This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
July 28, 2010
MLB offers to pay for San Jose A's referendum if it's delayed
Apparently Bud Selig really doesn't want San Jose jumping the gun and holding an Oakland A's stadium vote before MLB has decided if the team can move there. Yesterday league officials told San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed that they'd pay the $1 million-plus cost of holding a special election next spring, if the city agrees to put it off until after MLB's relocation task force has finished its report.
Reed hinted yesterday that he'd be amenable to such a plan, saying, "I want to think about it, and talk to [A's owner] Lew Wolff, and he and I and [MLB president] Bob DuPuy will talk again." The San Francisco Chronicle's political gossipmongers Matier and Ross say they expect an announcement today that San Jose is putting off the stadium vote.
So, it seems like this whole kerfuffle will likely go down as a bit of gamesmanship to push the A's situation to a conclusion, though from here it's hard to say exactly who's behind the game: Reed, who was apparently frustrated that an August 3 deadline for putting a stadium on the November ballot was nearing, and DuPuy was on vacation and not returning his phone calls? Maybe Wolff, who yesterday again expressed frustration with the slow pace of MLB's decision-making process, saying, "It's been 16 months, and I have 130 employees who need to know where they are headed"? We probably won't know the full story until DuPuy writes his tell-all book about what's really going on inside those meetings (or email exchanges, or Farmville chat sessions or however they're exchanging ultimatums these days) between Wolff and San Francisco Giants owner Bill Neukom.
What do Wolff's 130 employees have to do with it? They have a place to play now, and that place isn't going away.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on July 28, 2010 11:10 AM
Actually that's not entirely accurate. The A's won't be at the Coliseum in 5 years. His employees would like to know where that next home will be. Oakland, San Jose, or elsewhere.
Posted by Dan on July 28, 2010 03:06 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15623488
Yep, Mayor Reed says the vote won't be in Nov. 2010.
Dan-it's not that the Coliseum will be torn down, right? It's that the lease will be up, right? The lease can be extended if they have no where else to play. That's what I meant.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on July 28, 2010 08:19 PM
"The A's won't be at the Coliseum in 5 years."
I think I'd be willing to take that bet. I remember Yankees broadcaster Michael Kay saying in 1993, "There's no way the Yankees will still be in this stadium in five years." He was only off by a decade.
Posted by Neil on July 28, 2010 10:58 PM
I'd be willing to put a fiver on it if just because people have been saying the A's won't be staying in the Coliseum for much longer since the mid-90's. It's already been 15 years.
And my opinion was reinforced after visiting the Coliseum last night for the filming of Brad Pitt's new movie "Moneyball." I've been to Petco Park, ATT Park, Fenway, Dodger Stadium and Angels Stadium this season for games and Safeco and the Bob to visit and can say without hesitation that the Coliseum is no longer a major league venue. Even it's contemporaries in Los Angeles and Anaheim put it completely to shame, particularly in layout and stadium location categories. Maybe it was the gunshots I heard while waiting to go into the Coliseum talking but it's just not a place I'd expect anyone to want to comes see a game, even if it were Jesus Christ playing Babe Ruth.
Posted by Dan on August 6, 2010 05:04 PM
You sayin Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Posted by Andy on September 29, 2010 05:13 PM