Addition By Subtraction?

Jason Michael Barker

You get used to MLB talking about expansion (Mexico City? Portland? Charlotte?), so when there's talk of actually removing teams, you have to sit up and take notice. According to a wire story this weekend, there's a proposal being bounced around that would eliminate an even number of the so-called "small market" teams (Oakland, Kansas City, Minnesota and Montreal, to name four) and disperse the players among existing clubs.

From a fan's perspective, the idea is both novel and interesting. Suppose the four teams above were disbanded, and their players subject to a dispersal draft featuring the 26 remaining clubs. The worst team in baseball would have the first pick, and the best team the last pick, in a draft which might last six or eight (or more) rounds. Any players not selected would become free agents.

It's not as if those clubs are devoid of talent, either. Up for grabs would be Oakland's Eric Chavez, Tim Hudson and Ben Grieve, Montreal's Vladimir Guererro and Ugueth Urbina, Kansas City's Carlos Beltran and Carlos Febles, and Minnesota's Brad Radke, not to mention numerous others plus the entire farm systems of each team. Wouldn't it be great if your team added one or two of those players?

Counteracting expansion, the level of talent in Major League Baseball would increase. If four teams were dispersed, that means 100 (25-man roster times four) less big-league jobs, including around 45 pitchers. The 45 worst pitchers in MLB would be where they belong: either out of baseball or in the minors. The same is true of the lost hitters as well, but there seems to be plenty of hitting these days anyway.

The 100 lost jobs are probably the number one reason why dispersal won't happen. For years the Players Association has fought for the DH, fearing its removal would cost a few jobs here and there for the likes of Chili Davis, Harold Baines, and Edgar Martinez. Imagine their opinion on losing 100 jobs.

The other argument for dispersal (or consolidation, as baseball and the press are calling it) is that it would, in theory, increase revenues. It is ironic, then, that the teams which would be eliminated are those which are the most likely to be making money. Without taking a look inside baseball finance, a club such as the Expos with a low payroll and revenue sharing money is probably fairly well off. Likewise the Athletics, with a low payroll and a winning club which might take in some post-season money. In addition, there is likely to be increased revenue sharing in the future.

The disturbing part of the story is that taking a club away would supposedly send the message to cities like Minnesota and Kansas City that if they want their teams back, they will have to build a stadium. Oh, is that all? Is there anything actually wrong with the Metrodome or Kauffman Stadium, other than they're not Coors or Camden or Safeco? Perhaps if the Twins actually tried to put a winning team on the field, the citizens of Minnesota would be more inclined to approve stadium funding.

Speaking of Minnesota, is consolidation a better option than a club simply picking up and moving? I don't particularly care for either course of action, but dispersal may have its advantages. If the Twins were to move to Charlotte, for example, is there any guarantee they would be any better supported in their new city? If I'm not mistaken, the taxpayers in North Carolina have twice voted down stadium funding packages, in a sense saying, "we don't want your team here."

For years we heard about how fans in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area would support a baseball team. The Mariners, White Sox and Giants were nearly moved there. Now Tampa Bay has a team, and the attendance is, well, pathetic. The National Hockey League's Hartford Whalers moved to Greensboro, North Carolina in search of more fans in 1997, but struggled to draw in their first year. Simply bringing in a new product is not enough if their aren't people who care enough to be fans, so in that sense dispersal seems to make more sense that transplantation.

Of course, we don't know for sure if that applies to baseball, since the last MLB team to move was the Washington Senators to Texas in 1972. Times have certainly changed since then. On the other hand, it remains to be seen if a baseball team will ever move -- since 1972 there have been numerous threats, but nothing concrete.

Getting back to consolidation, I don't see it happening for several reasons. The first is the Players Association, who will vehemently fight the loss of 50 or 100 jobs. The second is baseball itself -- I don't see Bud Selig allowing the game to be taken away from cities when he's so set on increasing its exposure. And what if somebody suggested that the Brewers be dispersed?

Finally, both the fans and the owners of the clubs in question will protest, fans because they love the game and image-conscious owners because they won't want to be viewed as failures in their circle of high-powered friends when the powers that be come to them and say "You are a bad owner. We're taking your team away. Neener neener."

In the end, taking teams away would probably be too big a public relations disaster for baseball to risk actually going through with it.

If baseball is looking for a way to restore "competitive balance," fix the "economic problems" or get "better pitching," more power to them. But instead of consolidation, Selig and his band of merry men need to look at more serious revenue sharing, raising the pitching mound, and establishing a consistent strike zone, among other things. However, if they think simply removing a team or two is anything more than a quick fix cop-out, they're sadly mistaken.

Neener neener.

about the author

Jason Michael Barker hasn't been the same since he discovered that Glenallen Hill may suffer from a slight lack of hustle. Tell him it's nothing a little Ben-Gay in the jock won't fix at jmb@strikethree.com.