The Dodgers won’t be the Expos

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

6 thoughts on “The Dodgers won’t be the Expos

  1. spinner

    All cheer for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and now for the Los Angeles Dodgers not Expos.

  2. David

    Viva Mark Cuban? >.>

  3. 27up-27down

    Your last paragraph is the most interesting point. This act is a preventive measure. The Dodgers haven't been reduced to shambles yet. The league stepping in to prevent that might be the smart and prudent thing…but its if McCourt sues, he might have a good case. I just don't know (and it sounds like neither does anyone else) if MLB actually has the legal ability to do this.

    • David

      What was the situation with the Rangers last year? If that held up — AND we have it on the books that the NBA commissioner with "similar" powers did the same in another sports league — this could be a logical extension of the situation.

  4. Ye olde "antitrust exemption" will make legal recourse difficult for McCourt, not to mention costly. MLB can argue, as Larry showed earlier today, that by leveraging his franchise to the gills McCourt was in violation of contract with his "employer." Baseball, of course, isn't McCourt's employer in the traditional sense, but he is liable to the coalition of owners. I can't imagine Selig went through with this without consulting a number of them and ascertaining whether he'd have support if/when things got ugly (I think he needs a two-thirds majority, but Larry might be a better source for confirmation). While he's certainly not saying it to the press, McCourt should consider himself lucky (much as Hicks did last season). Selig has relieved him of considerably responsibility as he spirals closer and closer to bankruptcy. As for whether Jamie's claims, currently mired in this divorce proceedings could be used to block MLB's takeover. I have no idea.

    The difference between this and what we saw with the Rangers and Hornets is that this appears thusfar to be a hostile takeover. Both John Hicks and George Shinn were able to extricate themselves from their massively indebted teams for terms which were quite favorable to them. I would not be at all surprised if the same thing ends up happening in L.A., after McCourt gets done posturing.

    • BrienJackson

      To be clear, Hicks and the Rangers were forced into bankruptcy court. MLB did not assume ownership of the team.

Comments are closed.