PDA

View Full Version : Gammons says that 4 teams are too be contracted and that Milton...



paulrichjr
03-02-2006, 06:55 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=gammons_peter#20060302



New Reds GM Wayne Krivsky wisely has tried to build the core strength of the organization instead of making helter-skelter deals. But he sees one encouragement. "Eric Milton's legs are much stronger now that he's further (removed from his) knee surgery," says Krivsky. "Last year he had no strength and was pitching up and down. Now he looks much stronger and can get much better leg drive. It can only be a lot better for him."


One National League owner is telling employees that MLB has a plan to contract four teams, with a contraction draft already drafted.

paulrichjr
03-02-2006, 06:56 PM
The entire article can be read here...


Don't sleep on the Indians

posted: Thursday, March 2, 2006

When spring training begins, the teams that have the buzz are the ones that spent the most money or made the most moves. Like Toronto. The Mets. The White Sox. It's only natural.
The Braves now are used to lowered expectations, as ownership does not spend for the club the way it did five years ago, and still they find a way to win division titles every year, at least dating back to when Dan Quayle was vice president and Deion Sanders was a backup outfielder.

With the Indians, it is a little different. A year ago they charged to win 93 games, two fewer than the Yankees, more than any team in the three-division era that did not make the playoffs. But because of the convergence of a number of factors, attendance at The Jake has not come back to the way it was in the wild 'n' wonderful era of Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, et al.

So because they could not go out and spend the money necessary to get a proven closer like Billy Wagner, or enough to get Trevor Hoffman to leave home, conventional thinking says they took a step back. They had to settle for Bob Wickman. They lost two starting pitchers -- the AL ERA leader, Kevin Millwood, and Scott Elarton -- who were a combined 20-20. They lost Bobby Howry. They traded one of their best and most popular players, Coco Crisp, for what they hope will be a future star (Andy Marte) and a power arm for the bullpen (Guillermo Mota).

But if they stay healthy, the Indians can be every bit as good as they were last year -- OK, the record might not show it because Minnesota and Detroit might be better and they might not dominate interleague play as they did -- and challenge Chicago if its pitching in any way breaks down. The two core players in the middle of Cleveland's lineup, Victor Martinez and Travis Hafner, are in their primes (at 27 and 28, respectively) and top-of-the-game offensive players at catcher and DH, with Martinez emerging as a team leader.

Grady Sizemore is on the brink of stardom, third in OPS among AL center fielders a year ago. Jhonny Peralta might be the most overlooked offensive player in the game, with 63 extra-base hits and a .886 OPS at shortstop at age 23. Aside from Peralta, Ronnie Belliard had 54 extra-base hits and, despite his Manny look, turned the double play as well as anyone. What the Indians need is for Jason Michaels, as he did in Philly, to give them 450-500 at-bats in the two hole behind Sizemore and in front of Peralta; for Aaron Boone to bounce back; and for first baseman Eduardo Perez to give them power against left-handers. And who knows? By August, they might get contributions from one of their two impressive young outfielders, Brad Snyder or Franklin Gutierrez, or Marte.

"Last winter I was rehabbing," says Boone. "This winter I could work out and prepare for the season. I feel totally different. I remember I was hitting .151 in the middle of June."

But typical of Boone, he volunteered to be Marte's mentor. "That's what we hope we have working here," says manager Eric Wedge.

The front three of C.C. Sabathia, Cliff Lee and Jake Westbrook won 48 games in '05. GM Mark Shapiro went out and signed Paul Byrd and Jason Johnson to replace Millwood and Elarton and to eat innings and time until the next wave of starters arrives, led by Jeremy Sowers. And it will not be long with Sowers. The sixth pick in the '04 draft out of Vanderbilt has an uncanny ability to throw pitches wherever he wants whenever he wants. The staff even believes he might be better in the majors because he is so capable of executing game plans.

They always worry about Wickman, but the depth around and in front of him should be every bit as good as last year's crew, which led the league in bullpen ERA. Rafael Betancourt only has a 159-35 strikeout-walk ratio the last two seasons. Fernando Cabrera, Mota, Scott Sauerbeck, Matt Miller and perhaps Andrew Brown (who hit 97 on the gun Tuesday) are potential setup men, and Steve Karsay and Danny Graves have shown promise in their comebacks. Graves has shown flashes of his old sinker.

"I'm throwing better than I have in years," says Karsay. "It's amazing what not throwing during the winter can do."

The Indians, like the Braves, will not rely on flashy trades or signings to refuel. In the next 12 months, they will get their energy from within, from Marte, Snyder, Gutierrez, Sowers, Fausto Carmona, et al. Like Bobby Cox, Wedge has the attention of his players, in whom he has tried to instill the values of playing the game the right way.

Do not sleep on the Indians. They will be very good again, and, if healthy, for the foreseeable future.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bobby Cox: "Given the team he's pitching for, my pick for the American League Cy Young is Josh Beckett."


My favorite TV ad is the Wheaties one with Vin Scully's immortal "the impossible has just happened," but I love David Wells on the motorcycle in the ESPN phone commercial.



Lastings Milledge had a homer, double and single in the Mets' intrasquad game. He has grown into a beast, and if you watch the Mets-Puerto Rico game on ESPN Sunday, you'll see three great prospects: Milledge, RHP Mike Pelfrey and OF Fernando Martinez, a 17-year-old outfielder and potential superstar whom the Mets signed away from Boston. His Fenway Park workout is legendary.



One scout says Angels rookie second baseman Howie Kendrick "is the best young hitter I've seen since Edgar Martinez. He squares everything."



Jeff Francoeur: "In retrospect, I'm very fortunate that I signed to play baseball and didn't play college football (at Clemson). I think I would have had to bulk up too much. I rely on quick-twitch muscles for my bat speed, and when you go to college to play two sports, you're always subject to the football program. I think the football conditioning would have tightened me up, and you can't play baseball for four or five months and really develop."



Omar Minaya thinks the shoe designed for Pedro Martinez eventually will pay off, but that Pedro will have to change his conditioning program, because Martinez is a fanatical runner.



One National League owner is telling employees that MLB has a plan to contract four teams, with a contraction draft already drafted.


Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" on MSNBC is my favorite show, but the two hours of Chris Matthews' "Hardball" and Olbermann's "Countdown" are never to be missed.



What I worry about is how much Barry Bonds can play on his knees. He's still has to play the field, he'll still have to stand around on the bases, and whether or not he can play 100 games remains to be seen.



One of those "oh my goodness" prospects is mammoth Braves catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia. The Braves people think he can catch, but he has a chance to be a monster power hitter, and the Braves already have one of the best young catchers in the game in Brian McCann, who is also a big-time bat.


Billy Beane is overjoyed at the possibility that Frank Thomas might be ready for Opening Day. "Frank's in unbelievable shape and is a man on a mission," says Beane. "He could be doing a lot more now, but we want him to take it easy."



If Thomas stays healthy and Milton Bradley stays on the field, their combined right-handed presence should result in bigger years for Eric Chavez and Dan Johnson. The latter should be on any list of potential breakout players.



So Beane admits he will have a tough time signing Barry Zito at the end of the year. Unless the A's fall out of the race in July -- and they're hoping to make a run at 95-100 wins if they're healthy -- then why would he trade Zito? Beane went through final seasons with free agents Jason Giambi, Jason Isringhausen, Johnny Damon and Keith Foulke, trying to win. "I have not had one call on Barry," says Beane, "nor have I made any inquiring about interest."



The Devil Rays still are thinking about a Joey Gathright-for-Scott Olsen with Florida.


At this point, no one knows who's going to be playing for the Marlins, except for Miguel Cabrera at third, Jeremy Hermida in right and Josh Willingham somewhere, either catcher or, more likely, left field (with Miguel Olivo behind the plate). "We don't just have good arms; we have great arms," says new manager Joe Girardi, whose energy and organization have wowed players who watched him do pole running drills with the pitchers. Expect Josh Johnson, Scott Olsen, Sergio Mitre, Ricky Nolasco and Yusmeiro Petit to all get shots at the rotation this spring, as well as Travis Bowyer and Anibal Sanchez. Harvey Garcia, acquired with Sanchez, Jesus Delgado and shortstop Hanley Ramirez in the Beckett deal, has opened eyes. "He's got an incredible arm," says GM Larry Beinfest.


Cabrera, Dontrelle Willis, Nate Bump and Lenny Harris are the four Marlins with the longest service time, and Cabrera already has been questioned this spring about off-field problems than got him suspended for a game last September. Girardi and Beinfest are not worried, pointing to the fact that Cabrera is 22. "He's a good kid and the most talented player I've ever played with," says one ex-Marlin. "But he's got to watch it. There are no veterans there except for Lenny. There are no Latin coaches. He and Hermida won't have any protection, either."


Scott Spiezio is in camp with the Cardinals, 37 years after his father had such a great spring for the world champion Cards that he earned a Sports Illustrated headline, "Ed Spiezio, Won't You Please Pop Up?" "I have my dad's number (26)," says the former Angel. "How many other father-son tandems each have two World Series rings? Something to shoot for."


I would love to have seen that Norfolk AAU team with David Wright at third, B.J. Upton at short and Wright's best friend, Ryan Zimmerman, at second. "We didn't recruit Zimmerman out of high school because he weighed 150 pounds," says one ACC coach. And now Zimmerman looks like Troy Glaus.


New Reds GM Wayne Krivsky wisely has tried to build the core strength of the organization instead of making helter-skelter deals. But he sees one encouragement. "Eric Milton's legs are much stronger now that he's further (removed from his) knee surgery," says Krivsky. "Last year he had no strength and was pitching up and down. Now he looks much stronger and can get much better leg drive. It can only be a lot better for him."

KronoRed
03-02-2006, 06:58 PM
Four?

Or is the plan to say 4 and then talk the players union into 2?

pedro
03-02-2006, 07:00 PM
4 teams huh?

any guesses?

I'm guessing they would be

Tampa Bay
Florida
Washington
Minnesota

kbrake
03-02-2006, 07:04 PM
I think two contractions would really help the game out, but I dont know four seems like an awful lot. Probaly have to agree with Krono that they will just try and introduce four so that when they finally do two, it will seem like the union got something. I dont know know that I see the union every agreeing to even two though.

KronoRed
03-02-2006, 07:04 PM
Could probably throw KC and Oakland in as well

Any team without a new stadium.

corkedbat
03-02-2006, 07:07 PM
Four?

Or is the plan to say 4 and then talk the players union into 2?

I thought the same thing.

TeamBoone
03-02-2006, 07:20 PM
Any team without a new stadium.

Just curious.

Why are new stadiums being demanded for everyone but NY, Chicago, and Boston? (I know NYY are getting one, but it's their own decision)

:confused:

BrooklynRedz
03-02-2006, 07:23 PM
Could probably throw KC and Oakland in as well

Any team without a new stadium.

I'd be surprised if it were either KC or OAK considering both clubs started multi-year renovations on their stadiums.

westofyou
03-02-2006, 07:23 PM
Just curious.

Why are new stadiums being demanded for everyone but NY, Chicago, and Boston? (I know NYY are getting one, but it's their own decision)

:confused:
All three of thoses cities have stadium issues, The Cubs recently had a to do with the neighborhood, the Mets want a new park, the Yankees tried to get money form the public and the White Sox kicked off the whole run back in 1990.

RedsManRick
03-02-2006, 07:24 PM
My money would be on Florida, Kansas City, Washington, and sadly Minnesota.

I think Tampa Bay has turned the corner management-wise and they wouldn't leave the entire state Florida teamless.

Minnesota is actually a very soild market (#11 overall I believe), they just have Carl Lindner's twin brother, Carl Pohlad in charge.

westofyou
03-02-2006, 07:24 PM
I'd be surprised if it were either KC or OAK considering both clubs started multi-year renovations on their stadiums.
What renovations in Oakland? That place belongs to the County and they've already let Al Davis destroy it.

BrooklynRedz
03-02-2006, 07:24 PM
All three of thoses cities have stadium issues, The Cubs recently had a to do with the neighborhood, the Mets want a new park, the Yankees tried to get money form the public and the White Sox kicked off the whole run back in 1990.

Mets just got approval for plans to build a new Ebbet's-esque park. Whether they find the funding is anyone's guess.

KronoRed
03-02-2006, 07:27 PM
The Sox also spent a gadoodle of cash renovating their new stadium to make it fit the current retro push.

The cubs don't care, the fans come anyway.

Cedric
03-02-2006, 07:28 PM
Sometimes I forget that Kansas City is even in the MLB.

paulrichjr
03-02-2006, 07:39 PM
I would be shocked for the owners to allow Washington to be even discussed as one of the four. I think they want the Washington money and they want 2 teams gone so they are going to ask for 4. It would probably be good for baseball in that it would increase the talent level for all teams...all but the Royals that is...

KronoRed
03-02-2006, 07:41 PM
I posted this in the last contraction topic, but if they ditch 2 I would favor the D-rays and the Nats, then move the Marlins and Twins to Tampa and Washington.

Reason being, I'd hate to see teams with World Series titles to be contracted.

corkedbat
03-02-2006, 07:45 PM
Man, it would suck for their fans, but a dispersal draft of teams including the likes of Florida, Minnesota and/or Oakland would certainly be an opportunity to possibly pick up a starter and a pitching prospect or two. There's some young talent with the D-Rays too.

Chip R
03-02-2006, 08:36 PM
I would be shocked for the owners to allow Washington to be even discussed as one of the four. I think they want the Washington money and they want 2 teams gone so they are going to ask for 4.
They don't have an owner yet and they don't have a deal for a new stadium. Instead of fighting the local D.C. politicians, they might just throw up their hands and give up. Minnesota's in play since they don't have a new stadium deal, the Marlins are in play for the same reason and Tampa Bay has been a miserable failure so far. If this happens it would be a big mistake but my money would be on those 4 teams.

M2
03-02-2006, 08:53 PM
Well, there's a gaping hole in the contraction tidbit, actually two.

1) No way has a contraction draft been held. First off, the finishing order of the 2006 season would determine the order of the draft. Second, you don't know what the rosters of the contracted teams will be when all is said and done. Third, GMs and owners aren't going to make commitments to players a year in advance of getting them. Fourth, no way did 26 teams get together for a secret draft.

2) And this is the larger issue, MLB can contract (though I suspect the political, legal and economic fallout of any such plan will scare off the league), but it does not have the right to unilaterally decide there will be a contraction draft. The MLBPA, per agreement, has a say in that and I'll guarantee you that if the owners want to chloroform four teams (and 100 union jobs) then the MLBPA will play hardball and demand that every player from those contracted organizations be granted free agency. In fact, the reserve clause almost guarantees that it would be a free agency bonanza. Here's the clause:

If prior to March 1, the Player and the Club have not agreed upon the terms of the contract, then on or before 10 days after said March 1, the Club shall have the right by written notice to the Player to renew this contract for the period of one year.

Unless the owners put specific language in the CBA conveying player contracts from the Club to the League in the event of contraction (and I'm 99.999999999% certain that no such language exists), then it looks to me like contraction would certainly set the major league players from the defunct organizations free to negotiate on the open market. Minor leaguers may be a different story, but you can bet your Boras that a class action suit would arise from that as well.

And if the four contracted teams can't convey their players in a fixed system at fixed prices then the other 26 teams are going to rescind the golden parachute offer and come back with a leaden one.

Anyway, what I'm driving at here is that all contraction would do is set off a legal war that MLB, due to its own rules, probably can't win, giving rise to a set of circumstances that pretty much every one of the 30 teams in MLB ultimately won't like. I just don't see a reasonable scenario on this one that ends with anything near what the owners want.

Strikes Out Looking
03-02-2006, 08:57 PM
If the owners proceed on contraction, Congress will move to revoke their antitrust exemption. No way it will happen, especially in four markets as that is 4 times the congresspeople to make made--and it is an issue that is non-partisan and easy to get behind. The fact that DC has no representation is completely trumped by the fact that it is where all the congresspeople live (and many of them loving going to the games).

IslandRed
03-02-2006, 10:07 PM
M2, I read it as the plans for a draft have been drafted, not that the actual drafting has been done.

Otherwise, I think you're right -- the particulars of what to do with the players controlled by the hypothetically contracted teams would be very messy. I don't think there's any serious intention of contracting teams, but the owners are dadgum sure going to leave that chip sitting right in the middle of the table while the next CBA is being negotiated.

Big Klu
03-02-2006, 10:46 PM
With the Indians, it is a little different. A year ago they charged to win 93 games, two fewer than the Yankees, more than any team in the three-division era that did not make the playoffs.

I thought the Reds won 96 games in 1999. (Unless they are counting the extra game against the Mets as the playoffs, though they shouldn't since it counts as a regular-season game.)

Redmachine2003
03-02-2006, 11:19 PM
Just another ploy to suck money out of cities to get new staduims and more revenues by telling people if you don't throw your money at your team we will take it away.

paulrichjr
03-03-2006, 12:03 AM
They don't have an owner yet and they don't have a deal for a new stadium. Instead of fighting the local D.C. politicians, they might just throw up their hands and give up. Minnesota's in play since they don't have a new stadium deal, the Marlins are in play for the same reason and Tampa Bay has been a miserable failure so far. If this happens it would be a big mistake but my money would be on those 4 teams.

I would bet my house that the owners would not give up the money that the future D.C. owners are throwing at them. If they even hint at that they are doing so only to get more concessions from the city. In fact I would wager that this money could be used to buy out the two franchises that actual do get the axe. If there is one thing that everyone on this board would agree on is that baseball owners like money and the payoff from Washington is too big to pass up on....

Chip R
03-03-2006, 01:39 AM
I would bet my house that the owners would not give up the money that the future D.C. owners are throwing at them. If they even hint at that they are doing so only to get more concessions from the city. In fact I would wager that this money could be used to buy out the two franchises that actual do get the axe. If there is one thing that everyone on this board would agree on is that baseball owners like money and the payoff from Washington is too big to pass up on....

Then why haven't they sold them yet? That team has been there over a year and they still haven't sold them. I can understand trying to get top dollar but it's not like one group is going to offer like $200-300 above and beyond any other group. I'm just speculating that they want a stadium deal in place before they sell it because they don't want to stick the new owners with RDK Stadium.

You're right. Baseball owners do love their money. But the contraction of 4 teams would result in more of a financial windfall for the owners than a sale of the Nats would. You take all that beautiful TV money and split it 26 or 28 ways instead of 30 and that is a serious wad of cash. And that is for as long as they decide not to expand.

I agree with M2 that the owners will open up a can of worms if they decide to go through with this. However, if they seem to be serious and they start making plans for this, it would be a great time to start raiding the farm systems of the teams up for contraction. I think that's what the Reds should have done a few years ago when it looked like Montreal was going to be contracted.

Yachtzee
03-03-2006, 01:58 AM
I don't see how it's a financial windfall to the owners if they contract. I think its more likely to hurt them. They can contract the Nationals because they already own them. But to contract 3 other teams will require MLB to buy out those owners. Then they also have to deal with buying out the local TV contracts that those teams have. Then figure in the cost of fighting the Players Assn. over how many teams get contracted and lobbying Congress not to remove anti-trust protection. Then you have ESPN and Fox demanding to renegotiate their TV contracts because you've just devalued the MLB product by destroying its value in the contracted markets.

When I hear "contraction," it sounds like a group of hardcore owners who want to stick it to the union. It appeals to those fans who feel like expansion has spread the talent pool too thin, but I don't think it's a realistic option and I don't think it will make the owners any more money.

Caveat Emperor
03-03-2006, 04:59 AM
Then why haven't they sold them yet? That team has been there over a year and they still haven't sold them. I can understand trying to get top dollar but it's not like one group is going to offer like $200-300 above and beyond any other group. I'm just speculating that they want a stadium deal in place before they sell it because they don't want to stick the new owners with RDK Stadium.

You've answered your own question: Major League Baseball wants a stadium deal in place in order to ensure that they sell the franchise for top dollar, since a team with a brand new ballpark is worth exponentially more money than a team playing in a dilapidated mulitpurpose stadium like RFK.

Speaking as a former resident of the District of Columbia, the local political scene is confused and backwards -- it takes forever to get things done because of the multitudes of different constituencies involved and the fact that everyone wants free headlines, leading to endless grandstanding and posturing on the part of locally elected officials. MLB will get a deal done with the city for a new ballpark, it'll just take time and patience to let everyone get thier say in before it all happens.

Given the amount of time MLB has operated the Montreal/Washington franchise for, it appears they're really in no hurry to make things happen.

AND yes, for the record, contracting the Nationals would be a moronic thing to do. Washington DC is one of the largest markets in the United States and a DC franchise will draw fans from not only the city itself, but also south into the extremely lucrative Northern Virginia market. It has taken ages to get baseball back into the nation's capital, it'd be idiotic to throw it away before it even has a chance to take hold.

Strikes Out Looking
03-03-2006, 09:16 AM
Ah, the saga of DC baseball. There is a reason there isn't a new owner yet.

MLB wants a stadium deal in place with a signed lease so that the city can't come to the new owner and try to get them to pay for more of the stadium that MLB has already said it would pay.

A few weeks ago, in a bizarre ending, the City Council approved a stadium lease deal that, of course, was slightly different than the one signed with MLB. Lawyers are reviewing it and if MLB is comfortable with it, construction on the stadium will began and a new owner will be awarded.

MLB would love to have the 400 million or so that they'll get from the new owner (probably Jeff Smulyan--it's still an old boys club), but they don't want to give anymore to the city than they've already promised...

to be continued...

registerthis
03-03-2006, 09:43 AM
My money would be on Florida, Kansas City, Washington, and sadly Minnesota.

There's no good reason to contract Washington other than the fact that MLB has shown complete ineptitude in dealing with this team. The Nats should have local ownership and a completed stadium deal in place. Instead, MLB continues to screw around with the D.C. council and line their pockets as much as possible. People outside of D.C. have no idea how popular the Nats were last year--if the team folds, the blame rests squarely on MLB's shoulders for ruining an opportunity to operate what could have been an extremely successful franchise.

registerthis
03-03-2006, 09:45 AM
The fact that DC has no representation is completely trumped by the fact that it is where all the congresspeople live (and many of them loving going to the games).

Most congresspeople couldn't give two rat's behinds about what happens in D.C. The state of D.C. roads and public schools is proof of that.

registerthis
03-03-2006, 09:53 AM
Then why haven't they sold them yet? That team has been there over a year and they still haven't sold them. I can understand trying to get top dollar but it's not like one group is going to offer like $200-300 above and beyond any other group. I'm just speculating that they want a stadium deal in place before they sell it because they don't want to stick the new owners with RDK Stadium.

They have a stadium deal in place--that's not the issue. It's true, MLB doesn't want the Nats playing in RFK, but neither does D.C. At issue is how cost overruns for the stadium will be handled. The D.C. council approved a stadium financing package that would have the District pony up $630 million for the stadium and other area improvements. D.C., however, wants assurances that any cost overruns related to stadium construction will be picked up by MLB, deciding that $630 million is the most they can willfully spend to finance a new stadium (And which is over $200 million more than what the original stadium deal was expected to have cost.)

The hang-up at this point is nothing more than a cash grab by the fellow MLB owners. I get the impression that the D.C. council is prepared to tell MLB to shove it, take the offer that's been provided or take your club somewhere else. Many D.C. residents are already unhappy that the District is spending so much money on a stadium (which will be used predominantly by commuters coming in from VA and MD) while public infrastructure in the District needs so much attention. The Council is not in a position to allocate any more funds than have already been provided, so at this point MLB needs to make a decision--take the $1 billion plus deal that is currently being offered (between stadium financing and the sale of the team), or simply contract the club. If they choose the latter, it will be a move born entirely out of greed.

Chip R
03-03-2006, 10:26 AM
I don't see how it's a financial windfall to the owners if they contract. I think its more likely to hurt them. They can contract the Nationals because they already own them. But to contract 3 other teams will require MLB to buy out those owners. Then they also have to deal with buying out the local TV contracts that those teams have. Then figure in the cost of fighting the Players Assn. over how many teams get contracted and lobbying Congress not to remove anti-trust protection. Then you have ESPN and Fox demanding to renegotiate their TV contracts because you've just devalued the MLB product by destroying its value in the contracted markets.

When I hear "contraction," it sounds like a group of hardcore owners who want to stick it to the union. It appeals to those fans who feel like expansion has spread the talent pool too thin, but I don't think it's a realistic option and I don't think it will make the owners any more money.

Hey, no one ever said that baseball owners were farsighted. They probably think they can contract and get all that extra TV money and won't have to worry about any legal challenges.

I think the antitrust card could be the ace in the hole for those who oppose contraction. If Florida loses both their teams, their governor - who just happens to be the President's brother - may bend W's ear and get him to open up antitrust hearings.

The owners aren't obviously thinking this through - especially what would happen to the players belonging to the contracted teams. They probably figure they can have a draft and that's that. Meanwhile the MLBPA is lying in wait and just waiting for this to come to pass and put the kibosh on any talk of a draft.

princeton
03-03-2006, 10:50 AM
New Reds GM Wayne Krivsky wisely has tried to build the core strength of the organization instead of making helter-skelter deals.

sounds like a DanO approach, to me

in other words: the pitching is irreparable, so why even try? We'll hit HRs and wave at grounders, instead

I'm not saying that I expected a lot quickly. Getting rid of Reynolds and Allen was enough for me (oops, WK must have forgotten those). But why characterize doing nothing as "wise"? By that principle, DanO was the wisest man in the world for two wasted seasons.

If anyplace needed a do-anything-smart-for-once guy, it's Cincy

REDREAD
03-03-2006, 11:21 AM
Excellent points M2. If the surviving clubs can't hold a contraction draft, the franchises contracted are basically worthless.

I doubt there will ever be contraction. The Marlins, Royals, Oakland, Tampa, Nationals.. all those so called "struggling teams" aren't really bringing down MLB. There's gobs of money out there, even with revenue sharing.

Contraction is another weak threat by the owners to try to get leverage against the union. I also agree with you that there's no way all the clubs would be able to keep this a secret. I'm positive it would be leaked by one of the clubs about to be contracted (if the claim was true).

M2
03-03-2006, 11:23 AM
Reynolds is effectively gone. Buckley's in charge of scouting now. Krivsky was pretty aggressive about bringing in a new management team. I'm sure Jerry Narron's on a short leash too.

Chip R
03-03-2006, 11:31 AM
Excellent points M2. If the surviving clubs can't hold a contraction draft, the franchises contracted are basically worthless.

I doubt there will ever be contraction. The Marlins, Royals, Oakland, Tampa, Nationals.. all those so called "struggling teams" aren't really bringing down MLB. There's gobs of money out there, even with revenue sharing.

Contraction is another weak threat by the owners to try to get leverage against the union. I also agree with you that there's no way all the clubs would be able to keep this a secret. I'm positive it would be leaked by one of the clubs about to be contracted (if the claim was true).

You're right but there was an agreement in the last CBA that gave them the right to eliminate two teams for the 2007 season; if they do, they cannot take a contraction vote before April 1, 2006 and must notify the players of their intent to contract by July 1, 2006. The players agreed that if they do, they will not argue before the National Labor Relations Board that contraction is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. So this whole 4 team contraction talk might just be that. Call me crazy but if a team isn't making it where they are at now, wouldn't it be a good idea to, you know, move them?

TeamBoone
03-03-2006, 12:38 PM
sounds like a DanO approach, to me

in other words: the pitching is irreparable, so why even try? We'll hit HRs and wave at grounders, instead

I'm not saying that I expected a lot quickly. Getting rid of Reynolds and Allen was enough for me (oops, WK must have forgotten those). But why characterize doing nothing as "wise"? By that principle, DanO was the wisest man in the world for two wasted seasons.

If anyplace needed a do-anything-smart-for-once guy, it's Cincy

The timing of new ownership's takeover of the Cincinnati Reds has more to do with this than Krivsky sitting on his hands. There isn't exactly a plethora of pitchers to choose from at this late date.

You say that you didn't expect him to do a lot quickly, but then negate that statement in your next breath. Wouldn't you rather he did nothing at this stage than make a foolish deal just to make one?

Let's wait until there's something available to choose from before we judge his merits (or lack thereof).

princeton
03-03-2006, 01:07 PM
You say that you didn't expect him to do a lot quickly, but then negate that statement in your next breath. Wouldn't you rather he did nothing at this stage than make a foolish deal just to make one?

actually, I just said that it's not "wise"-- it's nothing. He's done nothing. Just as there's no need to give blame, there's no need to give him props

"You've done nothing so far (insert Reds GM name here). Great Job."

he's done nothing well. But it's typical Redsfanspeak to suggest that the only option to doing nothing is to do something dumb.

another option is doing something smart. I want to see something smart

princeton
03-03-2006, 01:09 PM
Reynolds is effectively gone. Buckley's in charge of scouting now. Krivsky was pretty aggressive about bringing in a new management team. I'm sure Jerry Narron's on a short leash too.

yay rah, demotions and imminent firings always work out so well.

And don't forget that Johnny Almarez, whom I like, announced that "we're going to challenge Homer", which, well you know me...

Heath
03-03-2006, 01:29 PM
registerthis - my feeling would have been to put the new ballpark at the end of a Metro line in Arlington or Chevy Chase, or Landover or Alexandria or Rockville.

I still think that would be the successful way to build a ballpark in DC.

KearnsyEars
03-03-2006, 01:42 PM
any chance we could be one of the teams on the contraction list? Any chance at all? Thatd make me good and sick and ruin this friday.

registerthis
03-03-2006, 01:45 PM
registerthis - my feeling would have been to put the new ballpark at the end of a Metro line in Arlington or Chevy Chase, or Landover or Alexandria or Rockville.

I still think that would be the successful way to build a ballpark in DC.

There wouldn't be room in Chevy Chase (I work in Bethesda--no more crowding, thank you!), but I do think sites in Loudon County, VA were discussed. Not sure about Landover.

The biggest issue was that DC wanted the stadium both for its potential tax revenue and for it's ability to be a catalyst for development in the long-neglected Waterfront/Anacostia neighborhood. It makes sense, but won't if the costs for the stadium and grounds construction are as high as MLB seems to want to put them.

You can bet your life that the stadium, wherever it goes, will be serviced by a metro line. That, I think, was another argument against the Loudon County site.

Chip R
03-03-2006, 01:51 PM
any chance we could be one of the teams on the contraction list? Any chance at all? Thatd make me good and sick and ruin this friday.

We have a new stadium so we wouldn't even be on the long list.

KronoRed
03-03-2006, 02:16 PM
Teams without new places and teams without long term leases are the targets, otherwise it's lawsuit city.

tsj017
03-03-2006, 02:29 PM
So Gammons is the one watching Hardball and Countdown!

IslandRed
03-03-2006, 03:33 PM
Teams without new places and teams without long term leases are the targets, otherwise it's lawsuit city.

Agreed. MLB doesn't really want to pick the fight of trying to contract a team that doesn't want to be contracted. If any contraction happens, it will involve owners willing to be paid to go away.

registerthis
03-03-2006, 04:36 PM
Agreed. MLB doesn't really want to pick the fight of trying to contract a team that doesn't want to be contracted. If any contraction happens, it will involve owners willing to be paid to go away.

And seeing as how MLB owns the Nats, that might prove difficult. I really don't think the nats will go away...sooner or later the powers that be in the MLB head offices will realize that they're sitting on a potential goldmine and just wrap things up already. It's just ridiculous that this team doesn't have an owner yet.

The fans in D.C. are getting restless too.

TeamBoone
03-03-2006, 06:06 PM
The fans in D.C. are getting restless too.


At least they've only been Nats fans for a year.

paulrichjr
03-03-2006, 07:20 PM
And seeing as how MLB owns the Nats, that might prove difficult. I really don't think the nats will go away...sooner or later the powers that be in the MLB head offices will realize that they're sitting on a potential goldmine and just wrap things up already. It's just ridiculous that this team doesn't have an owner yet.

The fans in D.C. are getting restless too.

It all boils down to one thing...greed. As I have said before the owners are extremely greedy and want to squeeze ever last dollar out of Washington. Of course I can see their point in a way...Who would want to pay top dollar for a team that might not get a new stadium? Baseball knows that if a new business owner is named who is worth a couple of billion a lot of those city council people are going to start get even more pressure to reduce the subsidy that the city gives baseball because "_____________(name your billionaire) owns the team and can afford to pay for his own stadium."

I don't like their stupidity over the last few years with the Nats but I would do the same thing that they are presently doing.