Totally Unlistenable

[Tony]

I push my plans back an hour to hear this, and you guys had the nerve to be so good that you were on longer than I could listen. I did get to hear Huy's FYC in the cab though.

Even Mrs. butthead thought you did a good job. She sounded kind of surprised. I told her you were on with the guy from that sports talk TV show, and she said, "that orange guy?"

[Chuck to Chuck]

What shape were the slices of pizza cut in?

Thick was in wedges, party cut for the thin.

[Oleg]

I do have a question for everyone on two points.

1. Was the contention that The Cubs could have dealt Harden before July 31?  After The Cubs had their one competent run going 18-9 in July and getting to 1st place?  Granted, they shit the bed in August and an argument could be made that he should have been dealt in August, but he failed to clear waivers, right?

2. Chuck, when you said that if Cuban were to offer the most money for the team and was denied ownership, the Tribune shareholders would have filed suit.  Wouldn't they be filing suit as league owners, and are therefore not allowed to use MLB?  Would there have been a way to challange the anti-trust exemption in that case?

I'll hang up and listen to my answer.

By the way, great work.  I was hoping for more cussin' and hollerin', but great work all around.

[Pre]

By the way, how many times did Kaplan say "Correct" in response to any comment you guys made.
Boy, that must have made you feel awfully good knowing that he was validating your views.

Self-important tool.

I loved how he constantly would interject how he had previously made the same point on
his show.  His desire to have the cool kids (and Chuck) approve of him was transparent.

I enjoyed Chuck taking him to task about the legal stuff and Kap's deft backpedal that took
him so far back that he seemed to think it was May 2009 and the shareholders are taking MLB
to court.

[CT III]

I do have a question for everyone on two points.

1. Was the contention that The Cubs could have dealt Harden before July 31?  After The Cubs had their one competent run going 18-9 in July and getting to 1st place?  Granted, they shit the bed in August and an argument could be made that he should have been dealt in August, but he failed to clear waivers, right?

Oleg, I think that Kerm said trade deadline, but meant waiver deadline.  I believe in August that the Cubs had either gotten Harden through waivers, or the Twins were the ones who claimed him.  There was some kind of offer on the table but the Cubs balked.  Then they shut Harden down for the last two weeks of September and didn't offer him arbitration and got nothing.

[Chuck to Chuck]

2. Chuck, when you said that if Cuban were to offer the most money for the team and was denied ownership, the Tribune shareholders would have filed suit.  Wouldn't they be filing suit as league owners, and are therefore not allowed to use MLB?  Would there have been a way to challange the anti-trust exemption in that case?

Well, I'll let a lawyer (like Stew) answer whether a shareholder suit would be considered a suit by the "Owner."  I would think that they shareholders, as a class, could sue MLB and say, "You prevented us from maximizing the sale of an asset we own."  That would certainly seem to have Clayton Act issues ("illegal restraint of trade").

Man, would that have been fun.

[Kermit, B.]

I do have a question for everyone on two points.

1. Was the contention that The Cubs could have dealt Harden before July 31?  After The Cubs had their one competent run going 18-9 in July and getting to 1st place?  Granted, they shit the bed in August and an argument could be made that he should have been dealt in August, but he failed to clear waivers, right?

Oleg, I think that Kerm said trade deadline, but meant waiver deadline.  I believe in August that the Cubs had either gotten Harden through waivers, or the Twins were the ones who claimed him.  There was some kind of offer on the table but the Cubs balked.  Then they shut Harden down for the last two weeks of September and didn't offer him arbitration and got nothing.

Yeah, I meant after they were out of it (about August 10th, if I recall correctly).  I didn't have a computer in front of me LIKE SOME PEOPLE DID, but I thought Harden was claimed by the Twins and they were trying to work something out.  Maybe I'm misremembering.

[Kermit, B.]

2. Chuck, when you said that if Cuban were to offer the most money for the team and was denied ownership, the Tribune shareholders would have filed suit.  Wouldn't they be filing suit as league owners, and are therefore not allowed to use MLB?  Would there have been a way to challange the anti-trust exemption in that case?

Well, I'll let a lawyer (like Stew) answer whether a shareholder suit would be considered a suit by the "Owner."  I would think that they shareholders, as a class, could sue MLB and say, "You prevented us from maximizing the sale of an asset we own."  That would certainly seem to have Clayton Act issues ("illegal restraint of trade").

Man, would that have been fun.

DPD.  This is nowhere near my area, but I was under the impression that if the MLB loses its antitrust exemption, it'll be more likely because of the actions of Congress than the actions of the courts.  But I can't imagine it would be too difficult to make the antitrust exemption an issue in any lawsuit, since the original ruling was so backwards.  And what an issue it would be.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I do have a question for everyone on two points.

1. Was the contention that The Cubs could have dealt Harden before July 31?  After The Cubs had their one competent run going 18-9 in July and getting to 1st place?  Granted, they shit the bed in August and an argument could be made that he should have been dealt in August, but he failed to clear waivers, right?

Oleg, I think that Kerm said trade deadline, but meant waiver deadline.  I believe in August that the Cubs had either gotten Harden through waivers, or the Twins were the ones who claimed him.  There was some kind of offer on the table but the Cubs balked.  Then they shut Harden down for the last two weeks of September and didn't offer him arbitration and got nothing.

Yeah, I meant after they were out of it (about August 10th, if I recall correctly).  I didn't have a computer in front of me LIKE SOME PEOPLE DID, but I thought Harden was claimed by the Twins and they were trying to work something out.  Maybe I'm misremembering.

You remember right.  And, if you recall, you and Andy sat down first and left me with Chair #3.  Which happened to have a Window To The World including SBox and Desipio Message Board access.

Both of which, Kap accessed as well during the show.

[Andy]

The pizza slices were cut into orbs.

And, I sat closest to the window in case anybody wanted to come up and JO in front of me.  I'm that kind of a guy.

[Kermit, B.]

The pizza slices were cut into orbs.

And, I sat closest to the window in case anybody wanted to come up and JO in front of me.  I'm that kind of a guy.

You should have looked to your left.

[thehawk]

2. Chuck, when you said that if Cuban were to offer the most money for the team and was denied ownership, the Tribune shareholders would have filed suit.  Wouldn't they be filing suit as league owners, and are therefore not allowed to use MLB?  Would there have been a way to challange the anti-trust exemption in that case?

Well, I'll let a lawyer (like Stew) answer whether a shareholder suit would be considered a suit by the "Owner."  I would think that they shareholders, as a class, could sue MLB and say, "You prevented us from maximizing the sale of an asset we own."  That would certainly seem to have Clayton Act issues ("illegal restraint of trade").

Man, would that have been fun.

2 (a).  It likely wouldn't have been the Tribune's shareholders who sued but its creditors as the company is in bankruptcy and they are the ones hurt by taking a lesser deal.  The creditors arguably has no agreement with MLB, so their case is somewhat better than the shareholders.

2(b).  If any of you follow Hockee, you know that "Mr. Blackberry" Jim Basille (who is Mr. Bettman's Cuban) tried to buy the Phoenix Cayotes out of bankruptcy, in order to move them to Hamiliton, Ontairo.  The NHL recently convinced the (US) Bankruptcy Court that, as the NHL would not approve of Basille as an owner or the move of the team, the court should take a lower offer from the league.  Due to a very old and odd Supreme Court Case, MLB is in a even better legal position than the other sports league (including then NHL), as the Court ruled that baseball was a 'pasttime' and thus not subject to anti-trust law at all.  Now Congress could had made a show of attempting to repeal the anti-trust exemption if Cuban went public long and loud enough (see steroids hearings, actions when the strike occured etc.), but I think the courts at this point would take the position that the MLB can reject who it wants to on pretty much whatever basis it would like.

[CT III]

2(b).  If any of you follow Hockee, you know that "Mr. Blackberry" Jim Basille (who is Mr. Bettman's Cuban) tried to buy the Phoenix Cayotes out of bankruptcy, in order to move them to Hamiliton, Ontairo.  The NHL recently convinced the (US) Bankruptcy Court that, as the NHL would not approve of Basille as an owner or the move of the team, the court should take a lower offer from the league.  Due to a very old and odd Supreme Court Case, MLB is in a even better legal position than the other sports league (including then NHL), as the Court ruled that baseball was a 'pasttime' and thus not subject to anti-trust law at all.  Now Congress could had made a show of attempting to repeal the anti-trust exemption if Cuban went public long and loud enough (see steroids hearings, actions when the strike occured etc.), but I think the courts at this point would take the position that the MLB can reject who it wants to on pretty much whatever basis it would like.

Hawk, isn't the Coyotes case a bit more complicated though?  There was more than a dispute over the highest bid/transfer of ownership.  The NHL's primary argument is that once they took possession of the team, Jerry Moyes did not have the right to place the team in bankruptcy in the first place.  Also, Balsillie's stated intent was to purchase the team and then move them to Hamilton, ON, which would have major impact on the Phoenix situation as well as the Toronto and Buffalo franchises.  I guess what I'm saying is the Cubs sale is more of a straightforward ownership transfer disagreement, while Balsillie's plan involved moving of the club out of the country and potentially having a major economic impact on two other franchises in the league.  I doubt that's a situation that any bankruptcy judge in his right mind would want to touch.

[Chuck to Chuck]

2 (a).  It likely wouldn't have been the Tribune's shareholders who sued but its creditors as the company is in bankruptcy and they are the ones hurt by taking a lesser deal.  The creditors arguably has no agreement with MLB, so their case is somewhat better than the shareholders.

Duh.  That's right.  I even wrote that last December.

[BH]

I'm pissed I can't listen to this at work. But keep up the great work guys. Incredible performance.