Problems of Expos Not Eliminated

Commissioner Bud Selig denies this, but it may be that he and the other owners had no idea how they would handle the Montreal Expos’ future when they agreed, as part of the new labor contract, not to eliminate any teams through 2006.

Of course, the idea of eliminating teams was already in limbo because scheduling imperatives require two teams to be folded, and the Minnesota Twins were assured of remaining in business in the Twin Cities through 2003 thanks to legal challenges.

Now, however, contraction is definitely dead through the life of the new labor deal and Selig can’t suddenly lump the Expos with the Florida Marlins or Tampa Bay Devil Rays, although that should have been the contraction parlay from the start--if part of the whole scenario hadn’t been to get Carl Pohlad a new ballpark and/or a buyer in the Twin Cities. Neither is a reality yet.

As for the Expos, Selig insists there are “a lot of scenarios” on the table and they will be dissected “over the next 30 to 60 days.” That’s interesting, because a) if there are a lot of scenarios on the table it’s hard to figure out what they are beyond moving the Expos to Washington or Northern Virginia or allowing them to play another lame-duck season in Montreal, and b) that 30-to 60-day window could delay a decision until November, which complicates 2003 preparations no matter where the Expos end up playing next year.

Tony Tavares, the former Angel president who agreed to shepherd the Expos through the adversity of a final season in Montreal and joined with General Manager Omar Minaya in making a surprisingly aggressive bid to get the Expos the help they needed to reach the playoffs, came out of Thursday’s owners’ meeting saying he was hopeful of getting a definitive answer regarding the club’s status within 10 days but had no clue what it would be.

“If my life depended on knowing where the Expos will play next year, I’d be dead,” Tavares said.

The best guess is that the Expos, whose Montreal stadium lease expired Sept. 1, will be moved to Washington despite baseball’s two previous failures there.

In the equivalent of an emergency situation, there are two positives: a stadium (as bad as it is for baseball) and two groups interested in buying the team.

In addition, Selig has already identified Washington as the best bet for relocation, dampening the already unrealistic hopes of Las Vegas, Portland, Ore., and Charlotte, N.C., and there is no desire among the owners to keep throwing good money after bad in Montreal.

It’s estimated that the Expos will lose a minimum of $45 million this year, with each of the other owners responsible for covering 1/29th of that, and there is no support for continuing to drain the central fund or to invest next year’s increased revenue sharing in a hopeless situation.

With all of that, however, there are problems to relocating.

The suit brought by 14 former minority partners of the Expos against Selig and former Montreal owner Jeffrey Loria for mail and wire fraud under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 threatens baseball with a temporary restraining order if there’s any attempt to move the team.

And Baltimore Oriole owner Peter Angelos has reiterated that he will oppose any attempt to move a team into his attendance area.

Angelos, a member of management’s bargaining committee during the labor talks, told the Baltimore Sun that he received no assurance from Selig that the Expos would not be relocated to Washington or Northern Virginia, but he is relying on “common sense” to keep a second franchise from diluting the market.

How will it play out? The best advice is to follow the money. Everyone should come out of this a little richer.

For example, baseball bought out Loria for $120 million and can be expected to sell to a Washington group for, perhaps, twice that--maybe more if there’s competition.

In addition, if baseball fails to get the courts to dismiss the RICO suit, the next step would be to satisfy the minority partners financially through an out-of-court settlement.

Some legal experts doubt that the partners can get a restraining order or even have the basis of a suit under RICO, but baseball has no desire to risk its antitrust exemption by handing over hundreds of confidential documents in a prolonged trial.

Finally, Angelos could be the largest obstacle, but whether his opposition alone can prevent relocation is doubtful, particularly when he, too, figures to receive an indemnification package that might compensate for lost attendance and broadcasting revenue.

Dusty’s Future

Much like the Expos, Dusty Baker is unclear about his status because his contract has expired and he has received no assurances from ownership, which put “can’t-lose” pressure on Baker and his San Francisco Giants in spring training.

It’s hard to believe that management would dismiss all the overachieving the Giants have done under Baker by dismissing him if they failed to reach the playoffs, but Baker might be tiring of basically operating, in a large measure, with mirrors, of dealing with the divergent personalities of Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent, and of the nit-picking of fans and media--especially if he is convinced that the Chicago Cubs, with a promising array of young talent, are interested.

The latest furor among fans and the media stems from his perceived overuse of closer Robb Nen, particularly in nonsave situations. Nen has been struggling, but Baker said, “Who else am I supposed to close these games with? During the pennant stretch, you’ve got to overextend guys. At this point, everybody is overextended. If Nen hadn’t blown any saves, nobody would be saying anything.”

Neither Baker nor the Giants are saying anything about his future. Does that silence speak volumes?