Author Topic: contraction back in play? (Read 3770 times)

OldBlevins · « **on:** January 11, 2006, 01:18:41 pm »

Old news from yesterday--the Twins have filed to declare they have no lease at the Metrodome. What are the chances MLB will try to contract 2 teams after the 2006 season? I think, under the bargaining agreement, it has the right to do so. I would say the odds are pretty high, given the Twins' situation, the hassles with D.C., the Marlins' situation, and the lack of a new stadium in Oakland.

Ryan in Houston · « **Reply #1 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:01:18 pm »

for an interesting read, check this out

or this...

Minnesota has one of the "worst" leases because the citizens actually make money off them, not the other way around. there is another article that I read, but I can't find a link for, that basically says the Metrodome is the *only* deal that actually benefits tax payers from a pure cash-flow basis, that is, the team is not getting any corporate welfare...

TTFWIW.

Andyzipp · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:06:32 pm »

If you're picking from that list, Minnesota and Florida would be the most likely.

But I doubt greatly that contraction ever actually happens.

Ryan in Houston · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:14:01 pm »

why would they ever contract when they can just move them around....Vegas seems (excuse the pun) ready, willing, and able, and Portland has been Jones-ing for a team for a while, too.

Marlins are DOA in 2006. MLB should act quickly in deciding their fate.

awrr · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:32:30 pm »

Contraction will never happen. MLB can't be subject to and independent of its anti-trust exemption as it suits them. When it comes down to it, I can't see Selig fighting to overrule anti-trust precedent just to knock two teams off.

Froback · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:24:55 pm »

Quote:

Contraction will never happen. MLB can't be subject to and independent of its anti-trust exemption as it suits them. When it comes down to it, I can't see Selig fighting to overrule anti-trust precedent just to knock two teams off.

Forgive my ignorance but what does Anti-Trust law and Contraction have to do with each other? And technically MLB owns the Nationals so as long as the Minn owner agrees to contraction I don't see who anyone can complain if two teams choose to close their clubs. (Minn and Wash) You can then move the Marlins to DC if there is indeed a stadium being built.

das · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:28:29 pm »

MLB will never "close" the DC club and the fans would never stand for the old Expos being dismantelled in favor of the Marlins team moving here.

Froback · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:33:02 pm »

I only mention that option as it relates to possible illegal actions of FORCING a team to contract. Since MLB owns the Nationals still they would not be forcing anyone. And the Twins owner has volunteered for contraction before.

David in Jackson · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:52:26 pm »

Heck, even the NHL can't contract.

PSR · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:50:09 pm »

If MLB is going to contract, how about we start with the Braves and the Yankees?

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:56:05 pm »

The only way to contract is to buy out the owners of the contracted teams. That means the surviving teams' owners have to come up with cash. Maybe they could be presuaded that two fewer teams is worthwhile for surviving teams getting 1/28th rather than 1/30th of the national media and merchandising revenues and having two fewer snouts in the luxury-tax trough.

In 2005, Forbes valued the two cheapest teams, the Devil Rays and Twins, at $176 million and $178 million, respectively, so that's $12.6 million for each surviving team's owner to pay, assuming the owners of the Devil Rays and Twins would walk away for those amounts.

I think contraction was a ploy to get more stadium financing and to threaten the players' union when it was floated a few years ago, and it will be a ploy if it's floated again. It's surprising how many people take it seriously, though.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:59:29 pm »

Also, if you look at the Forbes chart, some of the teams previously threatened with contraction made money last year. Why would their owners agree to get out if the enterprise nets a return?

S.P. Rodriguez · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2006, 05:41:30 pm »

As a new resident of Austin (Pflugerville to be exact), I wonder if the combined cities of Austin, San Marcos, and San Antonio could not support a major sports franchise. Especially with the development of 130 which will connect Austin to San Antonio (Seguin but it's near enough). The area is booming and, IIRC, the Marlins were even exploring the area as part of their search, which included Portland.

Round Rock has a AAA team and I believe San Antonio also has a minor league team. That's a fairly substantial fan base to draw from if you build a stadium in the San Marcus/Buda area. It was just a passing thought. Then again, it could be left over residue from the Dallas/Fort Worth pollution.

Andyzipp · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2006, 06:06:10 pm »

How much of a pay off did Peter Angelos receive when the Expos came to DC?

Assume that McLane and Hicks would want triple that. Each.

Ty in Tampa · « **Reply #21 on:** January 12, 2006, 11:44:58 am »

Maybe move Tampa Bay to the NL.

Pleeeeeease let this happen. Pleeeeease, pleeeease.

Author Topic: contraction back in play? (Read 3770 times)

Andyzipp

pravata

Andyzipp