|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 109 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 56 of 109:
| 
Nov 7 16:55 UTC 2001 |
I really don't get why contraction makes sense, when there are cities like
Washington that have been desperate for a team for years and years.
(Heck, the Twins used to be the Washington Senators. Why not just move them
back?)
|
senna
|
|
response 57 of 109:
|
Nov 7 17:42 UTC 2001 |
It has been accepted as fact for some years now that talent in baseball is
dilutted, particularly pitching. This is held partially responsible for the
explosion of offensive numbers in recent seasons. After all, put good lineups
against good pitchers (Red Sox against Clemens, Yankees against pedro, the
entire World Series), and games are lower scoring.
|
aruba
|
|
response 58 of 109:
|
Nov 7 17:45 UTC 2001 |
Well, then raise the mound, or enlarge the strike zone. Why take away
teams?
|
krj
|
|
response 59 of 109:
|
Nov 7 18:40 UTC 2001 |
resp:56 :: The Baltimore Orioles are dead-set against moving another
team back to DC. The arrival of the Orioles (the former St. Louis
Browns, I think) in Baltimore led pretty directly to the
departure of the first Senators team to Minnesota a few years later,
and the second Senators team to Texas a decade after that.
If somehow another team would move to Washington, one would want it
to be a National League team so that each team would have a
different set of visiting stars. Washington has been fantasizing
about getting the Expos for years.
What I don't understand is why the Minnesota owner is practically
begging to be bought out and shut down.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 60 of 109:
|
Nov 7 19:30 UTC 2001 |
Is he serious about it or is it a stadium negotiation ploy?
|
krj
|
|
response 61 of 109:
|
Nov 7 19:48 UTC 2001 |
It could be a negotiating ploy on the stadium; it could also be that
MLB is willing to make an example of the Twins to increase its
leverage on other cities where they are demanding new stadiums.
To steal from the Toronto Globe and Mail: unfortunately this is
about the worst time for MLB to be trying to twist the arms of
cities over new stadiums. City and state governments are caught
in a huge revenue crunch.
When necessities like school budgets are going to be cut,
there is going to be little political willingness for taxpayers to
buy stadiums for privately owned sports teams.
|
jep
|
|
response 62 of 109:
|
Nov 7 21:21 UTC 2001 |
The baseball owners are willing to pay off a couple of teams for maybe
$250 million each because that way they will avoid about $75 million
per year in revenue sharing costs. (I think that's per team as well.)
Also, it will reduce the demand for players a little, and so reduce
labor costs a little. Also, at present, when the commissioner tells a
city to build a new stadium or risk losing their ball club, the cities
sometimes don't listen enough. You can be sure, if there is
contraction, then when the commissioner threatens a 3rd city with
losing it's ball club, that city will get very concerned.
Senna has some great comments in #55, regarding baseball and it's
relationship with baseball fans.
re #59: The Minnesota Twins are worth maybe $100 million. The Expos
are worth much less than that. Baseball is offering the owners maybe
$250 million, so their motivation is obvious. The owners of both teams
will likely use their new stash to purchase other teams which are for
sale, so the origin of support from teams who want to sell becomes more
clear. It's trickle down economics on a really grand scale.
|
brighn
|
|
response 63 of 109:
|
Nov 7 21:34 UTC 2001 |
I wish that Ilitch would use this opportunity to sell the Tigers, but I don't
think that's going to happen.
|
richard
|
|
response 64 of 109:
|
Nov 8 04:54 UTC 2001 |
The Twins and Expos have been struggling for a long time. Even more
troubling is the fact that two of the other teams on the potential
eliminiation list are the Marlins and the Devil Rays. Both are recent
expansion teams in cities where the fans waited years, decades, to get
major league baseball. It would be cruel to take their teams away so
soon after they got them.
But the Devil Rays are locked into a thirty year lease at Tropicana
field (formerly the Florida Suncoast Dome). This dome was built before
Tampa got a team, and against the advice of the league. They were told
that a big cold domed stadium just doesnt work aesthetically anymore for
baseball, not with all the fancy new stadiums out there. Particularly
in a place like Tampa where the weather is usually beautiful. The fans
just dont want to leave the gorgeous tampa afternoon sunshine to go
inside an air conditioned dome, particularly to watch a losing team.
Now Tampa's ownership realizes the dome was a huge mistake, but since
they cant get out of the lease, they want out period. The owners in
Tampa have expressed interest in giving up that franchise and buying
the Anaheim Angels, who may be for sale. Valid reasons but none of
that have anything to do with Tampa's baseball fans, who would be
victimized.
The Marlins in Miami is another situation. Miami is a great town for
baseball. They won a world title a few years ago. But the year after
the Marlins won the title, the roster was all but disbanded, as
ownership decided they couldnt afford to keep the stars together
without a new stadium. Without top players, the Marlins have
languished in the cellar the last few years and crowds have dwindled.
who wants to pay to see a loser?
Major League Baseball cant take the pr damage they'd get from
eliminating both teams in Florida so soon after they started.
They need to keep at least one of those teams. Maybe they could shut
down Tampa and keep the Marlins, and make the Marlins play a handful of
games each year up at the dome in Tampa. After all they are
the "Florida" Marlins, not just the Miami Marlins.
|
senna
|
|
response 65 of 109:
|
Nov 8 05:09 UTC 2001 |
How are either of these great towns for baseball? They don't draw. Colorado
has been midtable since it was founded, and draws. Florida and Tampa don't
draw fans, except when one of them buys a title--but only Atlanta fans don't
show up when their team is winning, in any sport. The Twins have far better
fans and far more history than either of those franchises.
|
danr
|
|
response 66 of 109:
|
Nov 8 12:20 UTC 2001 |
I never thought that Florida was such a great baseball state, either.
It's football down there, baby.
If contraction makes it easier to achieve parity, then I'm all for it.
I'm afraid, however, that without a salary cap of some kind,
contraction isn't going to do much.
|
gull
|
|
response 67 of 109:
|
Nov 8 15:49 UTC 2001 |
There are also rumors that the players are unhappy with a contraction.
If they strike again it's probably all over for baseball. It took
juicing the ball and creating a string of home-run records to get fans
back after the last strike.
|
jep
|
|
response 68 of 109:
|
Nov 8 19:29 UTC 2001 |
There are more than "rumors" that the players aren't happy. The
player's union is very open about that. There would be 48 major league
positions removed, and about 250 minor league players would lose their
jobs. Of course the player's association is talking about the street
vendors and ushers who would lose their jobs, and the bars, restaurants
and memorabilia shops which would close, and the local kids who would
be heartbroken.
The commissioner has pledged that the owners will not have a lockout in
response to negotiations over the next contract. (The strike which
cancelled the World Series in 1994 was really a lockout. Not that it
matters; it was a pre-emptive attack. There would have been a strike
anyway.) If this is true, it's mildly good news; it reduces the chance
of games being cancelled next spring by some slight amount.
Optimistically speaking.
Another strike which cancels the World Series would possibly kill
baseball. (It would end it for me. I didn't watch baseball for a few
years after the 1994 strike.) A strike which cancels a whole season --
which is possible -- would probably do it in altogether. But
a "normal" strike which postpones the start of the season for a month,
or splits the season in the middle, would probably be survivable. It
would be damaging... It's necessary for baseball analysts to discuss
these types of scenarios because all sides in baseball -- owners,
players, umpires -- are self-destructive and intent on seeing just how
close to the edge of obliteration they can take the sport.
|
brighn
|
|
response 69 of 109:
|
Nov 8 20:09 UTC 2001 |
I notice that very little hoopla is being made over Montreal. Perhaps the best
course would be to drop the number of teams to close to 1 and just dump the
Expos.
Jeb Bush displayed his wonderful skill at math, by the way, when he said that
MLB was telling "two teams they could live, and two teams they would die,"
when there are five teams on the "short list" being bandied about as likely
to die. Or maybe he's just forgotten about Montreal, with the rest of the
world. ;} Either way, if he had a hand in the election counting, it's no
wonder the numbers didn't add up right.
|
richard
|
|
response 70 of 109:
|
Nov 9 05:00 UTC 2001 |
If teams are eliminated, the league will attempt to calm the union down
by expanding the rosters of the other teams. If the union's big
concern is lost jobs, adding two or three player spots to each roster
will solve that.
There are legitimate reasons for contraction. If these markets arent
supporting baseball, the owners there cant afford to field competitive
teams. The competitive balance in the league just isnt there.
Interestingly, if they do eliminate two teams, they say that there will
have to be re-alignment. At least one team will have to switch from
the national to the american league. And the team talked about as
being by far the most likely to be ordered by ownership to switch
leagues? Yep, the Arizona Diamondbacks. It is not out of the question
that the national league (and world) champions will be defending their
title in the american league next year. Supposedly this is because the
DBacks expansion contract with the league, allows for the league to
move it without its permission until the end of 2002. Naturally,
Arizona ownership is steaming mad about the possibility. Their natural
rivalries are the Dodgers, the Rockies, the Astros, the Padres. All
NL teams.
|
tsty
|
|
response 71 of 109:
|
Nov 9 07:56 UTC 2001 |
there is a stadium contract problem for minnesota, as i have read it.
if there is another (assholes) strike, baseball dies, period.
|
senna
|
|
response 72 of 109:
|
Nov 9 12:25 UTC 2001 |
Arizona has no rivalries, they're only four years old.
|
jep
|
|
response 73 of 109:
|
Nov 9 17:12 UTC 2001 |
Arizona and Tampa Bay can be moved by MLB without their permission, as
part of their contract for entry into major league baseball. They need
to keep an even number of teams in each league so they don't have to
have an inter-league game every day in order to keep all the teams
playing almost every day. Baseball teams get a lot of their attendance
on Sundays; it would be bad to have a team not play on a couple of
Sundays during the year.
So, if one team is removed from each league (Montreal Expos from the
NL, Minnesota from the AL), there would be 13 teams in the AL and 15 in
the NL. It makes more sense to move Arizona (from the NL) rather than
Tampa Bay (from the AL). It balances the two leagues with 14 teams, it
avoids having 2 NL teams in the state of Florida, it works out better
in almost every way.
Arizona is concerned about a lot of things if it has to change
leagues. Another concern is that it would be in the same division as
the Mariners and Oakland A's (who are highly competitive), as well as
the weak-drawing Angels. It would be in a 4 team division instead of a
5 team division, which with the current unbalanced schedule means more
games against less teams, decreasing the variety seen by it's fans.
Arizona is a National League team. Note they didn't win any games
against the Yankees when playing under American League rules, with a
DH. From their point of view, they have a good thing going and don't
want to change it.
|
jep
|
|
response 74 of 109:
|
Nov 9 17:15 UTC 2001 |
I wonder, when Montreal is canned, will the Pittsburg Pirates be moved
to the NL East? It's a little weird to have a team in a state which
borders on the Atlantic Ocean not be in the eastern division of their
league. But maybe it'd be too weird to have two teams in the same
state in the same division.
|
brighn
|
|
response 75 of 109:
|
Nov 9 17:28 UTC 2001 |
Aren't there at least two Cali teams in the same division?
|
richard
|
|
response 76 of 109:
|
Nov 9 17:46 UTC 2001 |
if they dont move arizona to the american league, they could in theory
move the Tigers to the NL Central, and move Pittsburgh to the NL east.
The Tigers could be revitalized by being in the national league. And
they'd have natural rivalries in the NL Central with the Cubs, Cardinals,
Reds, and Brewers. They could be promised as incentive that they'd get
their interleague games each year against the White Sox and Indians.
|
jep
|
|
response 77 of 109:
|
Nov 9 17:52 UTC 2001 |
re #75: California is a bigger state than Pennsylvania. The Anaheim
Angels and Oakland A's are in the AL West; the San Francisco Giants,
San Diego Padres and Los Angelos Dodgers are all in the NL West.
re #76: You'd have 12 teams in the AL and 16 in the NL. Also, as a
founding member of the American League, there's no chance that Detroit
is going into the National League. None. Zilch. Not ever.
|
jep
|
|
response 78 of 109:
|
Nov 9 17:57 UTC 2001 |
(But then the Washington Senators were a founding member, too. And
they're now the Twins.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 79 of 109:
|
Nov 9 20:15 UTC 2001 |
#77> I thought your relevant point was proximity, though. The five Cali teams
aren't spread out evenly, they're clumped together.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 80 of 109:
|
Nov 9 22:04 UTC 2001 |
2 clumps, about 300 plus miles apart, LA & SF.
|
