Baseball needs more lawsuits like the Yankees need more World Series banners, like A-Rod needs more bonus clauses, like the Diamondbacks need more old guys.

But we have some troubling news for our friend, Bud Selig: If the commish can't talk Congress out of that antitrust bill now before both houses, he could find himself dodging enough attorneys to fill Miller Park.

The commish was last seen heading for Washington on Thursday, to testify before Congress. He was there to address legislation that would limit baseball's longstanding antitrust exemption to exclude franchise contraction or relocation.

The good news for Selig is: At least that bill wouldn't mess with most of the antitrust exemption. Congress let baseball slide on matters such as the reserve clause, broadcasting contracts and the minor leagues. They're not even mentioned in this bill. This one only deals with contraction and relocation.

The bad news is: That's about the only good news. We've talked with lawyers familiar with both sides of this issue. And here's a look at how this might turn out for commissioner Selig and Major League Baseball:

The best that could happen for MLB
There's almost never anything good that comes of being summoned to testify at a Congressional hearing -- other than the fact that C-SPAN gets ratings only slightly higher than The Bingo Channel.

What Selig hopes will come out of his testimony is sympathy, following the release of heretofore-undisclosed franchise books that show a loss of $511 million this year. By the way, that computes to an amazing $9.8 million in losses a week (if you count the offseason), or $16.20 per second.

Selig has predicted that after he reveals these figures, "there will be no more dispute" about the health of the industry. But Congress is not usually that accepting.

So what is more likely to follow the commish's testimony is what usually follows the testimony of men summoned to the Congressional hot seat.

He'll get badgered by the representatives who proposed this legislation, plus their supporters.

And then, unless he says something particularly self-indicting or embarrassing, Congress will go on to do the thing it does best: Deal with other stuff, 99 percent of which is way more important than where Corey Koskie will play next season.

So this legislation is likely to get lost amid the jumble of other, more pressing legislation. Or it will get rewritten in a committee chaired by some congressman who has found MLB's relentless lobbying particularly compelling.

Or the House and Senate won't be able to resolve different versions. Or, if none of the above happens, President Bush, former owner that he is, could veto it anyway.

But MLB's best bet is that it will never pass in the first place.

Stan Brand, baseball's principal lobbyist for the minor leagues, says the climate was much different when Congress passed 1998 legislation amending the antitrust exemption to exclude labor issues.

"Last time, the impetus was that the players and owners agreed on it (as an offshoot of the last labor deal)," said Brand, vice president for the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues. "I don't think there's the same groundswell and momentum this time. But every time they open it up, we have to take it seriously, to make sure it doesn't boomerang on us."

Good idea. And here's why:

The worst that could happen for MLB
Let's say this bill -- introduced by Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) in the Senate and by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) in the House -- passes. Then what?

"If this bill passed," said noted sports antitrust attorney Jim Quinn, "then all the cities and stadiums and, conceivably, the players themselves could have potential claims (against MLB). It would open baseball owners up to an antitrust attack (in the courts) on all of those fronts. Whether they would win or lose is a different issue. But they would be subject to suits from all of those parties."

And there are a couple of things you need to remember about those kinds of lawsuits:

1. They take a long, long, lonnnnngggg time to work their ways through the courts.
2. The cost of losing them would make Jason Giambi's new contract look like coffee-machine money.

"Just take a case like Minnesota," said Quinn, an attorney for Weil, Gotschal and Manges, a firm which has handled antitrust cases for the NFL and NBA player associations. "By having their franchise shut down, the city of Minneapolis and the owners of the stadium both have the right to file suit, saying they've been injured, and they're entitled to treble damages (three times their estimated actual damage), because an antitrust conspiracy by baseball owners took away their team. And the players could make similar claims because this decision eliminated 50 jobs."

How long would all those suits take to move through the legal system, counting appeals, counter-appeals and further counter-appeals? You don't want to know. Even longer than a Rickey Henderson at-bat. That's for sure.

"They could very well be looking at a very long process," Quinn said. "If they went ahead and shut teams down and then they lost the case, they could be subject to very, very significant damages -- treble damages. So it's a risky thing to do."

In other words, if this legislation were to pass, it would effectively end Selig's contraction plans, unless the union and the cities involved all miraculously signed off on it. Otherwise, opponents could at least freeze it in the courts for years. And owners couldn't risk trying to muscle contraction through in the meantime, because they couldn't afford the price tag if they lost.

Meanwhile, baseball also fears that this inroad into the antitrust exemption could lead to more down the highway.

"Every time you open it up," Brand said, "it's easier to fiddle with other provisions."

But, Quinn says: "That's just (owners) crying wolf, which they've been doing since they first went to court in 1918 saying they should have some exemption. Everybody has recognized that the previous court rulings (supporting the exemption) were nonsensical. Even in the Curt Flood case, which (MLB) won, the court basically said, 'This is stupid. But they've had it all these years ... so let Congress change it.'"

Well, Congress is warming up in the bullpen as we speak. So for commissioner Selig, it's time to play more spectacular defense than Robbie Alomar.

Jayson Stark is a senior writer for ESPN.com.