"...only that the league could not veto team location."
Well, I'm really glad the league vetoed the Giants move in 1994 (?).
Another side point: The team that became the Twins were not the last team to move, but you were right about the Senators; they became the Texas Rangers in 1972.
And a prologue: a market does not become inviable due only to bad ownership or a lack of a modern, retro ballpark. Owners can change, and the system I propose should get rid of the need for everyone to have a new park.
Since were discussing the future in regard to team moves, let's look at the past.
The teams in 1905:
New York (3)
Boston (2)
Philadelphia (2)
St. Louis (2)
Chicago
Detroit
Cleveland
Washington
Pittsburgh
Chicago
Cincinatti
There have been fourteen expansion teams in MLB history, and no teams have folded. I will concede that teams moving from a city with multiple teams is not bad for baseball. We'll keep two teams in NY and one in the other cities. This gives us eighteen teams to give to new markets. These teams go to those cities that currently have teams. Therefore, the only city we neglect is Baltimore, because there is already a team in Washington.
Therefore, with only four, "good", affordable moves, the leagues are in their exact same state; the only exception being that the Senators exist and the Orioles don't.
My point is, markets like Kansas City, Dallas, and, yes, the Twin Cities, should have been expanded into rather than moved to--had baseball a powerful, extremely wise governmental system. Now of course to consider that for the past is ridiculous, but I submit that we learn from it for the future. Any cities that baseball "can" move into and be viable (psssst, there aren't any more) should instead be expanded into. WHY? With the possible exception of Tampa Bay (we can discuss them in another thread, if you like), all of the markets that baseball is in are VIABLE. Baseball can be profitable again in Montreal, in Miami, and, yes, the Twin Cities.
With revenue sharing and a cap, that is. You say that this is simply the Yankees and the Braves supporting the Twins and the Expos. I agree, because having the current 30 teams is better for the Yankees and the Braves than having 22, or six in NYC, or one each in Charlotte and Portland.
One more random thought--would you apply your same logic to the NFL, which is florishing economically because of a salary cap and comprehensive revenue sharing? Are the Giants and Falcons supporting the Vikings and the Rams? No, of course not, but the only difference between football and the potential baseball scenario here is MLB's lack of a national TV contract.
P-Sz
|