PDA

View Full Version : Is Contraction The Most Lucrative Plan For MLB's Owners ???



SoCal Pinstriper
12-16-04, 05:02 PM
From Darren Rovell at ESPN.com:

"The possible collapse of Major League Baseball's plan to move the Montreal Expos to Washington, and then sell the franchise to the highest bidder, might have actually been the best financial move for the sport.


If the owners of the 29 teams don't sell the team at all and absorb losses for another two seasons, they would likely make more from contracting it, sports industry insiders say.....

....The league has the right to eliminate two teams after the 2006 season, and per the current collective bargaining agreement, the Major League Baseball Players' Association has given up its right to contest the unilateral move.


"In the long term, holding onto the team and then contracting the team and another team will be better for the 28 clubs," said Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp Ltd., a sports consulting firm.....

"Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good," he said. "If the Washington, D.C., deal falling through could have possibly been planned, I would have said it was a brilliant strategy."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

The details are in the story linked above. It is adifferent perspective, and, in many ways a compelling argument.

YankeeFan1
12-16-04, 05:20 PM
I mentioned this on the DC baseball thread. It is my opinion that it would best for baseball if they contract the Nationals and one other team, the Devil Rays most likely.

LuckyLopez
12-16-04, 05:45 PM
It seems like its the same basic principle of the salary cap issue. Its best for baseball in the long run and the owners would love it but the player's union would never go for it. The Expos/Nationals situation would be ideal in a case like that since it could be drawn up as a mercy killing rather than fullon contraction.

SoCal Pinstriper
12-16-04, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by LuckyLopez
It seems like its the same basic principle of the salary cap issue. Its best for baseball in the long run and the owners would love it but the player's union would never go for it.

According to the article, the current collective bargaining agreement gives the owners to contract by two teams in 2006. The union does not have the right to contest it.

"The league has the right to eliminate two teams after the 2006 season, and per the current collective bargaining agreement, the Major League Baseball Players' Association has given up its right to contest the unilateral move."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

LuckyLopez
12-16-04, 06:24 PM
Hmm, thanks. I completely missed that part. I must admit that I'm more than a bit surprised by that. I'm quite curious as to why the union would concede on that particular issue as it puts a pretty decent dent in both their salaries and their employment numbers. Guess its off to do a bit more reading for me.

SoCal Pinstriper
12-16-04, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by LuckyLopez
Hmm, thanks. I completely missed that part. I must admit that I'm more than a bit surprised by that. I'm quite curious as to why the union would concede on that particular issue as it puts a pretty decent dent in both their salaries and their employment numbers. Guess its off to do a bit more reading for me. That was the most shocking part of the article for me. Like you, I could not believe that the Players would concede that point. Let me know if you find out anything different.

mrbawm
12-16-04, 06:28 PM
I'd love to see contraction. The talent pool has already been watered down enough.

reelbiggecko
12-16-04, 06:48 PM
Scott Boras wouldn't be happy...