whitesox247 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Teams that are over .500 should not be contracted. I agree. With the way Minnesota has played, it's a shame that they should even be mentioned to be contracted. I wouldn't contract Tampa Bay either, they have a bright future with Pinella at the helm. If they can get out of Tropicana and some of those prospects work out for them, they can be in contention in a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 2 of the teams you want to contract are over .500. Teams that are over .500 should not be contracted. Maybe you move Montreal, but you don't get rid of them. I don't disagree with TB and FL, though. I think the answer with those four teams is two merge them. Each merges into two. One team stays in Minnesota with a new stadium and the other can stay in florida, go to Puerto Rico or go somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 2 of the teams you want to contract are over .500. Teams that are over .500 should not be contracted. Maybe you move Montreal, but you don't get rid of them. I don't disagree with TB and FL, though. Record doesn't mean jack. It's all about the $$$$$. And if being contracted was dependant on any teams record, contraction would be done on a case-by-case basis depending on a teams record the season MLB decided to contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Record doesn't mean jack. It's all about the $$$$$. So should we contract Oakland too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgeport_Joe Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 I always thought that they should go back to two divisions, and have one wildcard. Best team in each league gets a first round bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 So should we contract Oakland too? Depends on what their situation is. Contraction has nothing to do with a team's W-L record. It has to do with how much a team is bringing in, money wise, for MLB. Don't think that in some baseball circles the White Sox haven't been mentioned as a contraction possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Depends on what their situation is. Contraction has nothing to do with a team's W-L record. It has to do with how much a team is bringing in, money wise, for MLB. Don't think that in some baseball circles the White Sox haven't been mentioned as a contraction possibility. To me, it has nothing to do with how much revenue a team is bringing in. To me, it has EVERYTHING to do with a team's competitiveness. If a team is competitive, why contract them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 To me, it has nothing to do with how much revenue a team is bringing in. To me, it has EVERYTHING to do with a team's competitiveness. If a team is competitive, why contract them? By your rationale, the White Sox would be on the hit list. Low attendance, not competitive except every 6-10 seasons, terrible stadium, etc. Glad you ain't the Commish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 By your rationale, the White Sox would be on the hit list. Low attendance, not competitive except every 6-10 seasons, terrible stadium, etc. Glad you ain't the Commish. No. The Sox are competitive. I'm talking about teams like the Tigers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 No. The Sox are competitive. That's news to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 No. The Sox are competitive. That's news to me If you put the Sox in the "not competitive" category, then you'd have at least 10-12 teams in that group. We don't need to get rid of that many teams...just 2, 3, or maybe 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTC2784 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 No. The Sox are competitive. That's news to me If you put the Sox in the "not competitive" category, then you'd have at least 10-12 teams in that group. We don't need to get rid of that many teams...just 2, 3, or maybe 4. Not only that, but the Sox are #5 (I think) in TV revenues. That's a much bigger piece of the pie for MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTC2784 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Overall was the book good? I'm going to buy Billy Beanes book this week and read it when I fly to Iowa later this month to visit my grandparents. It's definitely a good read. Even if you don't agree with what he says, he brings up a lot of facts that were at least new to me (and supports the arguments well enough to make you agree with what he says, or at least see the rationale behind the arguments). I highly recommend it, especially for $4.99 at the bargain books section at Barnes & Noble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 It's definitely a good read. Even if you don't agree with what he says, he brings up a lot of facts that were at least new to me (and supports the arguments well enough to make you agree with what he says, or at least see the rationale behind the arguments). I highly recommend it, especially for $4.99 at the bargain books section at Barnes & Noble Whats the title of it? I'll pick it up this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Whats the title of it? I'll pick it up this week. Is it May the Best Team Win: Baseball Economics and Public Policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 I was hoping this thread would stir up some interesting chatter, and it did. Personally, I don't think there should be any expansion of the playoffs. In fact, I like the current format, except for the 5 game 1st round. That should be 7 games. As far as interleague play, scheduling and so on... I like the interleague play, but it needs to be tweaked in some way to make it more uniform so that each team within a division plays basically the same schedule. I think the "rivalries" match ups are worth any scheduling blips they cause, but having one team play the Tigers and not the Twins, and another team in the same division not play the Tigers but have to face the Twins is not right. I also feel that 2 teams should be contracted. The city of Montreal should not have a franchise. The franchise itself, is deserving of not being contracted. They have always had a great farm system, and when they could keep some of these players, they have for the most part been a solid ML team. With the Tigers and the Mets both being in such horrid shape, I can see MLB eliminating Florida or TB and Montreal, merging them with the Tigers and Mets. But, both owners should be forced to sell since they have so mismanaged their franchises. That would give 2 important market areas a boost, and eliminate to poor market areas from the leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTC2784 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Whats the title of it? I'll pick it up this week. It's Fair Ball: a Fan's Case for Baseball". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.