As the A’s and Oakland fight about a lease, the Raiders plan to tear the Coliseum down

61 Comments

As we’ve chronicled for the past couple of weeks, the A’s and Oakland are engaged in all kinds of drama about the planned ten-year lease for the team to continue playing in the Oakland Coliseum. It’s all fraught with intrigue and strategy and bluffing and posturing. But maybe it doesn’t matter:

While the A’s are trying to negotiate a deal to stay in the O.co Coliseum for another 10 years, the Raiders are in talks to tear down the stadium next year to make way for a new home for the NFL team . . . Representatives of Coliseum City say they expect to reach a deal with the Raiders by the end of the summer that would lead to the opening of a new football stadium on the existing site by 2018.

“It will be critical to demolish the existing stadium in 2015” if the project is to be finished on time, Coliseum City attorney (and local political powerhouse) Zachary Wasserman said in a July 2 memo to Quan and City Administrator Henry Gardner.

Which, oooohhhkay, would be rather interesting given that the A’s have the right to a two-year notice before having to vacate. And given that the Coliseum Authority still owes $180 million to pay for the 1990s renovations to the place. This was all summed up in a quote from the Coliseum chairman:

“This is either smoke and mirrors,” Miley said, “or they are on crack.”

It all does seem silly, given that the Coliseum Authority, and not developers or city officials control what happens to the place. I mean, Wal-Mart could write a memo saying they want to tear my house down, but they do sorta need my approval on the plan. At least last time I checked. I dunno, maybe my living here violates Wal-Mart, Inc.’s religious beliefs thereby giving them the rights to my home. With this Supreme Court you can never tell.

All of that said, I’d be curious to see where the A’s would play if this plan did get some traction. I mean, if there was some committee studying all of this for the past five years there would be options. But as of now, eh.

Zack Cozart thinks the way the Rays have been using Sergio Romo is bad for baseball

Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
6 Comments

The Rays started Sergio Romo on back-to-back days and if that sounds weird to you, you’re not alone. Romo, of course, was the star closer for the Giants for a while, helping them win the World Series in 2012 and ’14. He’s been a full-time reliever dating back to 2006, when he was at Single-A.

In an effort to prevent lefty Ryan Yarbrough from facing the righty-heavy top of the Angels’ lineup (Zack Cozart, Mike Trout, Justin Upton), Romo started Saturday’s game, pitching the first inning before giving way to Yarbrough in the second. Romo struck out the side, in fact. The Rays went on to win 5-3.

The Rays did it again on Sunday afternoon, starting Romo. This time, he got four outs before giving way to Matt Andriese. Romo walked two without giving up a hit while striking out three. The Angels managed to win 5-2 however.

Despite Sunday’s win, Cozart wasn’t a happy camper with the way the Rays used Romo. Via Fabian Ardaya of The Athletic, Cozart said, “It was weird … It’s bad for baseball, in my opinion … It’s spring training. That’s the best way to explain it.”

It’s difficult to see merit in Cozart’s argument. It’s not like the Rays were making excessive amounts of pitching changes; they used five on Saturday and four on Sunday. The games lasted three hours and three hours, 15 minutes, respectively. The average game time is exactly three hours so far this season. I’m having trouble wondering how else Cozart might mean the strategy is bad for baseball.

It seems like the real issue is that Cozart is afraid of the sport changing around him. The Rays, like most small market teams, have to find their edges in slight ways. The Rays aren’t doing this blindly; the strategy makes sense based on their opponents’ starting lineup. The idea of valuing on-base percentage was scoffed at. Shifting was scoffed at and now every team employs them to some degree. Who knows if starting a reliever for the first three or four outs will become a trend, but it’s shortsighted to write it off at first glance.