PDA

View Full Version : Expansion or Contraction?


santo=dorf
01-24-2005, 01:16 AM
Would you like to see more teams in the MLB? Or would you like to see teams in any of the following markets;
Indiana
Nashville
Memphis
Brooklyn
New Jersey
Portland
Las Vegas
One of the Carolinas
Salt Lake City?

Assume there are still 3 divisions in each league with the current playoff format.

I would add a Las Vegas and a Portland team to the AL West.

pearso66
01-24-2005, 01:27 AM
I think there is plenty of teams now, any more and the talent will really be thinned out, and you'll see more teams like Tampa Bay. I say keep it as it is, as it's not fair to drop a couple teams, but if they do contract, which I prefer over Expansion, get the Expos/Nationals out, since they arent owned by anyone, and TB, since they have never been good, and probably never will

MUsoxfan
01-24-2005, 01:27 AM
I vote to contract Tampa, and either Florida or Washington. The fan support just isn't there. TB just doesn't draw and they won't because they never have a chance on any given year. Florida is just a greedy team that is just extorting the city of Miami and can't even draw after having 2 WS titles since 1997. Washington didn't have success in Montreal and won't in DC with the Orioles being there. There will be a level of novelty success in the first 2 years, but after that, it's all downhill. Especially since they play in RFK.

ma-gaga
01-24-2005, 01:29 AM
I'd drop two more teams into NY. It sounds a little weird, and the Yanks and Mets would freak out about "territory rights", but NY has the raw population density to handle it.

:gulp:

ChiSoxRowand
01-24-2005, 01:35 AM
I'd keep it the way it is. But if another team like Tampa were to move, it wouldn't be a bad Idea to move them to New Jersey and have them play at Giants stadium for a couple years before a new stadium could be built. But George and the Mets would fight that forever, it could also hurt the Phillies somewhat.

FightingBillini
01-24-2005, 01:49 AM
I'm surprised there hasn't been a big deal made of Tennessee. That is a huge and growing market. In the last 6 years, it has gotten football, hockey, and basketball teams. I don't know whether there are potential ownership groups there or not, but there should be. I think Tennessee would be a much better market than all but a few of the ones interested in the Expos. I don't support expansion, but it a team were to be moved, it should be the Devil Rays. Nobody cares about the team, and they play in arguably the worst arena in the history of professional sports. The ownership doesn't even care enough about the team to give them respectable looking uniforms.

popilius
01-24-2005, 02:07 AM
Las Vegas seems like an obvious choice to put a baseball franchise. . . I expect that they'll have a team in the next 10 years. However, 30 teams is just about as far as you can go; we don't want MLB to be "thinned out" anymore than it is already.

Erik The Red
01-24-2005, 02:47 AM
We have enough dilution of talent with the amount of teams we have now. 30 is more than enough.

Banix12
01-24-2005, 03:31 AM
I think we are fine with 30 teams though I am all for some sort of movement and reallignment. Especially if it means getting rid of that 4 team west and six team central.

Tell me what you think of these plans...
Plan 1)
Colorado realigns into the AL West, if any team deserves the DH it's colorado.
Tampa moves to Las Vegas or Portland and joins the NL West
Detroit realigns into the AL East.
Milwaukee transfers back to the American League Central.

The only thing I'm totally for here is the Milwaukee thing since I kinda like them in the National League, it allows me to root for them when they don't have to face the Sox all the time. It just seems like they would be the easiest to move to the AL. You could just as easily do it where Tampa stays in the AL and moves to the West but I just think Colorado belongs in the American League.

Plan 2)
Colorado realigns to the AL West
Tampa moves and joins the NL West
Washington switches leagues and joins the AL East, which I think would take better advantage of their natural geographic rivals in Baltimore.
Pittsburgh realigns into the NL East.

Angelos would never go for it though. Pittsburgh should be in the NL East to take advantage of its natural in state rival in Philadelphia. An alternative could be to move Pittsburgh into the AL East but I don't see why they would want to switch or should switch leagues

Plan 3)
The Marlins, if they follow through on their threat to move if they don't get a stadium, moves to either Portland or Las Vegas. Either Colorado or the Marlins realigns into the AL West. The other one stays in the NL.
Pittsburgh realigns into the NL East.

Certainly the most feasible plan cause it reqires the least amount of league switching and the state of Flordia seems less than willing to fund a stadium for the Marlins.

eastchicagosoxfan
01-24-2005, 07:09 AM
John Franco is 44 years old, throws left-handed, and has a contract now. Jesse Orosco could probably get a contract now. There are too many teams, and nowhere near enough talent to go around. Amost every team is looking for a fivth starter. If the United States adopted a different policy towards Cuba, there might be enough players to stock the teams as they exist. For Pete's sake, what was Mike Jackson doing in a major league uniform last year? Baseball can't afford expansion until a better system is devised to evaluate, develop, and maintain talent. By the way, if you have children, do everything possible to encourage them to throw left-handed, they could pitch into their 40's, after having a 2-7 record, with an ERA over 5.00.

TheBull19
01-24-2005, 08:11 AM
I think we are fine with 30 teams though I am all for some sort of movement and reallignment. Especially if it means getting rid of that 4 team west and six team central.

Tell me what you think of these plans...


Detroit in the NL? That just wouldn't be right. If anything they should go to the AL east, Milwaulkee to the AL Central and Tampa moves west and joins the NL West. An original AL team in the NL, though, would be a tragedy. Right up there with the Hindenburg.

If I had my way, though I'd just contract the Nationals and Devil Rays and go back to four 7 team divisions.

samram
01-24-2005, 08:41 AM
I voted for contraction. One problem I see is that a several teams that could be contracted have new stadiums or have moved, which makes it difficult to justify contracting them. Milwaukee and Washington come to mind. However, TB, KC, Florida, and Toronto could be contracted. I also think Minnesota could be contracted, but their recent success would make that hard to justify, as much as it would make me happy.

nccwsfan
01-24-2005, 08:56 AM
Add two teams and create eight 4 team divisions, with the division champion advancing to the playoffs. Yes this would further dilute the talent, so remedy this in collective bargaining with some type of salary floor (minimum payroll). I am of the belief that there should be a salary cap, but that's for another thread.

The problem is making the divisions look geographically realistic- remember it took a lot of effort simply to move Milwaukee out of the AL, so it's not as easy as just saying "well switch leagues". Assume the expansion teams were Norfolk and Las Vegas- try to fit them into 4 team divisions....

In any case there shouldn't be contraction- all 30 teams and markets can succeed and thrive under the right set of circumstances. Tampa Bay isn't moving- they have a rock solid lease that keeps them around for the next 20 seasons. They need to get out of the AL East because they'll never win in that division.

The Florida Marlins and Oakland A's are the two teams that look to be potential movers, but other than those two teams I don't see another franchise seriously exploring a move (even Minnesota)....

Clembasbal
01-24-2005, 10:56 AM
I would like to see Flordia gone and definately Tampa Bay.

If Flordia move to Las Vegas keep them, and contract Tampa Bay and Washington.

Move Milwaukee back to the American League. Making it 14/14

Flight #24
01-24-2005, 11:05 AM
I'd drop two more teams into NY. It sounds a little weird, and the Yanks and Mets would freak out about "territory rights", but NY has the raw population density to handle it.

:gulp:

Spot on. The # of teams is liveable right now, but it would be better for baseball if you dropped an extra team into NY and maybe into LA. Heck - you could probably drop 2 teams into NY if you really want to mix things up.

IIRC, Population-wise, LA area is around 16mil, NY around 22mil, Chicago around 9mil. 3 teams in LA, 3 in NY and 2 in Chicago gives each an approximate fan base of 5-7mil, which is about the size of 1 team towns like Atlanta, Houston. If you're being aggressive, maybe you drop another team into New England where the BoSox probably have a fan base around 10-15mil.

That would do more to even out the economic playing field than luxury taxes. Either that or just implement full on revenue sharing.

(On a side note: What happened to Deep Pink? I get "Pink", and "Magenta" now, but no Deep pink.)

Ol' No. 2
01-24-2005, 11:08 AM
There is more than enough total revenue to support 30 teams, or even more. Problem is that it's not evenly distributed. There are too many teams in cities that can't support them. Contraction won't really solve the problem unless you contract a lot of teams (8-10), which isn't going to happen. There are only two solutions that I can see:

1. More revenue sharing. If Green Bay can support an NFL team, then any city can support a baseball team, provided there's rational revenue sharing. It's a league. No one's going to pay money to see the Yankees playing with themselves (insert your own joke here). They need real revenue sharing and the MLBPA need to get on the right side of this issue.

2. Eliminate territoral rights and let teams move wherever the market is. NY could certainly support 3-4 teams, but the Yanks and Mets have the largest market to themselves. If they had to divide the market among 4 teams, there wouldn't be the revenue disparities you see today. Boston could also support another team. Free market forces would level out revenue disparities better than any artificial method you can divise.

nccwsfan
01-24-2005, 11:23 AM
2. Eliminate territoral rights and let teams move wherever the market is. NY could certainly support 3-4 teams, but the Yanks and Mets have the largest market to themselves. If they had to divide the market among 4 teams, there wouldn't be the revenue disparities you see today. Boston could also support another team. Free market forces would level out revenue disparities better than any artificial method you can divise.

Great example- the A's want to move to San Jose, but MLB won't allow it because SJ is considered part of San Francisco's 'territory'. Although this move would improve the franchise value of the A's w/o deteriorating the Giants fan base, it can't and probably won't happen because of the current territorial rights.

idseer
01-24-2005, 11:27 AM
contract:

tampa bay
toronto
kansas city
texas

montreal (washington)
colorado
arizona
san diego
pittsburgh
milwaukee

leaving two 10 team leagues.
no divisions

:smile:

Tekijawa
01-24-2005, 11:38 AM
If Vegas ever gets a team they better be called the Pit Bosses!

Lip Man 1
01-24-2005, 01:35 PM
Just my opinion but I think MLB will start making noises about contraction as soon as the current labor agreement is set to expire in 2006. Remember the MLBPA agreed in that deal to drop all objections and legal options to any future 'contraction' scenarios.

There was a reason why the owners insisted on this clause.

Tampa Bay is a disaster and as long as Carl Pohland continues to own the Twins and isn't able to extort a new stadium in Minnesota they certainly are on the short list of teams that could be contracted.

If he was willing to take 180 million dollars and close up shop once, he's certainly willing to do it again.

Lip

SOXFAN82
01-24-2005, 01:39 PM
I would of like to see the expos move to the south... I would of liked to see a team in N.Carolina or somewhere like that...

Brian

RKMeibalane
01-24-2005, 02:14 PM
1. Get rid of Florida and Tampa Bay.
2. Move Milwaukee back to the AL.
3. Move Detroit to the AL East.

Ol' No. 2
01-24-2005, 02:18 PM
Just my opinion but I think MLB will start making noises about contraction as soon as the current labor agreement is set to expire in 2006. Remember the MLBPA agreed in that deal to drop all objections and legal options to any future 'contraction' scenarios.

There was a reason why the owners insisted on this clause.

Tampa Bay is a disaster and as long as Carl Pohland continues to own the Twins and isn't able to extort a new stadium in Minnesota they certainly are on the short list of teams that could be contracted.

If he was willing to take 180 million dollars and close up shop once, he's certainly willing to do it again.

LipThe clause is also full of loopholes. I still contend that MLB will never contract teams. It's just a straw man to use in future CBA negotiations and to bludgeon recalcitrant local governments who don't see the advantages of publicly funded stadia.

nccwsfan
01-24-2005, 02:32 PM
Just my opinion but I think MLB will start making noises about contraction as soon as the current labor agreement is set to expire in 2006. Remember the MLBPA agreed in that deal to drop all objections and legal options to any future 'contraction' scenarios.

There was a reason why the owners insisted on this clause.

Tampa Bay is a disaster and as long as Carl Pohland continues to own the Twins and isn't able to extort a new stadium in Minnesota they certainly are on the short list of teams that could be contracted.

If he was willing to take 180 million dollars and close up shop once, he's certainly willing to do it again.

Lip

Lip, I think you're 50% correct on the teams involved. If MLB decides that they want to go through the contraction route again (and I personally don't believe that they will), they would probably contract Minnesota and Florida, not Tampa Bay.

Pohlad just doesn't seem to care, and I agree that if was willing to do it once he's willing to do it again. Tampa Bay has an ironclad lease that runs another 20-21 years, so no matter how bad it is there they've got a legal out. Florida, on the other hand, has nowhere to play in South Florida after 2010 since Huizenga gave them the boot. If they don't get a new home within 2 1/2 to 3 years they would have to move out of S. Florida. I would see it much more likely that MLB would target them. Oakland is another one with lease issues.

I think it's nothing more than strong-arming communities to build them new ballparks, but Minnesota, Florida, and Oakland seem to be the ones in the running for any future "contraction".

Lip Man 1
01-24-2005, 05:07 PM
I think the Marlins would be moved to Las Vegas not contracted... after all they have won two championships and at least have some history. tampa bay on the other hand...

Lip

nccwsfan
01-24-2005, 05:57 PM
I think the Marlins would be moved to Las Vegas not contracted... after all they have won two championships and at least have some history. tampa bay on the other hand...

Lip

If it were based on history I would say no question, but the business side shows that Tampa Bay has a much better stadium situation than Florida (lease). My guess is MLB will start moving teams to other markets, so the Las Vegas/Norfolk/Portland Marlins seems a more likely scenario....

samram
01-24-2005, 05:57 PM
I would of like to see the expos move to the south... I would of liked to see a team in N.Carolina or somewhere like that...

Brian

Unfortunately, the people of North Carolina probably couldn't care less about having a baseball team. Charlotte is not a pro sports city. No one cared about the Panthers this year- and that was after they were in the Super Bowl last year- they're very much fair weather fans. I don't think any of the other areas of NC are dieing for a team either.

nccwsfan
01-24-2005, 06:21 PM
Unfortunately, the people of North Carolina probably couldn't care less about having a baseball team. Charlotte is not a pro sports city. No one cared about the Panthers this year- and that was after they were in the Super Bowl last year- they're very much fair weather fans. I don't think any of the other areas of NC are dieing for a team either.

I can second that without hesitation. Norfolk would be a good market to move into- they made a good run for the Nats and would be willing to finance a new ballpark for a new suitor.

Banix12
01-24-2005, 07:27 PM
Detroit in the NL? That just wouldn't be right. If anything they should go to the AL east, Milwaulkee to the AL Central and Tampa moves west and joins the NL West. An original AL team in the NL, though, would be a tragedy. Right up there with the Hindenburg.

If I had my way, though I'd just contract the Nationals and Devil Rays and go back to four 7 team divisions.

I meant AL east, thanks for catching. You write AL and NL enough times you're bound to mix up somewhere

ewokpelts
01-24-2005, 08:12 PM
Tampa should go...as for thier "iron-clad" lease.....mlb will most likely buy out the lease....nothing will happen until the nationals are sold....

Gene

Whitesox029
01-24-2005, 11:04 PM
I think we are fine with 30 teams though I am all for some sort of movement and reallignment. Especially if it means getting rid of that 4 team west and six team central.

Tell me what you think of these plans...
Plan 1)
Colorado realigns into the AL West, if any team deserves the DH it's colorado.
Tampa moves to Las Vegas or Portland and joins the NL West
Detroit realigns into the AL East.
Milwaukee transfers back to the American League Central.

The only thing I'm totally for here is the Milwaukee thing since I kinda like them in the National League, it allows me to root for them when they don't have to face the Sox all the time. It just seems like they would be the easiest to move to the AL. You could just as easily do it where Tampa stays in the AL and moves to the West but I just think Colorado belongs in the American League.

Plan 2)
Colorado realigns to the AL West
Tampa moves and joins the NL West
Washington switches leagues and joins the AL East, which I think would take better advantage of their natural geographic rivals in Baltimore.
Pittsburgh realigns into the NL East.

Angelos would never go for it though. Pittsburgh should be in the NL East to take advantage of its natural in state rival in Philadelphia. An alternative could be to move Pittsburgh into the AL East but I don't see why they would want to switch or should switch leagues

Plan 3)
The Marlins, if they follow through on their threat to move if they don't get a stadium, moves to either Portland or Las Vegas. Either Colorado or the Marlins realigns into the AL West. The other one stays in the NL.
Pittsburgh realigns into the NL East.

Certainly the most feasible plan cause it reqires the least amount of league switching and the state of Flordia seems less than willing to fund a stadium for the Marlins.
The MLB will never transfer Pittsburgh to the AL. Teams with that deep a tradition in their leagues will remain in their leagues.
Teams that will never switch leagues IMO include:
ChiSox
Cubs
BoSox
Yanks
Tigers
Reds
Pirates
Giants
Dodgers
Phils
Orioles
Braves
Indians

Banix12
01-25-2005, 01:07 AM
The MLB will never transfer Pittsburgh to the AL. Teams with that deep a tradition in their leagues will remain in their leagues.
Teams that will never switch leagues IMO include:
ChiSox
Cubs
BoSox
Yanks
Tigers
Reds
Pirates
Giants
Dodgers
Phils
Orioles
Braves
Indians


Hence why I said that would only be a backup and not likely. I don't think any team should switch leagues that has won a world series or has been in the league a certain amount of time, say 30 years, and fields a competitive team most years.

That makes the teams that would be the most likely to switch leagues
Colorado
Washington
Tampa
Milwaukee

mikef1331
01-25-2005, 03:30 AM
I'd like to see the Devil Rays get moved to a better location somewhere like Tennesse, Vegas, Buffalo-NY, Portland, Indianapolis or Salt Lake City. Even Oklahoma City might be an intersting location, I'm not sure what they're populaton is like though.

Also, I'd like to see Millwaukee come back into the AL Central and then move KC into the AL West.

JKryl
01-25-2005, 09:58 AM
I vote to contract Tampa, and either Florida or Washington. The fan support just isn't there. TB just doesn't draw and they won't because they never have a chance on any given year. Florida is just a greedy team that is just extorting the city of Miami and can't even draw after having 2 WS titles since 1997. Washington didn't have success in Montreal and won't in DC with the Orioles being there. There will be a level of novelty success in the first 2 years, but after that, it's all downhill. Especially since they play in RFK.

I agree whole heartedly. It isn't just the fan support that isn't there, the talent has been watered down too. That's probably why we see 60 and 70 home runs being hit in a year. Well, that and steroids.

MarkZ35
01-25-2005, 05:25 PM
I'd leave it how it is with 30 teams but if they were to get rid of Tampa bay I would add a team in either Memphis or the Carolinas

BRDSR
01-25-2005, 06:02 PM
I'd like to see two teams contracted to put 14 teams in each league. The worst thing about the system right now is that theres a different number of teams in different divisions. The fact that the AL West has to beat 3 teams to get into the playoffs while the NL Central has to beat 5 is definitely one of the real travesties of the MLB.

Ol' No. 2
01-25-2005, 06:11 PM
I'd like to see two teams contracted to put 14 teams in each league. The worst thing about the system right now is that theres a different number of teams in different divisions. The fact that the AL West has to beat 3 teams to get into the playoffs while the NL Central has to beat 5 is definitely one of the real travesties of the MLB.Don't look now, but with 14 teams in each league you'd still have a 4-team division in each league.

mikef1331
01-25-2005, 07:44 PM
I'd like to see two teams contracted to put 14 teams in each league. The worst thing about the system right now is that theres a different number of teams in different divisions. The fact that the AL West has to beat 3 teams to get into the playoffs while the NL Central has to beat 5 is definitely one of the real travesties of the MLB.

I agree, that's why instead of contracting a couple of teams I suggested in my above post that Milwaukee be put in the AL Central and then move the Royals into the AL West.

doublem23
01-26-2005, 02:58 AM
Realistically, I don't think the MLB is going to be able to contract any time soon, but as long as they don't expand again I'll be happy. Too many ****ty players as it is.

But if I could, I'd get rid of the Cubs, Red Sox, and Yankees. :cool: