Baseball Owners Vote to Cut Two Teams
November 6, 2001 6:50 PM Subscribe
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:29 PM on November 6, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 7:38 PM on November 6, 2001
posted by mrbula at 7:39 PM on November 6, 2001
posted by clevershark at 7:40 PM on November 6, 2001
the idea that there is a "thin" talent pool, dark messiah, is not well founded I believe. while there are more teams now than in the past, it is also true that baseball has a much larger international presence now than it ever has. there are baseball academies in south america, where boys can come and learn to play baseball (and hopefully be signed by the team that owns the academies). there are scouting presences in Australia (Graeme Lloyd and Luke Prokopec), Japan, Korea (Byung Hun Kim, Chan Ho Park, Hee Seop Choi), Taiwan (Chin Feng Chen I believe), and many other countries.
and, to be quite honest, the only reason poor teams cannot compete is due to managerial incompetence. Oakland is led by a very capable GM in Billy Beane, while Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, and KC all led by idiots (though the head idiot in Pittsburgh, Cam Bonifay, lost his job this year). furthermore, it has been mentioned that as compensation for the loss of teams, rosters may be increased from 25 to 27 players -- thus there won't be fewer bench warmers (there may actually be more).
posted by moz at 7:46 PM on November 6, 2001
posted by chrismc at 8:06 PM on November 6, 2001
Exactly. The idea that baseball talent is thinner than in the past is a false assumption made by those who truly do not understand the game or are quick to jump on commonly held yet unsupported or falsely held beliefs.
The talent pool may be unfairly concentrated in certain markets, but the talent itself is deeper than at any time in baseball history.
Has the popularity of baseball peaked
Yes. For many reasons. Remember, during baseballs 'golden age' competition from other sports wasn't near as deep as it is today, and in the mtv/wrestling generation, baseball can seem less accessible than other sports.
But remember, popularity more times than not has little to do with quality.
posted by justgary at 8:36 PM on November 6, 2001
posted by babydoll at 8:44 PM on November 6, 2001
posted by tomorama at 8:51 PM on November 6, 2001
1) carl pohlad is disinterested in the twins. he has not been able to get a stadium publically funded, also, which is his main sticking point.
2) the devil rays and florida marlins are not popularly being targeted for contraction because of jeb bush's influence on the president. MLB is afraid that if any of the florida teams go, there will be serious talk on capitol hill about taking away the league's anti-trust exemption.
i feel that contraction has been used and is being used right now as blackmail for the states which are refusing to publically fund stadiums for teams, relating to carl pohlad and all. it's sad. the minnesota twins, formerly known as the washington senators, have many hall of famers. kirby puckett; rod carew; harmon killebrew; walter "big train" johnson. but...
i suppose, on the bright side, the cubs might be able to draft brad wilkerson from the expos in the player dispersal draft that would follow contraction.
posted by moz at 8:52 PM on November 6, 2001
we're not interesting in funding a stadium with public money so a private interest (pohlad) can make money off the deal.
pohlad doesn't want to fork out for a new stadium.
i can see that asshole placing the blame on the people on MN for not buying his a shiny new stadium on the river.
if he's so disinterested he should sell the team to someone who's interested in keeping them in the state... there are PLENTY of people wealthy enough to purchase the twins.
*sigh*.
posted by manero at 9:43 PM on November 6, 2001
posted by chrismc at 10:02 PM on November 6, 2001
The best I can hope for is that the people of Minnesota don't blink- and baseball finally stops extorting citizens for stadium welfare payments because no one's biting.
posted by hincandenza at 10:23 PM on November 6, 2001
As to popularity of the game, its ratings took a major hit with the strike a few years back and never really recovered. The McGwire/Sosa competition helped a bit, but ratings never returned to prestrike levels. Part of the reason is that the fans looked at the owners and the players getting greedy, and said "A plague on both your houses" and took their ticket dollars (and TV viewing time) elsewhere.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:46 PM on November 6, 2001
actually, bud selig is not the owner of the brewers. though he is a former owner of the team, his daughter currently owns the brewers organization.
believe me, there are only two reasons the twins might get the axe: 1) minnesota is sufficiently politically isolated, and 2) carl pohlad is willing to accept the buyout.
posted by moz at 11:30 PM on November 6, 2001
Do not tell me building a new ballpark is definitely not the answer. I just want to know who the hell was in charge of the Metrodome, because boy did I ever hate going to games in that overinflated balloon. I'm sorry, but it sucked if you're any kind of baseball fan, and most Twins fans I talked to agreed. Then again, it was extremely hard for me to encounter an admitted Twins fan anywhere in Minnesota until they started having a winning season in the last couple years, but I digress.
Here's an interesting editorial about new ballparks and why sometimes, even if the taxpayers ante up 100% of the dough, even a new ballpark can lose its sheen.
posted by evixir at 11:48 PM on November 6, 2001
The Twins' franchise has been around since the foundation of the American League in 1901, and even then it was just continuing a ball club in operation since 1884. There are sixteen franchises that have been around for 100 years - can't they prune away the 1969 Expos and the 1993 Marlins? That would make a lot more sense to people who actually care about whether baseball is happening in these various cities, anyway.
Eliminating the Twins is as despicable as this article says: "The Twins outdrew the Yankees from 1987 until the strike. Only the Yankees have won more world championships in the past 15 years. They've been running at a modest profit in recent years, were in first place most of the past season and their attendance soared this year."
posted by Zurishaddai at 12:06 AM on November 7, 2001
More accurately from ESPN: his ownership was placed in a blind trust which is run by trustees, while the team is run by his daughter who is not an investor. However, when/if he ceases to be the commissioner, his ownership is returned to him in full- with any increase in investment value that comes along with it. That's still a huge conflict of interest.
evixir: I don't understand how you could completely ignore one glaring and extremely important difference... Do not tell me building a new ballpark is definitely not the answer.
Hey, new ballparks are cool- and if MLB, with its nearly $3 billion dollars in total annual revenue wants to build a new ballpark for a team, they're free to knock themselves out. One new stadium a year- or a new stadium for each team every 30 years- would cost about $8-10M per team each year. Not chump change, but doable- unless, of course, they don't need the stadiums after all, or suddenly realized that if they were footing the bill, old stadiums could be retrofitted or not replaced as often to save their money. But this extortion routine- "Better pay up with a new tax-payer funded stadium, or the team gets it!"- is getting old. Besides, for a fraction of what it costs to build a new stadium, you could mount a legal attack on MLB to prevent them from pulling the team out of town or get that antitrust exemption lifted, and in the end MLB would build the stadium anyway if they truly needed it.
ibid: it was extremely hard for me to encounter an admitted Twins fan anywhere in Minnesota until they started having a winning season in the last couple years
In the last couple of years? What's the revisionist history trick for? Remember, they were drawing 3 million + in attendance in '87 and '91- y'know, before it was cool to draw 3 million fans. These would be those years when they won two World Championships. Look, I don't think either Milwaukee or Minnesota should be contracted, but by posing it as a dilemma, you're falling into the owner's trap: having cities squabble amongst themselves and debate the merits of giving huge tax-payer funded bribes to MLB to not move their teams.
posted by hincandenza at 12:42 AM on November 7, 2001
There is a way to cure baseball's problems, but it involves a radical rethink. Look across the Atlantic to Europe and see how football leagues are organsied there. Split MLB into two divisions - MLB1 and MLB2, each with 16 teams. Each year the bottom 3 of MLB1 change places with the top 3 of MLB2. This would, under normal circumstances, put the likes of Montreal, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Kansas, Florida, Tampa Bay and Oakland together and allow them to compete at their own level. If Minnesota can't generate the sort of revinue to compete with the Yankees, let them lower their sights.
It's not minor league, because it's all under the umbrella of MLB. There's an argument that American fans won't accept or understand promotion/relegation, but as far as I know it's never been triied, so how do we know?
posted by salmacis at 12:49 AM on November 7, 2001
Hey, leave the almighty A's out of this, buster!
posted by Zurishaddai at 1:33 AM on November 7, 2001
Major league sports are generally in a significant decline, as is wrestling right now, by the way. I think the only numbers that are solid at the moment are football, and I wouldn't count on that lasting. Sports Illustrated ran an article about this last year, suggesting that we may be near the end of the business cycle for professional team sports.
posted by tranquileye at 3:16 AM on November 7, 2001
Over the past years several deals were brought up, but public sentiment was definitely against doling out welfare to Pohlad. And Major League Baseball hasn't helped matters, since the other owners all agree that teaching the Minnesota public a harsh lesson in big league ball would keep the rest of the franchise cities in line. I expect the Twins be gone by next year. "REMEMBER THE TWINS" will be MLB's warning to any other city which balks at opening up their wallets. You've all been warned.
posted by mooncrow at 6:33 AM on November 7, 2001
Personally, I think you can easily say "if any of the teams go, period" (with the exception of the Expos). Somewhere along the line I think Sen. McCain spoke out about this, but I'll have to go digging for the citation again.
In an ideal world, MLB would force the respective ownerships to put the teams up for sale without any restrictions on whether the team could be moved or not. This would create some goodwill by allowing ownership groups in cities that have been ignored for too long - like Washington DC! - to get a fair shot at a team. Only if they fail should MLB consider whether to contract.
My fervent hope is that the teams to fold are the Devil Rays and the Marlins, the Twins move back to DC and become the Senators once again, and the Expos are allowed to move wherever (Charlotte?). But this probably ain't gonna happen unless Congress dumps the anti-trust exemption.
posted by PeteyStock at 7:14 AM on November 7, 2001
posted by salmacis at 7:19 AM on November 7, 2001
posted by ljromanoff at 7:29 AM on November 7, 2001
I'll believe it when the final announcement comes out explaining which teams are going, how the players will be distributed, who's going to pay the players that have contracts that nobody wants, who's going to pay the remaining stadium leases, etc.
Looks to me like a negotiation ploy. They're trying to get leverage with the player's association with the threat of 50 lost jobs. They're trying to get leverage with the cities these teams are in to build new stadiums.
posted by jeffsmith at 7:30 AM on November 7, 2001
posted by drezdn at 9:22 AM on November 7, 2001
posted by moz at 9:47 AM on November 7, 2001
Seattle went through its own debacle in this regard with Saefco Field and now the new Seahawks stadium. The new baseball stadium is beautiful, but jeez, at over half a billion dollars you think they could do better than to charge me $6.00 for a can of Coors.
posted by edlark at 11:26 AM on November 7, 2001
In 1997, Pohlad said he was going to move the Twins to sell the team to a new owner who'd move them to, of all places, Greensboro, North Carolina. The public assumption was that the whole story was a bunch of B.S.: that is, because the public wouldn't build him a stadium, he was going to move the team to N.C., to a market 1/3 the size of the Twin Cities, where the local public didn't want to spend money on a stadium? Come on.
Then Pohlad said he'd donate a bunch of his money for a stadium if the Minnesota taxpayers would kick in some. After the press conference, reporters picked over the deal, and figured out that in the fine print the donation wasn't a gift, it was a loan to the State, and Pohlad expected the State to pay interest on it.
Ever since those two comedy sketches, nobody around here is willing to trust Pohlad with their kid's lunch money. Stadium drives have become so unpopular (latest polls--78% opposed to public financing for sports stadiums) that politicians can get elected just by promising not to spend money on a stadium. Just last year we had several candidates--even for Congress and such, where the issue wasn't even involved--who ran TV commercials with such a promise.
A non-Pohlad group of investors tried to buy the Twins in '99, conditional on the City of St. Paul ponying up tax dollars for a stadium. It went to a referendum, the stadium referendum went down in flames. Admittedly, that deal would have put the brunt of the costs on St. Paul (pop. 270,000 or so), rather than spreading them out metro- or statewide.
Another aggravating theory that has been floated recently is that the Twins might never have been in financial trouble at all; that Pohlad kept them in red ink intentionally as a tax write-off to offset his banking income. He sold off his banks a couple of years ago; now that he doesn't need the tax write-off any more--so this theory says--he's going to throw the Twins in the garbage. Doesn't need 'em anymore. How true that is, who can say, but it's been floated by the local media around here. Pohlad, incidentally, is richer than Croesus, one of the wealthiest individuals in Minnesota, and the various dollar amounts that are being thrown in this controversy are all assumed by the public to be chump change to him.
Bud Selig marching onto the scene behaving like Montgomery Burns hasn't helped matters.
posted by gimonca at 11:54 AM on November 7, 2001
"Contraction" was talked about all summer up here, but nobody thought it would happen now, partly because of the flurry of lawsuits it would start, partly because the Twins played pretty good ball in 2001 and attendance was way up, and because either Tampa or Florida looked like much more obvious targets. Now it turns out that Tampa has some huge long lease tied to it, but the Twins only have one more year on their Metrodome lease. That may be the clincher. That, and the fact that Pohlad doesn't give a crap.
Another wild card: while all this is going on, the Vikings are saying they need a new stadium too.
And yet another tidbit: there's been a group of downtown Minneapolis types trying to put together a plan for a completely privately financed ballpark in the Minneapolis Warehouse District. They want to build a smaller, "boutique ballpark", with a Camden Yards or Wrigley Field feel. The Twins organization has consistently told them to get lost.
posted by gimonca at 12:04 PM on November 7, 2001
posted by tiny pea at 8:11 PM on November 7, 2001
I'd like to see a team come to D.C. because the Orioles ain't doing diddly and even Cal is gone.
posted by owillis at 12:01 AM on November 8, 2001
Think they'll move to San Antonio or LA? That team seems to be on the downswing, and they won't be able to fill a new stadium.
posted by owillis at 12:03 AM on November 8, 2001
Half the people you talk to say that if the Twins go belly up, people will be shocked and the Vikings will get a fresh new stadium handed to them on a silver platter. The other half say that the stadium issue is so poisoned now that Red will consider the stadium situation to be utterly hopeless, give up and move away without even making another bid to the Legislature.
The Vikings played an exhibition game in San Antonio this fall; apparently ticket sales were underwhelming, and Red McCombs was left with a little egg on his face. San Antonio, of course, has no more of a proper stadium than Minneapolis has, so he'd be starting from square one--in a smaller market--if he moved there. (Even though it's his hometown.) Los Angeles has just started being mentioned in reports, but it could be a more serious threat, being a bigger market with any number of facilities for now, and resources to build bigger facilities in the future. Portland, Oregon, of all places, has been mentioned as another longshot if the Vikes leave town.
Vikings have no trouble selling out the current Dome, even when they suck. People up here are more than willing to shell out big bucks to watch Randy Moss yawn and scratch his ass for ten, fifteen minutes at a time, hoping he'll find a few seconds in his day to make the monster catch that wins the game.
One stadium-issue advantage the Vikes have that the Twins don't is that the Vikings can share a new stadium with the Univ. of Minnesota Gophers. That way, they can say something like "we need public money for a stadium, but it's for the Gophers too, not just for Red McCombs, so that's okay". That might just work.
posted by gimonca at 8:21 AM on November 8, 2001
posted by evixir at 11:34 PM on November 10, 2001
« Older San Francisco is spending about $22,000 every hour... | Ok...now that '24' has aired... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
ESPN has a good article about all this here.
posted by mmesker at 7:20 PM on November 6, 2001