Just when you thought news couldn't get worse for the Los Angeles Dodgers, it probably just has. Not only did team owner Frank McCourt fire his wife as team president, which led to a divorce between the two (Frank suspected that his wife, Jamie, had been cheating, after 30 years of marriage). Not only has a San Fransisco Giants fan gotten put into a coma after an altercation at Dodgers Stadium because of incredibly stupid Dodgers fans that got physical with the innocent man. Now, there's more. Due to the clear incompetence on display by the Dodgers' brass as of late, as illustrated by the two above instances among others, Major League Baseball has wrestled the task of running the Los Angeles Dodgers away from McCourt and his staff. Bud Selig as of right now is, in effect, in charge of the Dodgers. Now, Selig is going to implement an interim President of Operations, and there are already names swirling about who that will be, but this whole notion involved of the baseball governing body in charge of one of the independent teams still scares me.
This move by Major League Baseball is unprecedented. Never the MLB just forced an ownership out of power and then decided who is going to run things for the meantime and long-term. Really, I don't have a problem with the forced removal of the Dodgers' ownership. That's not a new trick employed by the MLB. Marge Schott was forced out of ownership of the Cincinnati Reds in 1999, but her people at least got to choose who their successor would be, and there lies the problem.
My problem is having the MLB choose new leadership leads to a conflict of interest, much like it did when the MLB owned and operated the Montreal Expos in 2003. The MLB wanted the worst for the Expos, so they could ultimately move them, so they didn't bother to allow the callup of extra players in September to aid the team to a wildcard birth (a plausible notion for the Expos that season as September approached). Under the guise of being too expensive to extend the roster to 40-man status, the MLB decreed it would remain with its current 25 man roster and nothing more. Needless to say, the Expos missed the playoffs, and the team ultimately fizzled out, moving to Washington as the Nationals. A playoff birth or deep run could have at least delayed such a move, but the MLB wouldn't have it, and was later ridiculed for its practices. One could argue a city was robbed of its Major League Baseball team.
This above story is namely why the MLB has shied from taking over a team's ownership since 2003. When the Rangers were having problems last season, they put someone in charge of overseeing the transition of ownership and making sure it went smoothly, but the MLB didn't actually have a say in who was doing what and who was taking over. That's not the case with the Dodgers. The MLB is taking charge and putting someone in place to fulfill an agenda, an agenda that the MLB will approve of, otherwise the MLB wouldn't agree to put them in charge.
Now, what I'm not saying is that there's some type of conspiracy to run the Dodgers into the ground or do anything malignant with the LA franchise. That just wouldn't make sense. The Dodgers are a stalwart of baseball, they've been around forever, have a rich history, and do their business in a big market. They make the MLB a lot of money and have been a very successful franchise in the past. They also could compete in the near future. What I do fear though is the precedent this move sets. If the MLB can do this with the Dodgers, what's to keep them from doing it with the Pirates? The Pirates haven't been using their revenue sharing money to improve personnel on the field. This is a known fact. All of a sudden Selig deems that front office incompetent too and implements an administrator with an agenda. However, this time the Pirates aren't protected by their big market and past history of being incredibly profitable. Hence there would be a conflict of interest much like the Expos scenario. Come the next season, or shortly thereafter, citing low attendance and poor field performance, the new full time ownership of the Pirates announces they are moving to Nashville/Las Vegas/Brooklyn/wherever. That low attendance was aided by practices like those the MLB implemented to the Expos. Not only was the Pittsburgh market robbed by administrators cheating at revenue sharing and not putting the best product on the field. They were then cheated out of the best product by the MLB wanting to make more money in a new market. Ultimately, they're cheated completely with the removal of their franchise.
The next thing you know, the Blue Jays are playing in San Jose.
Now I'm definitely portraying a doomsday scenario. I admit that. However, I really think its something we need to be wary of as sports fans, and particularly MLB fans. Its an even more important issue for those of us that are fans in small markets. The MLB exists to make money, and if they can find a way to make more money, than they are going to use it, and ultimately I could see takeovers like the one of the Dodgers leading down this ugly path. I'm most likely wrong though, or at least I hope I am. It would be a total travesty to see a city robbed of its franchise for all the wrong reasons. But sleazier things have happened in this world too.
What's the baseline?
The MLB taking over the Los Angeles Dodgers results in a nasty precedent that could lead to future woes, particularly of small market teams in pro baseball. The MLB taking over a team presents a conflict of interest in being loyal to a current fanbase when times are tough and cash is low, while still trying to make the most money possible for the league. Potentially, this is a slippery slope, that could lead to ugly relocations, but I hope I'm wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment