MLB & Contraction; 20 teams ( who stays and who goes )

[FlockOfSeagulls]

My good buddy TF4F and I were talking the other day about the subject after Hal Steinbrenner shot off his mouth about it . Seems like the first teams are fairly obvious but after that it gets more difficult .

Do you get rid of teams based strictly on financial viability or lack there of . Or do you keep some struggling teams based on history and fan loyalty ?

1. & 2. Tampa Bay & Florida seem to be the most obvious choices. Bad overall fan support plus so much of population are transplanted Yankee, Mets and Sox fans.

3. Diamondbacks

4. Padres

5. Oakland. They have a rich history but worst stadium in baseball and pathetic turnstile fan support

6. Toronto . Lack of fan support plus they are doomed to play in divison with Yankees & Red Sox and their seemingly endless supply of money.

After that it gets dicey

TF4F both agreed that Kansas City & Pittsburgh should stay because of winning history and loyal fan support

Cleveland ?

Seattle ?

Milwaukee ?

Colorado ?

Mets ? this would be unthinkable until recent money struggles. As of now their is nothing pointing to their woes changing soon .

I personally don't like the idea of contraction. MLB needs a hard salary cap like football or hockey to make a fair playing field.

At worst maybe take the league down to 24 teams because other than possibility of moving a franchise to Vegas , there doesn' t seem to be a new market capable of successfully supporting MLB team


Look forward to your opinions on said subject

 

[storm7400]

The Yankees and the Red Sox, because then we could have a level playing field once again.

 

[usgrant]

I doubt if you are going to see contraction, too may cities would love to have a team. The players union would be dead set against contraction. The problem isn't the Red Sox and Yankees. The reason you don't have a level playing field is because there is no bottom on the cap. Teams like the Pirates and Royals are allowed to turn a profit every year and NOT have to put money back into the team. I know the NFL and I am pretty sure the NBA and the NHL have a bottom dollar amount that teams have to spend. Luxury taxes go back into the league and smaller market teams. The players don't really care about the same teams spending a ton of money because it pushes up salaries for everyone.

 

[Deuce]

I would try and do away with Ownership first, everyone knows if you put a winner on the field you'll sell tickets unless your one of the 2 Florida teams they only sell playoff tickets. But with all the money the Phillies are spending this year the team is going to make money cause as of now they have almost every game sold out this yeareven after a nice price increase. No one can say a city is bad for a sport cause how does Green Bay stay a float (tiny market) Kansas City Chiefs have one of the best fan bases. Pittsburgh can only sell tickets in the winter with the Steelers and Penguins. Oklahoma City from what I understand sells tickets but without product your not going to sell shit so I let they keep those teams and try and get those owners to sell first.

 

[luvgirlsfeet]

The Yankees and the Red Sox, because then we could have a level playing field once again.

For decades the Yankees have taken away a level playing field so that way they could win more if others teams dont have quality players. It's like rigging your own video game baseball team. The Sox are just now starting to do it

 

[Mitchell]

They aren't going to contract the Mets or Florida. The Marlins are building a new stadium, and the Mets stadium is only two years old, and cost $900 million to build. On top of that, the Mets still play in NY, and they still have a fan base.

I would say the most obvious choices for contraction, depending on how many teams they are talking about.. would be Pittsburgh, and Kansas City. Pittsburgh hasn;t even sniffed postseason play, since one of the happiest nights of my life, in October 1992, when Frank Cabrera's improbable ninth inning hit for my Braves, sent the Pirates home in the 1992 NLCS.

I don't see them contracting ten teams. That would be too many. Plus, 250 players would have to find jobs on other teams.

One does have to wonder about the DC/Baltimore area teams. Both are terrible. The Orioles have been lousy for over a decade. The Nationals aren't good, but they have a new stadium. It's not likely they would be contracted.

I don't think contraction will really happen, but, if they do it, my gut says it will be two teams, and not ten. The first two I listed, Kansas City and Pittsburgh, would seem the most obvious choices. They've both been terrible for years, and just don't draw.

Mitch