106 new of 109 responses total.
This is probably a good a place as any to point to this item from Toronto's Globe & Mail newspaper: (Um, the URL is not repostable; try searching for "United Center" at their site...) Anyway, the essay says that today's major league sports teams rest on two economic pillars: the willingness of corporations to shell out big money for things like stadium naming rights, season tickets, luxury suites, and TV advertising; and the willingness of governments to build stadiums and arenas. And in the aftermath of September 11, it seems most likely that both of those pillars will sag tremendously if not collapse.
There is a movement afloat here in NYC to replace Yankee Stadium with a new stadium. Yankee stadium is a baseball cathedral, but it is aging and doesnt have all those nice things like luxury suites. Steinbrenner wants it torn down and replaced. The Yankees made $100 million last year from huge tv rights fees and licensing fees. Yet the plan that Steinbrenner and Mayor Guiliani have cooked up would have the taxpayers funding the new stadium. It has become an issue in the mayor's race. They'll cut funding for public services to pay the city's debts arising from the WTC towers collapse and recovery effort (all those firefighters and construction folks down at zero working double time overtime adds up!), but we'll still pay for the Yankees new field? Talk about misplaced priorities. Mayor Guiliani is trying to rush this deal through before he leaves office in January, because his likely successor- Mark Green the Democratic Public Advocate-- is staunchly opposed to it.
I know. I was really bummed about the Tigers moving out of Tiger stadium into the brand new Comerica Park. Blech. No more Tiger baseball for me. I drive to Toledo for the Mudhens and like them enough to forgive them having a new downtown ball park.
Actually, I'd be happy to see major league baseball lose a few teams. Many of the players in the majors today are not really "major league" talent. They're just up in the majors because there aren't enough good players to go around. This also leads to teams rushing players into the big leagues to the detriment of the player's development. I think Brandon Inge is a good example of this.
The other problem with the Montreal team, and with a lot of hockey teams, as I understand it, is the weakness of the Canadian dollar over the past few years. Canadian teams get their revenue in Canadian dollars but have to compete for players with American teams whose revenue comes in in American dollars. I hope a way can be found to move the Expos to Washington, too. Washington has badly wanted a baseball team ever since the second incarnation of the Senators left in (I believe) 1972. It does seem, as Richard said, that the split between the big market teams and the small market teams is the real division in baseball. The Yankees have won 3 (possibly to become 4) championships in a row, and well they ought, since they can afford to buy as much talent as they can find. I don't know enough about the economics of the situation to know if profit-sharing is a good idea, but I wish something would change. BTW the media just *love* it when the big-market teams win, so they won't be any help.
Dan slipped in.
#2, #3> Except for the bit about people not being killed, what is the difference in justification between that and similar nonsense during the Roman Empire? We've got it into our heads that "world class city" means "has lots of sports teams."
This item is linked from autum 2001 agora to the sports conference.
Montreal also isnt a baseball town. It is a hockey town. There are some places where certain sports just dont get over. Like football in L.A., both NFL teams moved away, its not a football town. And the NBA hasnt worked in Vancouver either. Vancouver isnt a basketball town.
I agree with Richard. Drawing an average of 7000 fans per game does show a lack of interest in Montreal for baseball. Folding the Expos will do very little harm to major league baseball. The Expos didn't even get many fans when they were contending for the National League pennant, which I think was in the strike-shortened 1994 season. They just aren't a viable team. Several things can be done to make a team viable. The team can invest it's money into scouting and it's minor leagues. Montreal did this a decade ago, and produced some extremely attractive players, such as Pedro Martinez. These guys won some games, but as soon as they were recognized as stars, they bolted for higher-paying clubs. Cleveland built itself into a winner by building some players in it's farm system, and then signing them to long-term contracts when they were young. A highly motivated owner can purchase the team and pump in lots of money. This is less common than it used to be, as major league baseball is a darned expensive hobby, no matter who the owner is. It's *much* more expensive than it used to be. The Florida Marlins took their expansion team to the World Series because the owner, Wayne Huizenga, bought a great group of players. Then he lost interest and broke the team up, and then sold it. They're now on the right track for a small-market team, with a good farm system. A really smart owner can invest even limited money where it really can count, in a good coach and a good management team. Oakland is a small market team; they had the 2nd lowest salary in the majors this year, next to Montreal. But they made the playoffs each of the last two years. Their general manager, Billy Beane, recognizes talent very well. Oakland's core talent won't last for long if they can't pay them a lot, but for right now they're an impressive group. But there are no indications Montreal has the capability to do any of these things. And as I said earlier, there's no reason to believe the fans of the Expos would support their team, even if it was a winner.
The answer is to attend minor-league teams (if possible in your area!). My favorite baseball experiencen was the Toledo Mudhens, and now Lansing has a team as well (the Lugnuts).
We have the Royals (AAA farm team to Kansas City) here in Omaha. Formerly the Golden Spikes (yeeuck) Before that... the Royals. Very fun to attend.
Detroit's new home of the Tigers is one of the few stadium build without a massive amount of city or state dollars. Is this true?
Re #15: Did they wear golden spikes on their shoes? Re #13: Where did the TIgers place on the list of the lowest payed teams?
Another discouraging thing about the way major league baseball is currently set up is that the so-called "minor market" teams are really acting as farm teams for the bigger boys. Teams like Montreal and Kansas City (I think Detroit is kind of on the fence here) find and develop talent only to have them jump to a "major market" team as soon as they are eligible for free agency. I'm not sure it will ever be possible for those teams to accumulate enough talent to actually contend for a title. And if you never have the hope of contending, what's the point? Why should fans go to games in which the home team gets regularly creamed?
Well, Cubs fans have made a virtue out of losing, somehow. But it's true that the Cubs have had plenty of good seasons, even if they haven't won any world series since 1909. So I basically agree.
In any baseball league, it's a mathematical certainty that one of the teams is going to finish last.
(it isn't possible for two or more teams to finish last?) :-p
No, not to my knowledge. They don't allow tie-games; that's what extra innings are all about. Well, maybe I'll amend that to "at least one team".
Games may not be tied, but overall records can easily be. So, yeah, you could easily have multiple teams finish last.
Detroit is a very good sports town, and specifically a very good baseball town. It is definitely possible to have a contender in Detroit. I'm not sure where they placed on the total salary list (a list which varies through the season anyway, as teams make trades and players get injured); probably somewhat below the average. They cut salary from last year. That was because Tom Ilitch had some sticker shock over the price of Comerica Park. Ilitch personally paid a *lot* more for the ballpark than most owners; I think he might have paid more than any other owner ever has. The Tigers have been in a downward spiral for 15 years; they traded some great prospects (example" John Smoltz) to take a shot at winning it all in 1987, then tried to buy a contender in the early 1990's, when for a couple of years they had the highest salary in baseball, then around the time Tom Monaghan bought the team, they decided they had to build from the ground up and discovered they had almost no quality prospects in their whole minor league system. It's been an uphill struggle to build a good farm system. Partially this requires luck; they've had some good prospects who didn't pan out or who got injured. Partly it requires talent recognition; the Tigers have not had many really good drafts. It takes about 4 years to take a "normal" 1st or 2nd round draft choice and make him into a major league player, assuming normal luck and normal ability to draft 1st and 2nd rounders. Players haven't come up through the minors and bolted from the Tigers; they have never made it up through the minors, gotten injured, or been traded for guys who never made it as major leaguers. Other than Travis Fryman, who was a star 3B for the Tigers and then just wasn't re- signed, there haven't been any impact major leaguers who left the Tigers for free agent opportunities. The Tigers are in a tough spot now, and there's little for them to do but to place blame. They have big expenses from Comerica Park, and declining expectations (and support) from their fans. Their farm system now seems more promising than it has in years, but honestly, that's not saying a lot. If they spend a lot of money on players and put together a winning team, I am confident they could fill the ballpark. But without the support of the fan base, they don't feel they have the money to spend. Without the contender, the fan base doesn't feel compelled to go to the ballpark.
I'd go to games if they returned to the old Tiger Stadium.
Did you go to games before they moved to Comerica Park? How many per year? I've gone to maybe a dozen games at Comerica Park now, and I think it's fine. I'd still have preferred they kept Tiger Stadium, but they didn't do that.
I've been to 3 games at Comerica Park, and it really is a very nice place to see a game. You should try it, Larry - it's much more rewarding to see a good game than hold a grudge. (Of course, there weren't too many good gams for the Tigers this past season...)
I agree with Mark. I grew up going to Tiger Stadium, and was sorry to see them move, but the new park is really nice. It's a double shame that the team sucks so badly. As jep says, if the team was even halfway decent, the fans would be thronging to the stadium.
jep's analysis in resp:24 is essentially what I believe. After producing the fabulous crop of players which won the world series in 1984 and won the division in 1987 -- Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Lance Parrish, Kirk Gibson, probably a few more, almost all home-grown by the Tigers farm system -- the wheels fell off. Beyond John Smoltz and Travis Fryman, I can't think of any high-impact players produced by the Tigers farm system in the last 15 years. So what the heck happened? How did the Tigers go from producing most of a home-grown World Series champion in the early 1980s, to the subsequent decade-and-a-half of farm system futility?
re #29: If you'll remember, 1984 was the year Tom Monaghan bought the team. I don't remember what year he sold it; maybe 1994? Sometimes, anyway, it seems he expected 1984 was a normal year; just buy the team and get a 35-5 start and a World Series championship. Monaghan did buy some other players that year and in following years. John Smoltz went to Atlanta in 1987 in exchange for Doyle Alexander. Behind Alexander, who won something like 13 straight games, the Tigers made it to the playoffs that year. But Monaghan had little interest in building the organization from the minors. Whenever Bo Schembechler became the president of the Tigers, he spotted that almost immediately. He went to work on upgrading the farm system and the facilities of the farm system. I don't know if he ever did anything else for the team. He was not president for long; Monaghan lost interest in baseball (and his other hobbies, such as collecting cars) and sold the team, and Bo was canned. 1984 for the Tigers was not a normal year for a baseball team, though. That team was built by then, and was ready to win. It seems to me the Tigers have never built a team again. They rode Trammell, Whitaker and Morris as long as they could, and have been scratching their heads since then about where those guys went. They've bought stars, such as pitchers Mike Moore and Tim Belcher (early 1990's), or traded for them as they did a couple of years ago with Juan Gonzalez. But they've seemed to expect all they need is to add star power. People seem to add "like the Yankees" to your sentence when you talk about buying star players. But you have to admire the Yankees; they didn't just throw money at players, they threw their money wisely. The Tigers have had many occurrances of big-name players who didn't "work out", but that hasn't very often happened to the Yankees. They do pay a lot and get a lot of big names, but they get big names who can (and do) contribute to their ballclub. I don't know exactly what they need to do, but the Tigers need to learn to be more like the Yankees. Make the investments, but make them a little more wisely.
I had completely forgotten that 1984 was the year Monaghan purchased the club. That has to be it. I had figured that Bo had been a bust in working on young player development for the Tigers, but you're saying that he never had the time to get the job done, correct?
My guess, in response to #29, was that it was the year Monaghan bought the team. Fetzer and Campbell were real "baseball guys." Monaghan bought them as a feather in his cap. There was a lot of hope when Illich bought the team. A lot was made of how he had played in the Tigers farm system at one point. Unfortunately, he seems more interested in the Wings than the Tigers. jep's right, too about the Yankees. They have a killer combination of a strong farm system and enough money to get the players they need to fill in the gaps.
re #31: I don't know if Bo had either the ability or the time to turn around the Tiger's farm system. I remember him focusing on facilities. Certainly that must be part of the equation. I have no idea what kind of handle he had on finding the right people to pick coaches, trainers and scouts. re #32: A great farm system is a result of wisely spent money. You get great prospects, but then you have to develop them into great players. The Yankees brought Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera through their farm system; they're both not just the best at their positions, but among the best in history. That's no accident. It takes good development staff and also facilities. It takes smart staff and coaches. Also, it takes the ability to recognize the right direction as an organization, and the commitment to stick with it. George Steinbrenner is a pain for the rest of baseball, but for his team, he's a great owner. Not just rich, but smart and committed.
Re 26. Yes, I went to games at Tiger Stadium. Maybe three or four, in the three years I lived in Detroit. Only once since then. So, yeah, my support is no great loss to the organization.
The current plan being worked on by the commissioner's office includes the elimination of two teams. But what two teams is subject to debate. The owners of Montreal and Florida have indicated willingness to trade for or take over other franchises in markets with more favorable economic conditions. Could always eliminate the Tigers and let the Tigers ownership take over the Marlins in Miami (if they're willing to pay for a new stadium down there) You put the Tigers players in a dispersal draft, and move the Montreal franchise to Detroit where they'd assume the Tigers name. The current Montreal ownership would surely pay more for top players if they had the Detroit market instead of Montreal. This takes care of unhappy ownership situations in montreal, florida and detroit, while ultimately only eliminating montreal.
That's just stupid. Illich is a Detroit guy, and if the Tigers aren't here, there's no reason for him to be an owner.
World Series game 4: I felt bad for the Diamondback's relief pitcher Kim, who struck out the side in the 8th inning, only to give up a tie in the ninth and eventually the winning run. Kim is a "submarine" pitcher; I don't recall seeing that style in a prominent game since Dan Quisenberry was pitching against the Tigers in the 1980s. Somebody (jep?) please write about the tactical reasons and the history of underhanded pitching?
And it's the 12th inning of game 5. 2-all, 1 out, with New York at bat. Last I looked, it was 2-0 in the seventh.
And now it's over: 2-3 Yankees. I don't care who wins the Series, but it's fun to watch come-from-behind wins.
Byung- Kim did the same thing again last night; he was down to 2 outs in the 9th, with a 2 run lead, and gave up a two run homer. The Yankees took 12 innings to win last night, but win they did. While I'm rooting for Arizona, I certainly can't complain about the interest level of the games. This has been an amazing World Series.
re #37: Please note, I never played much baseball at any level. I watch a lot, but I've never thrown or hit a curveball. By using an unusual style, the pitchers are making the ball look a little unusual to the batter. It's another thing the batters have to be aware of, during the 7/10 of a second or thereabouts they have to decide whether to swing at the ball. A sidearm pitch comes from further to the side than a normal pitch, and a submarine ball starts low and has to come up a little. Also, the release point affects the way a pitch works. A sidearm or submarine curveball spins sideways, which makes it break horizontally, like a frisbee. A regular curveball breaks down and to the side. A submarine fastball tails more than a regular fastball; it breaks a little in toward the batter or out away from him. A regular fastball has backspin, which causes it to rise. (A great major league fastball can appear to hop as it approaches the plate.) Basically, the lower the release point, the more sideways the break on the curveball. The higher the release point, the more downward motion you get.
That really was an incredible finish last night. Almost unbelievable. The key really wasn't the home run, though. It was Arizona's inability to score in the eighth (or was it the seventh?) when they got Womack to third with no outs. If they'd gotten him home, the home run wouldn't have mattered. It will be very difficult, I think, for Arizona to win now.
You never know. The Johnson can easily win game six on his own, and I wouldn't be surprised if Brenly is calmly telling Kim "WHEN the ninth inning comes around in game seven, I am going to give you the ball and you ARE going to win the World Series for us." He's got two days to build up his confidence, and would't it be a great story if Kim went back out there and stoned the heart of the Yankees order for the championship? The Yankees will probably tee off on Johnson and moot the point Saturday, though.
Kim beating the Yankees in game 7 sure would be a sight to see. But if the Yankees beat him instead, I don't know if I could take it - I nearly threw something at the television the last two times.
Well, just with those two losses, there's a chance that he'll never recover. Some pitchers just don't make it back from bad blown saves, and he's young enough that this could really affect his future. I don't think i tmatters if he loses another game or not as far as that goes.
There have been 5 games played so far, and so far, each one has been won by the home team. I don't think Arizona is in despair just yet.
Game 6: So when did Fox decide to start televising batting practice?
Arizona absolutely killed the Yankees today. I didn't see any of the game, tied up with "other obligations," but it was impressive to see. Tomorrow, the Yankees could become the second team to be totally outnumbered in major statistical categories in a World Series and win, along with the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates, who beat... the Yankees. Actually, their stats (specifically, they trail in runs scored by a decided amount) probably aren't as lopsided. As of 1990, the Pirates had the highest ERA in World Series history, and won.
Did I just hear that we have a World Series Champion? And it's not the Yankees? Somewhere up there, somone said something about the home team always winning. Is that what happened this series? Did neither team win on the road?
That is indeed what happened. The Diamondbacks won game 7 as Mariano Rivera finally came unravelled in the ninth inning. Former Tiger Luis Gonzales batted in the winning run. The Yankees looked really bummed on the bench - seems they can dish it out but they can't take it. I say, Sayonara!
This was the best World Series I've ever seen.
It really was something. It was only the second time in 25 chances that Rivera has blown a save. I didn't think Arizona had a chance after the fifth game.
The breaking news is that the baseball owners have voted to fold two teams before the start of the 2002 season. The teams are to be named later. Speculation centers on Montreal, the Florida Marlins and the Minnesota Twins -- the Twins owner is practically begging to be paid off and put out of business.
Wow. "Before the start of the 2002 season." I didn't think it could happen that quickly. Here's an interesting quote from Selig: "There were a lot of people in the game who were in favor of four-team contraction." The previous latest news on this topic, by the way, is that Selig had the votes to disband both the Expos and the Minnesota Twins. Either Arizona or Tampa Bay can, by contract, be moved from one league to the other without their consent, and the speculation is Arizona will move to the AL West, and Texas will move to the AL Central.
No solid word on the teams involved, though Montreal is obviously one of them. Removing the Twins from Minnesota will be a travesty--with all the discussion of owner switching, why not just remove Pohldad and move an owner to Minnesota? Despicable, awful, and evil are words I would use to describe Major League Baseball if the Twins are not playing baseball next year. Careless, obnoxious, and close-minded are ones I enjoy now as it is, but if there are no Minnesota Twins next season (either by contraction or strike or, worse, both), I'm going to have a hard time watching a sport which cares about its fans in a fashion resembling OJ Simpson's "love" for Nicole Brown. No sport disrespects, ignores, and abuses its fans like Major League Baseball. No sport is further out of touch from what makes it great than Major League Baseball.
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?)
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.
Well, then raise the mound, or enlarge the strike zone. Why take away teams?
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.
Is he serious about it or is it a stadium negotiation ploy?
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.
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.
I wish that Ilitch would use this opportunity to sell the Tigers, but I don't think that's going to happen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
there is a stadium contract problem for minnesota, as i have read it. if there is another (assholes) strike, baseball dies, period.
Arizona has no rivalries, they're only four years old.
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.
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.
Aren't there at least two Cali teams in the same division?
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.
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.
(But then the Washington Senators were a founding member, too. And they're now the Twins.)
#77> I thought your relevant point was proximity, though. The five Cali teams aren't spread out evenly, they're clumped together.
2 clumps, about 300 plus miles apart, LA & SF.
that's what I thought, but I didn't want to specify the number of clumps because my Cali geography is so crappy ;}
(And speaking of geography... to correct jep in resp:74 :: Pennsylvania does not border on the Atlantic Ocean. The eastern border of Pennsylvania is the Delaware River, and there's a whole state of New Jersey between there and the ocean. So, having the Pirates in the Central division makes perfect sense! :) )
Its being widely reported that the two teams to be eliminated are supposed to be the Twins and the Expos. But to make matters worse for Minnesota sports fans, there was a report on Sportscenter that the Vikings ownership-- also fed up with lack of progress on a new stadium-- may entertain offers to sell the team to new owners who want to move the team to L.A. The LA Vikings? Well, I guess if you can have the St. Louis Rams, you can have anything. It would have precedent though, as Minneapolis was the original home of the Lakers. And the NFL badly wants to get a team in the LA market before the current tv deals expire. I think its completely understandable that the Minnesota taxpayers dont want to pay for new stadiums in the current economic climate, but it is also perfectly understandable that the owners want to do whats best for their business interests. The Twins owners, the Pohlads, cant be blamed if they want to take the $250 million buyout and get out, rather than go forward continuing to lose money every year.
Did you watch that entire report? The reporter was skeptical that anything would happen with that, with good reason.
Mark McGwire has announced his retirement. He said he couldn't contribute as much as his salary any more. McGwire made some pretty bitter sounding remarks during Barry Bonds' home run chase, but appeared to realize it and corrected himself eventually, cheering Bonds on at the end. I think he's a classy guy, at least most of the time.
Ichiro Suzuki of Seattle was the AL rookie of the year, getting all but 1 votes. Last year's rookie of the year was also a Japanese-born player who's with the Mariners; Kazuhiro Sasaki. Albert Pujols of St. Louis was the unanimous choice for NL rookie of the year. He's the 9th guy to be a unanimous rookie of the year choice in the National League.
The Ichiro-worship here in the Seattle area this summer was remarkable. I don't care to speculate what might have happened if "Rookie of the Year" was awarded to someone else..
re #85: Despite the bitter comments, you gotta feel for McGwire. Imagine how it must have felt to see Bonds taking a run at him and not being physically able to do anything about it.
Which bitter comments are you talking about? I know he was skeptical of the media blitz early in the season when Bonds was on a great pace but hadn't reached halfway, but I think that was more a criticism of the media (and a defense for Bonds!) than an attack on Barry. Did he say other things that I don't remember?
I recall him making some pretty bitter sounding comments, about how it took 40 years to break Maris's record and only 3 to break McGwire's, and how breaking it this year wasn't as much of an accomplishment. But then he turned around and changed his tune.
They both owe breaking it to the characteristics of the ball being changed, I suspect.
It's hard to dispute that. Maris also owed his record to changing characteristics at the time, you know; in 1961 there were expansion teams, and also an expanded schedule, from 154 to 162 games. Maris' record had an asterisk in official statistics for quite a number of years. Babe Ruth *was* the changing characteristic which allowed his record of 60 homers. He fundamentally changed the game of baseball by hitting so many home runs in his career. Before Ruth, homers were an unremarked- upon oddity; considered as more or less a flashy personal display and not an accomplishment which contributed much to the team's wins and losses. I'd say the record of Mark McGwire was an individual one -- his team didn't make the playoffs or get anywhere close to it. McGwire hit homers and drew fans, but did nothing else for his team on the field. Barry Bonds had the greatest offensive year in baseball history. He set the record for walks and slugging percentage (bases achieved per time at bat) as well as homers. It's hard to think of someone with his ability, having the extraordinary year he had, as not being recognized for having a dazzling year in any era in baseball history. If he doesn't get the MVP award, it would be one of the most extreme injustices I've ever seen in baseball.
Homers *don't* contribute much to a team's record of wins or losses. They're impressive, but overall consistancy is more important.
That's not true, though. The purpose of the offensive side of baseball is to score runs. Every home run is at least 1 run (and brings in an average of something like 1.6 runs). The home run is the greatest basic weapon available to a baseball team. No team can win in modern baseball without being able to hit homers.
Perhaps, but the best teams still rely on good baseball. The New York Yankees got most of their offense from this World Series and lost. They got most of their offense from past world series from solid baseball, moving runners over, etc, and the record speaks for itself.
I think McGwire did a classy thing. He had a previously negotiated two year extension at $15 million per, which he had kept at home and not signed. He didnt think he could hack it physically anymore. The team had negotiated that deal when he was physically healthier. He wanted to let the team off the hook so they could use the money to sign another free agent or two. He walked away from $30 million because it was the best thing for the team. That's integrity. That said, is McGwire a hall of famer? He'll be up in the same voting class as Ripken and Gwynn and possibly Rickey Henderson.
If the Cardinals were smart, unlike the Tigers, they'd try to keep McGwire involved with the club in some way.
Of course he's a hall of famer. Whether or not all of the available candidates make it on the first ballot is another question.
If McGwire, Gwynn, Ripken and Henderson are all on the same ballot and they don't all make it as 1st time selections, then the selection process is inexcusably flawed. Their accomplishments all obviously stand on their own and place all of them well within the ranks of players qualified for the Hall of Fame. They should all be unanimous selections. But there *is* a good chance they wouldn't all make it on the 1st ballot. And none of them would be unanimous selections. The process is pretty specious. They'll win entry, and be given votes, in this order: Ripken, Gwynn, Henderson, McGwire
You know, even if McGwire's motives were as altruistic as richard is painting, it is possible that he might still be worth that salary even if he isnt as good of a ball player these days. The name recognition alone is worth quite a lot. If he brings fans to the games, he is worth the salary. I mean, I dont watch major league baseball and of the four people jep just mentioned I only know who two of them are: McGwire and Ripken. The only reason I know who Ripken is though is because NPR ran a story about him when he retired. I had never heard of him before that. But I have heard of Mark McGwire and even know what he looks like. He is famous. That kind of name recognition is worth something.
Wow. Sports fans sometimes lose track of the perspective of those who aren't as interested. Don't know who Rickey Henderson, Tony Gwynn or even Cal Ripken *are*? We need a rundown: Mark McGwire -- first man to hit 70 home runs. #6 on all-time home run list with 583. Won World Series with Oakland. Tony Gwynn -- eight batting titles with San Diego. Hit .300 in 18 consecutive years. Hit .368 between 1994-1997, the third highest average in major league history over a 4 year span. He never struck out 4 times in a game; only struck out 3 times in 1 game. 15 All-Star games. Two World Series appearances (1984, 1998) Cal Ripken, Jr. -- Played in 2632 consecutive games, a major league record. One of 7 players with 3000 hits and 400 homers. Most home runs by a shortstop (345). Highest season fielding percentage for a shortstop (.996, 1990). Fewest errors for a shortstop over a season. (3, 1990) 19 All-Star appearances. Rickey Henderson -- All-time leader in stolen bases (1395; only man to ever get 1000), runs scored (2246), leadoff homers (not sure). It's harder to get career information for Rickey Henderson than for other great players. But what he does (get on base, advance to another base, score runs), he is the best there ever was.
Re: Ripkin. You say he hit more than 400 homers, but then say he hit the most HRs for the position of SS (345). Was there a typo, or is this because his homers as a SS only get counted in games where he played as SS? Re: Henderson. "Only man to ever...": I wasn't aware there were females in MLB. >=}
Right, Ripken spent the last few years as a third baseman, so his homers while playing at that position don't count as homers hit by a shortstop. I might have said Henderson was the only "athlete", or "player", or "man", or any of a number of other words, to describe Rickey Henderson. "Man" was the shortest.
Barry Bonds won his record 4th MVP award. He got 30 of 32 1st place votes. (Sammy Sosa got the other two.) I am quite relieved. Bonds had the best offensive year in history. If he hadn't won the MVP award, it would have been a terrible injustice.
#103: But if you'd said "player," you wouldn't have opened yourself up to a Weisenheimer like me making a comment, thus leading you to all taht extra typing you did to explain yourself... ;} OOC, if a player starts a season at SS, spends a third of the season as the DH, then goes back and finishes the season of SS (maybe they have an injury in the middle part of the season), would what they did as DH count as "stuff by a SS"? How about that weird sh-- when a player plays multiple positions in the same game? I'm just nosey. =}
I don't know, if I'd said "player" you might have asked me how many non- players have hit homers in major league baseball history. (That answer would be "none", just as the previous answer was "none.) It was a silly comment, but I'm the idiot for answering it, I guess. If a player plays DH for the middle third of the season, the at-bats for those games would not count as at-bats by a shortstop. I once saw Kirby Puckett, the Hall of Fame Minnesota Twins outfielder, play 2B for a couple of innings. If he'd had an at-bat after changing position from OF to 2B, then that at-bat should not have counted as an at-bat by an outfielder. But probably the official statistics for major league baseball show all of Puckett's at-bats as being those of an outfielder. His at-bats as a DH or 2B or any other positions he played would probably not be considered significant enough to bother with. Players who often play multiple positions in a game are not stars, and their stats are not interesting when discussing the greats of the game. If you can play one position well, then that's your position. No team would mess with your ability by moving you around to different positions. Only scrubs have to play a lot of positions in a single game.
#106, para 1> Best be safe, use "entity" in the future. ;}
Re: #104 re: "travesty" - That's an old debate: MVP is *not* synonymous with "player of the year". Even with all of Barry's homers, the Giants didn't make the playoffs. An excellent case could be made for the key players on Arizona: Johnson, Schilling, Gonzales. I'm sure the sentiment was all for Barry, but his "value" didn't help his team to the playoffs.
re #108: The precedent was set in, I believe, 1987, when Andre Dawson of the Chicago Cubs won the award. His team finished in last place. Just what was valuable about Dawson's performance? They couldn't have finished in last without him? The Giants almost made it to the playoffs. I don't have much doubt they wouldn't have been as close without him. And for individual seasons, he had the best there ever was offensively, by my definition. He didn't just lead in two of the three Triple Crown stats (homers, RBIs, the 3rd is batting average). He set all time records in those stats, and set the record in walks as well. It's fitting he also set the record for MVP awards; he's the only guy to have 4 of them. It was a season to remember.
You have several choices: