Jason C at 98 On the Black writes RE the Dodgers, Frank McCourt and MLB:
After Mark Cuban almost ended up with the Rangers, the last thing MLB wanted was to have a bankruptcy court deciding who ends up with the club. I’m sure that factored in to why MLB acted now.
I expect litigation because Frank McCourt has nothing to lose at this point. MLB might have to settle just to get him to go away.
I think you’re right. McCourt might win in court, but even if he wins it has the potential to wind up being a USFL type “win” where he gets a dollar.
I would think the same rules apply to MLB deciding who’s allowed to own a club even if there was a bankruptcy case; they still have control over who owns the teams. I’ve never understood the fear of Mark Cuban; he’s flamboyant, but it’s not due to being a fool or meddler—he’s passionate and to the best of my understanding has allowed his basketball people to run the Mavericks (I’m not much for basketball); I’d be perfectly pleased if Cuban bought the Mets with his money, personality and aggressiveness to attract players and fans.
Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE the Dodgers and McCourt:
He’d have to be a bit crazy to go through with a lawsuit. I’m not convinced he’s NOT crazy. So there ya go. I think MLB made the right decision (ultimately). If you don’t have any money you shouldn’t own a team.
There are two ways of looking at it: one, quit before he’s totally broke—while he can still recoup some of his money and have a portion of his fortune remaining; two, go forward with more legal wrangling, say he’s got nothing to lose and hope he wins.
He does have a legitimate beef with MLB.
They approved him, they have to live with him. As I said earlier in agreeing with Jason, they’ll have to settle to avoid making an already big mess into a radioactive, unsalvageable wasteland.
Mike Luna in The Bleacher Seats writes RE teams with financial issues:
Don’t know if it crossed your desk, but Tom Van Riper at Forbes wrote an article about contracting the Mets, moving the Dodgers back to NY, and moving the Rays or A’s to LA. Thought it might be something you find interesting.
Or, perhaps, this is the sort of thing you’d rather not waste your time on.
I don’t have a desk. I have a cage and a little rolling table.
I’ll look at the column—it sounds interesting in a fictional sort of way and I’ll bet it makes sense, but think about the contracts; the Players Association; the fans; the media—it would be a logistical nightmare and couldn’t possibly happen.
And why is it the Mets that get contracted? If they’re contracting a team, the Rays are a better choice based on a lack of fan support. I don’t know how they’d decide which teams stayed; which went; and how the whole thing would be coordinated.
Franklin Rabon writes RE Ryan Braun (via Twitter):
You seen this? Who would have thought of the day you and Dave Cameron are in firm agreement? http://goo.gl/z8f6f
Keith Law thought it was a bad idea as well.
These guys may be smartening up. Finally.
Slowly, teams choosing to lock up their players will water down the number of big names available. I’m sure player agents are displeased that their own clients are choosing to take short-term payouts at the expense of possible long-term security at huge money; it worked out for Tulowitzki, Braun and Ryan Howard
For a player who decided to shun the long-term offer as Carl Crawford did, he’s in line to get a giant contract when he does go free agent; that will be exacerbated by the paucity of free agents available as a result of the Braun-style contract.
I plan a posting to discuss this in the future.
I’m administrating a discussion group on TheCopia.com. Click on the link to leave a comment or start a new topic.
Please purchase my book, Paul Lebowitz’s 2011 Baseball Guide. It’s good for fantasy players and will be useful all year long.
I published a full excerpt of my book here.
Become a fan on my Facebook fan page. Click on the link.