PDA

View Full Version : Real reason for contraction?


Railsplitter
11-12-2001, 09:04 AM
Isn't the real reason for contraction the fact that (in the abstract) the 1998 expansion was a mistake? Is this why Selig and aren't talking about disanding the 1998 born Devil Rays

kermittheefrog
11-12-2001, 09:28 AM
The 1998 expansion wasn't a mistake. The D-Backs have done well (duh) and the Devil Rays have bjust been run extremely badly. I'mm sure a better owner could have taken advantage of having a franchise in Tampa. They really aren't talking much about contracting the D-Rays though. The teams they are talkign about are Minnesota, Flordia and Montreal which bring us to THE REAL REASON FOR EXPANSION:

This is another Selig scheme to put pressure on and weasal a stadium out of public tax dollars. The three teams they are talking about live in cities that refuse to build them new staidums Minnesota and Florida very much rightfully so considering both of their venues are less than 20 years old. Montreal just needs to move to Northern Virginia.

So contraction has nothing to do with the 98 expansion, it's all about the owners wanting cushy new staidums.

moochpuppy
11-12-2001, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


So contraction has nothing to do with the 98 expansion, it's all about the owners wanting cushy new staidums.

And to flex their muscles.

Daver
11-12-2001, 04:52 PM
According to former commisioner Fay Vincent yes the last expansion was a mistake,but made nescasary by the need to pay off the 280 miliion owed to the players union pension fund.They used the franchise fee's for the two new teams to pay off the debt.What should have happened in 98 was for two teams to move to new markets,but that would not have generated any revenue for the league.

But then again what the hell do I know?

PaleHoseGeorge
11-12-2001, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by daver
According to former commisioner Fay Vincent yes the last expansion was a mistake,but made nescasary by the need to pay off the 280 miliion owed to the players union pension fund.They used the franchise fee's for the two new teams to pay off the debt.What should have happened in 98 was for two teams to move to new markets,but that would not have generated any revenue for the league.


I thought they expanded (in part) to pay off the damages awarded the players after MLB was found guilty of colluding against the free agent classes of 1985, 1986, and 1987. The law calls for treble damages for this sort of behavior, but MLB got off with simple damages because of their anti-trust exemption.

The MLBPA has since gotten language added to the CBA which specifies treble damages in the event of any future collusion. Knowing how the owners operate, I'm sure they'll slip on that banana peel sometime in the future.