Court Rulings Slow Case for Contraction

Baseball was dealt another legal setback Friday and the calendar continued to run out on its attempt to eliminate two teams for the 2002 season, presumably the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos.

One high-ranking baseball official conceded that the situation would have to be reexamined next week.

Already facing a protracted December hearing on the players’ union grievance charging that the owners violated the collective bargaining agreement by voting for contraction, management absorbed twin setbacks in the Twin Cities.

First, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected baseball’s request for an accelerated appeal of a district court ruling that requires the Twins to honor the final year of their lease and play in the Metrodome in 2002.

The Supreme Court, in deciding that baseball’s lawyers had not demonstrated that the case requires “the extraordinary procedure of immediate determination in the Supreme Court,” sent it back to the Court of Appeals for expedited review.

The Court of Appeals later announced, however, that it will not hear oral arguments until Dec. 27, meaning a decision, which the losing side is almost certain to appeal again to the Supreme Court, is unlikely to be made until January, at the earliest.

“I don’t think it’s the definitive bullet in the temple of contraction for 2002, but every day is a bonus,” said Bill Lester, executive director of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, which is fighting to keep the Twins in the Metrodome in 2002.

Commissioner Bud Selig could not be reached Friday, but Sandy Alderson, executive vice president of baseball operations, insisted that Dec. 27 is not an insurmountable hurdle in contraction for 2002, although it’s a week after the deadline for tendering player contracts.

He added, “[Now that] we have something more definite [regarding an appeal date], we’ll step back and take another look at it next week.”

Said Robert DuPuy, baseball’s top lawyer, “The deeper we get into December, the more problematic [contraction] becomes. It’s disappointing we didn’t get an expedited hearing [with the Supreme Court] because we’re still convinced we’ll prevail on the merits.”

DuPuy said baseball has yet to establish a deadline on 2002 contraction, but that the situation is being assessed daily.

Don Fehr, the union’s general counsel, said of the uncertain situation, “[It] just gets more and more troublesome with each passing day. You don’t have schedules, you can’t sell tickets, and there’s uncertainty in the [free-agent] market. All of this was predictable. I don’t understand how [the owners] could have brought it on [considering they still have to negotiate a new labor agreement].”

In still other developments:

* The Expos, amid the possibility that contraction will be delayed or dumped, reached a lease agreement to play the 2002 season in Olympic Stadium. The agreement allows each side an out if contraction goes through or the Expos are relocated.

* With the possibility that Congress will introduce legislation to repeal baseball’s antitrust exemption, Rep. John Conyers Jr., (D-Mich.) instructed Selig, who will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington on Thursday, to bring with him audited financial records, for the last three seasons, of the Twins, Expos, Florida Marlins, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Oakland A’s and Kansas City Royals, all of whom have been mentioned as possible contraction victims.

Selig was also asked for all studies done by baseball in the last five years on contraction and relocation, and for any studies on territorial rights to San Jose, New Jersey and Washington.

* Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who will also testify Thursday, said on his weekly radio show that he will tell the committee not to sympathize with the owners’ claims of big financial losses because they brought it on themselves by paying big salaries.

“When you have a business, you don’t pay your employees more than you take in,” Ventura said.