Baseball author and analyst Gary Gillette comments on news that in 1995, Bud Selig and a company controlled by Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad arranged for a $3 million loan to the Milwaukee Brewers. Gillette says the deal represents a major lapse of judgement.
In 1995, Selig was president and chief executive officer of the Brewers, as well as baseball's acting commissioner. Three former baseball commissioners say the deal may be a violation of baseball rules.
Selig is behind the plan to contract two teams before 2003 MLB season, most likely the Twins and Montreal Expos. Pohlad could receive more in a contraction buyout than he would if he sold the franchise.
Transcripts
text | pdf |
Real question here is whether this is the tip of the iceberg, and there's more dirt to come out from underneath the rug, so to speak, or whether this is just an ice cube floating around with all the other ice cubes, baseballs in baseball's frigid waters right now.
Baseball's got a lot of problems, as I'm sure everyone in the Twin Cities and in Minnesota is aware of. And it's not doing a real good job making its case to the public. I think right now, this is going to hurt. It's going to make the people who are already skeptical of Bud Selig's truthfulness and trustworthiness, and Carl Pohlad's trustworthiness, and whether or not the good citizens of Minnesota should support him by subsidizing a new ballpark.
It's going to remove any doubts from the skeptics and probably converts some supporters into skeptics.
SPEAKER 2: If this loan really happened, what's wrong with that?
SPEAKER 1: The loan, really, happened. No one's denying it. The closest to a denial is that Bud Selig apparently told a reporter that he had no recollection of it. But Selig's top deputy and legal counsel, Bob [? Dupee, ?] admitted the loan was made. So at least, no one's denying outright the loan was made.
The problem is that you don't want one person or owner in a league to have financial interests in two teams. And the reason for that is I think, pretty obvious. You don't want the owner of the Twins, let's say, who might be on the verge of competing for a playoff spot, but the Brewers are going to win a playoff spot. And he's got a financial interest in the Brewers to say, well, I could spend more money on the Twins, but I don't want to ruin the Brewers chances.
Now, that's not a problem right now because the Brewers and Twins are in different leagues. But at one time, they were in the same league. And for lots of reasons historically, where baseball had owners who either owned two teams outright or had interests in different teams, there was a rule passed very early in the century, essentially right at the start of the American League, that owners couldn't have financial interests in more than one team.
It's a clear conflict of interest. The amount of the loan, $3 million, isn't so much a problem as the fact that it was never disclosed to the other owners, and never approved by the other owners.
SPEAKER 2: How do you think this might affect baseball's attempts to contract two teams?
SPEAKER 1: It's not going to help. It may not hurt much because baseball isn't going to contract two teams this year. The contraction for this year is dead, and Selig is making yet another mistake, one of about 75 he's made so far this year in continuing to hold it open.
He said he's going to hold contraction open until February. Everyone knows contraction isn't going to happen this year. The death knell was sounded around mid-December when the general managers all concluded after a meeting in Boston, that it wasn't going to happen. And they started acting as if they were going to be 30 teams next year.
For 2003, it's the real issue. This could have no effect if the other owners don't rebel. Or if there's no more seamy details to come out into the public. But if there's any other hint of impropriety here, it could lead to the other owners to rebel, which could weaken Selig's position as commissioner.
And since Selig has very broad authority given to him by the other owners, any weakening of his position would negatively impact the owners in their battle with the Players Association and would negatively impact the owners if they really want a contract, which they apparently do.