Contraction - from the NY Times perspective

[BuzzBuzzard]

This appeared in the NY Times Op/Ed Section today. I tend to disagree with his conclusions.

April 19, 2001


Ballpark Figures

By MARK S. ROSENTRAUB





LEVELAND — Bud Selig, commissioner of baseball, wants fans to believe that eliminating a few teams will improve the quality of play and make the sport more profitable. Recently, Selig suggested that "contraction" — a euphemism for getting rid of some teams by consolidating them with others — is an option he is considering. Those who support Selig's position argue that having fewer teams would allow a better distribution of talent and the elimination of teams that have struggled financially over the past few seasons, like the Montreal Expos, Oakland A's, Minnesota Twins and Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

But will contraction really improve the sport or its bottom line? It's doubtful. Growth in the number of available players has so dramatically expanded over the last few years that there are more than enough good ones to keep currently existing teams competitive. Moreover, the financial problems of the teams in question can be attributed to marketing and political blunders that contraction won't solve. So why eliminate teams? It is the same old, same old. Communities are not agreeing to the terms dictated by teams that want new ballparks.

When the Twins claimed they could no longer play outdoors because of the weather, Minnesota taxpayers helped pay for a new stadium, the Metrodome. Now, less than 20 years later, the Twins say that to attract more fans to an "authentic" baseball experience, they need to play outdoors. The decision last week by the Minnesota State Legislature to table a vote on a new stadium could give Selig another reason to eliminate the Twins.

In Florida, taxpayers contributed about $200 million to build a facility for the Devil Rays. That domed stadium was used by Major League Baseball to leverage a better deal for the Chicago White Sox, who threatened Illinois that they would move to St. Petersburg without more taxpayer help. How are St. Petersburg and Florida rewarded for their subsidy? They are now told the ballpark is in the wrong place and that a retractable dome is needed.

When the Expos were successful on the field they drew more than 2 million fans a season, but now, after years of poor marketing — not using French- language advertising in Canada or recruiting French-speaking players, not marketing the team strongly enough in New York State — the team wants more subsidies.

And Oakland, victimized by a football team that moved once, returned with new subsidies, is now threatened with losing its baseball team if it does not provide yet another subsidy.

None of these cities will fall into economic ruin if their teams move or are disbanded. But threatening fans with the loss of their teams is a tactic that ignores the investments already made by taxpayers and fans — and is hardly a smart way to assure support of baseball in the long term.

Mark S. Rosentraub is the author of "Major League Losers: The Real Cost of Sports and Who's Paying for It" and dean of the college of urban affairs at Cleveland State University.

[NetShrine]

I dunno Buzz - - - think of Cleveland a few years back, bad team, bad stadium, never drew, not making money (just about the same as the Expos, Twins, etc. now) - - - and then they get new front office staff, a new stadium, and all of a sudden they sell out 455 straight games and are in the black again.

Maybe the A's are the exception - they won last year and still couldn't draw. But, in most places, if you win, to me, it seems like all the other good things (incl. $) will follow..............

[BuzzBuzzard]

True, but I still maintain contraction is necessary for the good of the game. Cleveland may be a success story, but there will be no alternative to deciding which teams are to go other than current state economics and Montreal goes right to the top of the list.

The more I think about it, I might have to throw the 'Jays into the mix, too, simply because of the Canadian dollar issue.

[NetShrine]

Contraction rather than relocation? Couldn't the latter be a solution?

[BuzzBuzzard]

You tell me the cities that are going to support them, and I'll think about it. But my gut reaction is NO.

And I am way tired of watching AA ball pitchers taking the mound every fifth day. You make the talent pool better and you produce a better product.

[ChrisCary]

I belive in contraction 100 percent.
I agree with Buzz that relocation won't work, I've heard the suggested cities and simply don't buy it.

One thing about this article is that inthis guys efforts to do the "flip side" he jumps from "Selig suggested that "contraction" — a euphemism for getting rid of some teams by consolidating them with others — is an option he is considering" to "Those who support Selig's position argue that having fewer teams ....."

Maybe it's chic now to disagree with Bud Selig (I'm the coolest around) but everything I've read is that Bud has considered it but it's an option that he doesn't like.

Am I wrong??

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by ChrisCary
Am I wrong??

In agreeing with Buzz - - well, I try not to............
In stating Bud's comments, no.

[mainsr]

I'm a healthcare analyst, and at least once a month I get asked how the U.S. can achieve universal health insurance. I contend that it's a question with several plausible answers but, barring an economic catastrophe, one that's not worth thinking about, because it's never going to happen. Nobody has the stomach for it.

Same thing with contraction. Barring bankruptcies, the union will never go along with the elimination of scores of jobs. They'll give up the DH first. If they can't let Montreal just die, no team will. Now, if TV revenue fell 25%, franchise values nosedived, and a couple franchises declared Chapter 11, things would change. But I don't see it happening.

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by mainsr
I'm a healthcare analyst

You forgot the "and I'm OK" part.

Old Monty Python bit - - sorry for those who don't get it.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by mainsr
I contend that it's a question with several plausible answers but, barring an economic catastrophe, one that's not worth thinking about, because it's never going to happen. Nobody has the stomach for it.

Never is an awfully long time. I'm not suggesting the union will just roll over on this issue, but a prolonged lock out can force this issue to the table. The owners have a lot of 'hand' in the upcoming negotiations and I think a two-year outage is possible. The players' union may have to face this issue.

[mainsr]

What teams could stomach a two-year stoppage? By then, ESPN will carry every MLS game. Seriously, after two years, Colangelo files Chapter, and the teams that DON'T have sweetheart leases will be in trouble. Besides, if the owners are going to go to the mat on an issue, it'll be arbitration first, foreign draft second, and contraction way down the line. And I don't blame them. Drawing a lousy gate at Stade Olympique isn't nearly as much of a problem as losing an arbitration case to every .230 hitting shortstop who has no power, little glove, and never walks just because Cam Bonifay is a fool.

[NetShrine]

Supposedly, the owners have already decided that they want to move Free Agency from six to four years. Obviously, they want to get away from arbitration. Marvin Miller's biigest fear was total Free Agency - - Supply exceeds Demand. Maybe that's what the owners are now trying for?

[nyy26wc]

Originally posted by NetShrine
Supposedly, the owners have already decided that they want to move Free Agency from six to four years. Obviously, they want to get away from arbitration. Marvin Miller's biigest fear was total Free Agency - - Supply exceeds Demand. Maybe that's what the owners are now trying for?

Supposedly, that was also what the owners wanted to do last time.

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
Supposedly, that was also what the owners wanted to do last time.

Hopefully, this time, they'll realize they just can't do it, that it has to be part of the CB process.

Related, how come Judge Sonia never got a TV show? All the other Judges seem to get one.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by NetShrine
Supposedly, the owners have already decided that they want to move Free Agency from six to four years. Obviously, they want to get away from arbitration. Marvin Miller's biigest fear was total Free Agency - - Supply exceeds Demand. Maybe that's what the owners are now trying for?

This shocks the hell out of me. My gut reaction is that free agency results in more payers being over compensated than arbitration and with the ever escalating contracts, easier free agency will only promote the escalation. What am I not getting?