S1: This is KPBS roundtable. I'm Andrew Bracken. Today , the latest on the wildfires that continue to burn across L.A. County and what it's been like to cover them. Then a suite of new laws for California kicked in with the start of the new year. We check in on some of those. Plus the latest on a fight for control of the San Diego Padres. The KPBS roundtable starts now. As the Los Angeles fires continue to burn today , at least 180,000 are under evacuation orders. And at least ten people have lost their lives. Thousands of homes and businesses are destroyed , leaving entire communities devastated. As of Friday morning , strong winds have somewhat calmed down , giving firefighters a chance to tackle the flames. A lot goes into getting the news out quickly and safely during a crisis like this. Ryan Mina has been on the front lines in Los Angeles throughout the week. She covers crime and public safety for the Southern California News Group. Ryan , welcome to roundtable.
S2: Thanks for having me.
S1: So first off , thanks for joining us during what I imagine is a pretty unprecedented week in Los Angeles. Can you first , you know , give us the latest.
S2: There's also the Creek and Lydia and sunset fires. Those have calmed down. The sunset fires. Inactive. But yeah , those are the four main ones we're watching.
S1: And the Kenneth fire you mentioned. I think that's the kind of one of the more recent ones. What's the status of that ? Do we know ? Yeah.
S2: So as of this morning , the Kenneth Fire is has burned about a thousand acres. It is currently at 35% containment. And all evacuation orders and warnings were lifted as of 8 p.m. yesterday evening.
S1: Now , I'm wondering if you can kind of walk us through the week you've had. I think the Pacific Palisades fire , that was the first to get started on Tuesday morning.
S2: It'd be at well , it began a normal Tuesday workday. And then my editor called me and he was like , we need you to go to the Palisades. There's a fire. We need you to cover it. And I was like , all right , I am packing up my car with my fire gear , uh , preparing myself , and I'm on my way. It took me about two hours to get down to to Will Rogers State Beach. There was incredibly gridlocked traffic. People were evacuating. Sunset was completely gridlocked. And , um. Yeah , that's how my week began.
S1: And so that first day you were covering the Palisades fire.
S2: I turned on the radio and was just getting updates on it , and I mean it. It started as a vegetation fire and exploded into , I mean , what is now almost 20,000 , about 20,000 acres. And I realized that this. This is not I mean , when I got down there is when I realized that this is this is not normal and just the amount of of smoke that was coming off of the mountains , the amount of people that I saw evacuating , it was like nothing I've ever seen before.
S1:
S2: You know , people are wearing masks. People who aren't super close to the fires are evacuating. I myself left my my home in Los Feliz a couple nights ago. The night of the sunset fire. Uh , just in case the fire were to come closer. And the Santa Monica mountains our way. So everyone is just on high alert.
S1: And , you know , tragically , these fires , they seem to be more , you know , more than just toppling buildings in homes , but have just ravaged entire communities.
S2: And going down to Altadena on Wednesday is the closest I got to to the fires and the devastation. And it looked like an apocalyptic war zone out there in Altadena , just blocks and blocks of houses just burned down to the ground , in some cases just chimneys left , just the foundations left. Charred skeletons of cars left over. It's. It's devastating.
S1: And you've spoken with people directly impacted by the fires.
S2: Um , I met them as they were frantically packing up their cars. They were trying to figure out how to pack everything into their SUV while just across the street , their house is burning down to the ground. And a firefighter was trying to to put out the flames , but they were just trying to get out as quickly as possible. Safety was , of course , first and foremost to them as it is to so many others.
S1: And I mean you , you're from LA , you born , you grew up there. How does how does that impact your approach to , you know , telling these stories to speaking with these people , like you said , that maybe losing their homes.
S2: I mean , yeah , this is. It makes it more personal , you know. I mean , I went to school on the west side of Los Angeles. I spent a lot of time in the Palisades as a youth , and. And seeing so many friends and people that I know , houses burned down to the ground , it's it's a lot to process. And it makes it makes it more important to me to really get those human stories to , to to understand how people are feeling , how they're impacted and what's going on in their minds. It puts a human element first and foremost.
S1: How do you balance your emotions with your job to report the news ? I mean , you just mentioned you have friends impacted by this , maybe family.
S2: Yeah , it's it's really tough , honestly , especially going down to Altadena. Um , getting right in front of the blazes. I had to take a moment and take a beat to kind of just feel what I was feeling. The overwhelming , overwhelming of of emotions flooding through me. But I knew I had a job to do so although I did have those emotions , I had to put them , um , on the back burner to deal with later and just report on the facts.
S1: Can you describe what the fire looked and felt like to you ? Yeah.
S2: So in Altadena , when I first got to Christmas Tree Lane , there were a few houses that were on fire , and in those 15 minutes I spent first on that street. The flames grew significantly , which , you know , had me on high alert that like , I might need to jump in my car and go. And as I was driving through another part of Altadena , I saw a bunch of a bunch more charred cars and dilapidated buildings burned down to the ground. And I for a moment there , I wasn't sure if if I should turn around , if I should keep going , what I should do. Um. But I reminded myself that , you know , my safety comes first and foremost. And , you know , I can't report if I'm not keeping safe.
S1: And can you talk a little bit more about that ? I mean , yes , you're trying to get information out there. You want to get as close to the story as possible , but these are obviously very dangerous conditions. How do you and your colleagues kind of approach that that balance of staying safe , but but also telling the stories of what's happening in these communities.
S2: A balance and journalists need covering wildfires need to know when it's time to go. For example , on Tuesday when I was covering the Palisades Fire at Will Rogers State Beach , the fire was about half a mile from us , and there came a point when embers started hitting close to my feet. That's when I knew I needed to go. And in Altadena on Wednesday , I was driving around and I was getting pretty close to really open flames , and I , I , I had to do a gut check with myself and I didn't feel safe. So I went a different way. And I think all journalists need to be in touch with their cut to know when it's time to go. Because yes , we need to get in the thick of it , get close to the devastation that's going on. But at the same time , we need to keep ourselves safe and that comes first.
S1: What are you seeing from people you know in these communities that have been impacted ? Obviously Altadena and Pacific Palisades or these , you know , are the main neighborhoods here that have just been devastated. What are people doing to support their community members and neighbors ? What what have you seen there in the last couple of days ? Yeah.
S2: So it's brought out a lot of good in people , I think. I think about this this time in Altadena on Wednesday , there was this car trapped under underneath this tree , and a bunch of neighbors came around to help this. This man get this , get his car from out under the tree. And that that put a big smile on my face , just seeing how despite the devastation and all the tragedies going on around us , people are still putting themselves at risk to help one another out.
S1: Ryan Mina covers crime and public safety for the Southern California News Group. Ryan , I just want to say thank you so much for taking time to share some of your reporting with us from the week , and we hope you continue to stay safe.
S2: Thank you.
S1: When roundtable returns , California state lawmakers are back in session in Sacramento.
S3: The Democratic leadership have already come in saying , look , we see that we haven't done enough on affordability. We see that in the election results.
S1: That's coming up on roundtable. Welcome back to KPBS roundtable. I'm Andrew Bracken. California has around a thousand new state laws now in effect at the start of the year. They tackle everything from what shows up on your credit report to new family leave protections for California workers. And with so many new laws , it can be difficult to figure out which ones matter the most. So here to break it down with us is Calmatters Capital reporter , Jeannie Kwong. Jeannie , welcome back to roundtable. Hi.
S3: Hi. Thanks for having me.
S1: Okay , so , you know , a lot of new laws here. We're not going to get through all of them. But I want to start with the new increased penalties for , you know , certain nonviolent crimes. Can you tell us about those ? Yeah.
S3: So , you know , there's actually Uh , two whole packages. Uh , related to this. One of them was on your ballot in the fall. Prop 36. That went into effect in December , actually. And that was the effort by , um , prosecutors and some police and , uh , kind of big box retail stores. Um , that they had put it on the ballot to undo some of the criminal justice reforms , um , of 2014 , that voters had passed then. So now , um , you know , for certain nonviolent drug and theft offenses , you can , um , be charged additionally for , uh , the the third offense , um , and that's mostly , um , to kind of address this rise in , um , you know , people's concerns about a rise in property crime and drug crimes. Um , especially coming out of the pandemic. But , um , you know , before that , there was already a package of other laws having to do with retail theft that Newsom had signed over the summer , and they also went into effect in January. And so a lot of these seem kind of similar , but they're really just allowing for , you know , enhanced penalties for certain types of retail theft crimes. Some of them are just kind of making it easier for prosecutors to charge , um , you know , more serious crimes. Um , one of the laws allows prosecutors to collect crimes across multiple counties so that they can kind of bundle them together in one court , charging them as a felony. Yeah , I think things like that. There's a whole a whole package of those that was passed over the summer.
S1: There are also new rules for parking near a crosswalk , this daylighting law.
S3: Um , it can pose a hazard to cyclists and pedestrians. Um , when you're when you're too close to the corner. Um , and so going into effect this year , you can no longer park within 20ft of that of that crosswalk or of that corner. Um , and police can start fining drivers for that or issuing citations. Uh , so that's definitely something to look out for this year.
S1: So I want to turn now to some of these new laws addressing affordability across the state. One of them. It prevents medical debt from appearing on credit reports. That can be pretty huge for those struggling with medical bills.
S3: Um , it doesn't mean that the debt goes away or that it gets reduced in any way. It's just that that particular kind of unpaid bill doesn't show up on your credit report. Um , so , you know , if you kind of , if you had an emergency , you know , if you had to go to the E.R. , had to go to the hospital , um , and are still paying that off , that particular debt cannot no longer be reported to the credit agency.
S1:
S3: Um , and so obviously , that figure is also much larger for low income residents. That's according to the California Health Care Foundation.
S1: And , you know , kind of on that , um , new laws that could impact lower income Californians. Another new law protects people from overdraft fees from certain banks.
S3: It applies to banks and credit unions that are state regulated. This basically gets rid of what advocates call junk fees , which are the fees that they can charge you when you , you know , get a decline charge at an ATM because of insufficient funds , you know , their so-called junk fees , because you don't actually get anything for paying that fee. You know , you don't get the money. Um , and , you know , some of these insufficient fund charges can be $30 or even more , according to the advocates that pushed for the bill. So , um , they fear , um , these financial institutions are no longer allowed to charge them , and it's just part of a series of different laws that the state has passed in recent years trying to limit the , um , impact of , you know , not having enough funds , um , you know , trying to limit that impact on low income people , on low income residents.
S1: So let's talk about new workplace protections. Minimum wage has gone up , but there's also a huge boost to paid family leave.
S3: There's a slightly higher than 1% , um , tax on , uh , people's incomes. Um , and that goes towards the state's disability benefits program. So , um , paid family leave is part of that. It's something that workers are eligible to take , um , if they need to take time off for the birth of a new child , for , uh , taking care of family members who are sick. Um , you know , if you need to take time off for things like that , you can kind of apply through the state and get part of your wages replaced for that time. It's , you know , sort of similar to unemployment , but for , for the specific reasons that you're taking time off from work. Um , and in the past , lower income workers would get 70% of their wages replaced , while higher income workers would get , I think it was 60% of their wages replaced. Um , that 70% was considered , you know , still very unaffordable for for lower income workers. And so , you know , even though people are paying into the system with the tax off their wages , they oftentimes weren't able to take it because they just weren't able to afford that kind of cut in their in their wages. So starting this year , um , for lower income workers , it goes up to 90% of your wages get replaced if you're approved for the program and , uh , 70% for higher income workers.
S1: And then there's another labor law. And this prevents employers from making staff attend captive audience meetings.
S3: Um , it was pushed by the state's unions. Captive audience meetings are a term to refer to , um , essentially workplace meetings that you're required to attend , uh , by your boss. And , um , they kind of sit you down and talk to you about their views on whether or not you should join a union. Um , you know , obviously unions don't like this because it is oftentimes seen as a way for the employer to intimidate workers , talk them out of joining a union. Um , and especially because you are required to go by your boss. So , you know , people can be subject to , uh , discipline or even firing for , for not going to one of these. So this has been allowed for a long time by federal law , although it is also kind of being disputed now with the Biden administration. Um , but the the state law that went into effect in January says you can't require your workers to do this. You can't require them to go to a meeting where you talk about your , uh , political or religious views. Is is what the law says. Um , but that basically also includes whether or not workers should to join a union. That's one of the topics of these meetings that that employers cannot require their workers to attend. Um , now , this went into effect January 1st , but the state's business groups , the Chamber of Commerce and the Restaurant Association , they think this is considered a violation of employers free speech rights. Um , they say there are lots of legitimate reasons for , um , an employer to need to talk to their workers about developments in politics or about unionization. So they have sued the state over it , alleging free speech violations. Um , and they're trying to stop the law. So , um , you know , we'll have to stay tuned to see how far that goes.
S1: You know , in the last year or two , I think California's labor movement , a lot of the unions , um , were quite successful in passing legislation at the state level. Is this another sort of demonstration of their increased power in Sacramento ? Yeah.
S3: I mean , it's , you know , it's a Democratic supermajority state. Um , unions and the labor movement do command a lot of power in the capital. Um , and they they have for a long time , um , this , you know , in response to the lawsuit , they kind of say , like , you know , we saw this coming , um , businesses have challenged this law in a number of other states , too , that have passed it in recent years. Um , so it's part of a wave of , you know , Democratic states across across the country trying to support this , you know , revitalized labor movement that we've seen in the past few years , um , specifically here in California. I think this was one of the laws , um , that unions won this past year that really shows them trying to sort of strengthen the state's own labor laws and the face of an upcoming Trump administration. I mean , obviously it was passed before the election , but , um , the kind of fortunes of unions and their ability to have major wins nationally change all the time with each presidential administration. Um , they're expecting to have a much less favorable environment at the federal level soon. So this was one of the ways that they saw themselves as having secured , um , a more union friendly environment at the state level. Um , and so , I think , you know , the the outcome of this lawsuit may , you know , we'll have to see whether or not they , they manage to sort of secure that kind of insurance against changes at the federal level , um , here in the state.
S1: So being the home of Silicon Valley , I think , you know , California is often on the sort of cutting edge of , of regulating new technology. I think in the last two years or so , really , the focus has been AI. I mean , what new laws related to technology and specifically AI are we seeing ? Yeah.
S3: So there's a number of new laws trying to regulate AI , specifically the kind of like recreation of someone's image. Um , what in , um , you know , for business purposes or even for the purpose of spreading misinformation. So there's a new law having to do with , um , requiring social media companies to moderate or label , um , you know , deep fakes , which are these kind of , uh , impersonations of public figures. Um , that is , I created , um , often spread and election related misinformation. Um , there's another law that has to do with , um , kind of helping actors , performers , singers , um , you know , not be required to sign away the rights to their image. Um , you know , out of fear that , you know , a production company could create , digitally , create their , recreate their image , and then kind of use that rather than hiring , um , or paying an actor or performer. um , in , you know , in the future. So these are ways that the state did manage to pass some laws regulating AI this past year. Um , but there was it was a tough uphill battle to do that. And I definitely think that's something we're going to see return this coming legislative session. This current new legislative session. Um , I definitely don't think lawmakers are done here. And yet , you know , the rise of big tech and their influence in the Capitol is something that we're still seeing , like just how much , um , influence they have and be able to fight back some of these , uh , proposed regulations.
S1: Now , zooming out a bit more , I mean , I think looking back on the election last November , it's hard to ignore that some of the deep political divides across our nation and across the state. And I'm curious , you know , how are you seeing that play out in legislation coming out of Sacramento either last year or , you know , coming into 2025. Now.
S3: Yeah , you're going to be seeing a lot of Democrats kind of trying to reclaim their mantle as helping working people , helping people who can't afford to be in California , um , really afford to stay here , to live here. Um , and you're going to see also Republicans , you know , constantly poking at the supermajority and trying to point out ways in which they see the Democrats as having failed at that mission. So I definitely think , you know , affordability is going to be a big issue this legislative session. Um , the Democratic leadership have already come in saying , look , we see that we haven't done enough on affordability. We see that in the election results. And , um , you know , we're going to try to make it easier to build new houses. Um , we're going to try to reduce gas prices , you know , do things like that. Um , and that's going to be on their agenda at the same time. You'll see Republicans who are saying we're the ones who are doing that. So they've already introduced a few bills , you know , trying to lower gas and electricity taxes. They're trying to exempt tipped service workers from having to pay income tax on their tips. That was a proposal that former President Trump had during the campaign trail. And then Vice President Harris had also copied. Like , these are all things that you're going to see recreated at the state level where , you know , Republicans , they don't have a lot of power having a super minority , yet they're kind of being emboldened by these election results from around the country , and they're going to be trying to use this moment to to show that they're the ones whose policies , um , actually benefit affordability for Californians. And then I think another thing we're going to see is just sort of return of the resistance state. Obviously , California was one of the major states kind of passing things , passing laws in opposition to the Trump administration the last time. Um , filing lawsuits against the Trump administration over , you know , areas as wide ranging as health care and immigration. And we're going to see that happening again. The governor has called a special legislative session to ask for the state to allocate money towards , uh , lawsuits , essentially like funding lawyers to fight the Trump administration. Um , and that's something that the Republicans have really , really jumped on the Democrats for. And even even now , in light of the fires and the upcoming crisis that homeowners face with insurance , they've already sort of taken the opportunity to to criticize Democrats for even considering Prioritizing , fighting Trump , you know , over the kind of current situation as it relates to household budgets , especially here at home in California. You know , not to say those things are mutually exclusive , but I think that's the that's the kind of dynamic you're going to see that you're it's going to be a lot of a battle over who gets to take credit over , um , actually helping people's , um , sort of personal household economic situations here.
S1: As you mentioned. Uh , I mean , Trump is not even in office , and we're already seeing some war of words between Governor Newsom and Trump this week.
S3: We're , um , you know , we're definitely no stranger to that. That happened a lot during the last Trump administration. So I think we're going to have to get ready for a lot more.
S1: I've been speaking with Jeannie Kwong , Capital reporter at Calmatters. Jeannie. Thanks for being here.
S3: Thank you for having me.
S1: Up next , we hear about the latest on the fight to control the San Diego Padres and what it could mean for the team going forward.
S4: What we do know is that it raises many questions about what the potential impact on the team could be , and I think people care about that most. The long term future. The person who's in control of that , they could steer that any number of directions. So it seems like a seminal moment , you know , for the Padres. Moving ahead.
S1: Stay tuned. Roundtable's back after the break. You're listening to KPBS roundtable. I'm Andrew Bracken. The start of a new baseball season may seem far off , but Opening Day is just about two months away. It's what's happening off the baseball diamond that is Padres fans talking this week. On Monday , She'll Seidler , the widow of former owner Peter Seidler , Filed a complaint against her brothers in law. In a fight for control of the team. It's a fight , she says. That's also over the legacy of the popular former owner. Bryce Miller joins me now to talk more about it. He's a sports columnist with the San Diego Union Tribune. Bryce , welcome back to the show. Yeah.
S4: Yeah. Thank you. Glad to be here.
S1: So tell us more about this complaint filed by Sheila Seidler , wife of late Padres owner Peter.
S4: It's really about the position of control with the Padres. In fact , it's called control person. And that essentially means the point person , the top decision maker for each team in Major League Baseball. She's clearly a CEO. Seidler and her family have the biggest single stake in the Padres in terms of ownership , but this is a different role that makes determinations related to money , spending , free agents , any any number , ballpark maintenance , kind of the final say on any number of things related to the baseball team And what the dispute centers around is her sense or her claim , I guess , is a is a fair way to say it , that she was promised and would become that person at some point and be the bridge in terms of control of the team to her three children down the road when they're old enough to to be involved. Peter Seidler had nine siblings , and a couple of those siblings , Matt and Bob , are directly involved in the dispute about who Peter designated , who they claim in something called governing documents , that it was always outlined that shield Seidler wouldn't be the control person. She'll Seidler disputes that. And so now it's it's kind of a power struggle about control of that team into the future.
S1: So kind of going back a bit I mean tell us more about Peter Seidler and the legacy he's left for the Padres.
S4: It's it's unmatched really , and I don't think it's hyperbolic to say it might be unmatched even outside of San Diego in terms of ownership of a baseball team. I knew Peter really well , did a lot of stories with him. In fact , some of the biggest things we did together in terms of stories was focused on his effort to help the homeless , something you know , that he passionately believed in , invested in , um , brought together a grassroots collection of people with with reach and influence in the community to try to to do real things that made real impact. But he won the hearts of Padre fans by investing like never before , an unprecedented amount of money. You just have to look back at the contracts of Manny Machado. That's a player. Up until that moment , almost everybody in baseball thought it would be impossible for the Padres to get a player like that to to pay a player like that. Um , but Peter Seidler dreamed bigger. He invested more. The long term deal for Fernando Tatis Jr. Which at the time was I think it was $340 million and everybody. Everybody's eyes popped out of their head at that number. But now , looking at the numbers , Juan Soto getting $700 million plus potentially Shohei Ohtani with the Dodgers getting $700 million. That number starts to look in the long term , potentially , if he can produce at the levels he has so far. Like more of a bargain. But again , that's part of Peter Sellers influence the ability to spend and lock in key players like that. So the fan base appreciated because that wasn't the Padres legacy of investing in players like that.
S1: So is this a kind of financial commitment ? Like he really kind of put that on display for the Padres in ways that previous owners hadn't. So who's been in charge of the team since Peter Seidler passed away in late 2023.
S4: The current control person is somebody named Eric , and he was one of the founding partners , along with Peter in Seidler. Equity Partners , I believe is the name of the equity firm. It's private equity. So we had a lot of business connections and experience and a relationship with Peter on a business level. And right now the the team has said that they're trying to designate one of Sadler's living siblings , John Seidler , to be the control person. That's kind of in limbo right now , because you need three quarters of baseball's owners to vote and support that. And if they do , he will become that. There's an owners meeting next month , so the timetable is maybe a month from now. We know if if the you know , the control of the Padres is handed over to John Seidler. So it's in the middle of this transition that this suit in Texas lands , which kind of complicates the conversation even more. So.
S1: So. Tell us more about Sheila Seidler. What has been her involvement in the team ? You know , while Peter was alive and in control and , you know , how does she argue that his legacy is now being damaged under the leadership of her brothers in law here ? Yeah.
S4: I know she'll Seidler best of anybody by far the best of anybody involved in the in this whole story. Last October , she had reached out and said she wanted to talk publicly about Peter's legacy and she hadn't. It was an exclusive interview. It's it's today her only extensive interview. And I went to their Coronado home and we talked for , I don't know , an hour and a half. And the bulk of that conversation was about Peter and his legacy and his wishes and what he thought about the future , which we weren't privy to because he he passed , you know , far too soon because of complications from a compromised immune system , but he was also A22 time cancer survivor. Um , so she talked mostly about the legacy , but one piece of that in the interview. I know that when I asked the question about what is the plan moving ahead in terms of , you know , ownership , management of the Padres ? And she said that Peter's plan was always I would be the bridge to their three children , uh , to her three children taking over at some point when they were in a position to do that. Now , that's at the absolute center of the debate between the Seidler siblings and CEO Seidler. Um , but one , when you asked about her as a person , my take knowing her just in the ways that I do and again , I don't know the other brothers at all , a very kind , compassionate person as far as , as far as I can tell. There were a lot of not newspaper related conversations that we had or text messages that that kind of , you know , pull back the curtain on somebody that that was a people person and cared. And that's why this just feels awkward in ways that go beyond courtrooms to me a little bit. But but again , I'm not I wasn't in those rooms. I wasn't in those conversations. I haven't seen those documents.
S1: And in a statement on Monday , I think that she announced the filing. She called this a last resort.
S4: You know , we'd heard about a little simmering potential tension , not fully knowing what that meant. And so , to a degree , I guess a little bit of surprise , but not entirely. This had simmered for a while. I mean , that's what if you've read through the 97 page document that was filed , um , this this kind of back and forth has , has been months , if not more than a year. And so , you know , framing it in the way you mentioned is it was a last resort seems to signal that she thought this had to go public in her mind , to kind of reset what she claims are the rights of her and her children. Um , and again , the Seidler brothers have a different version of that and including something they called the governing documents , which I think in court will find out more about those. Yeah.
S1: Kind of what ? One thing that struck me about just reading her statement , I haven't read the whole 97 page report like I think you have , but is , you know , obviously there's the legal wrangling , the , you know , the fight for control. But there's also just I mean , I don't know how to say it any other way , but just hurt feelings and just , you know , real emotional disappointment and kind of , you know , kind of a common thing that I think a lot of families go through potentially. Yeah.
S4: Yeah. This is. You're right. A lot of families go through it. They don't generally go through it with a $2.5 billion Major League Baseball team , but that's a rough estimate off the top of my head. But I think it's estimated to be somewhere in that at that level. Yeah , that's that's what makes it messy potentially. Um , but what ramps that up ? And what I wrote about in the Union-Tribune is , is what we do know is it raises many questions about what the potential impact on the team could be. And I think people care about that most. Yeah , the long term future , the person who's in control of that , they could steer that any number of directions. So it seems like a seminal moment , you know , for the Padres moving ahead. Well , let's.
S1: Dig into that. Because one thing I'm curious about is , I mean , have you seen any change in the short term outlook just since Peters , um , Peters passing in the sense that earlier you had mentioned , you know , just the amount of money and investment and attention he paid to building the Padres up. We haven't had that much time.
S4: That was part of their shift to trying to get finances a little more under control. Uh , Siler spending again was unprecedented , but they were up against , uh , multiple penalties , uh , consecutive seasons with the competitive balance tax. Quote unquote luxury tax. Um , but they had to get under that number to reset the clock. Otherwise you're just setting that money on fire. And and they clearly are trying to be a more focused , efficient business. Moving ahead. Uh , not that they weren't under Peter , but I think he had bolder vision and saw , you know , he saw parades and trophies and what it would mean to San Diego. Uh , now , the group that's collected seems to be more , uh , business oriented in the sense that they know there's a long term picture here , too. Uh , so so that's that's part of it. But , you know , in the short term , I know Kevin , as my colleague was at the was it the GM meetings or winter meetings ? I forget which one. And he's he's reported that he heard , you know , some of the , uh , maybe uncertainty about who's in control of the Padres might have limited what they've done this offseason. Um , I could see it having that potential. I don't know that that's the case , but I know that question is out there. And at this point , they've really done nothing of substantive substance this offseason. Uh , but A.J. Preller has made moves very late , even at spring training. I think they signed Machado around then initially. And and so that's a potential ripple. But there's still time left before the season.
S1: And what about more of the long term impacts ? I mean , you mentioned that could even be potentially having impacts this offseason.
S4: Um , hypothetically , if free agents have options and they narrow it down to a couple of teams. If they see this as potentially too messy or they are uncertain what the future looks like with the franchise , could that be a tipping point in a decision for a key player the Padres need ? There's no way to know that , but that's certainly a possibility. One of the biggest ones this offseason we should know here shortly this month is Roki Sasaki , the Japanese pitcher. Everybody in baseball wants him. He , without getting too deep in the weeds about Japanese posting and how that works that players move from Japan to here. He decided to post early , which means he won't get the gigantic contract that you know , we've seen other Japanese players get. So he's very affordable and controllable at a younger age. And if he's as good as everyone says that's you might lock up six years with Sasaki. Is he concerned about what he hears about the franchise and the uncertainty about ownership ? All those things affect the long term as well as the short term.
S1:
S4: I think there's some who support Shiel Seidler because , um , she has signaled previously and , you know , I think they connect her with Peter in this sense that she would be more of a trusted spender investor , uh , aggressive. Um , so I think I think they see that potential with her. Uh , others , I think , are lining up behind some of the Seidler brothers because of their extensive experience in business. Many of them have worked with Peter in that world. Um , so it's unclear. I don't know what that divide looks like in terms of raw numbers , but but you see two sides of formed in this dispute.
S1: And I guess , you know , it seems like you're a little uneasy. You ended your column with the words pass the antacids.
S4: And it is um , it does have potential , uh , for negative outcomes. Um , but Matt Seiler , who's in charge of the Seidler Trust , which really , um , ultimately has decision making power on the control person , as far as I understand it. Um , he came out , uh , we had it in the newspaper today. It's. And you can find it everywhere online now. Um , he said in no uncertain terms , this there's never been a discussion about relocation of this team or a sale. And so one of those concerns was addressed directly , I think I think both sides agree on this. It's it's San Diego's team. But those are the kind of questions until they come out publicly and discuss them , that really loomed over the city in terms of the Padres.
S1: Well , like you said , they're kind of like you said earlier , sort of this idea of uncertainty can kind of , you know , create confusion and just fear and players and fans alike. Yeah. well , we appreciate you kind of breaking this down , and we'll kind of following the story and hope to have you back on. Bryce Miller is a sports columnist with the San Diego Union Tribune. Bryce , thanks so much. Yeah.
S4: Yeah. Thank you.
S1: That'll do it for roundtable this week. Thanks so much for listening. You can listen to KPBS roundtable anytime as a podcast. Roundtable airs on KPBS FM at noon on Fridays again Sundays at 6 a.m.. If you have any thoughts on today's show , you can email us at roundtable at PBS.org or leave us a message at (619) 452-0228. Roundtables. Technical producers this week were Brandon Truffaut and Rebecca Chacon. The show was produced by Ashley Rush. Brooke Ruth is Roundtable's senior producer. I'm your host , Andrew Bracken. Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend.
