PDA

View Full Version : Marlins, Nats in trouble=MLB contraction attempt?


MRKARNO
12-15-2004, 08:19 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

Interesting article. With the Marlins in trouble and the Nats in far worse trouble, the MLB might seek again to contract in 2006. I think Lip might be right in his assessment that there might be serious labor problems in 2006....

Daver
12-15-2004, 08:29 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

Interesting article. With the Marlins in trouble and the Nats in far worse trouble, the MLB might seek again to contract in 2006. I think Lip might be right in his assessment that there might be serious labor problems in 2006....
There is going to be serious labor issues without that, the owners Luxury Tax is not working, for all the reasons the MLBPA said it wouldn't work, and owners like Carl Pohlad and David Glass continue to pocket their revenue sharing check. The MLBPA is going to want that repealed, as well as some type of compensation for a stricter drug policy forced on them before the CBA expired. It will be interesting to see if Bud can continue to hold sway over the the court of public opinion or if the MLBPA can get their side heard.

Kogs35
12-15-2004, 08:31 PM
There is going to be serious labor issues without that, the owners Luxury Tax is not working, for all the reasons the MLBPA said it wouldn't work, and owners like Carl Pohlad and David Glass continue to pocket their revenue sharing check. The MLBPA is going to want that repealed, as well as some type of compensation for a stricter drug policy forced on them before the CBA expired. It will be interesting to see if Bud can continue to hold sway over the the court of public opinion or if the MLBPA can get their side heard.
i can see congress getting envolved if bud gets in trouble. he did try brining baseball back to washington let the marlins move to the orange bowl and be done with it. and if d.c doesn't want baseball send em to vegas or to orlando. at least tourist will go and see them while down there

soltrain21
12-15-2004, 08:50 PM
i can see congress getting envolved if bud gets in trouble. he did try brining baseball back to washington let the marlins move to the orange bowl and be done with it. and if d.c doesn't want baseball send em to vegas or to orlando. at least tourist will go and see them while down there

Orlando? There is already enough unsuccessful Florida teams.

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2004, 09:04 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

Interesting article. With the Marlins in trouble and the Nats in far worse trouble, the MLB might seek again to contract in 2006. I think Lip might be right in his assessment that there might be serious labor problems in 2006....If someone can explain why contraction makes any economic sense for the owners, I'd love to hear it. Last time this turkey passed through town the plan was for the owners to buy out Pohlad and Loria to the tune of about $250M each. That works out to almost $18M for each of the other owners to pony up. What do they get out of it that would be worth shelling out $18M? Gate receipts are not shared much, so it doesn't matter that much to the visiting team whether they're playing to a packed house in Boston or an empty stadium in Minnesota. They would save a little in revenue sharing, but by the time that's divvied up among the owners, it's only a couple million each. How does this make any sense?

IMO, it was never a serious consideration. It was always just a scarecrow set up to threaten the MLBPA and to be bargained away in the new CBA. And you can bet in the run-up to the end of the current contract they'll dig up that old scarecrow and start waving it around again. Notice, also, that it's always used in cities who are so unenlightened as to not vote to put up public funds to build the local team a new park.

Brian26
12-15-2004, 10:38 PM
let the marlins move to the orange bowl and be done with it.
I'm not informed on this, so I ask this honestly: What benefit is there for the Marlins to move from Joe Robbie to the Orange Bowl? The facility itself can't be better- it's decades older than their current home, although I seem to recall some idea about retrofitting it for baseball by gutting it out. Is it that better of a location?

Kogs35
12-15-2004, 10:48 PM
I'm not informed on this, so I ask this honestly: What benefit is there for the Marlins to move from Joe Robbie to the Orange Bowl? The facility itself can't be better- it's decades older than their current home, although I seem to recall some idea about retrofitting it for baseball by gutting it out. Is it that better of a location?
they have the open end of the stadium which could be used for an outfield and plus with everything that would go through to make it a baseball stadium would get it down to a reasonable size attendince in 35-39 thousand range. it matters how the university scheduled football games and if they get there own new stadium they are looking for

HomeFish
12-15-2004, 11:01 PM
It would be an absolute travesty if so recent a World Series champion as the Marlins got contracted.

SoxFan78
12-16-2004, 09:17 AM
Move them to Las Vegas, it would bring so much more revune there. First of all, people in that up and coming city would have a actual pro team in their market, and it would boost Las Vegas' economy even more. I guarntee visting team's fans would all plan their vacation around when their team was traveling to Las Vegas, to see their team, and to do some gambling.

Kogs35
12-16-2004, 09:24 AM
Move them to Las Vegas, it would bring so much more revune there. First of all, people in that up and coming city would have a actual pro team in their market, and it would boost Las Vegas' economy even more. I guarntee visting team's fans would all plan their vacation around when their team was traveling to Las Vegas, to see their team, and to do some gambling.
i think the obstical in getting a team in vegas would be banning betting on basebal in vegas. they do that there is no reason why mlb wouldn't want togoto there

ewokpelts
12-16-2004, 12:16 PM
If someone can explain why contraction makes any economic sense for the owners, I'd love to hear it. Last time this turkey passed through town the plan was for the owners to buy out Pohlad and Loria to the tune of about $250M each. That works out to almost $18M for each of the other owners to pony up. What do they get out of it that would be worth shelling out $18M? Gate receipts are not shared much, so it doesn't matter that much to the visiting team whether they're playing to a packed house in Boston or an empty stadium in Minnesota. They would save a little in revenue sharing, but by the time that's divvied up among the owners, it's only a couple million each. How does this make any sense?

IMO, it was never a serious consideration. It was always just a scarecrow set up to threaten the MLBPA and to be bargained away in the new CBA. And you can bet in the run-up to the end of the current contract they'll dig up that old scarecrow and start waving it around again. Notice, also, that it's always used in cities who are so unenlightened as to not vote to put up public funds to build the local team a new park.less money to dole out for revenue sharing, and more tv money shared ...and salaries go down....the ultimate hope is that an expansion team would come in later and fill mlb's coffers again
Gene

Randar68
12-16-2004, 12:22 PM
I think Lip might be right in his assessment that there might be serious labor problems in 2006....When aren't there labor problems? That's like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow.

Lip Man 1
12-16-2004, 12:26 PM
Here is an interesting story on that subject #2:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

Lip

daveeym
12-16-2004, 12:41 PM
Also with the steroid crackdown coming, the talent level will dip, maybe contraction would be a good thing.

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2004, 12:41 PM
Here is an interesting story on that subject #2:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

LipBut if it costs them $350M to buy out one franchise, how are they going to make that back saving $50M per year in revenue sharing? Even if you add in their share of the TV money, etc. there's no way to get back $350M. It just doesn't add up. I still think it's just a scarecrow they can use to spook the union every time a CBA comes up.

And again, I notice the teams that are mentioned for contraction are always teams that are trying to get new stadia built. Must be just a coincidence.

Kogs35
12-16-2004, 12:47 PM
does any1 remeber if the mariners had any objection to a team going to portland?

Lip Man 1
12-16-2004, 07:15 PM
Here's another one for discussion:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bbn-jim-litke,1,7241612.story?coll=sns-ap-sports-headlines
Lip

Jerome
12-16-2004, 07:49 PM
I'm all for contracting the Twins. :smile: :D:

California Sox
12-16-2004, 07:58 PM
If someone can explain why contraction makes any economic sense for the owners, I'd love to hear it.
TV Revenue/28 teams > TV Revenue/30 teams.

GiveMeSox
12-16-2004, 07:58 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

Interesting article. With the Marlins in trouble and the Nats in far worse trouble, the MLB might seek again to contract in 2006. I think Lip might be right in his assessment that there might be serious labor problems in 2006....
Why on earth would you target the two teams to contract from the same league and division. Thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. If anyone should get contracted it should be the twins who live in the city of we dont care enough about baseball to build our team a stadium. Honsetly of the past 3 years in which they have won there divison flat out and average 90 plus wins they have horrid attendance. ANy other team would draw 2.5 million fans, heck even we would if we ran away with the division 3 years in a row. Get rid of the twins they town cant even support them.

cubhater
12-16-2004, 08:07 PM
I'm not informed on this, so I ask this honestly: What benefit is there for the Marlins to move from Joe Robbie to the Orange Bowl? The facility itself can't be better- it's decades older than their current home, although I seem to recall some idea about retrofitting it for baseball by gutting it out. Is it that better of a location?
I grew up near Miami and attended many Dolphin and Hurricane football games at the Orange Bowl. It's a great place to watch football, not baseball. The upper deck is higher than pre-Cell renovations. All concessions are under the stands, it stinks worse than the Urinal, and the bathrooms are few and far between. IIRC, there's five men's room in the ENTIRE upper deck. Joe Robbie is convenient transporation-wise for fans in Broward and Palm Beach counties whereas the Orange Bowl isn't. There's no stadium parking. It's even worse than finding a spot near The Urinal. Local residents flag you into their front or back yards, cram as many cars as possible, and you can't leave until the cars in back of yours leave.

Good luck having Miami taxpayers foot the bill for renovations or a new stadium considering relocation and contraction threats. The only people who would support it are the 10,000 who attend Marlin games.

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2004, 08:31 PM
TV Revenue/28 teams > TV Revenue/30 teams.Add it up. It doesn't pay the $700M it would cost to contract two teams.

Daver
12-16-2004, 08:46 PM
Add it up. It doesn't pay the $700M it would cost to contract two teams.
Your not seeing the long term picture.

One of the teams would be the homeless Expo's, a team MLB owns, the other would be a small market team with an owner that would welcome the chance to trade his investment in for 200 mil.

Two or three years later MLB will expand by two teams, collect in excess of 800 million in franchise fees, and turn a pretty profit on the whole thing. The league has done it before, I'm quite sure they would not hesitate to do it again.

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2004, 09:05 PM
Your not seeing the long term picture.

One of the teams would be the homeless Expo's, a team MLB owns, the other would be a small market team with an owner that would welcome the chance to trade his investment in for 200 mil.

Two or three years later MLB will expand by two teams, collect in excess of 800 million in franchise fees, and turn a pretty profit on the whole thing. The league has done it before, I'm quite sure they would not hesitate to do it again.So it somehow makes sense to contract two teams, then a few years later to expand again? Where would these new teams go? If it's such a great location, why not just move the two teams there in the first place? Why would new owners pay more in franchise fees to locate teams in these marginal cities than the owners paid to contract two teams? No one's going to be nutty enough to pay $400M for a franchise in Portland.

The problem in baseball is that there are more teams than there are cities that can profitably support them. But the fact that a team might be losing money is not sufficiently detrimental to the other owners that it is worth it to them to, in effect, buy them out. Then to establish another franchise in another marginal city just puts you right back where you started.

The last time this idea was raised I predicted that it would never happen. It's still two years away, but I'm making the same prediction. It will never happen.

Daver
12-16-2004, 09:20 PM
So it somehow makes sense to contract two teams, then a few years later to expand again? Where would these new teams go? If it's such a great location, why not just move the two teams there in the first place? Why would new owners pay more in franchise fees to locate teams in these marginal cities than the owners paid to contract two teams? No one's going to be nutty enough to pay $400M for a franchise in Portland.

The problem in baseball is that there are more teams than there are cities that can profitably support them. But the fact that a team might be losing money is not sufficiently detrimental to the other owners that it is worth it to them to, in effect, buy them out. Then to establish another franchise in another marginal city just puts you right back where you started.

The last time this idea was raised I predicted that it would never happen. It's still two years away, but I'm making the same prediction. It will never happen.
I doubt MLB would be able to contract, I was just giving you an example of why they would do it, MLB has proven there is little they won't do, including lying to congress, to turn a buck.

Back to your reply, it is not as simple as you lay it out, because MLB controls the ownership, as well as where the franchise can be placed. If it is their best interest to contract and then resell a franchise fee, to say Las Vegas, they will do so.

Why do you think MLB has not been actively seeking a buyer for the Expo's, surely you don't think it is because all the owners are happy when they recieve their 1/29th of the revenue sharing money do you?