The A’s were ready to talk money on Wednesday. With the predictably of a 3-0 fastball, the news was encouraging.

According to a study by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, the team’s proposed new stadium — there are three sites under consideration — would stuff the pockets of Oakland residents and businesses to the tune of $3.05 billion over the first decade of facility operations.

“We’re very pleased with the results,” said A’s team president Dave Kaval at a news conference. “That’s an amazing number.”

They always are where proposed stadiums are concerned. In the case of the A’s, the integers broke down thusly: $768 million from construction and related spending; $1.54 billion from game-day spending (gird yourself for the $25 beer), and $742 million from ballpark operations.

Related Articles A’s stadium decision suspense growing

A’s proposed stadium at Oakland’s Howard Terminal has pragmatic, emotional potential

Oakland Coliseum, Oracle Arena becoming behind-the-curtain tourist traps The only way the announcement could have gone better was if Jed Lowrie had dashed into the Coliseum’s Peralta Room and, in full view of the assembled press, smashed Kaval in the face with a celebratory shaving cream pie.

The estimate, said Jeff Bellisario, author of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute report, was valid for any of the three ballpark sites — on the waterfront at Howard Terminal; the team’s current site; and a location near Laney College. Kaval said he was committed to announcing a winner “this calendar year.”

“We want to let folks know the final location, the (construction) timeline, the approvals necessary,” he said. “Each site has its pros and cons.”

The report was a joint project between the team and the institute. “But we put a non-partisan lens on it,” Bellisario said.

There is no such thing as a non-partisan lens when attempting to gain approval to build a stadium or arena. Opposition is a given. Someone is always going to be inconvenienced, displaced or dissatisfied, witness the vintage photos of low-income residents being physically removed from their Chavez Ravine residences to pave the way for Dodger Stadium. You know, Blue Heaven on Earth?

Someone is always going to wonder why some of that $3 billion couldn’t go to a homeless facility, or police officers, or graffiti abatement. Seventeen new baseball-only stadiums have been constructed for major league teams in the past 19 years. Guaranteed not one official from any of those teams looked news cameras and Facebook Live in the eye and said, “Honestly? These financial projections and assumptions are shakier than the Giants bullpen.”

That said, Kaval and Bellisario deserve the benefit of the doubt. For one thing, the new ballpark will be privately financed. Smart move considering taxpayers are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars for the renovations of the stadium and arena — projects that were touted as great deals for the community.

And credit where it’s due — there is at least one reality check included in the report. In citing the money to be spent on construction, new Yankee Stadium and the Mets’ Citi Field were excluded from the calculations. “We do not view New York as a comparable market to Oakland,” the report read.

The projected increase of 1 million in attendance? That’s in line with other new stadiums. The competitive bump witnessed at other new facilities? View that with an arched eyebrow. Most teams use the run-up to a stadium opening by managing their roster so as to give themselves a competitive edge in Year 1. But most teams, as A’s fans can attest, don’t employ Oakland’s, um, idiosyncratic roster-managing methodology.

“When we have a new ballpark, we’ll have more money for the roster,” Kaval said.

It could be an amazing number — keeping in mind that amazing is one of those modifiers that, like Jed Lowrie, swings both ways.