We have all been pinballing from seeking hope to avoiding hope over the past two months ever since the A’s announcement of an initial land deal in Vegas. So much about the legislative process that is being followed in Nevada sums up this conflicted position.
On the one hand, every update and piece of information only highlights further how ridiculously vague the current proposal is and how Governor Joe Lombardo and the A’s are desperately doing everything they can to push a vote through within days rather than risking a more deliberate and considered approach tripping them up.
On the other hand, that this is so blindingly obvious, and that the facts and figures being used could be unpicked by a 5 year old, can’t help but make you think that those in power are so confident it will get voted though that they don’t even need to make it look good.
Depressingly, it’s increasingly looking like they are correct. Some of the politicians involved resemble a person turning up at a car dealership with a load of money to spend (someone else’s, obviously) and they are just dead-set on driving away in a new car, regardless of the price or if it’s the right one for them. Now that they’ve got this far, going home empty-handed is the only thing they want to avoid.
If Nevada politicians aren’t going to save us, and their constituents, from this madness then we need to find something that can put a spanner in the works.
Enter Rep Barbara Lee.
I’ve been thinking about the role that challenging the anti-trust Exemption could play ever since her Twitter post in which she shared the letter she had sent to MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred on the topic. With impeccable timing, Lee and Rep Mark DeSaulnier fired the first shot on that today.
The specifics here are important: this is not a piece of legislation to stop the A’s from moving, nor is it directly challenging the relocation. This is about getting the ball rolling by making an issue of the much-claimed waiving of a relocation fee.
Here’s the key quote from Manfred’s letter to Congress last year:
If challenged, which it will be, Manfred’s direct statement to Congress will form a framework against which MLB’s relocation actions will be judged:
- Has there been “a rigorous process” and what did this entail?
- What has MLB done to “enforce” this process? When did it begin and what has been put in place to ensure that all relevant factors have been considered?
- How has this process ensured that the relocation has been “carefully considered and vetted”?
A decision to waive the fee is a very direct act to incentivise and facilitate a relocation, as Rep Lee pointedly made clear in her initial letter. Getting the other 29 ownership groups to agree to give up millions of dollars each is not a decision that would be taken lightly. As this offer has been touted publicly for over a year, one would think that this “rigorous process” must have already taken place to determine that this was an appropriate offer to make as part of considering the options.
Otherwise you are effectively admitting that a relocation process was at best flawed and at worst a sham based on a foregone conclusion.
Manfred stated to Congress that the process for considering relocations was a vital justification for the continued relevance and legitimacy of baseball’s anti-trust exemption.
Reps Lee and DeSaulnier’s move ostensibly is about getting Oakland some money if the A’s leave. What it’s really about is testing the resolve of MLB.
How willing are they to see the relocation process for the A’s placed under the microscope when Manfred’s own words have meant that MLB’s beloved anti-trust exemption will be at stake?
And how far might the other owners be prepared to compromise to avoid this risk?
Oakland A's UK 
Leave a comment