Pastime: Dropping two teams

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I guess they pay the owners some amount to dissolve?
To drop Minnesota would be shameful. It would validate the extortion of smaller governments. Awful stadium, of course, but nothing's going to help in that high-variance climate.
There are four candidates, I guess: TB, Fla, Montreal, Minnesota.
I say "Last in, first out." Florida has plenty of baseball as it is: spring training and A-ball (or is it rookie?)
What are baseball's problems?
1. Salaries are too high, but mostly too guaranteed.
2. Stadia cost too much to build. Anyone have a guess for Average Stadium Life? It's moving toward 35 years or so. Cincy didn't need a new ballpark. Once the football stadium was built, Rivergy Field could have been upgraded or enhanced with waterfalls or pools or new cow bells. I like the new idea for Fenway: adding an independently supported upper deck, among other improvements.

[Cho Da]

Also mentioned in today's Boston Globe was Anaheim, with one of the Florida teams then moving.
The article also suggested that if Montreal and Minnesota get axed, then Arizona moves to the AL west, and Texas moves to the AL Central.

[Patience]

On 2001-11-06 19:13, Dr T Non-Fan wrote:
I say "Last in, first out."

It may be the opposite. Montreal, in my mind is the weakest of the 4. Less than 8000 per game. Of the others I would like to see Tampa, but I don't know any of the numbers to support it, they just have the least history.

If Minnesota doesn't vote for a new stadium & the extrememly rich owner doesn't put up his own money that franchise won't last anyway. & I prefer contraction to relocation.

[Han Solo]

Do you think that this statement could just be Selig's opening shots in the negotiations with the labor union over the offseason, and they are not really going to contract?

What is contraction actually going to solve, anyway? It might cost more near term with all the payoffs to the owers and such. (I didn't make that up, it's on CNNSI)

Also, what's the justification for eliminating several minor league teams that are not in financial trouble?

I can't believe they would not try relocation first. I think contracting is going to create more problems than it solves.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

The owners haven't decided which teams will be eliminated.
This might be an incentive for cities/states to decide how important baseball is to their economy/political future.
An admission of failure is quite rare in sports ownership. Disney's already admitting that sports ownership is not cost-effective. Of course, it didn't look at it properly: it thought the Angels could be stand-alone profitable. WRONG! It should have been used as a promotional tool to get more people into the cash-cow theme parks!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dr T Non-Fan on 2001-11-07 12:33 ]</font>

[Actuary321]

On 2001-11-07 12:03, Han Solo wrote in part:
What is contraction actually going to solve, anyway? It might cost more near term with all the payoffs to the owers and such. (I didn't make that up, it's on CNNSI)

Also, what's the justification for eliminating several minor league teams that are not in financial trouble?

I can't believe they would not try relocation first. I think contracting is going to create more problems than it solves.


About eliminating minor league teams: The parent team pays all the salaries: Players, Coaches. So just because a minor league team isn't in financial trouble doesn't mean they are not a drain on baseball.

The real problem is $ and talent. Too many $ and too little talent. Get rid of 2 teams and you can eliminate alot of salary and get rid of the worst 20 or 13 pitchers in the league.

And as for teams they should get rid of, may I suggest the Cubs and the Red Sox. That would significantly reduce the October depression of the country. We need to end the suffering of those poor fans once and for all.:smile:

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I think the business aspect is too compartmentalized. The profit margin has been MBA'd down to the individual ticket holder. Squeeze them here, squeeze them there. Increase food prices, increase parking costs, increase game time to make capture the consumer.
This conflicts a bit with the local TV contract, which is designed to get people to watch the game. They're competing for many of the same fans. As more people stay home, the ticket prices are increased. As more people see what else is on TV, people watch less of the broadcasts. The value of the contract drops, and ticket prices are increased yet again.

MLB may have to revisit why baseball was popular in the first place (or whether it really was) long ago, and, instead of competing with the other sports, get back to its roots.
I'd start by replacing recorded music with the live organ player.

[Pub Guy]

I think this whole mess is caused by the players union refusing to accept a salary cap. Who can blame fans from small market teams not wanting to come out to the park to root for a team who can't compete with the Yankees, Braves and other high $ teams? The current luxury tax system is a joke. Steinbrenner probably laughs as he signs that check. I find it amazing that athletes who generally have a strong competitive spirit, can vote against a salary cap which would promote equity amongst teams. This greed makes me sick.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

There's plenty of greed to go around. More effective revenue sharing would go a long ways towards helping the smaller market teams.

I really like Bob Costa's proposal that a certain percentage of the revenue sharing money be required to go towards salaries. That would prevent an owner from fielding a lousy team, taking the money, and running.

[VP]

You're right Pub. Eliminating 2 teams, whoever they are, would solve nothing. Inequity would remain. And as some writer (Neyer?) noted, expanding rosters to 27 to compensate the union would be catastrophic. More pinch-runners, middle relief specialists, defensive specialists, etc, etc.

Selig is about the most despicable person on the face of the.. OK that's not fair at this point in history, but the man is a LOSER.

[Anonymous]

First, I don't think Mr. Steinbrenner laughs when he signs any check, much less the revenue sharing one. Second, Minnesota has a market size equal to Atlanta, despite the common misconception that Atlanta is large market and the Twin Cities are small market. Third, would anyone like to guess which owner in baseball is the wealthiest? Murdoch out in LA? Turner? Mr. Steinbrenner? Nope. Carl Polhad, Minnesota Twins. Refuses to spend his own money on the team. In fact, made a tidy little profit last year, thanks in large part to the luxury tax. So I'm a little sick of hearing about Big money teams vs. Small money teams, etc. If Polhad shared Mr. Steinbrenner's competitive fire, the Twins could compete year in and year out. I do agree a better system needs to be worked out to help create some competitive balance in MLB, but let's not mis-identify the culprits here. Hicks spends $252 million on one player, but it is argued that the Rangers can't be expected to compete with the unfairly advantaged Yankees. The Red Sox spend as much as the Yankees, if not more, and get buried in the AL East (injuries notwithstanding). The A's were arguably the best team in baseball going into the playoffs with a combined salary only about twice that of ARod. I would highly recommend Bob Costas' book - he addresses this issue and makes some very compelling points.

[Anonymous]

Does NY really need two teams? Contract the Yankees!

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

Does NY really need any teams? Contract the Mets and the Yankees both.

[Pub Guy]

Maniac, your examples are anomolies. There will be a couple of anomolies every year. I can name many more teams with small payrolls (Montreal, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, etc.) that finished poorly every year for every anomoly you name.

Are you seriously going to argue that there is not a correlation between owner spending and on-field performance? Do you think that Giambi wouldn't have been immediately resigned if the A's had a open checkbook like the Yankees? Further, I never argued that the Rangers and Bosox can't compete against the Yankees. They have payrolls that compete with the Yankees, so I believe they can fairly compete. The Bosox had injuries and bad chemistry and the Rangers had no pitching. Having a high payroll doesn't ensure success, it just ensures an ability to compete "fairly". Do you think Pittsburgh or Tampa Bay will have a shot at signing Alou, Giambi, Bonds or any of the other marquee free agent names out there?

A salary cap would almost surely ensure that most owners spend towards that limit or face intense scrutiny by their own fans and media. Basketball and football with their salary caps (I admit basketball's is soft, though) at least have different teams come through the playoffs regularly.

[Mr. Grim]

It is more fun to have dynasties, IMHO. Look how boring the NFL is these days - soon every team will be 8-8. What made the WS so much fun this year - the fact that the Yankees were the king and had to be toppled from the throne. Basketball is better as the soft cap stops too much player movement. i think something should be done but i would not support another NFL type approach.

Look at the glory days of sports - usually when you had a couple of dynasties clashing - celtics and the lakers, the yankees and the dodgers, the Cowboys and the Steelers,

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Grim on 2001-11-08 11:11 ]</font>

[Mr. Grim]

BTW, pub gay - what are you some Canadian socialist, eh.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: grim on 2001-11-08 11:20 ]</font>

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Defining the market size: where to begin?
1. You need a big-market owner.
2. You need a big-market government.
3. You need a big-market corporate base.

All (or 2/3 of) these are needed to build the Big-Market Ballpark, which has shown its value to a team's success in nearly every case.
Population base bcomes somewhat irrelevant.

Another fix to the game: Stop making such small parks! Home runs have stopped being special. They are almost the sole decision-maker of winning games. That's similar to the specialization problem. There aren't as many ways to win games anymore. Put some variability in there, more chances for triples and other exciting possibilities.

[VP]

put the Expos in NY

[Anonymous]

Pub Guy, the A's are an anomly only in that they know how to scout, draft, and develop young talented players in a healthy environment in order to turn out a competitive, successful baseball team. I admit that this is rare in MLB. It's exactly my point. It takes more than just money to win. Some organizations know what they're doing (A's, Mariners, NYY) and some don't (Orioles, Rangers). I never once suggested that you, personally, argued that the Rangers can't fairly compete. As far as Giambi goes, he and Oakland management had agreed, financially speaking, to a contract. It was a no-trade clause that was the sticking point. I think a revenue sharing system and financial parity would be a good thing for baseball - I'm just wondering what excuse some of these incompetent franchises will use once they get it.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

Or, to summarize Mainiac's arguments in two words: Bill Bidwill.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Expos can go. there's no hope there.

As for the other:
The Twins' owner should be contracted. Have the Marlin owner take over the Twins and have the Marlin team contracted.
Have MLB pay the players' contracts with the money out of the former owners' settlement. If a player signs to another team, the former contract is voided.
Twins don't need a new stadium. They need to play indoors due to the climate. Maybe a giant zipper could be created.

[Han Solo]

How about giving DC one of those teams instead?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

"Give"? SHOW ME THE MONEY!
If I have to choose two, it would be Marlins and Expos.

[Shrek]

Expos drew about 643k fans this year, and over 10k in 13 of 81 home dates...dreadful. The have been a good farm team though.

I'd put the D-rays second on my list to fold. They've got that crappy-psuedo-grass, pulled in only 1,226k fans (down 18%), have crappy management, and no history. Though it wouldn't break my heart to see the Marlins fold.

[Pub Guy]

Kinda interesting but long article in the Dallas Morning News on Sunday, November 11, titled "How did baseball get in this mess?"
It goes through revenue sharing and salary caps and compares MLB to NFL and NBA.

http://baseball.dallasnews.com/rangers_stories/STORY.ea19b9034e.b0.af.0.a4.c0b13.html

[frummie]

I'd put the D-rays second on my list to fold.

MLB blew it when they didn't let the Giants move to Tampa Bay. TB would have had a real team and the SF Bay area would have had only one, which it could support.

They've got that crappy-psuedo-grass, pulled in only 1,226k fans (down 18%), have crappy management, and no history.

I remember when 1 million fans was considered a good year, back in the mid-70s.

Heard about the possible Angels contraction. Though I've been a devoted fan, they don't draw well even when they are in a race. Only about 26k fans when they are in a race? I'm embarrassed.

(My first post to Rebel Forum. CAS site (where I'm frum613) is getting pretty boring)

[Gore Tree Lover]

At some point, players' salaries must stagnate. When will this happen? The original prediction i heard that seemed plausible was that the big star's salaries would increase while the average player's salaries would decrease. I have not seen this happen.

There just comes a point where the public will no longer pay the ticket prices and hopefully the governments will quit paying for the big new stadiums (but look what happens when you don't build a new stadium, they take away your team as per Minnesota).

[Dr T Non-Fan]

It will stop as soon as TV network discovers how much money it's losing.
This is a bit difficult, since there's a lot of cross-costs/revenues not accounted for.
CBS got out when it could, but some other network took up the slack.
ESPN should realize what a service it does to MLB, putting on good national games (not regional crap that I see too much of), cutting into events when something historical might happen, etc. I sure hope it's not paying too much for the "honor."

Idea for network guys: delay telecast for 30 minutes to an hour, then cut out all the meaningless time-outs. Game and telecast would be on track by the end of the game.

[E. Blackadder]

And the NFL should have the networks splice in commercials on their own time. Think of it, a football game played in about 90 minutes real time. :smile: Sports could be fun again...

Back to Baseball, I'd prefer to see a season where the worst team gets "sent to the minors." a-la the British style.