estragand
Summer sausage Level: 48
Posts: 9/439 EXP: 820323 For next: 3225
Since: 18.6.02
Since last post: 5999 days Last activity: 5999 days
| #1 Posted on 28.6.02 1634.15 Reposted on: 28.6.09 1634.20 | The general consensus is that Montreal is on the way out, and that the Twins have dodged the bullet. Now, I'm hearing talk that the Marlins could take the Twins spot up on the contraction gallows. What's the latest on this?
I don't believe you should contract a team just because it's shitty...but I think these guys deserve a look at elimination: Tampa Bay, Anaheim and Kansas City. Also, if Milwaukee hadn't gotten their new stadium, they would be up there, too. Promote this thread! | | El Nastio
Banger Level: 104
Posts: 243/2576 EXP: 11773435 For next: 88730
Since: 14.1.02 From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton
Since last post: 43 days Last activity: 28 days
| ICQ: | |
| |
| #2 Posted on 28.6.02 1718.41 Reposted on: 28.6.09 1729.03 | The Brewers would never have contracted. After all, we all know who their owner is. | odessasteps
Scrapple Level: 140
Posts: 727/5065 EXP: 32483636 For next: 802851
Since: 2.1.02 From: MD, USA
Since last post: 3571 days Last activity: 3538 days
| #3 Posted on 28.6.02 1941.24 Reposted on: 28.6.09 1945.04 | Despite being the next logical candidates, neither Florida is likely due to be contracted because of political reasons, both on the state and federal level. I mean, who's the governor?
Personally, I think the other team, if we have to pick one, should be Anaheim. Disney wants to sell, the Angels no great winning tradition (playoffs, but no w.s. appearances) and Southern California still has 1/2 teams. | pieman
As young as he feels Level: 123
Posts: 473/3811 EXP: 21229668 For next: 1658
Since: 11.12.01 From: China, Maine
Since last post: 120 days Last activity: 7 days
| ICQ: | |
| Y!: | |
|
| #4 Posted on 1.7.02 0844.55 Reposted on: 1.7.09 0848.39 | There will not be contraction. What, they're going to contract now so in two years time they can have a couple of expansion teams join? | drjayphd
Scrapple Moderator Level: 126
Posts: 179/4035 EXP: 22940421 For next: 143746
Since: 22.4.02 From: New Hampshire
Since last post: 766 days Last activity: 350 days
| ICQ: | |
| Y!: | |
|
| #5 Posted on 1.7.02 2127.50 Reposted on: 1.7.09 2129.03 | Besides, isn't Watkins still trying to buy Anaheim? And they have a good young te--wait, they said that about Minnesota last year. Ah well. There won't be contraction, if you ask me. Of course, I'd fire Selig if I had the chance. He's a tool that represents small-market owners that don't try to win. Hell, he IS one. | TheCow
Landjager Level: 68
Posts: 121/948 EXP: 2630152 For next: 98662
Since: 3.1.02 From: Knoxville, TN
Since last post: 5894 days Last activity: 5893 days
| | Y!: | |
|
| #6 Posted on 2.7.02 0001.28 Reposted on: 2.7.09 0001.49 | Anaeim?! Tell me I missed something... they're in the second-largest media market (the LA area), have a record close to .600, and receive about as much media coverage as the Dodgers. Not to mention the potential buyer there... I'm not going to say it's not going to happen - I've seen enough stupidity from baseball's upper echelons to make me think otherwise, but I don't see it in the near future.
Also, as pieman (kind of) brought up, less teams means better pitching overall (theoretically), which in turn means less offense - if baseball's going to sit on the fence about 'roids, why would they want to possibly reduce the amount of homers via contraction? (Twisted logic)
Anyway, personal choices for contraction are the Brewers and the D-Rays, even though I know they're still a young team. As for the Brewers... I think we know why they haven't been talked about yet. Maybe in a couple of years when their attendence rivals Montreal's. | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | |