Now that the Expos look like they're in a free-fall -- 3-7 in their last 10 and now two games under .500 after that admirable start -- watching our man Vladimir Guerrero is again one of the only reasons to watch an Expos game. Last week he had only seven hits in 28 at-bats. He had only two homers, and drove in only four runs. Sure, he's hitting .333 with 13 homers and 40 RBIs. But he's due.
 |
|---|
|
|---|
 |
vs. |
 |
|
|---|
Thursday-Sunday, Fenway Park, Boston
As hot as the Red Sox have been, the Yankees are sticking right with them. New York has won 11 of its last 12 and would be leading four of the six divisions in baseball. But, of course, the Yankees are still only runners-up in the American League East, where the Red Sox are off to a torrid start and coming off a 4-2 week at home against the A's and Mariners. (The Mariners, leaders in the AL West, have the second-best record in baseball). The Red Sox still have the best pitching in the AL (3.26 ERA, with fewer hits and home runs allowed than anyone) and the best hitting (a .299 average with a league-best .366 on-base percentage). But the Yankees aren't far behind. Back in April, the Yankees lost three of four in Boston, all three of them one-run jobs. This time, the big guns are out again: The Red Sox will throw Pedro Martinez, John Burkett and Derek Lowe in the first three games of the four-game set. The Yanks counter with Ted Lilly, Roger Clemens and Orlando Hernandez.
|
| |
|
|
Last week, we asked if Major League Baseball has too many teams. We asked for your thoughts on contraction. We asked whether bigger is always better. We wondered whether the talent level is what it should be. You answered, all right. Your feedback is below.
Before you read through our users' thoughts on that issue, though, give us your thoughts on this: There was a recent flap about keeping balls in a humidified room at Coors Field in Denver so they would act more like balls in other ballparks. Good or bad? Should balls act the same in every ballpark? Should baseball be striving to ensure that? Can baseball do that? What's next? Click here to give us your opinion. And don't forget to include your name and hometown. We'll print the best of the responses next week.
Now on to your thoughts on contraction ...
|
All this talk about talent levels ... scouts can spot talent. But can the average fan (especially sitting in nosebleed seats, watching on TV, or reading CNNSI.com) really decipher what amount to miniscule differences in talent among players spread among say, 25 teams or 30 teams? A few miles per hour on a fastball, a bit more range in the field, slightly more power ... tiny discrepancies in ability are what separate major leaguers and minor leaguers, multi-millionaires from dreamers. I'm not convinced that on a given night a typical fan could even tell the difference between a major-league all-star team and a triple-A all-star squad if the names, numbers, and uniforms -- and most importantly media coverage -- didn't give it away.
-- J.E. Ledden
I like having more teams play in the regular season. Even if contraction
happens, baseball will exist in places like New York, Chicago and L.A. But
MLB should also be in places like Minnesota, Kansas City and Oakland. Maybe these teams can't be competitive year in and year out. So what? They *can* compete every now and then. And that's makes winning more special in these places. Look at the way K.C, Minnesota, and Oakland reacted as they won World Series titles in the '80s and early '90s ('85, '87, '89, and '91). Let them play.
-- Darren R. Slack
There are way too many teams in the league today! The talent level has been spread so thin that offensive records are no longer respectably attained. I think that MLB should look at attendance figures to determine who will be contracted. Montreal should be relocated to Washington D.C. (the Ravens and the Redskins have no problem being profitable) and Tampa Bay and Florida should be dismantled. The league should also follow the examples of the NBA and NFL and come up with a realistic salary cap and revenue sharing program.
-- Kris Akens, Mansfield, Texas
I already have to drive at least three hours to watch MLB, so when I do I
would much rather it be to see quality. I am in favor of contraction. We
tried 30 teams for a while, but I think it has just been too many. The
talent that is out there has just been spread too thin. It is too much of a
tax on the farm systems. Most teams do not have the luxury of leaving that rising star in the minors another year for him to develop. So they tap out the resource before it has time to replenish it self.
-- Paul Davis, B-Town, Calif.
As someone who grew up with the Blue Jays -- born at the end of the first
season -- it pains me to admit that they need to be contracted, along with a long list of other teams. The second the Leafs came back to prominence and the Raptors brought basketball back to the city baseball just lost all importance. I don't think that the slide will end with contraction, though -- mid-range teams are going to fall by the wayside eventually, leaving us with a 10-team league that all the old-time baseball loyalists will marvel at while the rest of the world has moved on to other things.
-- Sven Mascarenhas
Fifty years ago, in 1950, when all was supposedly perfect in the baseball world, there were 16 drawn from a U.S. population of about 150,000,000. The talent base for each individual team was less than 10 million people, and I'm including minorities, who were just starting to enter the majors. Now, there are 30 teams for approximately 287,000,000 people in the U.S., plus 8,000,000 in the Dominican Republic, 3,500,000 in Puerto Rico, 20,000,000 in Venezuela, etc. You get the idea. Today the talent base for each team is much more than 10 million people, and I'm not including the Japanese, who are really just starting to enter the majors. So why is there a perception that expansion has "diluted" the talent pool when in fact the numbers show that the opposite is true -- that the number of teams has not kept pace with the expanded talent pool?
-- Paul Laks, Minneapolis
I would rather see the current number of teams instead of less. I don't think
it's so much an issue of talent but of going out to the ballpark and rooting
for the hometown team. I don't watch Atlanta or the Yankees or the Mets or even
Cleveland because they aren't "local."
-- Kim James, Cincinnati Reds Fan, Miamisburg, Ohio
There are too many teams -- at least in terms of pitching, which is just plain mediocre at best. Also, with three divisions in each league, there is less of a rivalry. As an avid Dodgers fan, I'm even starting to follow the Giants -- and not just because the Dodgers stink! Fewer teams and East and West makes more sense. I guess I'm just a traditionalist.
-- Mary Ann G. Lomascolo
Right now is exactly the WRONG time for baseball to contract. With a new
source of talent (Asia) moving into the pipeline, the argument of too little
talent just won't wash. The globalization of baseball is a great trend. As Jamie Moyer recently stated in an article in the Seattle P-I, "We have Japanese, Latinos, blacks and whites, and everyone has found acceptance." However, in the world of Bud Selig, this means it's time to contract the game. After all, new audiences are coming to MLB around the world, as are new sources of talent. So let's contract and make it more difficult for these players become a part of MLB, and send their fans away. Bud sure lives in a strange world.
-- Rusty Neff, White Salmon, Wash.
Who wants to go to a game and watch teams with no superstars? I strongly believe that the reason people don't go to games is because there are so many teams without a superstar, someone who we see in commercials, on the news hitting home runs. Don't get me wrong, just about everyone and their mother is hitting home runs. But the stars are so few and far in between.
-- Rick Chapa, south Texas
You don't need to contract. Analysts and league officials said the same thing at one time about the NBA ... not enough good players to field x number of teams. Well, in goes a salary cap and suddenly EVERYONE is competing. Look at the N.J. Nets, for example. An NBA doormat for years, and now they're on their way to the NBA Finals (most likely) because they can compete FINANCIALLY to get the team TALENT-WISE. If baseball did the same thing, we wouldn't be complaining about the NY Yankees being so good and the Kansas City Royals so bad because K.C. would BE the Yankees (or Oakland, whoever has taken more of the Royals' talent in the past 5 years).
-- Christian Lindy
Give me a break! Of course I'd rather see fewer teams with a higher level of competition. Take Tampa Bay and the Brewers and make them disappear, then bring the Expos to D.C. You'd definitely see a jump in attendance then. Take a good competitive franchise like the Expos and put them in a town that is going apoplectic for some good baseball. All of Angelos' theories that a D.C. team would detract from O's attendance are bunk. Dump two teams, spread the revenue around, cap the salaries, tell everyone in the owner's club AND the players union to shut up and stop whining and just play. Once we've done something to equalize the level of talent, and something to calm all the fevered egos that seem to be popping up left and right, the game should recover some of its heart and soul. Thanks for taking time to listen to a nearly disheartened fan rant.
-- Daniel Williams, Washington, D.C. (Originally from Elgin, Texas)
I don't buy into the idea that fewer teams mean a better product overall. Some things would definitely be better, defense, batting stats would probably come down to Earth where 40 home runs are a great season, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots would be smaller. But the pitching and offense would have the same challenges. Mistake pitches would still be clobbered at the same percentage rate, there would be just fewer of them. I'm a fan of the game and I would go to the park if I lived in a minor league city instead of Detroit (please no jokes).
-- Dan Vandenhemel, Troy, Mich.
I believe the economics of baseball require contraction. However, my Twins are slated for contraction. I oppose a team like the Twins being contracted because 1. It is a competitive team; 2. Bud Selig and Carl Pohlad had a back-door agreement to eliminate the Twins; and 3. Expansion teams have caused most of the economic problems of baseball. Contraction is appropriate, but get rid of the horrible, non-revenue generating expansion teams like Tampa Bay and Florida, not my 40-year-old competitive non-revenue generating team!
-- Chris Ingvalson, Minneapolis, Minn.
There are way too many teams. The solution? Start by contracting the D-Rays and Expos. Move the Marlins. Find a way to build new stadiums for the Twins, A's, Philadelphia (which is in the works), and find a way to flat-out lose the Tigers in a winter storm. They have a new stadium. What's their excuse? Fewer teams would bring out much better competition. While we are on the subject, make sure you pare down the schedule to about 142 games and make every scheduled baseball day "Vladimir Guerrero Day" (That guy just kicks ass). This can be done (assuming Donald Fehr is out of the country at the time). I pledge the first dollar towards sending Fehr out of the country this winter.
-- Jason Quinones, Edison, N.J.
Give me a 20-team major league and add additional Class AAA & AA affiliates in small-town America that the blue collar worker can afford to take his family to on a regular basis. Overall attendance would increase, more young people will grow up with a tradition of baseball, more ballplayers will get to play, players will connect more with the local fans, and hopefully it will help reduce the management/player tensions that once again threatens to discolor the Great Game.
-- Rick E. Dodd
CONTRACTION, my sweet A#$!!! When is baseball going to address the real issues? Salary caps and revenue sharing are the only way to create parity and competition in MLB. When the Yankees continually purchase the players that will get them to the playoffs and a high percentage of the remaining teams settle for one superstar for their rosters how can one think that contraction is the corrective action needed for baseball?
-- Jim Stone, Hollis, Maine
All other things being equal, it is better to have more teams in order to have more opportunities for fans in different cities to be exposed to baseball. The important thing is to make the game accessible to more people and not to pander to the elitists and the purists. Rather than talk of contracting teams, I would rather they expanded the playoffs and made it possible for more teams to participate in the postseason.
-- Emily Wagner, Denver
Of course there are too many teams. Talent dilution is an obvious fact. How many players on the Tampa Bay roster are legitimate major league talents? Five? How do guys like Albie Lopez lose 19 games and keep their jobs? There are only so many athletes that can hack it in the bigs. Then there's attendance and fan support problems. How many metropolitan areas right now are actively hunting for a baseball team? One: Washington, D.C. How many teams right now are playing to mostly empty stadiums? Let's see ... Montreal, Florida, Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Milwaukee, etc., etc. That's not all due to the labor difficulties. Baseball has, without a doubt, flooded the market.
-- Kevin Hood, Sacramento, Calif.
Based on talent level alone, the Brewers simply have to go. Why eliminate the winning, talented Twins when you can get rid of so many awful players by contracting the Brewers?
-- Brandon Trampe, North Branch, Minn.
P.S. I don't like Bud Selig much.
Are there more than two or three teams in baseball who have a third starter who doesn't belong in AAA? Much less a fourth or fifth starter. Eliminating the two Florida teams, Montreal and one other American League team would reduce the number of major league roster spots much closer to the number of people who can actually play at that level. If you don't want to contract the Twins, then just ask Disney if they wouldn't mind turning in the keys to the Angels, or dump any of a half dozen AL ownership groups and let the A's move their talented crew to town. The argument that we can stock so many more teams than in the past because the population has grown (thus, presumably producing more players) overlooks the obvious fact that far fewer American boys are growing up hoping to be major league baseball players. Look around your town and tell me how many kids you see playing sandlot ball. Then, go to the nearest basketball hoop. That's where you'll find all the kids who used to play ball. While the overseas markets are producing remarkable ballplayers, a quick glance at any Kansas City-Tampa Bay game will let you know that there aren't nearly enough quality ballplayers for the number of teams we have now.
-- Michael Schofield, Houston
The answer quite simply is no. Fix the competitive balance and this notion of not enough talent will be laid to rest. Then the guys that belong at the back of the pen will be seen once every week and a half, as opposed to every night bailing out guys who can't go seven.
-- Eric Geschwind, Lee's Summit, Mo.
Our tribute to the banter of baseball 
Now that the Expos look like they're in a free-fall -- 3-7 in their last 10 and now two games under .500 after that admirable start -- watching our man 
