You don't have to be a party to the contract to be sued for tortious interference. Certainly a limited case, but remember that the very charter granted to the Astros to begin with, which provides their ownership alone has to approve a move to a different league, was granted by MLB, itself. To condition a sale of the franchise over the prospectve new owner now agreeing he's buying an AL club as opposed to an NL club (while all the while the current owner and the prospective new owner are sounding off saying that's bad for the franchise) seems like dirty pool to me. Not sure if it's actionable or not...I'd have to think about it some more. But there's definitely a lot of money at stake here for Drayton...what if the next offer comes in far south of what Crane is willing to pay? Will you pay my hourly rate for me to consider it this afternoon? I can make a flat fee proposal if necessary.
I don't think I need a researcher on this one; the deal is expressly contingent upon third party-approval, arguing that failure of the 3rd party to give it is tortious interference is unlikely to be successful, put it mildly.
I tend to agree..that's why I said it's "limited." But there is a bit of a difference here...I wanna use the word duress, but it's not that....and there's sophisticated players in the transaction, for sure. Crane contracted to buy an NL club. If he backed away from the table and McLane wasn't able to find an owner again at this price.....I don't know. I wonder if MLB has to expressly say why they deny a sale...and if they have carte blanche to do it for any reason under the sun. All reports indicated this was a slam dunk approval. Nothing from MLB to suggest otherwise...reports were that it was "imminent." Then the realignment story cropped up and Buster Olney started making guesses at the sale being conditioned on Crane's approval. McLane says he knows nothing about it and that it would be bad for the 'stros. Crane says he doesn't want the 'stros moving out of the NL. Just feels like a lot of media conjecture when the players who make the decision aren't giving any indication it's happening.
The problem Crane/McClane would run into on any claim is that they need an actual breach of their sale agreement to get anywhere, if MLB simply votes down the sale, there's no breach, it's just the failure of a condition precedent, so there's not lot of recourse there. No doubt the media conjecture is based on a series of leaks from team execs (ahem Rangers...) and others who want to push the discussion in their direction.
You don't have to have a breach to get to tortious interference...not in Texas, anyway. Just a valid contract and interference that proximately causes injury and leads to actual damages. I think the argument is that it's not interference, because MLB can specifically vote up or down...it's contemplated in the franchise agreement. The argument the other way..for example...would be that Drayton was trying to sell his NL club and MLB made that impossible by placing a demand on the prospective buyer to convert it to an AL club, thus changing the terms of the deal itself materially. I don't think that's a winner....but there's something about the whole thing that doesn't sit right, either. That's why I said, "duress" though I know it's not that....just has that "feel" to it. Of course, Crane can back away....but that would be to the detriment of McLane, potentially. I'm with you 100% on the media analysis. It's funny...ESPN reports it with NO sources...and then it's all over the place like it's Gospel.
Right, but what did Nolan really say? Stros & Rangers were playing a series a week or 3 after this all came out & he was asked about it. No **** I'd like the Stros in the AL West, says Nolan. "Would be good for the Rangers", says Nolan. He's not stupid, and the Rangers' ownership is very much concerned with making a play for the vast part of Texas that is not, and has never has been, "Rangers territory". It started in Austin, and I'd imagine that SA, El Paso & the Valley are next. Will be interesting to see what happens when cable contracts come up for renewal in the bigger markets. Up until 2 years ago or so, and it's only gotten worse since the Rangers made their run to the Series, there were just about no Rangers fans south of Waco. They want this to change, and the Astros picked a bad time to become irrelevant. I'll believe it when I see it, but I will never underestimate the amount of shennannigans Selig & MLB can come up with. Oh, Crane's purchase price is 100M+ more than what the Rangers sold for, I'd imagine that McLane or any of the other owners want to jeopardize that, especially with no other potential buyers having been discussed.
If the astrod wanna sacrifice playoffs for ticket sales by all means move but they'd always have to win the division because yanks and sox will nearly always make the playoffs and wildcard
I'd argue you would lose ticket sales with a move to the AL. Sure Yankee, Sox, and Rangers games would sell out, but why would any of the teams sell more games than the Stros currently do. Plus, given the current decrepit state of the team and it's minor system and low prospects of competing for the playoffs, you severely run the risk of alienating the few fans that are still interested in the team. That could create such a gap that would be tough to reconnect. It really makes no sense to move the team to the AL in any form, competitively, financially, and historically. If I were Crane, I would walk away if the MLB & Selig tried to force that on me. Instead buy the Hornets from the NBA after they "ensure that the owners cannot lose money."
Justice on 1560 says the reports out of Arizona "aren't even a little bit true." "No great momentum to get this realignment is done; but there's tons of passion against the move." "How do you tell a guy who has blown everyone away with a $680 million offer that affects other owner's franchise value that he has to move his new team to the AL? You don't want to scare that guy away." "Crane very strongly doesn't want to have an AL team...they can't force you to change leagues." "Drayton...the Commissioner...the Commissioner's people...and Crane...all of them say it's never come up at all." "Rangers want it because they'd get 9 more games at a normal hour..that would help their ratings." "The new regional sports network value would be affected by having so many games starting so late...Comcast bought a package covering a team in the NL that doesn't play a ton of games on the West Coast. This completely changes that deal."
I would feel better after reading that, but per the source I'm nervously awaiting the flop the inevitably follows the flip.
I hear ya...I always take his opinions with a grain of salt. But typically, if it's happening in MLB, Justice knows about it. He's had a good relationship with McLane and my guess is he's reached out to Crane. I think if this were happening...with the momentum towards making this a condition of sale (a sale that, by all accounts, will be approved by early-August)...Justice would know about it.
I've only been thinking about what the large offer meant for Drayton, but the other owners do get a big benefit by having the Astros go for more than expected. And would the owners really want to hurt one of their own? If they really wanted to realign based on geography, they would have to do a massive realignment. You could put Texas/Houston/Colorado/Arizona/Padres in one division together. Put the Dodgers/Giants/Angels/A's/Mariners in another division. Not going to happen, but if they want to realign, go ahead and do it completely.
Why would you leave the Padres out of your SoCal division? I'm not a fan of geographical realignment. I like having two leagues within four hours or closer of one another.
Because they are the closest MLB city to Phoenix, and the other franchises are closer to Seattle than San Diego is. If they did redo the divisions based on location, they have to dump the separate league rules, and completely redo scheduling.
If the biggest issue with the Rangers is that they just want more non-west coast games, why not move THEM out of that division (or league) and find a way to get west coast teams in their own place, and central/east coast teams in another place. The more I analyze this, the only way for this all to work is that they will have to abolish the divisions as they are now. Go back to two divisions per league. Balanced schedules. More wild cards (sux). And keep the teams in the leagues they are currently. That right there will get rid of the sentiment that they need to realign because there are too many teams in the NL central. On that point, who has really heard any valid complaints about that? Hell, more games against the Pirates (always crappy), Cubs (mostly crappy) and Reds (haven't been good till last year) has been a main reason why the division has been dominated by the Cardinals (and then Astros) for so long. But, they quote players officials as saying that they would like change because they have competitive disadvantages... which I took to be a made up load of crap by the media.
Honestly, I've never heard ANYONE complain about there being 6 teams in the NL Central until this realignment discussion began a month or so ago.
Exactly... its like they already decided they wanted the Astros to move, and now they're just trying to come up with the reasons to justify it: 1.) "Lessens the competitive imbalance for the NL Central... we have heard players there complaining about it" Who is saying this exactly? More teams have benefited from the crappy "comedy" central than have really been hindered by it. If any team has a right to complain its the ones that have to play in the same division as the Yankees/Red Sox (that would be the Rays, Blue Jays, and Orioles). They almost never have a chance, unless one of those teams flops. 2.) "Creates natural rivalry with Texas". Again, how come there hasn't been this sentiment to get the NY teams together. Or the Ohio teams together? Or the Missouri teams together? Hell, the Pirates and Phillies are both in the NL and even those teams aren't together. We've already been force-fed 6 games a year every year... and some of those years, those games actually meant something. They want to have a Texas pennant race... but to be honest, any pennant race will draw well for respective teams. And, wouldn't a Texas-Houston WORLD SERIES be a bigger deal than the occasional pennant race? 3.) "Evens out the leagues at 15-15". Well, if that was what they always wanted, why didn't they just keep Milwaukee in the AL when they last expanded? Because they didn't want interleague games every night... and now they apparently do. And THIS is the real reason why I think MLB is pushing for this. They can have a "marquee" interleague series nearly every weekend if they wanted. Sure, they have to have some duds here and there, but they could keep those as mid-week series, and save the good ones for the weekends. Its a scheduling NIGHTMARE, since not all NL teams would get to play all AL teams (another competitive disadvantage), and they'd still want to keep the "traditional" interleague home and home series on a yearly basis (Chicago, NY, LA, Ohio, Texas, Boston-Atlanta). Overall, the more you analyze it, the more its all about trying to maximize revenue for the overall league, regardless of what it does for an individual team.
So what MLB needs to do is this: 1. Relocate Tampa Bay to a city in either the MST or PST. Not sure the Rangers would never let them move to Oklahoma City, but it would add 6-9 more division games in the CST. Other possible sites may be Portland or Salt Lake City? 2. Move Tampa Bay into the AL West. 3. Move Milwaukee into the AL East. While geographically Pittsburgh or Cincinnati fits better, historically you can't just move the Pirates or the Reds into the AL. There you go 6 divisions of all 5 teams. You also made the Al East a bit easier without their 3-headed monster to balance out the American League somewhat. And then you can pursue that idea that Nick discussed, which I honestly like. When interleague was bright and shiny, having a week in which every team had a series or 2 was nice, but now I think integrating it into the entirety of the season would be actually be a good idea. After that, all MLB would need to do is cut the season by 10-14 games (148-152), have two Wild Cards that have to face off in a 5 game series prior to the Division series, and remove the DH from the American League and all will be right with the world...
I would say it is much more likely that the DH gets added to the National League than removed from the American League. As much as NL fans b**** about it, it is a very successful innovation and people that don't have to watch rally killing pitcher at bats seem to prefer it. The old guys in the players association like it as well, since they can move to that spot when they can't play the field anymore. Who do you think has more pull, David Ortiz or the top 5 best bench players in the NL?
