|
|
|
|
 |
| MLB |
|
Scores Schedules Standings Statistics Transactions Injuries: AL | NL Players Offseason moves Free Agents Message Board Minor Leagues MLB Stat Search MLB en espaņol Clubhouses |
|
SportsMall
|
| Sport Sections |
|
|
| Wednesday, February 21 | |||||||||||||
| Users split down the middle on contraction | |||||||||||||
| Will it be best for baseball to eliminate two teams or is the status quo just fine? We asked you, the users, to give us your opinion on the subject.
Below are select responses:
I think that eliminating two teams, preferably Montreal and Tampa Bay, is an excellent idea. Then baseball could go back to two seven-team divisions in each league. Contraction could be a first step toward getting rid of that atrocity that destroys pennant races known as the wild card.
Mike Self Hartselle, Ala. Contraction should be the last resort, especially in the face of likely opposition from the MLBPA: Here are some other options that should be considered first: 1. Meaningful revenue sharing, with provisions requiring teams to invest (and not just pocket) the added revenue, would help these teams be competitive and put fans back in the seats. 2. Franchise relocation. If Montreal is unable or unwilling to support a team, there are still places like Washington D.C. that will. The Baltimore/DC market is big enough, rich enough, and baseball-hungry enough, to support two teams, especially in differnet leagues. 3. MLB should help defray the costs of new stadiums from a central fund, to lessen or eliminate the burden on taxpayers. 4. Eliminate (or drastically reduce) interleague play, with minimal (rather than drastic) realignment. Interleague play was initially popular as a novelty, but most fans prefer traditional, intraleague rivalies, and keeping some distinctions between the two leagues -- they don't want the NL and AL to become as irrelevant as the AFC and the NFC. Steve Keller Crofton, Md.
Donn Satrom Roseville, Minn. Contraction would be a huge mistake for baseball. The lack of support is simply a result of the teams in question having no chance to win. When the Twins were winning two World Series just 10 years ago, there wasn't a better place to be than the Metrodome, which was sold out every night with the loudest fans in baseball history. Baseball's problems do not stem from a lack of talent, but, rather, from poor distribution of the talent. Not only can the Yankees and Dodgers -- thanks to their enormous revenues gifted to them from the size of the markets they play in -- afford to pay their major league players top dollar, they also have excess cash to hire huge scouting departments, sign and develop top talent around the world and invest heavily in their farm systems. When was the last time the Yankees or Dodgers failed to sign a draft pick? Can small-market teams compete for a World Series? Of course they can, but their margin for error is miniscule or non-existant. When the Yankees need offense, they can, for example, take on a huge salary in David Justice. The A's, Reds or even the Indians don't have that margin for error. The solution to all of baseball's problems is simple. Share broadcast revenue and force recipient teams to spend their money at the major or minor league levels (to avoid further inflation of low talent veterans). By allowing teams to keep their stadium revenues, you encourage them to win, because stadium revenues are directly tied to a team's performance. Win, and (except in Oakland last year) fans will come. The only teams that should fold or be forced to move are winning organizations who still don't draw well. Aaron Berke Cleveland Contraction is a weak attempt by the owners to gain some leverage with cities for stadiums and with players for the upcoming labor dispute ... er ... negotiations. Instead of playing such a transparent game, why not try something novel: Invest in the game, the cities, the kids and the players. Like most successful businesses, they just might discover people would willing pay more for a quality product. Rusty Miller Nashville, Tenn. Why in the world does your poll include Montreal in every scenario to dumping two teams. Montreal is coming up and if the fans up north don't want them then send them down here to be the Northern Virginia Expos. They've got a great team and have been managed well in the last few years (barring the Pedro trade). Mark Diller Fairfax, Va. Don't do it. Better revenue sharing will force the teams receiving the money to have a minimum of a $35 million payroll (or $15 million above what they get), and encourage them to spend as much as possible in developing players. Mike Borduas London, Ontario I think 30 teams in baseball is certainly viable. Althought the talent level was diluted severely after the last two expansions, I think that it has improved enough to warrant the current number of teams. Hutch Kuge Portland, Ore.
Andy Paul Kittanning, Pa. The problem with most of the discussions on contraction is that it lumps dissimilar situations under one heading. On the one hand, Montreal simply isn't a baseball city. Pittsburgh and Minnesota, meanwhile, are headed by terrible ownership. While contraction may make sense in Montreal's case, it would be unfair to take the teams from Minnesota and Pittsburgh (and other sports cities that might be considered) simply because a combination of poor ownership and disparity have temporarily driven the fans away. Eric Wiesen Ann Arbor, Mich. I don't think any team with a history of winning should be eliminated. The Royals and Twins both have had good teams and have won a World Series or two. Montreal and Tampa Bay have had their chance. Montreal has had 30 years to become part of the major leagues yet they still are a AAAA team. How an expansion team like Tampa Bay could enter the league with one of the worst stadiums is beyond me. The way the Marlins franchise has been run as well, Florida deserves just one team. Bryan Wolf Hayward, Calif. Baseball should consider relocating several teams rather than eliminating them. The Commissioner says with pride that no team has relocated since the Washington Senators moved to Texas. Most industries would be embarassed if they had not responded to changing market conditions any better than that. Several metropolitan areas that do not have major league teams could possibly support teams that may need to relocate. Erick Metzger Reynoldsburg, Ohio Baseball should definitely consider contraction. It's obvious that not all present-day major-league cities can support the teams they currently have. Attendance is low in places like Minnesota and Oakland. Last year, Montreal couldn't work out a decent deal for the rights to broadcast Expos games. In those places where the fans don't support the teams, there should be no major-league teams. Jay Stevens San Francisco If you start eliminating teams such as the Twins or A's you will lose cities with deep traditions in baseball. Another thought is "The Cleveland Indians Factor." If contraction was installed earlier, then the Indians would have been gone for sure. For years and years they were miserable, but now they are a symbol of dominance. This would not be so if baseball had eliminated them years ago. Contraction is not the solution. Brian Vidrik Plano, Texas I believe that contraction is great idea. The idea of clubs getting $40 million for doing nothing is a shame. It's basically a welfare system that benefits the owners who don't want to invest back into there clubs. Also, it would bring back the quality of play in baseball. We would then no longer have to watch guys who should not be playing in the majors. Joe Fattori Chicago  Send this story to a friend | McAdam: Is contraction in the future? Caple: Contraction is for the birds | ||||||||||||