Me, last Thursday, after the Oakland A’s traded away Chris Bassitt, Matt Olson, and Matt Chapman in quick succession:
Sure, it’s possible that Fisher and Kaval and that guy who wrote Moneyball are planning a campaign of “If you don’t give us a stadium, we’ll keep trading every A’s player as soon as they hit puberty,” but driving away all your fans is not historically a great way to build a groundswell of fan support for your stadium subsidy demands.
A’s president Dave Kaval, in Friday’s San Francieco Chronicle:
This is exactly why we need a new ballpark. … In order for us to retain our talent, to have a much higher payroll, we need higher revenues. That comes with a new fan-friendly facility and we just don’t have that.
That’d be a “yes,” then!
As noted, there’s plenty of historical precedent for a strategy of constantly tearing down your roster until the public agrees to give you a new stadium — the Florida Marlins trying to sign star third baseman to a “but only if we get a new stadium” contract extension in 2003 comes to mind — and most of it wasn’t very successful — Marlins owner Jeff Loria didn’t get a new stadium approved until 2008, by which time Lowell was long gone. In general, stadium subsidy campaigns are more successful when teams are good than when they’re terrible, if only because the threat of “send money or we’ll move this team” isn’t as persuasive when nobody cares about the team in the first place. Which seems to be the direction things are heading in Oakland after the team’s umpteenth fire sale.
It’s an especially risky move right now, with the A’s Howard Terminal stadium project and its $1 billion in public infrastructure spending facing some big votes in the near future. Not only does the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission still have to decide on whether to overturn its advisory committee’s vote against the stadium plan, but some members of the Oakland city council are reportedly considering putting the stadium plan up for a public vote this November, something Kaval immediately called “concerning” because he’s worried it could “delay the project,” though it’s more likely he’s concerned that the general Oakland voting populace will be harder to effectively lobby than the council. And even if a council vote to hold a referendum seems unlikely — right now it’s just councilmember Carroll Fife and two unnamed councilmembers she says are “receptive” to the idea, in the San Francisco Chronicle’s words, out of an eight-member council — why risk pushing councilmembers into the “screw it, let’s just leave it up to voters” camp by making your entire city think of you as a wealthy cheapskate?
This is clearly the strategy Kaval and A’s owner John Fisher are intent on pursuing, though, as Kaval has been hinting since last summer that the beatings would continue until morale improves. We’ll see whether it ends up being effective brinksmanship or ineffective brinksmanship, but if it were me, I would have kept Olson & Co. around for a few more months to remind A’s fans of why baseball is fun to watch, instead of just giving them reasons to consider why burning team executives in effigy is fun to watch.
I learned what these people mean by “needing a stadium to remain competitive” when the Rich DeVos Magic begged for (and received) a new arena on a sweetheart deal. Despite years of claims that they needed the new arena to remain competitive, the on-court product itself took a huge plunge within months of the new arena opening, a dive that the franchise *still* hasn’t recovered from. Their implication might be that they need more money to be able to sign and retain players, but what they really want is just more money, in the forms of subsidies and higher ticket/suite revenues.
One research (?) I would like to see is the comparison of win-loss records in, say, the five years before and after a new venue opens — or, failing that, a similar comparison for the first five years before and after franchise relocation. I’m not sure it’s likely to turn up any patterns or correlations, but it would be good to have some data points out there for reference.
“One research (?) I would like to see is the comparison of win-loss records in, say, the five years before and after a new venue opens — or, failing that, a similar comparison for the first five years before and after franchise relocation.”
I think I did this for one of my chapters in “Baseball Between the Numbers” and found that a new stadium correlated with a very small increase in wins. (My copy is a couple hundred miles away at the moment, or I would check.) That was a while back, though, and I can certainly redo the study with fresh data.
Found it: BBtN, pp. 221-2, for all MLB teams that moved into new stadium, 1991-2001:
“The overall averages: a .486 winning percentage [in the five years] before the move, .520 afterward. It appears that a new ballpark is worth about 5.5 wins a year.
“In economic terms, this actually makes sense. On thing new stadiums do, as we saw in Chapter 6-1, is increase the marginal return on spending to improve your team. In simple terms, a team is more likely to sign a Barry Bonds — or, to use the actual example of Cleveland, give long-term contracts to Jim Thome and Kenny Lofton — if it knows the people turning out to watch him are paying $25 a ticket instead of $15.
“Of course, a $500 million stadium is an awfully expensive way to pick up five and a half games in the standings.”
Give me a minute and I’ll see if the same correlation holds true for teams with new stadiums in the last 20 years.
Funny: the Marlins won a World Series playing at Joe Robbie Stadium and haven’t won crap since being at LoanDepot Park.
They won 2 World Series playing at Joe Robbie, so it’s obvious the Marlins need Miami and the state of Florida to build them a new retro-park that resembles a 1990s football stadium with a baseball field wedged into it.
Can they go all in on the retro side and have it 100% privately financed like Joe Robbie stadium was?
The A’s are making the pols do the heavy lifting to sell HT. I guess they fe
The beatings will continue until the moral improves.
I am 100% in favour of council putting the Fisher welfare demand to a public vote.
One problem that Kaval MAY not have considered in all this setting fire to the asset you have pledged to protect is… if Oakland council (or general public – not that any public vote would necessarily be binding) does give them the bum’s rush… exactly where will he move this prized asset of a minor league ball team that charges MLB prices?
Follow the Coyotes example and play at a 7,000 seat MiLB or college stadium?
Where? And why would MLB approve a temporary move if there is no agreed plan in place to build a permanent home?
Wouldn’t you love to play poker against three Dave Kavals? I know I would.
Give me 2 sternbergs and 1kaval
LOL. Good point.
I know of a place in the Bay Area where the A’s would thrive!..a place Fisher and former owner Lew Wolff longed for (perhaps still!). But it would require a big dose of common sense to finally prevail and for MLB to finally come into the 21st Century. Never say never..
They probably would! Although there is nothing to suggest they can’t thrive in a new or heavily renovated stadium right where they are either.
And if it were just about merit and market, the Rays could have been moved to NY or NJ years ago… and then Sternberg could be happy too.
Let’s not act like this is the first time the A’s have done this. It goes all the way back to the early 90s. Young cheap talent becomes expensive talent, and off they go to produce for other teams. This is part of being an A’s fan.
Just to name a few… Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, Josh Donaldson, Eric Chavez, Yoenis Cespedes, Dan Haren… and now Bassit, Olson, and Chapman.
The only thing that will break this cycle is moving to Las Vegas. And I’m all for it!!
Somehow I doubt that moving to the nation’s 40th largest TV market would put an end to the fire sales.
Moneyball is late stage capitalism
This Jays fan thanks Oakland for the firesales, keep ’em comin’!
(Donaldson, Semein, Chapman)