Contraction

[AirmenSmith]

I've always been a fan of contraction in baseball(as well as other sports).

I want to trim some fat off the MLB world and contract some teams. I believe attendance does show if a team should be in a city. I believe cities with great fans will always show up for there team regardless of record. Example Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees. When bad fans still show up.

I'm making a slim mlb universe. Trade deadline rosters, less minors for mlb/foreign leagues, less free agents/personnel, etc. Pretty much a faster slim.

Who needs to be contracted? To me it is Tampa Bay and Miami for sure.

[bwburke94]

Surprised I was the first Kansas City vote

[Airdrop01]

You should do yourself a favor and look up per capita attendance history.

[AirmenSmith]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

You should do yourself a favor and look up per capita attendance history.

I can see using it can change things but nothing can help the rays. I'm not only looking at attendance because a team like the rays has spikes when the yanks or red Sox come which doesn't help.

Having lived in Chicago from birth to 1 years old, the fans have always been there win or lose. That to me is the big thing

Although I may just go off who has gained the most in revenue sharing. Miami was so bad that mlb forced them to spend more.

[David Watts]

I voted for Cleveland, but I would take my vote back if they were to fire Tom Hamilton today.

[Charley575]

As a Marlin fan and South Florida native, I'll jump in to just say what a shame it is that Miami is on this poll. It's only due to the utter indifference and incompetence of a series of bad owners that the Marlins are not a more viable franchise. Miami is a major city, and deserves better. It's hard to blame the fans for not being loyal to the team after what they've been put through.

The Cubs, Cardinals, Red Sox, Yankees, etc. have great and loyal fans because those teams have a long, multi-generational history. Miami, Tampa, and Colorado haven't been around long enough to build that kind of a following, which is all the more reason why smart ownership with a long term plan is essential for such franchises.

[mirrf]

Where's the "no contraction" option? I really, really don't think removing two teams would solve anything.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Charley575

As a Marlin fan and South Florida native, I'll jump in to just say what a shame it is that Miami is on this poll. It's only due to the utter indifference and incompetence of a series of bad owners that the Marlins are not a more viable franchise. Miami is a major city, and deserves better. It's hard to blame the fans for not being loyal to the team after what they've been put through.

The Cubs, Cardinals, Red Sox, Yankees, etc. have great and loyal fans because those teams have a long, multi-generational history. Miami, Tampa, and Colorado haven't been around long enough to build that kind of a following, which is all the more reason why smart ownership with a long term plan is essential for such franchises.

I understand and respect what you're saying, and I feel for Marlins fans, but I don't agree.

Passing the buck and using poor management/ownership as an excuse to not support your team is weak. Your fans only showed up when the team was competitive.

Any fan can cheer for a team when that team is winning, the true test of a fans mettle is the same as that of a player - were you there when you were needed?

Don't remember who said it, but it fits.

If you want to hurt ownership, get everybody to go to the game and just buy a ticket, a couple beer and hotdogs. Stop buying everything with a Marlins logo on it. Hurt his pocket book while still supporting your team.

[Green & Gold Heart]

I hate the two of you that picked Oakland.

Pittsburgh shouldn't be on this list either.

IMO it'd have to be two of the "newer" teams.

[Westheim]

Anybody intending to contract one of the original 16 franchises from 1901 should be disenfranchised from these boards as a proven heretic...

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I voted for Cleveland, but I would take my vote back if they were to fire Tom Hamilton today.

I wanted to report you for this....I suppose this will have to do...

I'd contract Tampa and Milwaukee. Milwaukee isn't an awful market, but it is quite small. And we don't really need 4 teams between Chicago, WI, and MN. Tampa needs no explanation.

[Green & Gold Heart]

I don't have numbers and just going by my vibe of living here, but the Brewers seem to have pretty solid support in WI and they draw pretty well. Of course if they suck, attention turns to the Packers by August but still.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by Green & Gold Heart

I don't have numbers and just going by my vibe of living here, but the Brewers seem to have pretty solid support in WI and they draw pretty well. Of course if they suck, attention turns to the Packers by August but still.

Yeah, I looked up media market sizes on Wiki and Milwaukee is actually in a cluster of the smallest sizes with KC, Baltimore, and Cincy. Not obviously smaller like I remembered. Maybe I was thinking of metro population or something.

That said, there are TWO media markets in the North Carolina bigger than Milwaukee and we don't have 3 other teams within a couple hours. I'm not saying NC is the best place for a team, just illustrating a point. There are several bigger media markets than Milwaukee.

[MBarrett]

TB and Oakland.

[AirmenSmith]

Originally Posted by mirrf

Where's the "no contraction" option? I really, really don't think removing two teams would solve anything.

The only reason i'm removing teams is for a smaller more compact universe.

I'm not doing it for personal reasons. Although I would shrink the league by a lot of teams if I had the chance.

Also another factor I figure in is the revenue sharing. I'm against it completely. Paying a team money because they can't make money.

Baseball needs a salary floor.

[AirmenSmith]

Thanks all for the votes. I figured Miami and Tampa would be the top ones.

Again, this was just so I can create a more compact universe.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by AirmenSmith

Baseball needs a salary floor.

No, it doesn't. I'd be curious what a poll of hockey fans would say about salary floors and I think I was once on board with them, but after having experienced them I think they're stupid.

If you want to blow your brains out by spending as much as money as possible, good for you. If you want to spend as little as possible and possibly lose your fanbase as a result then that's up to you. But I think it's ludicrous to force teams to spend up to a floor. How many teams in the NHL don't make in revenue what they're forced to spend? IINM, the only way they make it back is through revenue sharing, which is all well and good I suppose, but the salary floor also forces teams to pay mid-tier players near top-tier salaries. Nah, forget that. I like the David vs Goliath system of baseball way better. Besides, baseball seems to have as much parity as other leagues so where's the problem.

If you're truly against revenue sharing, then surely you should be against a salary floor as well. Or was the salary floor comment just sarcasm?

[MorseMoose]

I love 24 people here!!!!

[darkcloud4579]

Sorry I wrote a rant and you were just doing a poll for your own personal league. Haha, my bad. I removed my rant and I'll vote.

[AirmenSmith]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

Sorry I wrote a rant and you were just doing a poll for your own personal league. Haha, my bad. I removed my rant and I'll vote.

But Rants are fun I didn't even get to read it before you removed it.