Jeter can’t move Marlins sculpture, D-Backs suit kicked to arbitrator, and more stadium news

Extra-super-brief news roundup this week, regular programming to resume next Thursday:

That’s it for now. Que vagi bé, i fins ara.

D-Backs CEO: We never threatened to move team if a/c didn’t work (but still could)

After the Arizona Diamondbacks lawyer’s statement in court this week that the team could be forced to move out of Arizona if the county won’t pay to fix leaky air conditioners was met with derision and people pointing out there aren’t exactly any better markets to move to, team CEO Derrick Hall attempted to walk the threat back yesterday. It was exactly as hilarious as you would expect:

“Over a month ago, we had a huge power outage with the heat downtown and, when the power came back on a Sunday before a day game, our chill system, our air-conditioning system, went down and we had huge gushing and rushing water leaks throughout the entire ballpark in major spots,” Derrick Hall told Doug and Wolf on 98.7 FM, Arizona’s Sports Station on Thursday.

Hall said the team was able to open the park and play that day, but it was a close call.

“That’s near-catastrophic and if we did not have air conditioning that day, we can’t play baseball,” he said…

The league’s plan could involve moving the team, but Hall said that would only be temporary.

“There’s nowhere to play in the marketplace if something like that happens indoors and in the summer, so I think Major League Baseball is talking about an emergency or a contingency plan and, again, they do have the ultimate authority,” he said.

Okay, so if the a/c didn’t work, the D-Backs might have had to postpone a game — something that only happens dozens of times over a typical season already. But supposedly MLB needs to have a “contingency plan” so that if the a/c doesn’t work on some future date, it would immediately fly the teams to another city and … yeah, this doesn’t make any sense at all. Just admit that your lawyer was trying to levy a ridiculous threat that the team would leave town without a county-renovated stadium and be done with it, okay?

“Obviously, [owner] Ken (Kendrick) and I would never want to leave Arizona. This is our home,” he said. “This is where we want to be.”

Sure, close enough. That’s the traditional paratrooper gambit, anyway.

D-Backs lawyer: If our stadium a/c keeps leaking, MLB could force the team to leave Arizona

Sports team owners trying to get other people — mayors, league commissioners — to make move threats for them is a time-honored tradition, but “if we don’t get a new stadium, the league might force us to move” is a rarely employed gambit. Which makes it all the more jaw-dropping that the Arizona Diamondbacks are now alleging that if Maricopa County doesn’t fix leaky pipes at Chase Field, MLB could force the team to leave Arizona:

Leo Beus, an attorney for the team, raised the MLB specter as he argued to a Superior Court judge that the case should be decided quickly because the team is “facing a crisis.”

“Major League Baseball … they’re very, very concerned,” Beus said, noting he has spoken with six of the league’s top lawyers. “If Major League Baseball decides they want to create issues for us, there might not be baseball at all in Arizona.”

“We’d like to keep the franchise in place, we’d like to make peace with Major League Baseball, not that we’re at war,” he continued. “We don’t know where that’s going to come out. They’re very concerned.”

Okay, so. Beus’s main gripes are over two incidents in June, one where a sewage pipe burst in an office (ew) and another where a power surge caused an air-conditioning system to flood suites and other areas of the stadium right before a game (less ew, but it meant the a/c was off for the game, which is pretty ew in Phoenix). But the D-Backs’ court battle with the county isn’t over whether the stadium needs to be maintained; it’s over who will pay for maintenance, which the team says is the county’s job (to the tune of $187 million), and the county says is on the team. (The latter is what the county’s agreement to the team appears to say, but I am not a lawyer, let alone a judge.)

All of which brings us to our quote of the day, from Maricopa County’s attorney, Cameron Artigue:

“This (lawsuit) has nothing to do with the water leaks and the merits of Chase Field,” he said. “The Diamondbacks are the facility manager. When a pipe breaks, that is a Diamondbacks problem. And that is, in fact, what happened. They got out the mops and they mopped it up, and life goes on. It’s a big facility and sometimes pipes break. So what?”

Anyway, if anyone really thinks there’s a chance that MLB is going to force only its second franchise relocation in 45 years because a couple of stadium pipes broke, I have some Mets World Championship bets for you to place. Chalk this up to “Lawyers Say the Funniest Things” — come to think of it, “we’d like to make peace with Major League Baseball, not that we’re at war” would make a pretty good quote of the week, too.

MLB commissioner: 19-year-old D-Backs stadium isn’t “major-league” anymore, trust me on this

Back in February, soon after the Arizona Diamondbacks sued Maricopa County to get out of their Chase Field lease because the county was refusing to pay for $187 million in maintenance and upgrades (most of them items that the lease appears to say are team responsibilities), MLB commissioner Rob Manfred chimed in that “to be a major league-quality stadium,” the stadium “needs work.” Apparently he thinks no one was listened then, because yesterday, he said it again:

Manfred spoke at the ballpark and reaffirmed statements supporting the club that he made during spring training. He said for Chase Field to remain a major league-quality stadium, substantial capital expenditures must be made. He said if they aren’t, there may come a point when the franchise seeks an alternative home.

Manfred said Major League Baseball has reviewed studies of state-of-the-art ballparks and determined what is required in renovation and capital investment.

“We concur wholeheartedly with the Diamondbacks’ position that there are substantial needs here with respect to this stadium, to keep it as a major league-quality stadium,” Manfred said.

This is, let’s remember, exactly the job that sports commissioners are hired for: Dropping vague move threats when team owners are too worried they’d get burned in effigy if they did so themselves. Manfred got off to a slow start in the blackmail-enabling department, but he seems to be getting the hang of it now. (That bit about “we’ve done studies of what state-of-the-art means” is an especially nice touch, since “state-of-the-art” is an inherently undefinable term that just means “whatever the next guy down the road has that this owner wants.”) Who he’s trying to convince, given that this is going to be decided by a court and not public opinion or an elected body, is anyone’s guess, but at least he’s proving that he can learn to be a more competent shill.

D-Backs: Yeah, yeah, new stadium management contract, just give us our $187m, okay?

The art and craft of writing headlines is a tricky one: Do it well, and you have something that is both enlightening and intriguing at a glance, long enough to tell the meat of the story while short enough to fit on social media, not to mention in print if your news outlet does that as well. Do it poorly, and you just end up confusing readers, or even misleading them entirely.

Which brings us to this, from yesterday’s Arizona Republic:

Could a lucrative contract keep Arizona Diamondbacks at Chase Field?

My first thought: Well, sure! Give the D-Backs a rich enough deal, and they’d probably agree to play games in the Chase Field swimming pool.

But by “lucrative contract,” it turns out, the Republic headline writers don’t mean with the team. Rather, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors was set to discuss a new stadium management contract yesterday, to determine who will replace SMG in running non-baseball events. The D-Backs owners are in the midst of a lawsuit trying to get the county to pay $187 million for a bunch of upgrades they say the stadium needs (and which the county says the team should pay for if they want them, since it’s not the county’s job according to the lease); part of the lawsuit gripes about how the stadium “isn’t being utilized anywhere near its potential” for non-baseball events, but now a team rep is saying that who the county picks to run the place isn’t going to stop the lawsuit, because duh:

“It’s not going to affect the lawsuit,” [Diamondbacks attorney] Leo Beus told The Arizona Republic. “… At this stage, we just need the ability to look elsewhere.”…

Beus said whoever wins the new contract would not reassure the team. Team officials do not believe any contractor can generate enough money from events to fill the financial gap between the stadium’s reserves and the anticipated cost of repairs.

In other words, just adding a few more concerts isn’t going to stop the D-Backs owners from suing for $187 million, which makes total sense if they think they have a shot at winning. Beus added that they’re only suing for “the ability to talk to other alternatives so we don’t risk our franchise altogether when they don’t do the capital repairs they’re required to do,” which is pretty hilarious for a franchise worth an estimated $1.15 billion and that had an estimated $47.2 million in profits last year, but nobody ever said that lawyers had to be 100% honest.

Oh, and as for that county meeting, they ended up sending both bidders back to the drawing board and reopening the bids, because they weren’t happy with the offers. Which isn’t all that likely to do much better given the limited number of venue managers out there and the limited amount of money you can make staging concerts at a baseball stadium, but hey, worth a shot.

AZ legislators not actually all that stoked about approving $1b-plus in sports subsidies

So it turns out that giving Arizona Coyotes owner Anthony LeBlanc $170 million in state tax breaks to move from one part of the Phoenix area to another and also approving as much as $375 million in tax breaks for any other pro sports team that wanted a new stadium isn’t so popular in the Arizona state legislature after all. Or at least, isn’t quite popular enough to get a majority, probably:

A plan that would provide $225 million in public financing for a new $395 million Arizona Coyotes arena likely does not have the votes to pass the state Senate, key lawmakers told The Arizona Republic/azcentral Thursday.

Sens. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, and John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said they definitely were going to vote against the plan, while Minority Leader Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said there is little support among the chamber’s 13 Democrats. Meanwhile, Senate President Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, said he had “serious reservations” about the plan that would allow the National Hockey League team to build an arena in downtown Phoenix or the East Valley.

The utter stupidity of such a plan aside, this points up the political difficulty of getting state support for the subsidy deal: In addition to it becoming a partisan political issue (the sponsor of the bill is a member of the state’s Republican majority), there are regional splits as well, with West Valley legislators of both parties opposing a bill that would likely be used to subsidize a move of the Coyotes out of Glendale, which is in the West Valley. (Peoria is adjacent to Glendale, though Fountain Hills is in the East Valley.) Add in any legislators who are just opposed on the principle that throwing over a billion dollars at your state’s sports teams for no damn reason is a terrible idea — hey, it’s always possible — and the bill is “on life support,” according to the Arizona Republic.

Not that it won’t eventually happen, in some form. (You know how politicians love to haggle.) But it looks like it’s going to take a few more strands of spaghetti thrown at the wall before one of them sticks.

MLB commissioner: Diamondbacks stadium “needs work” to be “major league,” capisce?

The Arizona Diamondbacks owners ramped up their war of words this week over their lawsuit to get out of their Chase Field lease unless Maricopa County provides $187 million for renovations, with both team president Derrick Hall and MLB commissioner Rob Manfred saying they would not be shackled to a rusted girder. Hall first:

“Love Chase Field, hope to be there for a long time,” Hall said on Arizona Sports 98.7 FM’s Bickley and Marotta show Tuesday. “We just see we’re coming to the cliff that they brought to our attention about four or five years ago … We just need a partner that can truly be a partner and can be there a long time and address the capital needs of that stadium.”

And then Manfred took a break from declaring war on the fundamental rules of his sport to save 14 seconds a game because millennials, man to chime in:

Manfred, speaking at a news conference Tuesday, said that “to be a major league-quality stadium,” Chase Field “needs work.”…

“We take very seriously the obligation to have a major league-quality facility in each and every market,” the commissioner said.

“It’s absolutely clear from the material that’s been made available to me there are serious maintenance needs that need to be met with respect to the stadium.”

Okay, so a couple of things. First off, a lot of the Diamondbacks’ wish list is for things like upgrading scoreboards and refurbishing luxury suites — stuff that is nice, but isn’t exactly a measure of being “major-league quality” — and most of the rest is for annual maintenance costs that the team should be spending every year anyway. (Yes, it’s not major-league quality if there’s no toilet paper in the restrooms, but that’s hardly the building’s fault.) So Hall and Manfred are deliberately fudging the difference between “obsolete” and “needs somebody to buy new lightbulbs.”

But even if the stadium did need (whatever “need” means here) major upgrades, there’s the question of why should this be county taxpayers’ problem? One might think that if a stadium is getting older (every stadium is getting older, as are we all), that’s something for the team to address. Like, say, the owners of the Toronto Blue Jays are looking at:

The retractable roof must also be replaced in the coming years, along with other less exciting upkeep tasks for a stadium that first opened in 1989, which is why [team president and CEO Mark] Shapiro insists the entire project must be viewed holistically.

The Blue Jays have hired a design firm and at this point, “what we do have is themes that through focus groups and through research and through industry trends and analysis provided clear ideas of what we would be looking to achieve in a re-envisioning – and I call it a re-envisioning rather than a renovation – of the stadium.”

“No. 1,” Shapiro continued, “would be to turn the stadium into a ballpark. Very simply that would be a top priority for us, which means (providing) a modern ballpark experience for our fans.

Okay, so the Blue Jays own Rogers Centre, whereas Maricopa County owns Chase Field. But the latter is basically a fiction designed to let the D-Backs out of paying property tax; the team gets all revenues from the stadium, even if it doesn’t have its name on the deed. And besides, that’s what leases are for, to determine who’s on the hook for future maintenance and upgrades — and the lease (which prohibits the team from moving through 2028, by the way) certainly appears to say that it’s up to the Diamondbacks owners to cough up the money in this case.

Determining that for sure, of course, is up to a court to decide, which is what Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick is suing to make happen. Until then, though, there’s plenty of room for negotiating through the media, and that’s what commissioners are for, so hey, why not? If it keeps Manfred from spending his time ruining extra innings, it might even be a mitzvah in disguise.

Arizona senators push to give Coyotes, Suns, D-Backs up to $1.1b for new arenas and stadium

Arizona Coyotes owner Anthony LeBlanc may not have any idea where he wants to build a new hockey arena now that Arizona State University pulled out of a planned venue in Tempe, but that’s not going to stop members of the Arizona state senate from pushing legislation to give him $170 million in sales- and hotel-tax kickbacks to help build one. And hey, while we’re at it, let’s make it easier for the Diamondbacks and Phoenix Suns to get state subsidies, too:

The bill would allow creation of “community engagement” districts of up to 30 acres. Within them, up to half of the state’s share of sales taxes generated from retail sales and hotel stays would be dedicated to paying the bond debt for new sports or entertainment facilities. It also would allow an additional 2 percent district sales tax to be applied to all purchases within the district, with those revenues also dedicated to defraying the cost of facility construction.

In the case of the Coyotes, the plan envisions public funding covering 57 percent of a new arena’s cost, with new sales taxes covering $170 million and the host city contributing $55 million. The Coyotes said the team’s portion would be $170 million, amounting to a 43 percent contribution toward the $395 million total cost.

This is a bit of a hybrid bill, combining super-TIFs (where half of existing sales and hotel taxes would be kicked back to pay teams’ construction costs) with a new sales tax surcharge in the area around the new sports venue. The math on how much of a subsidy this amounts to gets dicey — virtually all of a TIF would be cannibalized from sales and hotel tax receipts elsewhere in the state, but a slice of a sales tax surcharge could come out of a team owner’s pockets, depending on how big the surcharge area is — but the vast majority of it would be a straight-up gift to team owners, all to allow cities in one part of Arizona to steal teams from cities in another.

You’ll note that I said “teams,” not just the Coyotes. That’s because the new super-TIF districts could be applied to help build any new sports and entertainment facilities. The only limit is that state money would only be allowed to pay for half of construction costs up to $750 million — meaning that if the Coyotes, Suns, and Diamondbacks all availed themselves of the legislation, as you know they would love to do, Arizona taxpayers could potentially be on the hook for $1.125 billion. (If the Coyotes stick to their $170 million demand, the max would be only $920 million, but as we’ve seen before, sports construction costs only tend to go up, and there’s nothing stopping LeBlanc from revising his ask as time goes on.)

Now, the bill has so far only passed one committee in one branch of the Arizona legislature — Sen. Bob Worsley of Mesa used one of those “gut an unrelated bill and insert your own language” tricks to get it on the agenda of his own transportation and technology committee — and none of the teams involved have identified places where they’d like to build new facilities, or how to pay for their halves. Still, it’s a pretty remarkable response to a “crisis” started by the Coyotes’ need to leave their nearly-new arena in Glendale because … hey, Coyotes ownership, why do you need to leave again?

“It does not work in Glendale,” Ahron Cohen,the team’s general counsel, told the Senate panel. “In 2013, our ownership group bought the team. The previous ownership chose to go out there.”

Oh. Well, if it “doesn’t work,” then it doesn’t work. I thought you were going to say something about how you couldn’t bear to be forced to compete for the rights to operate the arena instead of just being handed $8 million a year by Glendale in a no-bid contract. Good thing it’s not that, because asking the state of Arizona to pay you a couple hundred mil to get you out of that pickle would be chutzpah in the Nth degree, and only complete morons in state government would actually consider it.

D-Backs owners sue to break lease, so they can escape being shackled to 19-year-old stadium

The owners of the Arizona Diamondbacks have started off 2017 with a bang as well, moving forward with until-now-idle threats by filing suit to break their lease with Maricopa County on Chase Field, on the grounds that the county owes them $187 million in repairs and upgrades:

Diamondbacks Managing General Partner Ken Kendrick said the team attempted to resolve the conflict out of court.

“We have made a promise to our fans, who have been partners with us on the building of this stadium and our franchise, to provide the best experience in all of baseball in a safe and welcoming environment,” he said in a written statement. “The inability of the Maricopa County Stadium District to fulfill its commitments has left us with no other option.”

Kendrick and his corporate overlords indeed no doubt saw this as their only option after county officials told them where to stick their stadium upgrade demands — whether than makes it a good option is another thing entirely. But given that the county report that identified the $187 million in needed (maybe “desired” is a better way of putting it) improvements in the first place also noted that $145 million of that was specifically on the team’s shoulders, it seems like the D-Backs owners are going to have an uphill battle in court, if they indeed plan to proceed to court and not just make this a negotiating gambit.

Anyway, expect the upcoming months, if not years, to now focus on questions of how to “solve the Diamondbacks stadium standoff” and where the team might try to relocate to if it successfully breaks its lease (which otherwise prohibits any move until 2028, or even talking about a move until 2024), much as we’ve seen in recent years with the Tampa Bay Rays. Which, come to think of it, is probably all the team owners want at this stage: to get people talking about replacing a 19-year-old stadium like it’s an urgent priority. There’s crazy, and then there’s crazy like a fox.

Private company’s stupid plan to build new D-Backs stadium falling apart, because it was stupid

The bizarro plan to have private investors buy Chase Field, home of the Arizona Diamondbacks, from Maricopa County and maybe build a new one already wasn’t going well when the putative investors never showed up to any meetings, though they did have their lawyer send a letter to the local newspaper. And now it’s really not going well, as recounted by the Arizona Republic’s Rebekah Sanders:

  • The Diamondbacks undermined investors by releasing to The Republic notes from a discussion that Stadium Real Estate Partners II had asked to remain confidential. According to notes by an attorney representing the team, attorneys representing the investors criticized the “structural integrity” of Chase Field and the anticipated high cost of repairs — as much as $180 million. Touring the ballpark “scared the s*** out of” the investors, according to the notes. “Putting money in this aging facility is a waste.”

  • The investors hoped to use the Government Property Lease Excise Tax incentive program to avoid millions of dollars in property and excise taxes on a new stadium, according to the notes. No property taxes are currently paid at Chase Field since a government entity — the county — owns the land.

That’s a lot of tea leaves to read, but it sounds like: 1) the Diamondbacks owners are more interested in making a case for their stadium upgrade demands than for a sale plan that was the county’s idea in the first place, and 2) the private investors didn’t really know what they were getting themselves into, other than “hey, let’s get a stadium and get subsidies for it somehow,” which is working the D-Backs owners’ side of the street.

The problem remains much the same one as with Donald Trump’s infrastructure privatization scheme: If a project isn’t making any money, just shifting it from public to private hands isn’t going to suddenly make it more profitable, unless there are new subsidies involved. The only real hope for this stuff is that you find a private developer who’s able to come up with an innovative way of making money that the government hadn’t thought of (not likely, but possible) or who’s dumb enough to throw money at a gamble that’s likely not going to pan out (also not likely, but possible); the danger is that either you have to subsidize the project up front, or that the private entity goes belly-up and leaves its public partner holding a half-billion-dollar bag, which is all too possible. So it might actually be easier for all concerned if these private buyers bail on the plan, and just leave the D-Backs owners and the county to keep fighting it out over who’ll spend on what — if nothing else, that kind of subsidy battle is way easier to understand.

UPDATE: The plan is now totally dead. In lieu of flowers, send ideas for fixing Shelby Miller.