With Major League Baseball seizing control of the Dodgers yesterday, the most obvious comparison that comes to mind is baseball’s ownership of the Montreal Expos in the early part of the last decade, and that’s exactly what Jonah Keri, arguably the world’s most famous Expos fan, thought of. If you’re interested in what it was like to have your favorite team run by the offices of MLB, the article is well worth a read.
That said, this is likely to be where comparisons between the Dodgers and Expos end. The problem with the Expos situation, as Jonah notes, was the total lack of long-term certainty for the franchise. Baseball had just tried to contract the team and it was a virtual certainty that they’d be moving to another city in the best case scenario. This just simply isn’t the case with the Dodgers, who are operating in one of the largest markets in the world and are one of the crown jewel franchises in baseball. The long-game here is obvious; force the end of the McCourt ownership, straighten out the franchise’s finances, and sell them to a new, more competent, owner.
Though there’s really no comparison that’s really similar to this unprecedented scenario, as far as the incentives of the baseball operations team are concerned, this is probably more akin to what the Rangers went through last year than what Omar Minaya faced with the Expos. In the latter case, Minaya was mostly concerned with showing off in the short term to try to win another job somewhere else. With the long-term future of the franchise in total doubt, it’s not clear he had any concern for long-term thinking, or even that he should have for that matter. Jon Daniels, on the other hand, faced much less doubt about the fundamental future of his team, and was more or less charged with navigating through the middle of a messy change of ownership.
If nothing else, the difference in baseball’s response is illuminating in itself. With the Expos, baseball assumed ownership as a last resort for a doomed franchise. In the case of the Dodgers, they’re moving swiftly to keep the McCourts from doing even more damage to one of the sport’s most valuable assets. That alone probably says as much as anything else could about how the Dodgers are likely to be run until a new ownership team is in place.
All cheer for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and now for the Los Angeles Dodgers not Expos.
Viva Mark Cuban? >.>
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.
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.
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.
To be clear, Hicks and the Rangers were forced into bankruptcy court. MLB did not assume ownership of the team.