That the 30-0 vote that swept chief operating officer Rob Manfred into the commissioner’s office wasn’t truly unanimous shouldn’t really surprise anyone. As sports fans we understand that just because a game ended 8-3 doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good game. So it was that the final vote in the election of Major League Baseball’s 10th commissioner was less of a route than it truly seemed.
Vote for Rob Manfred wasn’t really unanimous
When is a 30-0 vote not unanimous?
It would be dishonest to say that it was nip-and-tuck at any point, though, as it seems the closest Red Sox owner Tom Werner got to Manfred was a 20-10 deficit, per Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. So the questions become who was resistant to Manfred, why were they resistant, and what made them switch?
While they voted for Manfred once they saw there was no light at the end of the tunnel, the bloc of seven teams that held out were the Red Sox, White Sox, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, Angels, Athletics, and Reds, per Heyman. While the Red Sox would obviously vote for one of their owners, there is some intrigue here as White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf is one of Bob Selig's close friends. The three teams that made it 20-10 in an earlier vote included the Brewers and Rays, and once they were on board, the Nationals were the last domino to fall, according to Heyman.
So why all the push-back against Manfred, who has been a critical figure in the adoption of an extremely comprehensive anti-doping policy, as well as the 19 consecutive years of labor peace, and league-wide revenue sharing? Many of the holdouts view Manfred as too soft on the players association, odd considering how hard he hammered them to adopt the drug policy in the first place. Another mark against Manfred is that he wouldn't show the same predilection toward certain teams that his predecessor did. Maintaining the status quo is of the utmost importance when the status quo largely benefits you, of course. Lastly, it's likely that a few teams held out on voting for Manfred because there was something to be gained by bartering for their vote rather than giving it up freely. The Nationals make the most sense in this respect, as their ongoing dispute with Peter Angelos and the Baltimore Orioles has gotten ugly, and there's a tremendous amount of money at stake. They likely attempted (and possibly succeeded) in extracting some sort of promise from Manfred regarding the MASN dispute, and secured his spot as commissioner in so doing.
So there it is. A lot of rigmarole for basically an extension of the current policies. There are no doubt going to be differences between Manfred and Selig, especially in regards to how he deals with specific clubs. As far as MLB goes, though, Manfred was one of the architects behind the current system, so anything resembling sweeping changes seems unlikely at best.
See More:
