Major League Baseball officials couldn’t rack up enemies faster in the District if they tried. The problem is that they are trying.

Last week brought news that MLB would continue to hold the city in suspense by once again putting off a decision as to who would become the Nationals’ new owner. Maybe worse, MLB announced its opposition to a provision in the stadium agreement which would force the league to pay an annual $6 million in rent over the course of the stadium’s 30-year lease, effectively sticking the District with the entire stadium bill and threatening the investment-grade rating necessary for the purchase of bonds to finance its construction.

Some of the District’s most consistent baseball boosters are not happy. Council-member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), baseball’s second biggest advocate in the District’s government behind D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, seems to have had enough, irately threatening MLB officials on WTOP over the lease payments:

What I have told them is: This is non negotiable. So you either agree to this, or you move the team to somewhere else because we’re wasting our time.

So what’s the District to do? Baseball is an officially-sanctioned monopoly, allowing it the absolute power to play hardball in negotiating concessions from victim cities. The District — never too keen on the idea of paying for a new stadium — now faces a difficult Catch-22. If MLB holds on its refusal to pay the $6 million annual rent, the city will likely not receive the bonds it needs to finance the stadium’s construction. And given the City Council’s $535 million price-cap on the stadium and the absolutely unlikely possibility that the city will agree to pay for the stadium straight out of the existing budget, no new stadium will be built — the one demand MLB had in agreeing to bring baseball back to the District. Without a new stadium, MLB’s team owners — currently the surrogate parents of the orphaned Nats — may choose to pick another city to extract profitable concessions from. It seems like MLB is tempting the District to put its foot down.

Conversely, MLB might decide that a $6 million annual rent payment is worth the estimated $330 million windfall they are looking to receive from the sale of the team. But will league officials demand other concessions in return, as rumored? How much are baseball boosters willing to give MLB in exchange for keeping the team? Will there be a political price to pay if District officials are seen as handing over the keys to the city treasury, especially if the long-touted economic benefits of the new stadium are further called into question? How much is Evans willing to take from MLB?

We throw the question your way — How much should the District sacrifice to finally land the team?

>>DCist on the politics of baseball