Gibson was a catcher in the negro leagues who hit 872 home runs. I think he had some personal problems, but not quite sure why he was screwed.
I guess he was screwed because of the times. Known as the "black Babe Ruth", he was reputed to hit over 70 home runs in a season. I'm not suprised that MLB is doing this. This is a chickens*** way of trying to fix huge problems. Until they get a salary cap and revenue sharing, they are fooling themselves in thinking that this will fix baseball's myriad of problems. Has the NFL or NBA ever contracted teams in the last 30 to 40 years? (I don't think they have, but I'm not sure) This is why baseball is losing more and more fans every year because of asinine moves like this one.
At first I was for contraction, but not with the teams selected . . . but after thinking about it, contraction sucks . . . it is further confirmation and validation that baseball is an economic business that cares little for its customer and the sport itself. This coming on the heels of the best SEASON of baseball I can remember.
Why do you guys see this act as so dispicable? Obviously, baseball is in trouble in its present form. The owners cannot be trusted to manage their own business and the players will not agree to any sort of salary structure. I truly believe that the dangling the Twins as a candidate is political, but Montreal and Tampa Bay are the real deal. Selig, who has obviously had a long time to think about this, is being very clever. First he gets the owners to agree NOT to lock the players out, painting them as reasonable and willing to negotiate. Then he gets them to approve contraction, which will probably cause around 100 players to lose their jobs. The Players Union quite rightly believe that there should be no restrictions on their salary, just like in the real world - let market forces decide how much they should be paid. However, live by the sword, die by the sword - they should also allow market forces to decide how many teams can be supported - hence contraction. If they won't allow unprofitable teams to fold, then they must give up their ideal of allowing the free market to reign, and agree to some form of regulated salary structure. Secondary to this is my belief that major sports are not business in the strictest sense, and should not be treated as such. In order to be successful and enjoy widepsread appeal, fans have to believe that their team has a chance of being competitive and perhaps winning every year. If they lose that pretense, the fanbase will start to erode, and advertising revenue will go with it. This process is well underway in many baseball cities, foremost Montreal. In order to create (or mantain) more equitable competition, there must be revenue sharing or a salary cap. That does not happen in the real business world. It time for the Player's Union to pick their poison.
If the Expos and the twins fold I would like the Astros to move to the AL West that way Houston and Texas could have a rivalry finally it is wishful thinking on my part it will never happen
Davo, I agree with you from a business sense. Cleveland and Cincinnati are competitors to NY and LA, but they need them to stay alive, and I'm talking all sports. It's competition, but not in the wal mart vs k-mart sense. I think a salary cap would be wise here, but it prolly won't happen. I am for this contraction move, but I hope that's it.
My question is this: How does contracting two teams, whoever they may be, help Pittsburgh compete with Houston, and Houston compete with the Yankees? It doesn't seem to me this has any impact on the financial situation. Sure, you put a more competitive product on the field by scrapping the 50 worst players, but it doesn't solve the problem of the Yankees being able to outbid anyone they choose to for any specific player.
