A’s vs. Giants in the fight for San Jose: “We’re talking about two immoveable objects”

56 Comments

Yahoo!’s Steve Henson gives us the state of the union over the MLB’s efforts to mediate the A’s-to-San Jose thing. The upshot: it’s ugly and there’s no easy solution, as the Giants aren’t even negotiating with the league over this, and some think they’ll sue if the A’s are allowed to move:

The Giants have attorneys close to their ownership group who made millions trying eminent domain cases. Owners agree not to sue MLB under any circumstances, but in that regard this could be ground-breaking if the A’s are allowed to break ground in San Jose.

“Some people believe the Giants would sue, other don’t think so,” the MLB executive said.

Call their bluff, Bud. Have your dormant committee release an actual report that outlines the actual need for the A’s to be in San Jose. Detail along with it the costs to the league if they don’t, the benefits to the league if they do and the costs to the Giants as well.  Then compare it to other potential relocation sites. I’m guessing the numbers point to it being a net gain for the A’s to be in San Jose as opposed to other markets, even if it costs the Giants some.

Point is: lay the groundwork for a compelling argument — both legally and on the public relations front — that the A’s moving to San Jose is the best for baseball overall.  Make a call that, even though it would cause short term strife for the Giants and other owners who fear for their territory rights, would, over time, pave the way for a more logical and economically beneficial arrangement of teams around population areas. Force the Giants to defend a stupid territorial system that promotes inefficiency.

Yes, this is a fantasy on my part. I don’t see Selig ever taking such a course of action.  Of course, given that he won’t, a franchise is being allowed to die on the vine, and I don’t know how anyone finds that acceptable.

Meanwhile, on the cold, cold Hot Stove . . .

Getty Images
10 Comments

It’s Hot Stove Season baby! You know what that means! Yep: time to watch some teams sign a few relievers to minor league deals and then wait everyone out until February while talking about the need to maintain financial flexibility! FEEL THE BURN.

In more specific news:

We’ve talked a lot about Betts this winter already, and that seems like madness. Bryant’s career with the Cubs began with business-side acrimony, it’s still simmering, and there is no sense that either side is amenable to a long-term deal before he hits free agency. The Indians have been signaling for some time that they have no interest in keeping Lindor long term.

It’s quite the thing when three teams who are supposed to be contending are, instead, looking to deal recent MVP award winners and candidates who are 27 and 26 years old, but these are the times in which we are living.

  • Joe Sheehan wrote an excellent column for Baseball America last week analyzing the attendance drop MLB experienced in 2019. Which is just the latest in a series of attendance drops. As Joe notes there is a very, very strong connection between teams (a) signaling to fans during the offseason that they are not interested in signing or retaining players or otherwise being competitive; and (b) teams suffering attendance losses.

As I wrote last offseason, there is an increasing disconnect between attendance and other proxies of broad fan interest and revenue. Which is to say that, as long as teams continue to get fat on long-term TV deals, side businesses like real estate development, and soaking a smaller and wealthier segment of the fan base with higher and higher prices, they really have no reason to care if several thousand common or casual fans become alienated by their teams’ lack of desire to compete.

Sullivan doesn’t offer ideas about how that can happen, but over the past couple of seasons we’ve seen a number of proposals, some broad, some specific, about how MLB can turn its free agency/trading period into frantic, 1-3 day scrambles-to-sign like we see in both the NBA and NFL. I’m sympathetic to that desire — it’s exciting! — but any attempt to do that in Major League Baseball, at least as things are currently set up, would be a disaster for the players.

In the NBA and NFL you have salary caps and floors and, in the NBA, you have max contracts. As a result, teams both have a set amount of money to spend and an incentive to spend that money. We can quibble with whether those incentives are the best ones or if they benefit the players as much as other systems might, but there’s at least something inherent in their systems which inspires teams to sign free agents.

In Major League Baseball, there is no such incentive. May teams want to keep payrolls as low as possible under the guise of rebuilding or tanking and there is no effective mechanism to keep them from doing so. Even nominal contenders — see the Cubs, Indians and Red sox in item 1 above — spend more time thinking about how to cut payroll rather than add talent. This is bolstered by the stuff in item 2 above in which attendance and even winning has less of an impact on the bottom line than it ever has.

So, why scramble to sign players by a set deadline? Under most of the scenarios I see floated — like the laughably horrible one MLB reportedly suggested to the MLBPA — teams would just wait out free agents until deadline day, give them crappy take-it-or-leave-it offers and then leave them all scrambling to sign one-year deals or to sit the season out.

For such a thing to happen — or for teams to want to keep their bright young stars or for the league to want to maintain fan interest and keep attendance from continuing to slide — there must be incentives put in place to make them want to sign and retain players. To make them want to win. To make them want to excite the fan base.

At present, such incentives are not there. And, as such, we are faced with yet another winter with a cold, cold stove.