City of San Jose sues MLB, Bud

[remdog]

I see the City of San Jose has sued MLB and also named Buddy Boy as well for damages related to MLB and Bud blocking the move of the A's to San Jose. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/ey...ing-as-to-move

Rem

[KronoRed]

Good for them, this whole thing is ridiculous, four years to talk about what? San Jose wants the team, the A's want to move there, they will pay for their own place...why is it taking so long to work out a deal?

I don't normally see Bud as evil, but this whole thing reeks.

[oneupper]

Is the Giants owners who want this blocked?
Too much money in Silicon Valley?

[Brutus]

I don't see how the city has a case here. As mentioned, San Jose is included in the Giants' territorial rights by the MLB Constitution. And further, baseball is exempt from anti-trust legislation right now.

Even if one removed the exemption that baseball enjoys, territorial exclusivity has not generally been taboo. There is already precedent for franchises to allow for territorial rights. Since Major League Baseball is considered, essentially, a franchiser with each franchise operating as an individual franchise, it would seem well within the Giants' rights to invoke their territorial rights.

Personally, I agree that it's silly of the Giants and baseball not to allow this. But I happen to think the lawsuit is also silly.

[BCubb2003]

The territorial rights thing is odd since Oakland is closer to San Francisco than San Jose is. (Cultural divide of the bay, demographics and wealth are another matter.)

[WrongVerb]

The territorial rights thing is odd since Oakland is closer to San Francisco than San Jose is. (Cultural divide of the bay, demographics and wealth are another matter.)

Way more money in Silicon Valley than on the mean streets of Oakland. And the Giants aren't about to give up that market without a fight.

[remdog]

As mentioned in the comments below the story, apparently the territorial rights to San Jose were owned by Oakland but they gave them up to San Francisco in order to keep them from moving to Tampa Bay a number of years ago. (shrug) I'm not completely sure about that but I do agree that 4 years of beating around the bush and getting nothing accomplished for something that everyone seems to think is a reasonable move stinks of the 'good ol' boys' doing a backroom deal in their own interests.

It seems to me that San Jose wants to make a run at doing away with the anti-trust exemption. If they are successful at that Bud's plack at the HOF is gone, gone, gone----just as he should be as Baseball Commissioner.

Personally, I'm pulling for the city of San Jose.

Rem

[westofyou]

As mentioned in the comments below the story, apparently the territorial rights to San Jose were owned by Oakland but they gave them up to San Francisco in order to keep them from moving to Tampa Bay a number of years ago. (shrug) I'm not completely sure about that but I do agree that 4 years of beating around the bush and getting nothing accomplished for something that everyone seems to think is a reasonable move stinks of the 'good ol' boys' doing a backroom deal in their own interests.

It seems to me that San Jose wants to make a run at doing away with the anti-trust exemption. If they are successful at that Bud's plack at the HOF is gone, gone, gone----just as he should be as Baseball Commissioner.

Personally, I'm pulling for the city of San Jose.

Rem

It was 1992, The Giants were threatening to move and San Jose was floating a bond measure to try and lure them south.

The rights were given to make the measure seem stronger. At the time the As were fojbg fairly well, the Giants were stuck in Candlestick and sad, I worked for s film company that shot some pieces for the vote yes group

[redsmetz]

For those interested, here's a link to a PDF copy of the lawsuit. I've just scanned it, but it's interesting. I can't say whether they'll prevail or not. I'm not an attorney, but I've long thought the Supreme Court's decision in the Federal League case in the 1920's (I think that's where this anti-trust exemption first came up) was flawed, or at least is greatly flawed given the current clear nature of professional sports. I know there have been some subsequent court reviews upholding the original decision (in 1953 and again in 1972 with the Curt Flood decision - http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../258/case.html - interesting read in itself and the opinion mentions the Red Stockings at the onset - this link gives the citations for the Federal League case and the 1953 case as well).

Here's the lawsuit: http://media.nbcbayarea.com/document...owTwt_BAYBrand

[redsmetz]

BTW, it's interesting reading the Flood opinion; particularly the dissenting opinions written by William O. Douglas (who concurred in the 1953 opinion - which his dissent addresses, expressing regret) and Thurgood Marshall. I think Douglas is correct in his view about how the Federal League case was decided, writing "This Court's decision in Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U. S. 200, made in 1922, is a derelict in the stream of the law that we, its creator, should remove. Only a romantic view of a rather dismal business account over the last 50 years would keep that derelict in midstream." (emphasis added). The majority opinion in the Flood case waxes poetic about this "romantic view" of baseball and its history.

[KronoRed]

Nice, thanks for those links redsmetz.

It's kind of fun to think about what would happen if the exception was gone, the end of the idiotic territory rules, potential rival leagues, cities that don't support their team losing the team.

[Chip R]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=20982