When the last CBA was finalized, one of the concessions made by the commissioner was the removal of contraction from the table. In return for removing it during negotiations for that CBA, the union agreed that when the next round of negotiations rolled around, the commissioner could bring it up again without any resistance from the union. Don Fehr was obviously thinking the new CBA would improve things to the point where contraction would no longer be needed.
What I want to know...have things improved in Minnesota and Tampa Bay enough to keep Bud Selig from bringing up contraction once again?
2007-05-15 13:16:18 · 6 answers · asked by davegretw1997 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Remember, the union is powerless to stop it if it comes up again. They bargained that right away last time the CBA was negotiated.
2007-05-15 14:07:55 · update #1
Contraction is a non-issue for the duration of the current CBA, 2007-11. So there's plenty of time to sort things out.
No team with a new park since 1989 (SkyDome) is going away. Factoring in the five new parks opening by 2010, that leaves five teams with olde parks: the Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, and Royals. The first four are not at all at risk. I could see the Royals going away, though there'd be plenty of problems to surmount before it could happen, and there would have to be a second team as well. The obvious candidate is the Rays, but new ownership does appear to be on the right path, and unless some contract terms have been modified they're in a very stiff 30-year lease that will go until 2027. Buying out of that would be harsh.
So I don't think contraction will seriously come up the next time the CBA gets negotiated.
2007-05-15 14:12:28 · answer #1 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Twins are getting a new ballpark, so they're good. Tampa Bay needs to go--they don't compete and they don't draw much in attendance. If the Marlins can get a ballpark in South Florida, they'll be ok. When they're competing and winning (they do have 2 World Series titles), they draw. A dome would do wonders for them.
I think it's a valid argument to bring up in terms of Tampa, but that's it. And it won't happen, because the players union won't let it happen.
2007-05-15 20:50:58 · answer #2 · answered by Mark D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will be brought up again because of 2 teams, the Marlins and Devil Rays,
in 2007 these 2 teams ranked 28 and 30 in attendance
in 2006 they ranked 29 and 30
in 2005 they ranked 28 and 30
in 2004 they ranked 26 and 29 (marlins moved up with the world series win in 2003)
in 2003 they ranked 28 and 29
There are likely more profitable markets out there
2007-05-15 20:26:23 · answer #3 · answered by Kevin B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I think both Florida teams would be in trouble. There has been talk for a few years about moving the Marlins out of South Florida, but if contraction came up, they might be a leading candidate. The Rays, too, so you're definately right about them. and maybe the twins. I would say the Royals, but they have too much history. It would make sense to get rid of two teams so every team sould participate in interleague play.
2007-05-15 20:27:27 · answer #4 · answered by JD 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Minnesota -- yea
Tampa Bay -- nay
Never should've expanded after '93. Wouldn't even be an issue, were that the case.
2007-05-15 20:27:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah all teams made a profit last year except for the yankees and the yankees have a network they don't count for revenue.
2007-05-15 20:42:42 · answer #6 · answered by Dodgerblue 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋