Lawsuit threats, leaked stories no way to sell A's tickets

Opening Day, that grand old baseball tradition, is coming to the Oakland Coliseum in less than a month, and we couldn't be happier. Unfortunately, another A's tradition is arriving soon; one that started under the Lew Wolff/John Fisher regime: Wolff whining about not getting his move to San Jose. He usually follows it with complaints about attendance and the stadium, followed by yet another threat to move the team. That has always baffled us. Does Wolff really think an off-season of threatening to kick loyal fans in the gut is the best marketing strategy? After nearly a decade of employing that failed method, how's it working out for Wolff and the A's?

The A's stadium issue came to a head (again) over the weekend, when the Mercury News' Mark Purdy wrote a column featuring San Jose Councilman Sam Liccardo. The councilman threatened to sue the Giants over the Santa Clara County territorial rights that MLB says the Giants own. Liccardo was playing bad cop. That hostile threat was followed by Wolff playing good cop, as he clarified where he stood -- kind of -- by releasing a statement:

"We are a part of the MLB partnership and will continue to respect the Constitution and agreements that govern our participation in MLB. We seek our needed new venue based solely on the merits of the move and the benefits to MLB, the A's and our fans and sponsors."

So, Wolff's statement -- we are left to guess -- was intended to let Selig and fellow MLB owners know that he has no intention of encouraging a city of San Jose lawsuit against the Giants or MLB. We think that's what he meant, anyway. Because he had an opportunity to explicitly say, "Sam Liccardo. Bad. Lawsuit. Really bad." But Wolff didn't explicity say that. Instead, he chose to keep it vague, letting the implied threat hang in the air -- which couldn't have played well in the Commissioner's office. The whole Liccardo/Wolff dance is probably the second worst version of Good Cop/Bad Cop we've ever seen.

Ray Ratto, the CSN Bay Area sportswriter, covered this issue with a column Monday. Ratto made special note of Wolff's and Fisher's incompetent handling of their attempts to move:

"They have hitched their wagon to the laughable strategy of letting commissioner Bud Selig do the heavy lifting, which he doesn’t want to do while he is still in the corner office. They have convinced themselves that a verbal endorsement from Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf is worth the carbon dioxide with which it was expelled. And they sit and wait for someone to bail them out of their predicament while making a revenue-sharing profit every year with a debt-free operation."

Meanwhile, A's fans are made to suffer, unnecessarily. After all, this is March, right in the thick of the blind optimism of Spring Training. On Twitter, we've seen tons of A's fans excitedly say they can't wait for their A's season tickets to arrive in the mail. This should be the time that Wolff and the A's are cashing in on that hopeful enthusiasm, turning optimism into profits by selling hope in the form of A's game tickets. Instead, Wolff is selling the same tired whine about his stadium pipe dream. There is no doubt that Wolff's constantly negative media drumbeat is depressing A's attendance in Oakland at a time when it otherwise would be easy to boost it.

Maybe someone should file a lawsuit about that.

On Tarps and Other Bad Ideas

The Oakland Raiders' announcement Wednesday that they are planning to tarp off Mt. Davis and a few other sections -- reducing capacity by more than 10,000 seats -- was a shocker. When A's owner Lew Wolff did the same thing after the 2005 season, A's fans instantly ripped the idea and, if anything, that criticism has only intensified in the intervening years. It's as if the Raiders' front office saw what Wolff did and surmised: "It's a terrible idea that will anger the fan base, polarize opinion about our fiscal competence, unleash suspicion about our future plans and suppress attendance, so ... let's do it!!"

Gallows humor aside, what are the Raiders doing here? Actually, check that. The first question is, what is Baseball Oakland doing here, mining the unfamiliar (for us) terrain of the business of NFL football? Good question, because since we formed this group we have intentionally stayed away from this topic. See, half the founding members of BBO are die-hard Raiders fans. The other half are not. So, we have decided to focus on the topic that unites our group -- keeping the A's in Oakland. But, the Raiders' tarp announcement is something we must address. It's a complex issue, and the Raiders' intentions are not exactly clear. Speaking on behalf of the Raider die-hards in our group, it appears the differing options the Raiders are exploring here can be summed up as:

1. BEST-CASE SCENARIO: Amy Trask is being honest, and the Raiders are just making a shrewd decision to ensure that they sell out games and keep home games on TV. The Raiders sincerely want to stay in Oakland and this announcement is an equally sincere effort to sell out the Coliseum consistently in a 2013 season when the team is not expected to win many games. Not to be overlooked is the fact that they are lowering ticket prices, which is a good sign that the team understands how frustrated Raiders fans are after 10 consecutive non-winning seasons with zero playoff appearances. 

2. SECOND-BEST-CASE SCENARIO: Amy Trask is being honest. But by imitating Lew Wolff's tarp idea, the team is making a well-intentioned yet bad decision that will hinder ticket sales.  

3. SUSPICIOUS BUT CUP-HALF-FULL SCENARIO: The Raiders are not happy with stadium progress and this is a shot across the bow to let Oakland know that they want to get more serious about building a new stadium at the Coliseum complex at 66th Ave. & Hegenberger. There are lots of reasons for Oakland boosters to have hope but the clock is ticking.

4. WORST-CASE SCENARIO: The Raiders want to move from Oakland and, just like Lew Wolff and John Fisher did before the 2006 season, this new tarp announcement is just a craven, cynical attempt to depress attendance, stigmatize the stadium experience and justify a move to NFL brass and local and national media. (You know, the ol': "See, we have to move, look at those tarps. They're Exhibit A of the problems we're facing in this market.")

What's the reality? If we had to guess (and it's definitely a guess), we would say reality is closest to Scenario No. 3, but truthfully we really don't know. The Raiders' tarp announcement probably might indeed be a well-intentioned but serious error in judgement, much like drafting JaMarcus Russell.  

But wait, some of you are bound to ask, why are you giving the Raiders the benefit of the doubt but not Wolff/Fisher and the A's? Well, there are many good and compelling reasons for the difference in reaction.

That is because Amy Trask and Mark Davis are saying (and frequently say) they want to stay in Oakland and that they like the site where the Raiders currently play. Wolff, by comparison, has almost always said the opposite, going out of his way to insult A's fans, the city of Oakland and its market viability while using weak justifications that are so easily disproved that, frankly, they insult our intelligence. Also, the Raiders are lowering their ticket prices while adding the tarps, which is a sign they might be sincere about getting as many game sell outs as possible at the Coliseum. In contrast, Wolff RAISED ticket prices in 2006, when he added tarps to the Coliseum. Also, Wolff has covered third-deck seats that had good field visibility, while leaving upper-level bleacher seats open, even though they have obstructed views. Each of those non-fan-friendly moves have only created more suspicion about Wolff's intentions.

Though Al Davis generated his fair share of negativity, he also frequently praised Oakland fans, speaking glowingly of "The roar of the Oakland Coliseum" and how it sent chills down his spine during the team's glory years, when the team had 13 years of consecutive sellout Coliseum crowds. He also won championships and did much to get the Coliseum built and put Oakland on the nation's pop culture map. Did Davis also waste a lot of the goodwill he amassed in Oakland by suing the city and county and by his increasingly erratic behavior at near-annual press conferences? Yes, that's painfully true. But at least he built up that social capital for him to spend. In short, despite his flaws, Davis gave at least a little something on which fans could hang their hats. By comparison, Wolff came to town and immediately tried to destroy the bond between the team and the city. And, like his ownership's negative effect on A's attendance, it's been downhill from there.

As long as the Raiders and Oakland officials keep trying to work together, we'll keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. With Wolff and Fisher, they never really tried, did they? Someone should make a meme about that.

To be clear, we're not saying the Raiders have been perfect. Their 10-year playoff drought led to a drop off in attendance last year when the season went bad fast and early. In the previous two seasons, Raiders attendance actually was great; the Coliseum was sold out for nearly every game and on TV in 2010-11, based on just a hint of a rumor of making the playoffs. The last time the Raiders made the playoff was 2002. Given how poorly the Raiders were received in L.A. once the novelty wore off by the mid-'80s (there's a reason why Davis tried to move back to Oakland as early as 1989), and given the generous loyalty shown by Oakland fans the past 10 years despite many below-average football seasons, we're flabbergasted that another move is even being considered.   

At the end of the day, you are reading Baseball Oakland, and we'll continue to focus on just that -- baseball in Oakland.

But before we leave the topic of the Raiders, we ask you to consider: We've had major uncertainty over the A's home situation for nearly 18 years. The Raiders have been hinting of moving their team (whether in Oakland or L.A.) since 1979 -- that's 34 long years. We Oakland fans should be weary and discouraged by this kind of shabby treatment from our owners. But we're not. On the contrary, we are energized and fired up to keep fighting -- in ways big and small -- to keep our teams in this great, underrated gem of a city. We're not predicting victory -- that would be foolhardy -- but we are promising to continue to fight back for this city we love. In spite of all the insults hurled at it, Oakland indeed does have the fans and corporate support and all the other essential factors needed to remain a viable pro sports market. Oakland also has an abundance of things most cities would love to have; the things you can't buy or measure. Oakland is a great city teeming with soul and with a heart as big as Bill King's vocabulary.

And those are things you can't cover with a tarp.

Oakland has outperformed S.F. when owners, parks were equal

A's attendance at the Coliseum is much stronger and more positive than the common perception. Yes, we want the A's to get a new ballpark and there have been ups and downs over the decades for the A's, just like the vast majority of MLB franchises. But if your argument is the A's must leave Oakland because attendance is not ideal right now, then you would be moving about 2/3 of MLB teams at various times in their history.

Even the Giants, who are riding high right now? ... you might ask. Our answer: ESPECIALLY the Giants. That's because when the A's and Giants shared the Bay Area market from 1968-99 and enjoyed mostly equal footing with their respective owners and stadiums, Oakland clearly outperformed San Francisco at the box office. In fact, from '68 to '92, it wasn't even close, as the A's outdrew the Giants in 17 out of 25 seasons (17 to 8).  

Why do we care?

It's important to note that anyone criticizing Oakland for its attendance history is not accurate. They are distorting the statistics by looking at A's attendance in an extremely (and perhaps intentional) narrow vacuum. No, the more accurate answer is found by studying the issue in its proper context -- that is, the history of Oakland AND San Francisco attendance when nearly all things were equal between the two teams' ownership groups and their once-similar multipurpose stadiums while sharing the same market. In other words, the 1968-99 era.    

We first looked at this issue with a blog entry last September. Here's a second look at the key stats:  

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 point is, if the Giants can go from being one of the worst MLB franchises in attendance to one of the best -- almost overnight -- then so can the A's in Oakland. After all, the Giants' attendance was mostly awful for more than 30 years in San Francisco, until they moved to their new ballpark in 2000. Yet, the Giants owners took a leap of faith that paid off beautifully for them. 

Given the statistics noted above, the same thing could easily happen for the A's in Oakland. That marriage between pro baseball teams and the city of Oakland should be celebrated, not discarded like a pair of old Herb Washington cleats. Oakland's baseball tradition goes way back to the late 19th Century (the Wide Awakes, and the Colonels) and through the early 20th Century (the Oaks, and the Larks) to the Oakland Athletics of the last four-plus decades. 

In short, in a sport that thrives on tradition and nostalgia, there is absolutely no reason to throw away 45 sensational years of great tradition and green-and-gold flavored nostalgia of A's baseball in Oakland. 

Reality Checks Pile Up for Wolff's Stadium Pipe Dream

Hey, remember that recent report that featured an angry Lew Wolff complaining about how slow the three-person committee is moving? Wait, sorry, that was a TWO-YEAR-OLD Bloomberg News article. In that piece from March 1, 2011, Wolff ranted:

"It's so ridiculous to me ... They've had time enough to explore anything. We're getting close to the point Bud is going to make a decision."

Just about two years later, still no decision.  

Maybe we confused that with the article on how the next MLB owners meeting might have the A's stadium issue on the agenda? Oops. That article wasn't this year, that was last year, in early 2012. (And, nearly a year later, there's no decision.)

Maybe it was that recent Mark Purdy column in which he didn't quote Wolff directly but said that "there is word that Wolff and his ownership partners are getting antsier" about the long wait for a ruling on territorial rights. Wait, sorry again, that wasn't recent. That column was written THREE YEARS AGO, on Jan. 28, 2010. 

Surely you remember that Tweet by Bob Nightengale, USA Today's national baseball writer:  

"All signs and top #MLB sources say that the #Athletics will be granted permission by Feb to move to San Jose."

My bad, that wasn't so recent either. Nightengale wrote that 13 months ago, on Christmas Eve, 2011. His prediction, of course, never came true. 

Why? Because when it comes to the A's moving out of town, these rumors NEVER come true. For nearly four years now, in fact, there have been endless rumors and news reports of an "imminent decision" about the A's from MLB. Nearly four years later, obviously, there's still no decision. Which appears to be THE decision.  

That's the cold reality. The vast majority of A's fans want the the team to stay in Oakland. Yet, we A's fans get lectured a lot about the need to be "realistic." Well, here's the reality: We're just weeks away from one of the most ignominious milestones in Bay Area sports history -- the 4th anniversary of MLB's three-person committee on what to do with Lew Wolff's & John Fisher's A's. 

What's the delay? 

Wolff and Fisher want something (the South Bay territorial rights) that does not belong to them and never will be for sale. After four long years, that's been made abundantly clear. So, we must ask: When are Wolff and Fisher going to start being realistic? When that day comes they will realize, finally, that their plans to move the A's are little more than a pipe dream and they are holding the franchise hostage while they live in denial about it. 

In the meantime, Wolff and Fisher cling tightly to the franchise, making a big annual profit by dealing endlessly with rumors but not reality. 

Wolff still 'the most hated' Bay Area sports owner

Last May, the San Francisco Chronicle's Al Saracevic famously wrote that "Lew Wolff is the most hated man in Oakland."

Harsh words. But as it turned out, Saracevic may have been optimistic. About six months later, ESPN the Magazine published their sports franchise rankings and it wasn't pretty, as it pertains to Wolff and other A's owners. ESPN listed the Oakland A's as the 98th best franchise, but that score would have been better if A's owners hadn't dragged down the final score with their lousy ranking.

Where did the national publication rank Wolff and co-owner John Fisher? 121st. Yes, that's 121st out of 122 teams. Only the Maloof brothers, then-owners of the Sacramento Kings, fared worse. ESPN ranked Wolff as "... the second-most loathed owner" among all sports team owners in the U.S. and Canada. Then the magazine described Bay Area baseball buffs as "a fan base that can't stand him."

Other national publications have taken notice. The New York Times' reporter Ken Belson last spring wrote the following about Wolff:

"The strategy has led fans to accuse Wolff of trashing the current A’s to prove that operating in Oakland is untenable. Fans resent that Wolff has put tarps over the upper deck — even during the 2006 playoffs — and shuttered concession stands. Handmade signs that say 'Slumdog Billionaire' and 'Don’t Take Our A’s Away' now show up in the stands."

 The same New York Times article noted the cause and effect between Wolff and Fisher becoming owners in 2005 and the instantly negative effect their ownership has had on attendance:

"For much of the 1980s and early 1990s, the A’s routinely outdrew the Giants; as recently as 2005, the A’s drew more than 2.1 million fans. The next year, Wolff and the Fisher family took over the team, and attendance has fallen ever since ..."

Or, as Saracevic wrote about Wolff and his mismanagement of the A's stadium situation:

"This is no way to run a ballclub, folks. ... Find a way to get a beautiful new stadium built in Oakland. If you can't do that, sell it to someone who will."

Restaurant Week: Oakland's economy keeps growing

Right now it's Restaurant Week in Oakland (Jan. 18-27), but that isn't entirely accurate because the city's foodie scene has been so hot the past few years it feels like EVERY week is Restaurant Week.

Just check out the bars, nightclubs, coffee houses and eateries that opened recently in Oakland. There's Duende, a Spanish tapas place across from the Oakland Fox, the wildly popular performing arts theater that has led downtown Oakland's ongoing renaissance. Loring Cafe is just about to open on the percolating strip along Grand Avenue, next to Era nightclub, Farley's East and another new coffee house called Anfilo Cafe. Next to the Uptown apartments is Hopscotch, which joined New Parish and Hibiscus on San Pablo Avenue. Right in the heart of downtown, the Tribune Tavern -- a restaurant/bar on the ground floor of the iconic Tribune Tower on 13th St. -- will open any day now. Several blocks west, the Old Oakland neighborhood is thriving. Ratto's, Caffe 817, Liege, Pacific Coast Brewing Co., Air, Grand Oaks Bar and Grill, The Trappist and Tamarindo have been holding the fort for years. But in the past year, there are almost too many new additions to list: Le Cheval came back, District (nightclub and eatery), a trattoria called Borgo Italia, Miss Ollie's, Cosecha, El Gusano and Rosamunde Sausage.

In Rockridge, a new eatery called Box and Bells soon will open. It's being started by James Shyabout, the owner of Hawker Fare, the popular Uptown spot. The Grand Lake area soon will welcome Little Star Pizza, a Chicago-style spot specializing in deep dish pies. In the Temescal district, well-respected chef Preeti Mistry is set to open Juhu Beach Club in two months, when her fantastic Indian food will be served. In West Oakland, some Baseball Oakland members tried to eat Saturday night at B-Side BBQ, a new joint founded by Tanya Holland, the internationally renowned chef who first gained fame with her Brown Sugar Kitchen on Mandela Parkway. But just like Brown Sugar Kitchen for brunch, B-Side BBQ was too packed with customers and we had to leave. It's like Yogi Berra used to say: "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

In Oakland's Glenview district, there isn't much new but that's only because some of the city's best restaurants already are established: We love Marzano on Park, Bellanico and Rumbo al Sur. And in Jack London Square and nearby, the Night Light has routinely packed them in, as has the popular upscale waterfront restaurant, Haven. A few doors down another waterfront pizzeria, Forge, is due to open in about two weeks. Next month, in a location just south of Howard Terminal, the Italian eatery Lungomare is scheduled to open.

And on, and on, and on, and on ...

Of course, none of this good stuff is happening in a vacuum. It reflects a strengthening East Bay economy (as well as a growing economy Bay Area wide) that added 21,000 new jobs in 2012. As a pundit recently told the Oakland Tribune:

"The longer-term trend in the Bay Area remains a story of very positive job growth," said Michael Bernick, a research fellow with the Milken Institute. "It is the South Bay, it is San Francisco, and now it is the East Bay."

Hope the Mariners treat Bonderman better than Schott did

Former A's first-round pick Jeremy Bonderman is attempting a comeback at the age of 30 and he signed a minor-league contract with the Seattle Mariners just before Christmas.

Even though Bonderman never played in the big league level for the A's (Billy Beane traded him to Detroit in 2002, a year after drafting him), he has always been one of our favorites. It was easy to root for Bonderman because of how badly Steve Schott -- then the A's main owner -- treated him.

According to an ESPN article by Peter Gammons, Bonderman and Beane were close to finalizing his post-draft contract, which was to include a $1.5 million bonus. But Schott was holding up the signing, Gammons reported. The reason? Bonderman is dyslexic and, as Gammons wrote:

Bonderman also remembered reading, before agreeing with Oakland, that the reason the deal was stalled was that owner Steve Schott was quoted as saying he "didn't want to give $1.5 million to someone who can't read or write."

Schott's comments were ignorant, to be sure. They also were remarkably mean-spirited and a sign of how quick Schott was to jump at any reason, even one that was callous and clueless and fictional, to save a penny here or there.

Here's how fact-free Schott's damaging comments were about Bonderman: Medical professionals define dyslexia as a developmental reading disorder. Though it presents challenges for learners of any age, the condition is common and in no way a reflection of one's intelligence. Dyslexia, in fact, is shared by a wide range of accomplished people and great thinkers -- ranging from Nobel laureates to legendary political leaders to military tacticians to famous authors, inventors, musicians and entrepreneurs.

Most people are aware of this. Steve Schott, apparently, was not. Gammons wrote:

Oakland general manager Billy Beane and scouting director Grady Fuson eventually convinced Schott that Bonderman was worth signing, and the insensitive, boorish comment from the A's owner was put aside.

Gammons wasn't the only one who covered these negotiations. Gary Washburn of the Contra Costa Times described Schott's stalling tactics as "ugly and hopeless." Bonderman, then just 18, was stung by Schott's insults but he persevered. A couple of years later, Bonderman eventually gave his take on Schott's comments:

"He is entitled to his opinion," the 20-year old said. "But I didn't think that was fair, or right. Did it hurt? A little. Sure. He doesn't understand what it's like to work through being dyslexic."

Bonderman prided himself "on working as hard as I could, trying to overcome a learning disability." He's still working hard. Bonderman encountered arm problems in 2006, and his last game appearance was in late 2010. Now, after two years out of baseball, he is trying a comeback in his home state, with Seattle. When he plays the A's, we'll be cheering for our Green-and-Gold, of course. But for any other games, we'll be rooting for him. 

After all, Oakland A's fans have something in common with Bonderman. Both groups were treated horribly by Steve Schott and, all these years later, both groups are refusing to give up. Good luck, Jeremy Bonderman. You represent all that's good about baseball.    

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.