San Jose postcard

Major League Baseball moves to dismiss the San Jose antitrust lawsuit

48 Comments

Major League Baseball moved to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit filed against it by the city of San Jose over the relocation — or lack of relocation — by the Oakland A’s.  The Mercury-News has the full story. The short version, though, is that among the multiple defenses the suit raises, Major League Baseball has asserted that San Jose has no standing to sue.

This was the biggest weakness I and many others saw when the suit was filed. All plaintiffs to a lawsuit must be able to show that he or she has some personal legal interest that has been damaged by the defendant. It is not enough that the plaintiff has an interest of sorts or a prospective interest. It has to be a concrete personal stake in the outcome of the suit. As Major League Baseball argued in its filing yesterday, San Jose has no such interest:

“The alleged harms are too remote and speculative to support an antitrust claim. If [San Jose’s claims were supported], it would lead to absurd results: every time a franchise contemplated relocation, MLB would be subjected to suits from any city that desires a team and from any city that does not want to lose a team … San Jose is a city. And, like many cities, it may want to host a Major League Club in a brand new revenue-producing stadium, and to entertain fans in its local businesses. San Jose is not, however, a Major League club, a potential purchaser of a Major League club, or the owner of a stadium that is available for lease to a Major League club.”

I’m normally not too impressed with lawyers’ “this would create absurd results” arguments, because often they don’t point to any actually possible absurd results. But really, if you read and believe San Jose’s lawsuit, any city could file such a suit. When the Rays talk speculatively about maybe one day having to leave St. Petersburg, there’s really nothing stopping, say, the city of Newark, New Jersey from saying “we’d love to have the Rays but we can’t because of MLB’s territorial rules and that prevents us from making all kinds of money on a franchise so please help us out, court.”

Sure, unlike that scenario there has been flirtation between the A’s and San Jose, but there is really nothing more legally binding between them than there is between the Rays and Newark. They have one thing: a land-purchase option that provides San Jose no guarantees of any kind beyond some very low payments to keep the option open. That money has been paid. They’re out nothing by virtue of Major League Baseball’s anti-competitive behavior. No obligations actually legally owed to them have been thwarted by Major League Baseball.

This would be different if the A’s were plaintiffs here and their interest in moving was being thwarted. Or if there was actually some investment (beyond a P.R. offensive by San Jose’s mayor) to get the A’s to San Jose which was undertaken with a reasonable expectation that the move could happen.  But we don’t have that here. We have no damages. San Jose has no standing.

I so want this lawsuit to be successful for selfish, end-driven reasons having to do with my disdain for MLB’s antitrust exemption and my desire to see teams move to follow the nation’s population patterns. But this isn’t the suit that’s gonna do it. At least as it is currently structured.

Sammy Sosa compares himself to Jesus Christ

Sammy Sosa
8 Comments

I’m on record saying that Sammy Sosa has been rather hosed by baseball history.

The guy did amazing things. Unheard-of things. He was truly astounding at this peak and was incredibly important to both his franchise and Major League Baseball as a whole. His repayment: he’s a pariah. His club won’t claim him and his greatness, by any measure, has not just been overlooked but denied by most who even bother to consider him.

Yes, he had PED associations, but they were extraordinarily vague ones. He’s in the same boat as David Ortiz as far as documented PED evidence against him, but Ortiz will be a first ballot Hall of Famer while Sosa barely clings to the ballot. He hit homers at the same cartoonish rate as Mark McGwire, but while Big Mac has been embraced by baseball and has coached for years, Sosa can’t get into Wrigley Field unless he buys a ticket and even then the Cubs might try to hustle him out of sight. The man has been treated poorly by any measure.

Yet, it’s still possible to overstate the case. Like Sosa did in this interview with Chuck Wasserstrom:

It’s like Jesus Christ when he came to Jerusalem,” Sosa told chuckbloggerstrom.com. “Everybody thought Jesus Christ was a witch (laughing) — and he was our savior. So if they talk (bleep) about Jesus Christ, what about me? Are you kidding me?”

At least he was basically joking about it. Still, it’s a totally unfair and almost offensive comparison.

I mean, anyone who watched Sosa’s career knows that he had trouble laying off breaking stuff low and away. In contrast . . .

Magic Johnson to take over the Lakers, but will still be part of Dodgers ownership

CHICAGO, IL - OCTOBER 15:  Earvin 'Magic' Johnson attends game one of the National League Championship Series between the Chicago Cubs and the Los Angeles Dodgers at Wrigley Field on October 15, 2016 in Chicago, Illinois.  (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
Getty Images
2 Comments

This is more significant for basketball fans than baseball fans, but Magic Johnson is taking over basketball operations for the Los Angeles Lakers. Dan Feldman over at PBT has the full story on that.

For our purposes, you probably know that Johnson is part of the Dodgers ownership group. Anthony McCullough of the L.A. Times got comment from the Dodgers, saying that despite his new full-time job, his status with the Dodgers will be unchanged:

Maybe I’m alone in this, but I’m not entirely certain what Magic does with the Lakers, so the first clause in Kasten’s comment may be doing most of the heavy lifting here.