|
Wed Dec 27, 2000, 01:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with your analysis but not with your conclusions. Yes, the franchises in MLB are not directly competing with each other. However, the solution is not to have more competition between them, but less. It would never work to turn the clubs loose and have no "league" to speak of.
As for teams moving around, this is heresy. Teams moving is BAD for baseball. I repeat: When teams move, baseball SUFFERS. The location of teams in MLB is OPTIMAL. There is nowhere for anybody to move! This is what the owners of the Twins and the Expos have found out; they WILL make more money in their crappy domed multi-purpose stadia in the Twin Cities and Montreal, both 4 million+ metro areas, than they would five years after a move to Charlotte, San Antonio, Austin, or Salt Lake City. (If MLB were to expand again, the only logical places to go are Monterrey, Mexico City, or a third New York team. Thus, MLB will NOT expand for a very long time.) So, the poor fans in Minnesota like me keep their poor team, and we're much happier for it. I shudder to think of the results of MLB dissoving into the clubs, with teams moving at the rate of a few per season, with teams folding and starting up. I just imagine and dream what my Twins could do with a new CEO/GM, an infusion of shared revenue, and a $40 million spending quota. Maybe we could afford to give Ron Coomer $2 million. As it stands, he'll be playing elsewhere and we'll be starting gold medalist Doug Mientkiewicz every day. Oh, he's a good prospect, but pardon me if I don't think he'll hit 10 homers this year. 9 should be enough to lead the team. P-Sz 
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Threaded Mode
