Yesterday I talked about how MLB would need to approve John and Lou Angelos as the new owners of the Baltimore Orioles if their father, Peter Angelos, died or transfered ownership. To me it stands to reason that Peter Angelos would just transfer ownership to his kids and allow the transition to occur immediately as opposed to waiting until his death. But the politics of the league regarding the MASN case also plays a role.
I suppose it’s understood that when a family owns an asset such as a company, children of the true owner will often step in and play the role of the parent in a pinch. In this case, John and Lou Angelos are in essence running the team on their father’s behalf. But is MLB perhaps interfering where it shouldn’t?
I’m not suggesting this based on any evidence. I’m throwing it out there as a theory. The league has no stake whatsoever in the Orioles’ continued success. Is that fact? Not really. But it is my opinion. By their actions, they’ve made it very clear that they want the MASN case resolved in the Washington Nationals’ favor. This is mainly because the league knows it signed a bad deal with Peter Angelos years ago. So they’re hoping to have it thrown out. And again, in my opinion it’s the Orioles and the Orioles’ fans who are suffering.
I wouldn’t put it past the league to throw money wrenches into John and Lou Angelos’ plans for those political reasons. Whereas the Steinbrenner brothers ran the New York Yankees for their father for years before ownership was transfered, and were allowed to do so with autonomy. But is it not possible that the league office is interfering with whatever the Orioles are trying to do – simply because it’s the Angelos’ and it’s the Orioles?
Again, I’m not giving you any evidence that suggests this. Because there is none. I’m putting it out there as a theory – please don’t take what I’m writing as fact. However the Angelos brothers did seem to show a fairly decisive side in making the tough choice to sell off assets during the season. So does the delay in hiring a front office and manager not seem somewhat out of character?
And with that said, again we know that the league seems to have the motive to make things tough for the O’s and the Angelos’. So that’s kind of where this is coming from. Is it appropriate to say? Maybe, maybe not. But again, it’s simply a theory. Not based in anything more than circumstantial evidence.
Does the league have the power to hold up a GM hiring? That I don’t know. However I suspect that they could put some sort of scrutiny on ownership so as to be overbearing – since “technically” John and Lou aren’t the owners on paper. Which brings up another point; at sometime in the future, Peter Angelos will pass away. Would his sons be able to get the necessary 2/3rds vote from the other owners to become the new owners of the team?
Point being, a sale could be forced if not. Those types of votes (with the children of the late owner inheriting the team) are often seen as ceremonial and in essence as a formality. But the possibility exists that the Orioles could be sold (by force) in the next few years. What happens then?