Now I am beginning to understand the evil machinations afoot in the collective mind of MLB ownership. The Expos owner, Loria, will be given a loan to buy the Marlins…a loan directly from MLB owners. In exchange he gets to sell the Expos to MLB itself. And the Expos will be run collectively by a trust set up by MLB. This sets the stage for the owners to collectively kill the Expos once they take over.
By the way, in any other enterprise, this criminal behavior is in violation of federal anti-trust law. And by the way, the US government granted MLB anti-trust exemption many moons ago.
I already see this coming from a mile away. The 2003 season will open with the Expos Exterminated. Some unfortunate NL Central team will be given the boot out of that overcrowded division…into the NL East. Cincinnati and Pittsburgh immediately pop to mind as likely victims.

Option #2 for 2003 is based upon the interesting contractual restrictions placed on the last round of expansion teams. As part of their acceptance into the fold, Arizona and Tampa had to accept the possibility that they could be moved into another division, or league, without their consent. There was an expiration date on this requirement.
As it turns out, Texas has been griping for years about playing in the West. The Twins owner is ready to contract his team out of business. And Arizona has no say as to what happens with realignment. I imagine a future, perhaps 2004, where Texas goes into the AL Central, the Twins get axed to clear the way. And Arizona gets thrown into the AL West to fill Texas’ spot. It remains to be seen whether Houston would take the NL West spot currently occupied by Arizona. My suspicion is that they will not. This would turn BOTH Western divisions into 4-team races.
And of course, this still mans that Pittsburgh or Cincinnati will be rolled into the NL East…or should I say, “be rolled under the bus?”

They're calling the loan to Loria "interest-free," but really the "interest" on this loan is immeasurable. It's called loan-sharking (something Selig seems to have a good handle on), or kinda like the mob used to take care of business: "You play by our rules, kid, and you and your players' kneecaps will be alright."

Another scenario to ponder: suppose, in the final week of the 2002 season, the Reds or Braves are in a play-off hunt, and are playing the Expos. Do they ask the Expos owner, MLB, to "throw" a few games to make things "more interesting?" Can you say "CONFLICT OF INTEREST?" Maybe Pete Rose should manage the Expos this year?

Actually, the sale of the Marlins to Jeff Loria is a likely sign that contraction is as dead as Al Gore's political career ... yeah, it might be resurrected, but don't bet the rent money on it.

The 30th baseball franchise is worth a whole lot more in DC/Northern Virginia than it is Province Quebec. In NoVa/DC, the franchise may be worth a quarter billion. In Montreal, geez, you'd be lucky to get $50-60 million if you sold the team contingent on it remaining in place. And that might even be $50-60 million CANADIAN. But none of the 29 other owners wanted to see Jeff Loria being the one making all the bucks on the franchise relocation.

So, this way, the Ugliest Man on Earth, Bud Selig, and his Gang of 29 can sell the Montreal franchise to someone hell-bent on moving the team to Our Nation's Capital. They'll make a killing and still have pocket change left over to pay Peter Angelos to shut up and take it like a man. If the Washington franchise is NL, baseball doesn't have to pay Angelos a penny, but the guy is lawsuit-happy (it's how he made his $$$ in the first place!) and baseball will throw some coin his way to buy some peace.

Of course, what I've just indicated would be what baseball would do if it were an intelligently, soundly, and reasonably managed business enterprise. Selig may be a lot of things, but he's not managing baseball to maximize its market return (the Brewers maybe, as they are the second most profitable franchise in baseball - imagine that! - but not baseball as a whole). Forgive me for imposing logic on Bud "Let Me Remind You You're Under Oath" Selig.

JE ME SOUVIENS LES EXPOS!

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CITT, your opinions are astute. And perhaps that is the end. But there is a darker secret behind why the owners want contraction that goes above and beyond simply moving the Expos to DC for a quick profit.
From what I've read and heard, the position is that 30 teams equals more than market saturation. It allows the best players more leverage in switching teams and demanding higher and higher salaries. And not just the best. Average, even medocre players, have more options on where to migrate in search of more money.
The escalation in salaries has become the greatest onus the owners have to bear. It is hands-down the largest chunk of their overhead, the greatest drain on their margins. Contraction allows them to limit the options of players. Initially this will mean that the weakest will be culled, sent to the minors. But it also means that the average players will have to fight harder to stay on rosters, and may perhaps not make as much money.
This will essentially turn MLB into a buyer's market.
Based upon the wicked tendencies that Selig has exhibited of late, I suspect that he is serving as the megaphone for owner sentiment...men that are too cowardly to come out and speak for themselves. But if they disagreed with Selig's belief in contraction would they would be so quiet? Ponder that for a moment.

This whole thing smacks of the mob and the big fix.

[quote]Originally posted by AU Tiger in LA:
From what I've read and heard, the position is that 30 teams equals more than market saturation. It allows the best players more leverage in switching teams and demanding higher and higher salaries. And not just the best. Average, even medocre players, have more options on where to migrate in search of more money.

---

I've pondered that. If you were correct, then they would be contracting away TOM HICKS and the TEXAS RANGERS.

Your argument is totally consistent with economic theory ... but when Bud Selig's involved, the invisible hand of the free market does not work rationally. Les Expos and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Minnesota Twinks, are not competing for free agents with the Yankees, Braves, Red Sox, Mets and Hicks's Rangers. The contraction victims (and they've already been victimized, even if they retain their franchises) are NOT the teams that are driving up salary for the mid-market teams such as the Cardinals, Phillies, Reds, White Sox and the other teams that could be competitive in a fiscally-responsible baseball world. It's the Rangers, the Red Sox and the New Yorks (now that there's a new sheriff in Los Angeles, the Dodgers are no longer in this category). Contract them if you want to reduce market demand for free agents.

Again, of course, you and I are stupidly and naively applying logic and economic common-sense to Bud's World. As if! When will we learn?

An amusing fact: the Expos begin their (last) season by facing Florida at Olympic Stadium.

I wonder if Loria will attend. He doesn't even have to buy tickets. I'm sure MLB will give them to him free... they could always offer him an interest free loan.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
The contraction victims (and they've already been victimized, even if they retain their franchises) are NOT the teams that are driving up salary for the mid-market teams such as the Cardinals, Phillies, Reds, White Sox and the other teams that could be competitive in a fiscally-responsible baseball world. It's the Rangers, the Red Sox and the New Yorks (now that there's a new sheriff in Los Angeles, the Dodgers are no longer in this category).

---

I wouldn't call the Phillies or White Sox "mid-market" teams. This implies that they are located in smaller cities. They merely SPEND like they're in a mid-market. That the Phils refer to themselves as a smaller market team is a major bone of contention with most people here, especially those who say the team should be trying harder to sign big-name free agents.

What continues to boggle my mind is the idea that MLB says they can implement their contraction as late as Opening Day. The utter chaos that would erupt if they try to get rid of two teams during spring training...like I said, it's mind-boggling.

The latest reports, even by the Commish's Office admisssion, is that contraction WILL NOT happen for 2002. And the Loria "Hot-Potato-Switcheroo" has several hurdles that will require a minimum of 6 months to clear up. MLB season starts in three months. That said, Les Excrement...I mean Les Expos, will play a full schedule in 2002.
Wouldn't it be hysterical if the Montreal won their division? All the complicitous NL East owners would die from dehydration after vomiting for a week! Heh heh heh.

Report: Contraction still possible; cap will be pushed
--------------------------------------------------ESPN.com news services

Major League Baseball is prepared to wait as late as Opening Day before abandoning contraction plans for 2002, Sandy Alderson told USA Today on Wednesday.

Eliminating two teams can be done quickly, said Alderson, Major League Baseball's executive vice president for baseball operations.

"Once you start the season it would be a little tough, but realistically I'm not sure how much time is necessary," Alderson told the newspaper.

Alderson and ownership representative Larry Lucchino reiterated during a session with USA Today editors and reporters the elimination of teams is inevitable. The plan, however, approved by owners Nov. 6, has been stalled by legal roadblocks.

Although contraction, reportedly of the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos, appears unlikely for 2002, commissioner Bud Selig has refused to scrap the plan.

"If it can't happen in 2002, the commissioner is firmly on record in his commitment for 2003," Alderson said. "I do believe it can still be accomplished in 2002. The only real difficulty is getting players reallocated."

Lucchino, who'll become president and chief executive officer of the Boston Red Sox next month, said contraction, relocation "and eventually a salary cap will take place."

Lucchino added that 77 percent of fans surveyed favor additional revenue sharing and 84 percent favor placing salary caps on payrolls. The Players' Association has blocked increased revenue sharing, he said, and vehemently opposes a salary cap.

Contraction, according to Bud Lite is NOT dead. The Commissioner has been adamant that he considers contraction doable as late as March 31st.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
I wouldn't call the Phillies or White Sox "mid-market" teams. This implies that they are located in smaller cities. They merely SPEND like they're in a mid-market.

---

Valid point. But whether a team is "large market," "mid market," or "small market" depends not only on the metropolitan population, but the maximum potential fan base.

Look at Montreal. The Canadiens are, at least, "mid market" in the NHL, but Les Expos are the smallest of small market. Boston will always be a major market in matters of baseball, b-ball and hockey, but I think the Patriots are a "mid market" franchise in the NFL. Not that the small/mid/major distinction matters in the revenue-sharing NFL, where even Jacksonville is a viable franchise.

As for the White Sox and Phillies ... the White Sox will never have the fan base of the Cubs, thus I think it's appropriate to call them "mid market."

For Philadelphia, I will defer to your expertise on the Philadelphia fan base, but based on my experience with Philadelphia sports fans, they live, breath, eat and sleep their Flyers and their Eagles ... even crappy Eagle teams from back in the era of Leonard "Too Drunk to Bet" Tose. I've never felt they had the same deep deep fanatical support for the Phils ... but my sample of Philly sports fans (usually consisting of Philadelphia and South Jersey transplants) is admittedly limited. I could be wrong on this one, but I think it's realistic to think Philly is only "mid market" in baseball matters. Maybe a decent downtown baseball-only ballpark ... instead of a concrete donut off a freeway exit ... would change that.

NOW ... as to the people who think contraction could still happen as late as March 31 because Ugly Bud said so ... don't believe everything Bud says. Bud's reputation for truthfulness and veracity is, ummmmm, a little suspect? Check the accounting numbers he gave Congress, for one example.

Contraction is dead for 2002 except as a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

Fact remains, there is no logistical way to contract a team out of existence once the season begins. It would throw the remainder of the season into chaos. The Expos' fate will not be decided until after April.
There will be no contraction in 2002. The next year perhaps.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:

Valid point. But whether a team is "large market," "mid market," or "small market" depends not only on the metropolitan population, but the maximum potential fan base.

Look at Montreal. The Canadiens are, at least, "mid market" in the NHL, but Les Expos are the smallest of small market. Boston will always be a major market in matters of baseball, b-ball and hockey, but I think the Patriots are a "mid market" franchise in the NFL. Not that the small/mid/major distinction matters in the revenue-sharing NFL, where even Jacksonville is a viable franchise.

As for the White Sox and Phillies ... the White Sox will never have the fan base of the Cubs, thus I think it's appropriate to call them "mid market."

For Philadelphia, I will defer to your expertise on the Philadelphia fan base, but based on my experience with Philadelphia sports fans, they live, breath, eat and sleep their Flyers and their Eagles ... even crappy Eagle teams from back in the era of Leonard "Too Drunk to Bet" Tose. I've never felt they had the same deep deep fanatical support for the Phils ... but my sample of Philly sports fans (usually consisting of Philadelphia and South Jersey transplants) is admittedly limited. I could be wrong on this one, but I think it's realistic to think Philly is only "mid market" in baseball matters. Maybe a decent downtown baseball-only ballpark ... instead of a concrete donut off a freeway exit ... would change that.

---

How about a decent baseball-only ballpark off a freeway exit? That's what is actually happening.

I think that if a market has a large number of people, they're all potential fans and therefore it's a large market. If the teams can't find a way to get those people interested it doesn't mean they should be able to call themselves a small market.

The Eagles definitely rule here. The Flyers are close because they've been more consistently successful over the years. The Phillies always were pretty close to that level in my lifetime. It wasn't until the 1994 strike when they started dropping off the local radar.