Selig declares Oakland needs new park

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

OAKLAND, Calif. -- Baseball commissioner Bud Selig visited the Oakland's ballpark Thursday for the first time since 1989 and declared the Athletics need a new stadium soon to survive.

 

This isn't the first time he has said the team needs a new venue, but he wanted to revisit Oakland to reiterate his point. Selig did not offer a timetable, adding that "there's no question the club will have to make a considerable contribution."

 

A's owner Steve Schott gave Selig a tour. Schott declined comment after Selig's news conference before the A's played the New York Yankees but later released a statement thanking Selig for his support.

 

"Commissioner Selig is well aware of our need and desire to construct a baseball-only facility for the A's in the Bay Area," Schott said. "Teams need to play in venues that generate the necessary revenue to compete for a championship year-in and year-out. We need a new facility to insure the A's will be financially competitive for the long term. We can't achieve that goal in our present facility."

 

The A's currently rank eighth in the American League in attendance.

 

Schott would like to move the franchise to nearby San Jose, but the San Francisco Giants own the rights to that area. In spring training, Schott used the words "cry baby" in conjunction with Giants' owner Peter Magowan's objections to the idea. The Giants play in 5-year-old SBC Park, a beautiful, modern stadium perched on the shores of San Francisco Bay.

 

"Clearly for this club to be competitive in the future it needs a new venue," Selig said. "Once people around you start getting new ballparks and generating more revenue, it becomes hard for that particular franchise to compete.

 

"And to say the owner should dig into his pocket with no chance of that ever changing is just not possible. These people find themselves in a very uncomfortable position of playing in a park that's now 38 years old and just can't generate the revenue to keep its players and be competitive," he said.

 

The small-market A's, who have won the AL West the past two seasons and lost in the first round of the playoffs the past four years, have a payroll of just over $59 million this season, higher than 14 of baseball's 30 teams.

 

The Giants are ninth with a payroll of roughly $82 million, and they shaved about $8 million from their payroll this season.

 

Oakland has lost two MVPs in the last three years.

 

Shortstop Miguel Tejada left in free agency in December to sign a $72 million, six-year contract with the Baltimore Orioles. Jason Giambi, the 2000 MVP, signed a $120 million, seven-year contract with the Yankees after the 2001 season.

 

"They can't stay here, so we're going to have to find an alternative," Selig said.

 

I'm sick of this crap. Didn't everyone figure out the scam three years ago? The A's have now won 90+ games four years in a row. They've created a system where they do not NEED to keep their best players, as they'll simply take the compensation draft picks and keep building from the farm. I won't deny the A's could use a new park, but I'm tired of Selig pulling the "competitive" card.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well if Bud says the A's need a new ballpark, I hope he has deep pockets...

 

And where was MLB Brass when the Pirates had a winning team in the early 1990s and had all its good players leave for greener pastures?...

[Bored 0]

Oh Bud you big silly! Bleh, he says this every year when he stops by in Spring Training. Hey Bud did you notice the A's turn a profit every year? Did you notice that they signed Eric Chavez 6-year, $66 million deal? Did you hear that it's highly likely that Tim Hudson will be signing a big money extension this offseason?

They can't stay here, so we're going to have to find an alternative," Selig said.

What is this a threat? What you gonna do Bud? Contract them?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But ... But ... they can't sell-out their home playoff games...

[Guest MikeSC]

But ... But ... they can't sell-out their home playoff games...

I'm still amazed that no citizen has ever seriously challenged the legality of using PUBLIC money to pay for a stadium. It's not like the city gets a huge benefit from doing it.

 

Let the owners, who spend a couple hundred million to buy a club --- BUY THEIR OWN FRIGGIN' STADIUM.

-=Mike

...God knows Pittsburgh's new park has turned that franchise around

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Its the same as giving tax breaks or subsudies (sp?) to businesses for moving into an area. Proponents say it improves the surrounding area, provides jobs, and so on. Many say those improvements are marginal at best. Personally, I agree. Owners should fund their own parks, or stay in their current stadium. The idea that the St. Louis Cardinals need a new stadium is a joke.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

as soon as Bud rolled into town, you knew this was gonna happen.

[Guest MikeSC]

Its the same as giving tax breaks or subsudies (sp?) to businesses for moving into an area. Proponents say it improves the surrounding area, provides jobs, and so on. Many say those improvements are marginal at best. Personally, I agree. Owners should fund their own parks, or stay in their current stadium. The idea that the St. Louis Cardinals need a new stadium is a joke.

Thing is, I don't think anybody can point to a study that says a new park helps anything.

 

HOWEVER, studies that ballparks have no benefit aren't all that rare.

-=Mike

[geniusMoment 0]

The A's will be competitive until they lose their big 3 to arbitration. At which point they better hope Harden and their pitching prospects actually produce.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The A's will be competitive until they lose their big 3 to arbitration. At which point they better hope Harden and their pitching prospects actually produce.

 

Zito and Mulder are already under contract through 2006, for $7 Mil and $7.25 Mil respectively. Hudson is signed through 2005, at which point he becomes a free agent. I don't see the big issue with the starter. I don't think ANY team could keep three starters of this caliber. After all, even the Yankees couldn't hold on to Pettitte. They'll sign Hudson, let Zito go, and wait and see with Mulder. They'll at least keep one, in my view. Meanwhile, they've got Harden for the league minimum until 2006, when he hits arbitration. Joe Blanton is a stud prospect. This team is nowhere near panic mode yet, and even if they lose their big three, its not until 2006 anyway.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

It sure helped Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee become competitive.

 

Oh wait, all of those teams have downsized their clubs since then.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm still amazed that no citizen has ever seriously challenged the legality of using PUBLIC money to pay for a stadium. It's not like the city gets a huge benefit from doing it.

 

Let the owners, who spend a couple hundred million to buy a club --- BUY THEIR OWN FRIGGIN' STADIUM.

          -=Mike

I don't mind it so much as long as the city gets reimbursed through a share of ticket sales or whatever. Then it's more like borrowing instead of just taking a hit for your damn sports team.

 

Cities here don't have as much money as they did previously though because the state is in so much debt and crisis that cities aren't seeing as much.

 

Oakland needs police and fire more than it needs a new stadium.

[OldSchoolWrestling 0]

The stadium was renovated in 95 when the Raiders came back so its not like the place is a dump. And I don't get the complaint that there are too many seats. If you build a smaller stadium and then it sells out, doesn't that mean that there were probably some people who wanted to come in but couldn't, therefore that would be money lost?

 

Is a new stadium basically so you can add attractions other than the actual game?

[Hektik 0]

Baseball only stadiums have helped in some cities. Here in San Diego the new stadium has helped revitalize the east village, which was a decaying section of Downtown San Diego. Before the stadium, the east villiage was where homeless, drug dealers, and gang members were at. Now the surrounding area of the stadium has new shops, restaraunts, and hotels. The stadium just opened a few months ago and the Padres are in first place in the NL west and have the most wins in the National League. Yeah, that has more to do with the players but it is a success story nonetheless.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah, doesn't Oakland, as a city, have more concerns than the Coliseum? Geez. It's not pretty, it's not interesting, but it's sufficient for what it is. It's...Oakland. A facelift couldn't hurt, but no need to give the A's a "retro ballpark with interesting outfield angles inspired by Ebbets Field, and food service beyond standard stadum-fare, you can even get a chicken salad."

[Bored 0]

The stadium was renovated in 95 when the Raiders came back so its not like the place is a dump.  And I don't get the complaint that there are too many seats.  If you build a smaller stadium and then it sells out, doesn't that mean that there were probably some people who wanted to come in but couldn't, therefore that would be money lost? 

 

Is a new stadium basically so you can add attractions other than the actual game?

The stadium was rennovated but not for the better in the eyes of most fans. The old look of the Coliseum with regular bleachers, a giant manual out of town scoreboard, and a view of the Oakland hills actually made the place feel like a baseball stadium. Now it feels like just a dark, dank football stadium with the addition of Mt. Davis. The A's were basically treated like second class citizens when the Raiders moved back and it turned a lot of fans off. Only good thing about the rennovation was replacing the old, sun scorched, orange seats with green ones. Sure I'd love a new stadium but all that being said the Coliseum is hardly preventing the A's from being a success and it really isn't that bad of place to watch a game. I also only want a new stadium with a new ownership who pays for it themselves.

 

For the attendance thing it's just a smaller stadium gives a more intiment feel to the place. Also the fewer the seats, the more in demand those seats are.

 

And for the last question....yes that's basically it. New stadiums are meant to attract the non-die hard fans and tourists. Of course what Bud never seems to realize or just ignore that these new stadiums will become old stadiums eventually and then what then? 20 years from now just ask everyone to build yet another new stadium?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The stadium was renovated in 95 when the Raiders came back so its not like the place is a dump. And I don't get the complaint that there are too many seats. If you build a smaller stadium and then it sells out, doesn't that mean that there were probably some people who wanted to come in but couldn't, therefore that would be money lost?

 

Is a new stadium basically so you can add attractions other than the actual game?

Pac... Er, sorry, SBC Park hasn't hosted anything other attractions than Giants games and XFL football to my knowledge, though everyone still talks about how pretty and beautiful it is, etc. I wouldn't know, only Giants game I attended live was at the Stick and against a team I can't remember.

 

I think the A's need to move off the third-tier Action 36 channel onto something better before we talk about new ballparks. I mean, at least the local UPN and WB stations would be SOMETHING.

[Vern Gagne 0]

It sure helped Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee become competitive.

 

Oh wait, all of those teams have downsized their clubs since then.

Those are incompetent organizations. Oakland, Minnesota are not.

[NoCalMike 0]

The only thing I like better about the A's collesium today more then ten years ago, is the green seats. Seriously, Al Davis fucked everything up when he brought the Raiders back.

 

I would love to see the A's with a brand new stadium right in the middle of downtown..........SACRAMENTO~!

[The Czech Republic 0]

I think the only team that DESPERATELY needs a new park is the Twins. Like I said, Oakland Coliseum isn't pretty but it gets the job done.

Wrigley and Fenway are old but damned if they're ever going anywhere.

Olympic Stadium is not long for major-league play so why bother.

I could make a case for the Skydome being crappy, but geez, the thing's only like 15 years old or something.

 

So really that just leaves the Metrodome as the only venue which hasn't been dealt with. Just go with the required retractable roof with natural grass...no more carpet with a partial infield below a white Teflon roof. That's not baseball.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Anyone else find it a bit disturbing that the commisioner of baseball made his first visit to Oakland's stadium in 15 years?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This guy's column goes on about the Spidey ads and stuff, but I like what he said in this part:

 

Pressing the issue, a local journalist asked the perfect question: Strictly as a ballpark, forget the attendance (38,417 on Thursday night) and the revenue and anything else, how does the Coliseum compare to the stadiums in Anaheim and Miami, where the last two World Series were won?

 

"Well, Florida's made their own feelings known," he began, becoming even more vague from that point on. In the wake of Schott's "Oh, poor us" laments, Selig wasn't about to admit that the Coliseum is infinitely superior to Pro Player Stadium, home of the world champions, and roughly the equal of an Orange County facility where they put a fake mountain range in left-center field.

 

The suspicion here is that Selig didn't find much wrong in Oakland. He's an unabashed lover of ballparks, with a ton of personal experience dating back more than half a century. He loves green grass, a well-kept infield, the great outdoors and a quirk or two. He knows for a fact that things could be way worse.

 

The Metrodome in Minneapolis is an obvious travesty from the second you walk through its doors. You literally can smell the stench of Shea Stadium. Standing outside Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, Fla., you don't even want to know what's inside. The Coliseum is dated, and it can't match the modern- day standards for luxury boxes or clubhouse amenities, but it's a perfectly fine place to watch baseball.

 

Selig simply can't get past the numbers -- the attendance, to some degree, but more significantly the A's payroll. That's the only evidence he acknowledges. "You're only as good as what your area can produce in revenue," he stated, more than once, and you know what, sports fans? That just isn't true.

 

The A's have been a competitive, against-the-odds franchise for most of their 36-year stay here. They operated on about an 18-cent budget in the Charlie Finley days, routinely destroying people on the field. The Haas family saw a larger picture but picked its financial spots, building a winner behind the collective genius of Sandy Alderson, Walt Jocketty and Tony La Russa. And now this: all the earmarks of a struggling franchise -- low payroll, superstars leaving at an alarming rate -- yet a consistently exciting, competitive team under general manager Billy Beane.

 

Selig is absolutely correct when he says these are different economic times, but you're not as good as your revenue stream, OK? Competition is all about smarts, well-timed trades, a solid farm system and a sound philosophy. Always has been, always will. Selig admitted that new ballparks are "not a panacea" in themselves, and we've got more than enough evidence with the grim scenes in Milwaukee, Detroit, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.

 

Moreover, the A's are going to be at the Coliseum forever. Oakland city politics are little more than a joke, other East Bay sites would measure up horribly against the Giants' gold mine, and Selig himself opposes the most sensible move, to San Jose, because he backs the Giants' claim to territorial rights. The A's draw adequately, if not spectacularly, so the whole issue is little more than dreary dinner conversation.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Bud Selig should come to Baltimore. Although I doubt hed have a problem with OPACY, he'd probably demand that the Orioles get a new owner.

 

Loosely related is the fact that baseball is touting improved attendance records so far this year. Supposedly the Devil Rays are drawing 30,000 a game, but by fudging their numbers to include the 100,000 they got for being the home team in the Japan series, its much lower than that.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It sure helped Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee become competitive.

 

Oh wait, all of those teams have downsized their clubs since then.

No, they're just loading up on prospects -- st00pid.

 

Wait 10 years and see what happens. I'm sure those prospects will be traded to some damn fine teams...