hundreds of acres near the Oakland Coliseum. Yet, according to later news reports, Wolff almost immediately started negotiating with the city of Fremont for a new ballpark. 

2006 - Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums meets with Lew Wolff to discuss keeping the A’s in Oakland. Wolff also rebuffs Dellums, telling him that he is focusing on Fremont and that Dellums shouldn’t “break his pick on this one.” 

March 2009 - Dellums again reaches out to Wolff after the Fremont ballpark plan falls apart. But Wolff again rejects Dellums and makes it clear that the A’s now want to move to San Jose. Dellums and Oakland City Council President Jane Brunner respond by sending a letter to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, as does U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who is an Oakland resident. 

December 2009 - Oakland announces two new proposed ballpark sites (and an additional site that was previously examined) near the Jack London Square waterfront. 

April 2010 - Oakland City Council President Jane Brunner and Let’s Go Oakland leader Doug Boxer release an economic report touting the benefits that a new Jack London Square ballpark would have on Oakland. Brunner and Boxer also hold a public meeting at an Oakland school to discuss and promote the proposed Jack London Square ballpark sites.

July 2011 - New Oakland Mayor Jean Quan reaches out to Lew Wolff and invites him to a meeting to discuss Oakland ballpark sites. Wolff accepts but reveals his negative attitude shortly before the meeting when he tells the Chronicle, "Don't read too much into it." 

July 2011 - Quan meets with Wolff and spends an hour discussing the city's ballpark plans. But Wolff refuses to talk seriously about specific plans and, when the meeting ends, he abruptly tells her she has nothing to offer him.  

December 2011 - Undaunted by Wolff's disrespect of Oakland, Quan touts both the Coliseum and Victory Court sites as viable spots for an A's ballpark. 

May 2012 - Clorox CEO Don Knauss is joined by Oakland politicians and leaders of the Oakland and East Bay business community, saying publicly that A's owners John Fisher and Lew Wolff should negotiate with Oakland on a new ballpark or sell the team to someone who will. A few weeks later, Knauss privately meets with Wolff. 

August 2012 - Mayor Jean Quan holds a press conference attended by several hundred A's, Raiders and Warriors fans outside Oakland City Hall. Quan announces that "Oakland Loves Its Sports Teams Week" will be celebrated from Sept. 10-14, 2012.

-------------------------------------

Facts are stubborn things. So are Oakland baseball fans. Anyone saying that Oakland hasn't done enough to keep the A's are simply, factually wrong. Here's to hoping that A's owners soon start working with Oakland officials who are offering a helping hand. It would be the first time since 1995 that an A's owner did that.   

Howard Terminal: Some Things Just Make Too Much Sense

First of all, we would like to apologize for the tardiness of this blog. BaseballOakland is a labor of love by dedicated A's fans, and we've been a little busy. However, we have been VERY active on our Facebook page and we suggest you go there for some good chatter with a growing community of die-hard A's fans willing to talk Oakland, the A's and a whole list of other things.

Now on to Howard Terminal. First, Matier & Ross broke the news about a secret meeting that occurred between Oakland officials and MLB. Then, the Bay Area News Group went into further detail about the plan. It all appears to be another strong push by the city to establish a waterfront ballpark near downtown, and we couldn't be happier. One strength of Howard Terminal is that it is much closer to Jack London Square than Victory Court. Like Victory Court, it also has the chance to augment existing land uses and spur new development. The Howard Terminal site sits on about 50 acres and provides plenty of room for a stadium, surface parking and even other mixed uses. Also, the entire site (the ballpark and surrounding area) can be built in a number of phases, similar to how the area around AT&T Park was planned, where much of the initial surface parking ended up being developed into a much larger development. Victory Court is a cool site with many strengths, but another way that Howard Terminal is even better is that it allows Oakland to build a ballpark right on the water with stunning views, like those of PNC Park in Pittsburgh and AT&T Park. We've all seen how the Port of Oakland cranes have become one of the iconic images that symbolize Oakland. Keeping the cranes near the ballpark and incorporating them into its design would enhance its aesthetics, giving a unique "Oaklandish" vibe to the park. Unlike almost any other Bay Area ballpark site, the land has only one owner and is estimated to cost just $40 million -- cheaper and simpler than Victory Court and possibly the San Jose site. Clorox CEO Don Knauss, who has represented the Oakland/East Bay business community in keeping the A's in Oakland, has offered his full support of the plan.

We know that Howard Terminal was passed over in 2001 in favor of other sites, however, some important factors have changed since then.  First of all, in those days port capacity was in expansion mode. Now port capacity is at just 55% and unlikely to expand. SSA Marine, which controls Howard Terminal, is in an above-market-rate lease agreement that expires in 2017. From what we know, they are looking to not only get out of the lease but to consolidate operations into two other facilities they operate at the Port of Oakland.

Now about transit: In short, the possibilities are a lot stronger than people think. Worst-case scenario for BART is that the City Center/12th Street station and the West Oakland station each is just three-fourths of a mile from Howard Terminal. But there's even better news. In 2004, BART issued a report that studied several BART options for Jack London Square, including an infill station at 5th and Market streets which is -- you guessed it -- just a couple of blocks directly east of Howard Terminal. Also, a street car and other forms of transit were studied and noted as transit possibilities in the area. This would be an excellent addition to the area, and not just for baseball. These ideas would provide a much needed transit option to serve the Jack London Square area and connect it to downtown and West Oakland. For further reading on the Oakland Streetcar, click here. Also some money could become available for these projects if the statewide Measure B is approved. Other federal revenue sources may become available in the near future, too.

Also, a lot of surface parking and garage parking already exists around Jack London Square, Old Oakland and downtown -- which could be used to serve a Howard Terminal ballpark. The site also is easily accessible from Interstate 880. It also would be accessed from Interstate 580 (via I-980), removing a large portion of the ballpark traffic away from I-880. A car bridge might need to be built around the Market and Brush streets areas, as well as perhaps a pedestrian bridge. But then again, major infrastructural changes would need to happen at any stadium anywhere. In addition, Amtrak/ACE/Capitol Corridor trains all are just a short walk through Jack London Square. Also, the Jack London ferry stop -- receiving passengers from Alameda, S.F. and South San Francisco -- is located right next to Howard Terminal. Once a ballpark is built, you can bet Marin County ferries from Larkspur and Sausalito stops surely would add the Oakland waterfront to its list of destinations.

We at BaseballOakland are excited about the Howard Terminal site. It once again shows Oakland's dedication to working with MLB to create a great stadium for the A's. We look forward to this project developing and to one day seeing the A's take the field in a sparkling new waterfront ballpark in Oakland.

Welcome the Boys Back to Town

Well, the boys are back in town, and with an incredible winning month of July they have become THE story of the MLB 2012 season. The A's are actually closer to first place now than they were at this time in the division-winning Moneyball season of 2002. Their turnaround has been remarkable and thrilling and, as we always do, we urge every fan to make it out to the Coliseum for this 10-game home stand and beyond. We want sell outs, big crowds and an electric atmosphere at every A's home game.

Does Lew Wolff want that, too? On the face of it, it should be an absurd question. A pro sports team owner should want his team to win big -- it's more glory and money for him. Amazingly, we're not so sure that a winning A's team is what Wolff wants. Look at the San Jose Mercury News article on Wolff last week. Wolff had ample space in the long article to talk up the ballclub's many exciting walkoff wins or the team's unexpected and remarkable foray into the pennant race. But Wolff, a billionaire whose ownership group is the 4th-richest in all of baseball, didn't talk about that at all. Instead, he whined about not getting what he really wants: a South Bay ballpark. Maybe that's why Bay Area sportswriters like Lowell Cohn, Monte Poole and Scott Ostler recently questioned if Wolff wants the A's to win. Ostler wrote:

"A valiant run for the playoffs would be a disaster to Wolff. It would mean more income, short-term, but it would undermine Lew's master plan of convincing MLB owners that Oakland is a graveyard for baseball, that only a move to San Jose can save the franchise." 

You may have noticed on our Facebook page that we have avoided stadium talk or criticism of Wolff in recent weeks. The reason is that there's a time and place for everything. Just 30 days ago, the A's record was 37-42, and they appeared to be headed for yet another losing season, the kind of forgettable, lackluster campaign to which A's fans had, sadly, grown accustomed. But just 22 jaw-dropping games later, the A's are shocking the world. It's an awesome story. We've tried to focus on that. But if Wolff is going to divert attention away from the A's players' great season to further his greed-headed stadium agenda, then we must do the same -- as temporarily and briefly as possible -- in order to call him out on it.   

Because of all of this, we'll understand if there are a few games during this homestand where attendance is less than ideal -- like say the weeknight games this week versus the Rays. Don't get us wrong. We're not giving excuses for that. We're giving you an explanation. A fact-based explanation. The long and short of it is that while the A's players and manager Bob Melvin are crafting a miracle right now that A's fans are loving, Wolff -- judging by the looks of that recent Mercury News article -- doesn't want that to be the focus. Sadly, he wants you to whine along with him about a South Bay ballpark that is, because of Wolff's many mistakes, nothing but a pipe dream. And, until Wolff gets out of his own way, good luck with that.

In the meantime, every die-hard A's fan (that means you) will be loving this surprising pennant race featuring our heroes in Green-and-Gold. Sometimes that will include a packed Coliseum crowd, sometimes not. An owner making a commitment to the franchise's proud and loyal city of 45 seasons would solve that problem. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened since 1995. You know who is to blame for that.

Will Fisher/Wolff allow A's to contend in 2nd half?

The A's are 43-43 at the All-Star break, a far better record than most pundits predicted for this squad of mostly motley unknowns. With an extra wild-card spot this year, the A's are just 2.5 games behind a postseason spot and they have a real chance to join the wide-open pennant race. The question is, according to the likes of Monte Poole and Ray Ratto today, is this: will team owners John Fisher and Lew Wolff let the A's contend?
In a Wednesday column in the Oakland Tribune, Poole suggests that Wolff and Fisher (or, "Wisher," as Lowell Cohn calls them) have never been committed to winning, and that they are probably surprised that the A's are in the hunt for a playoff spot. He writes:


"They're in it as Wolff and Fisher and even commissioner Bud Selig tell everyone they lack the resources to be in it."
 
Poole then added that Fisher and Wolff might prefer pulling out of the race and holding yet another fire sale ... "because it would serve their cause, allowing them to reiterate a familiar refrain. Being in Oakland, they insist, conveniently ignoring historical data, only means they're 40 miles north of being able to compete."
 
He ends his column with a call to arms, saying he wants Wolff and Fisher to encourage Beane to find the magic he last had during the Moneyball years. He writes:  

"Such energy and fury have been missing around this franchise, lost to the archives -- and drowned out by the falsetto whine of the Low Payroll Band singing an endless loop of the Territorial Rights Blues."

Ray Ratto, meanwhile, assessed the A's chances in a column and used the occasion to identify the biggest problem with Wolff and Fisher. Ratto wrote that making roster moves with the goal of contending this summer would be "something to take people’s minds off ownership's relentless whining about the South Bay."

Ratto then added:

 "... it is time for ownership to face the fact that waiting for a ballpark before they get interested in their primary job is a losers’ proposition. It’s time, but they won’t follow it. They’re pot-committed to San Jose or sell, or maybe even San Jose AND sell, because for them this isn’t a living breathing baseball team, but an asset to be gussied up for market."

So, amid the the A's surprisingly strong first-half and all the fans' optimism, there is an uneasy question: Will Wolff and Fisher -- the notoriously stingy and San Jose-obsessed owners -- spend the necessary money and focus on helping the A's win? The answer will come in the next 30 to 45 days.

Ka'aihue Deserved Better from Beane

When Billy Beane DFA'd Kila Ka'aihue last week as his wife is days away from giving birth to twins, it sent a clear message from the A's organization that was heard all throughout baseball:

"A's front office officials are heartless, gutless jerks."

At least that's what a number of A's players, speaking anonymously, and national sportswriters were saying. Check out this report from the S.F. Chronicle:

His wife, Blair, is due to deliver twins any day, and that, combined with the brief window Ka'aihue had the everyday job, left some of the Oakland players shaking their heads.
"Everyone is in shock," one player said.
"Total horse" manure, said another.

Wow, those are harsh quotes from A's players who are ripping Billy Beane's decision. The national sportswriters were equally brutal. Here's a critical take from baseball reporter David Brown with Yahoo! Sports:

With Ka'aihue's wife on the verge of giving birth, and with Moss' bring-me-up-or-else deadline more than a week away, they could have waited. They should have waited. These aren't merely pieces on a chess board. They are people. And there's very flimsy evidence to support having to make a move right now. The A's are treating their roster like a fantasy baseball player might, and they are short-sighted to do so. It's horse manure, as the one player said.

Deadspin.com went even further, calling Beane's and Wolff's franchise "hopeless and heartless." They added this about the A's clubhouse:

This should be a safe space for young men to learn, and grow as humans, and form a band of brothers. Instead, the clubhouse is righteously pissed because Kila Ka'aihue was designated for assignment.

For years, Beane and Wolff have blamed their home city and stadium for chasing away free agents. The colder reality is that Beane's heartless un-player-friendly style is as much to blame for that than anything.

Wolff Interview: More of the Same

Yesterday Lew Wolff was on 95.7-The Game and let us give you the breaking news that came out of it: NOTHING. That's right, nothing. Nothing at all. Sometimes we wonder why we even brother tuning in for such things. It's borderline masochism. It's not like Lew's going to come out and say that he loves everything about Oakland, such as the fans, Lake Merritt and even the hipsters in Temescal. No, never. I would have been better off just going for a jog after work, but there I was running into my house to turn on the radio like it was FDR delivering a WWII speech. Instead, all we got from Wolff's chat with Chris Townsend and Brandon Tierney was the same ol' same ol'. He used the old line about the infamous binder taking an hour and 45 minutes to go through. A few stale jokes about his age. And, of course, some whining. It was good ol' Grandpa Lew, who just wants some free stadiums and, darn it, no one is letting him. Boo-hoo. 

That alone is not blogworthy. However, if you tune into the podcast (here) and wait until about the 3:30 mark, Wolff starts talking about the budget and keeping team payroll within the budget. After listening to Wolff's comments, it’s pretty clear that he values short-term profit over winning. But that's not news. What really grinds our gears was this quote (paraphrasing): "If we win a World Series but lose $40 million, I don’t want to do that because it would feel like we just bought it." Say what? Seriously? Why are you in the baseball business, Lew? The pinnacle of success in baseball is a World Series victory and nothing else. Also, what happened to the notion of "spending money to make money" or "short-term losses for long-term gains?" Those sayings have been in the business lexicon forever, even before Sharper Image starting selling those motivational posters. Brandon Tierney asked Wolff the following: If the team spent money and put a winning team on the field, wouldn't the fans respond with increased ticket sales? Wolff simply responded with more silliness. First of all, he got the playoff year wrong (2005 vs. 2006), but then he went on to say that the year after the last playoff run, season ticket sales were down. Let's zoom back five or six years. In the offseason before the 2006 season, Wolff tarped off the 3^rd deck and then announced the ill-fated and divisive Fremont move. The fan base was simply rejecting the direction that Wolff was taking the franchise. Couple those things with ticket price increases and customer-service reductions, and it doesn't take a Wall Street analyst to know all of that is going to lead to reduced sales.  

There is more from the interview. Listen to it if you want. One more takeaway from it is that Wolff stubbornly feels that the move to San Jose will happen, despite the fact that many of his supporters have expressed their doubts. Let us ask you this, A's fans: how long do you think that Lew Wolff will actually be fighting for you? Was he ever fighting for you? Losing games for profit is not what baseball is supposed to be about. Ken Burns didn't make a documentary about how awesome billionaires are. Kevin Costner did not star in a movie about rich people coming out of cornfields whining about how much money could be made. That's not baseball. If I cared that much about rich people making money I would be watching streaming footage of Goldman Sachs executives. No, thank you. 

A History of Oakland Officials Working Hard to Keep the A's

For the past 17 years, the city of Oakland has tried time and again to reach out to A's owners to build a new Oakland ballpark. And time and again, A's owners like Steve Schott and then Lew Wolff have refused to work with city officials as they chased their South Bay pipe dream. If you want the facts, check out this list of Oakland’s repeated efforts in trying to please A’s owners.

1995 - Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann buy the A’s from Walter Haas Sr. Wally Haas said his family made "substantial sacrifices" in the sale to ensure the new A's owners keep the A's in Oakland. But almost immediately, Schott and Hofmann threaten to move and renegotiate their lease with Oakland, Alameda County and the Oakland Coliseum due to changes made to the stadium for the returning Raiders. Oakland and county officials try to please the new owners by agreeing to pay $11 million to Schott and Hofmann, and up to $20 million in baseball-related stadium improvements over the life of the lease.

1998 - Schott and Hoffman put the team up for sale. The Oakland city council and Alameda County officials start working with Schott and Hoffman and MLB to choose a suitable buyer.

1999 - Oakland/Alameda County officials spend a year working with A’s owners and the office of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig on finding a new local owner for the A’s. Oakland officials select a group led by ex-A’s marketing guru Andy Dolich and produce store magnate Robert Piccinini. In September 1999, Mayor Jerry Brown and other city officials fly to Cooperstown, N.Y., to support the local ownership group that would keep the team in Oakland. Instead of finalizing the deal, the MLB owners table the vote and make no decision. Needless to say, Oakland officials are surprised and A’s fans are furious. After getting nowhere for a few months after that, Dolich and Piccinini finally give up and the ownership group dissolves. 

2001 - After Steve Schott attends a Santa Clara City Council meeting saying he wants to move the A’s there, Oakland and Alameda County officials respond, saying again that they want to work with the A’s on building a new ballpark in Oakland. Schott does not publicly respond.

2001 – A report that Schott and Hofmann are on the verge of selling the A’s to Hollywood producers with Las Vegas ties shocks Oakland city officials like such as City Manager Robert Bobb, who had met with A’s owners just a week before about extending their Oakland lease. 

2001 – City Manager Robert Bobb hires HOK Architects to study ballpark sites in Oakland and other parts of the East Bay with the goal of keeping the A’s in Oakland.

2002 - Robert Bobb tries to interest the A’s in the Uptown site, located in downtown Oakland. A’s owners Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann never publicly support the site and never show up at an Oakland City Council meeting. Since then, A’s owners and officials have appeared at city council meetings in Santa Clara, Fremont and San Jose in support of ballpark plans in those cities. 

2002 - A’s fans hold a rally outside Oakland City Hall before a City Council meeting where HOK Architects gave a presentation on ballpark sites. No one from the A’s front office attends either the rally or the meeting. When asked about building a new ballpark in Oakland a few weeks later, Schott insults the city by saying, "Basically, they're for 0 for 2" on stadium plans.

2005 - Ex-Oakland Councilman Dick Spees approaches Lew Wolff and offers to lead a booster group comprised of Oakland business leaders to help get a ballpark built in Oakland. Wolff rejects Spees’ efforts, telling him that he wants to do it alone. (Oakland Tribune 2/7/05)

2005 - Oakland Councilmen Larry Reid and Ignacio De La Fuente react favorably and enthusiastically to Lew Wolff’s presentation to redevelop hundreds of acres near the Oakland Coliseum. Yet, according to later news reports, Wolff almost immediately started negotiating with the city of Fremont for a new ballpark. 

2006 - Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums meets with Lew Wolff to discuss keeping the A’s in Oakland. Wolff also rebuffs Dellums, telling him that he is focusing on Fremont and that Dellums shouldn’t “break his pick on this one.” 

March 2009 - Dellums again reaches out to Wolff after the Fremont ballpark plan falls apart. But Wolff again rejects Dellums and makes it clear that the A’s now want to move to San Jose. Dellums and Oakland City Council President Jane Brunner respond by sending a letter to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, as does U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who is an Oakland resident. 

December 2009 - Oakland announces two new proposed ballpark sites (and an additional site that was previously examined) near the Jack London Square waterfront. 

April 2010 - Oakland City Council President Jane Brunner and Let’s Go Oakland leader Doug Boxer release an economic report touting the benefits that a new Jack London Square ballpark would have on Oakland. Brunner and Boxer also hold a public meeting at an Oakland school to discuss and promote the proposed Jack London Square ballpark sites.

July 2011 - New Oakland Mayor Jean Quan reaches out to Lew Wolff and invites him to a meeting to discuss Oakland ballpark sites. Wolff accepts but reveals his negative attitude shortly before the meeting when he tells the Chronicle, "Don't read too much into it." 

July 2011 - Quan meets with Wolff and spends an hour discussing the city's ballpark plans. But Wolff refuses to talk seriously about specific plans and, when the meeting ends, he abruptly tells her she has nothing to offer him.  

December 2011 - Undaunted by Wolff's disrespect of Oakland, Quan touts both the Coliseum and Victory Court sites as viable spots for an A's ballpark. 

May 2012 - Clorox CEO Don Knauss is joined by Oakland politicians and leaders of the Oakland and East Bay business community, saying publicly that A's owners John Fisher and Lew Wolff should negotiate with Oakland on a new ballpark or sell the team to someone who will. A few weeks later, Knauss privately meets with Wolff. 

-------------------------------------

Facts are stubborn things. So are Oakland baseball fans. Anyone saying that Oakland hasn't done enough to keep the A's are simply, factually wrong. Here's to hoping that A's owners soon start working with Oakland officials who are offering a helping hand. It would be the first time since 1995 that an A's owners did that.