Spoiler: probably not. In an article running today in the LA Times and various outlets, Bill Shaikin explores the role of the commissioner's office in the McCourt divorce. Selig is reportedly "dismayed at the public spectacle surrounding the divorce and concerned about the potential for lasting damage to the league and its flagship West Coast franchise." Well, yeah. You're certainly not alone there, Commish.
Before I announce any decisions, I will consult with all appropriate parties, including our two unions and [a special committee].That, of course, is not Bud Selig on the Dodgers' ownership situation. That was the Commissioner on the expansion of replay in baseball following the Galarraga/Joyce catastrophe in June. Just over a month later, Selig announced he was "comfortable" with the current system and would not hasten to make any sweeping changes. This is what Commissioner Selig does, especially on this long eve of retirement. He commissions studies. He taps committee thinking. He deliberates.
Proactive intervention has never been Selig's strength, and this has largely been to the game's benefit. To insert himself in the Dodgers' ownership situation would open a can of worms he can't hope to close by the end of his tenure in 2012. Yes, he could lean on Frank to settle or sell, wielding those intangible powers most often discussed when it comes to All Star Game venue selection. But I'm not sure we've ever seen that work. The Kansas City Royals will host the 2012 All Star Game, and--while this looks like a thing of the past--the Royals have been arguably the worst organization in the game during Selig's time in office.
So what else could Selig do? Maybe he invokes that bizarre "best interests of baseball" clause found in the MLB Constitution. Yes, that'd be a pretty effective way to force the McCourts out of the Dodgers. But, as Fay Vincent notes in Shaikin's article, "Nobody will want to buy into baseball if the commissioner can get upset and move to take away" a franchise. And there are other risks, too: you can bet that Frank McCourt, nothing if not comfortable with litigation, would sue the bejesus out of Major League Baseball the second Selig meddled.
And, of course, there's a bigger matter for another day: that delicious exemption from the nation's antitrust laws baseball enjoys despite a complete incongruity with the rest of the system. While it's pretty far-fetched to suggest that forcing Frank McCourt out of the Dodgers would lead to the revocation of Baseball's exemption, is it even worth taking the risk? Yes, the McCourt situation is ugly. And yes, this could go on for a long time. And yes, it'll probably get worse before it gets better.
But all of those things are equally true in the case of MLB intervention. The fallout would be hideous. It would take forever. And it would probably hurt the game and the Dodgers in the short term. So my guess is that Commissioner Selig will do what he's always done: sit back and let the situation play out. In some ways, that tactic has made him the most successful commissioner in the sport's history; the game exploded under his watch. Of course, so did home run totals, and that's going to be a big part of Selig's legacy, as well. Deliberately letting things play out is, for better or worse, Selig's M.O., and there's little reason to expect that to change now.
---
Posts
Your comment about revocation of the exemption is very interesting. Would Congress and the MLPA be interested in learning more about the approval process involved in the McCourt purchase? If it's true that the McCourts were seriously underfunded within the context of MLB ownership and that a major negotiating position involved proposals of deep and lasting cuts in player salaries and, if it's also true that the then current franchise owners approved the sale at least in part based on those proposals, why wouldn't the MLPA contend that MLB and the franchisees have conspired to violate federal labor laws, to commit unfair labor practices, and acted in restraint of trade, all worthy of Congress revisiting the exemption? Could not such an investigation be as ugly for Selig and the franchisees as the present Superior Court proceedings are for the McCourts? One could easily envision Frank and Jamie McCourt being subpoened to appear before Congress to testify regarding their proposals on labor costs and Selig being compelled to testify with respect to his discussions with the franchisees concerning MLB's negotiation strategies on revenue and salaries.Perhaps we should all be writing to our Congressional representatives.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of the Royals they did have vast renovations of their stadium recently...also i don't have a problem with tossing a small market team a bone what with the whole no salary cap thing...or salary floor.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think it's great that the All Star game is in Kansas City. Every city with an MLB team should have the game, not just with new stadiums. Dodger Stadium hasn't had the game in many years.
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail on the head about why Selig won't get involved. There are too many legal risks. If the attorney general's investigation comes back with criminal charges relating to the operation of the team, then maybe there's a way he can use the best interest clause. But if he just orders Frank to sell because he's a cheap jerk, then Frank may adopt Jamie's current valuation of the Dodgers and sue baseball for any difference in the amount he sells for and what he values the team as.
It would also raise the question, if you're going to force Frank to sell, then why not force Peter Angelos to sell, after what he's done with the Royals? Or Jeffrey Loria with the Marlins? Pirates, Royals, Padres, Rays, you name it, there's a bunch of owners that would easily be targeted along with Frankie.
I should clarify...the Royals are my second-favorite team. I'm thrilled Kansas City is getting the All Star Game, and I'm even more happy that the organization--after a couple decades in the toilet--looks headed a promising direction.
ReplyDeleteSelig is not going to push the nuclear button aka "best interest in baseball" clause. It would just be more litigation. However, Selig can do numerous things behind the scenes to either have Frank McCourt sell the team or sell a large portion of the Dodgers. Selig orchestrated the 2001/2002 Red Sox Purchase, even though Charles Dolan offered more money. He pushed the Montreal Expos move to Washington, sold the team and split up the money to other owners..
ReplyDeleteIf anything, Selig will push McCourt to sell if McCourt runs out of cash to run the day to day operations, however Selig will do things behind the scene so it won't upset the sale price of the Dodgers too much.
Look, even if Frank can hold out until 2012-2013, when he can get cash for the broadcasting rights, the money is going to go to pay off debt, or used to get more collateral for more loans. (Frank could technically securitized any future broadcast revenue for new loans) He is going to have a difficult time running the club as he is having problems now, given he has the Dodger debt, the over $100 million he took out in the Dodgers' and the stadium's value, and all the loans he took out in the entire LA Land Co holding company... There maybe a point in 5-6 years that Frank has more liabilities than the value of the Dodgers.
How ironic that Fay Vincent, of all people, would be surmising the actions of a man who was responsible for his exile. If anything, Bud Selig has shown a very strong penchant for getting his way primarily because he is an owner's owner. Major League Baseball has plenty to lose if the Los Angeles Dodgers continue to crumble. LA has been the unqualified homerun hitter in attendance for the better part of three decades. This is not Baltimore or Kansas City we are talking about. A weakened Los Angeles franchise would have a domino effect on the rest of the league, make no mistake. It is not merely worth rescuing, it may be league suicide it they don't rescue it.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I suspect that Selig is currently working behind the scenes to begin a quiet transition to new ownership as we speak. The recent appearance of Peter O'Malley in numerous articles is by no means accidental. The transition has started. May it be a smooth one.
In addition, while Selig will not act directly in resolving this issue, he will use his influence to assuage investors from continuing to fund Frank McCourt. Check out Bill Plaschke in today's LA Times. These articles are PR releases that are emanating from the office of the commissioner as a slow noose is tightening around the Dodger owner.
ReplyDeleteBud Selig is a big reason why Dodger fans were stuck with this mess in the first place. He helped ram through the McCourts' approval, and MLB violated its own rules re: leverage when it approved these grifters to get the team.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Selig is NOT an ally of Peter O'Malley. They have a history of butting heads, and that is partly why O'Malley grew weary and ended up selling the team.
Elysian Park has it right. Selig should come out at an appropriate time to state how important the leverage rule is and how in retrospect they realize it was a mistake in not enforcing it with the McCourts. (This will never happen) The point of stating it publicly would be to put Frank on guard that he could be in trouble down the road.
ReplyDeleteSelig and the owners of Major League Baseball are at fault here with bringing in Frank and Jamie. They should have had knowledge of the McCourts and their financial situation before letting them acquire the team. It may be too late to force Frank out now.
ReplyDelete