Let's contract MLB to 24 teams. Which ones would you keep?
Blackborder
Posts: 2,797 ✭
30 teams are too many. I like the expanded regional southern and western teams but do we really need 5 teams from California, or two teams from the same city? I don't think so. Here's my cut at who stays and who gets the ax.
NL East
Chicago Cubs
Pittsburg Pirates
Philadelphia Phillies
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
Cincinnati Reds
NL West
SF Giants
LA Dodgers
Colorado Rockies
StL Cardinals
Milwaukee Brewers
Arizona Diamondbacks
AL East
Boston Redsocks
NY Yankees
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Toronto Blue Jays
Baltimore O's
AL West
Minnesota Twins
KC Royals
Texas Rangers
Seattle Mariners
Oakland A's
Chicago Whitesox
Axed
Washington
Tampa
Astros
Angles
Mets
Padres
NL East
Chicago Cubs
Pittsburg Pirates
Philadelphia Phillies
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
Cincinnati Reds
NL West
SF Giants
LA Dodgers
Colorado Rockies
StL Cardinals
Milwaukee Brewers
Arizona Diamondbacks
AL East
Boston Redsocks
NY Yankees
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Toronto Blue Jays
Baltimore O's
AL West
Minnesota Twins
KC Royals
Texas Rangers
Seattle Mariners
Oakland A's
Chicago Whitesox
Axed
Washington
Tampa
Astros
Angles
Mets
Padres
0
Comments
2. As hilarious as it would be, you can't really contract the Mets. The world would stop spinning.
<< <i>
2. As hilarious as it would be, you can't really contract the Mets. The world would stop spinning. >>
Yeah, I felt bad about that one. I like the Mets.
.45's
Pilots
Senators
But I would say
1. Marlins, just because they are always fighting with the city about a stadium and they consistently have not taken care of a good team that they have had (i.e. dismantling of their WS teams, firing of Scioscia)
2. Nationals over the Orioles just, because they are in the too much in an area that does not support the they already have. Even though I realize they the Orioles are the way they are just because of their owner and plus they have great heritage.
I would leave the rest of them, if I had to say another it would probaly be the Royals. They are consistently bad and have had many years to rebuild. They have drafted many great players and traded them away (Beltran, Damon, Dye, Cone, etc.) and I realize it is for payroll reasons but come on. For 6 million people in that state, does it really need two pro. teams. Maybe even the Brewer's also, they are so close to Chicago and just a six hours away from Minneapolis. I would hate to see both the Royals and Brewers go but logically I think they are the most viable candidates after the Nationals and Marlins.
<< <i>If someone says the Twins, I am going to get homicidal, just as a warning. >>
I know objectively that the idea is absurd, considering their history (just in Minnesota, much less as a flagship American League franchise in Washington), but when that was being discussed, I will admit that a mean, narrow part of me, buried deep...smiled a little. Awful, but true.
The wretched shame of KC being so down is that they were once a model organization. An annual contender and a team worthy of love. When you have ownership that isn't ready to face reality and is content to sit and let their property stagnate, it's sad to behold.
Yes, I collect shiny modern crap
All your Shaq are belong to me
Devil Rays
Royals
Nationals
Giants
Rockies
Blue Jays
Atlanta Braves
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
NL West
Houston Astros
Los Angeles Dodgers
Milwaukee Brewers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants
St. Louis Cardinals
AL East
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
New York Yankees
AL West
California Angels
Kansas City Royals
Minnesota Twins
Oakland A's
Seattle Mariners
Texas Rangers
Axed:
Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Florida Marlins, and Arizona Snakes (Florida and Arizona are for Spring training....sorry)
Toronto Blue Jays (sorry Canada....until you become a state....)
Washington Redskins....er....whatever (DC....see Canada)
Colorado Rockies (air is too thin....can't.....breathe.....)
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
Yankees
Red Sox
Angels
Cubs
Dodgers
Mets
1. Tampa Bay
2. Tampa Bay
3. Tampa Bay
4. Tampa Bay
5. Tampa Bay
6. Milwaukee & Kansas City
...and the Atlanta Thrashers
That gives us:
AL East: Blue Jays, Orioles, Red Sox, Yankees
AL Central: Indians, Tigers, Twins, White Sox
AL West: Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers
NL East: Braves, Mets, Phillies, Pirates
NL Central: Brewers, Cardinals, Cubs, Reds
NL West: Astros, Dodgers, Giants, Padres
Edit: changed my mind on the realignment. Cincinnati goes back to the NL Central, and Pittsburgh goes to the NL East
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Just cuz a city has 2 teams does not meaqn 1 should be eliminated.
Steve
Now you have a wealth of talent available to the remaining teams. With the supply so high, everyone on the market becomes more affordable. So if the Royals landed Delmon Young, Todd Helton, Michael Young, Miguel Cabrera, etc. at bargain prices they are now a legitimate contender.
I don't think you can cut teams based solely on their ability to put together a winner. What has Pit done lately. Do you axe them, with all of their history just because the last 15 years haven't been so kind? Where do the Cubs stand?
Oh, by the way. Don't F***in think about cutting my team!
<< <i>Just cuz a city has 2 teams does not meaqn 1 should be eliminated. >>
What post said that?
<< <i>
<< <i>Just cuz a city has 2 teams does not meaqn 1 should be eliminated. >>
What post said that? >>
<< <i>30 teams are too many. I like the expanded regional southern and western teams but do we really need 5 teams from California, or two teams from the same city? I don't think so. Here's my cut at who stays and who gets the ax. >>
Staying with Blackborder's logic, he did cut the Mets, but not a team from Chicago. Those are the only two cities with two teams, right? Oh, unless you're counting the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. I guess they're sharing a city with the Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles.
Geordie
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>Oh, by the way. Don't F***in think about cutting my team! >>
Why would you cut a team that brings in about 3M fannies every year, playoffs pretty much every year, and has one of the best records in baseball over the past 10 years?
Axing the 'Stros doesn't make sense to me in my honest, humble, and biased opinion.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Just cuz a city has 2 teams does not meaqn 1 should be eliminated. >>
What post said that? >>
<< <i>30 teams are too many. I like the expanded regional southern and western teams but do we really need 5 teams from California, or two teams from the same city? I don't think so. Here's my cut at who stays and who gets the ax. >>
Staying with Blackborder's logic, he did cut the Mets, but not a team from Chicago. Those are the only two cities with two teams, right? Oh, unless you're counting the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. I guess they're sharing a city with the Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles.
Geordie >>
My mistake, I do not agree with that logic either. Cutting the Met's, Angel's, Padre's, and Astro's make no sense to me and I would be interested in blackborders logic in determining them.
NY Yankees 3,710,427
LA Dodgers 3,356,235
San Francisco 3,226,668
St. Louis 3,163,181
Seattle 3,071,625
Chicago Cubs 2,971,475
LA Angels 2,925,786
Houston 2,791,497
Boston 2,763,631
NY Mets 2,680,642
Baltimore 2,625,645
Arizona 2,568,561
Atlanta 2,536,953
San Diego 2,526,772
Texas 2,444,530
Colorado 2,433,066
Washington 2,422,637
Philadelphia 2,372,353
Cleveland 2,218,020
Milwaukee 2,181,599
Oakland 2,138,057
Chicago Sox 2,102,232
Cincinnati 2,075,947
Minnesota 1,971,851
Toronto 1,922,161
Detroit 1,888,437
Pittsburgh 1,848,203
Kansas City 1,507,441
Florida 1,348,195
Tampa Bay 1,198,506
So, getting rid of Tampa and Florida is dead on. KC would be logical since they are the red headed step child of the league. Now, Pitt and Detroit have history and another has a new stadium. Keepers. Toronto is gone in my mind. The players get screwed in taxes there. Minnesota, Cinn, White Sox don't make sence. So, my final words are
Get rid of Tampa, Florida, KC and Toronto. Implement revenue sharing and a salary cap. See how it goes for 5 years and see if anyone else needs to go.
<< <i>The league needs a salary cap and revenue sharing. But since this thread is about contraction. It all comes down to the all mighty dollar. See the K.C. Royals posts. Below is the average attendance of every team but Montreal over the past 6 years. Washington is averaged for the last two.
NY Yankees 3,710,427
LA Dodgers 3,356,235
San Francisco 3,226,668
St. Louis 3,163,181
Seattle 3,071,625
Chicago Cubs 2,971,475
LA Angels 2,925,786
Houston 2,791,497
Boston 2,763,631
NY Mets 2,680,642
Baltimore 2,625,645
Arizona 2,568,561
Atlanta 2,536,953
San Diego 2,526,772
Texas 2,444,530
Colorado 2,433,066
Washington 2,422,637
Philadelphia 2,372,353
Cleveland 2,218,020
Milwaukee 2,181,599
Oakland 2,138,057
Chicago Sox 2,102,232
Cincinnati 2,075,947
Minnesota 1,971,851
Toronto 1,922,161
Detroit 1,888,437
Pittsburgh 1,848,203
Kansas City 1,507,441
Florida 1,348,195
Tampa Bay 1,198,506
So, getting rid of Tampa and Florida is dead on. KC would be logical since they are the red headed step child of the league. Now, Pitt and Detroit have history and another has a new stadium. Keepers. Toronto is gone in my mind. The players get screwed in taxes there. Minnesota, Cinn, White Sox don't make sence. So, my final words are
Get rid of Tampa, Florida, KC and Toronto. Implement revenue sharing and a salary cap. See how it goes for 5 years and see if anyone else needs to go. >>
MN has a new stadium opening in 2010 and I do not know how anyone could contract the White Sox and Red's, you talk about heritage.
I stick with the Nat's and Marlins. Give the Royal's a chance to shape up and give Milwaukee the axe only if the Royal's go. They have got Chicago an hour away.
<< <i>
My mistake, I do not agree with that logic either. Cutting the Met's, Angel's, Padre's, and Astro's make no sense to me and I would be interested in blackborders logic in determining them. >>
No logic per se, just my opinion.
Loosely though, the thinking went like this: Try and keep regional teams if posible so it doesn't become another east coast/west coast league like in the 1960's, hence keep some of the new expansion teams. Eliminate one of two teams if they're from the same city, which allows us to keep some of the expansion teams as noted above. Didn't work for Chicago however since I can't bring myself to axe the Cubs and since there were only two AL teams to axe, and Chicago has way more history than the Angles or Tampa. Ditto for keeping the Yankees rather than the Mets, even though I hate the Yankees.
<< <i>
<< <i>
My mistake, I do not agree with that logic either. Cutting the Met's, Angel's, Padre's, and Astro's make no sense to me and I would be interested in blackborders logic in determining them. >>
No logic per se, just my opinion.
Loosely though, the thinking went like this: Try and keep regional teams if posible so it doesn't become another east coast/west coast league like in the 1960's, hence keep some of the new expansion teams. Eliminate one of two teams if they're from the same city, which allows us to keep some of the expansion teams as noted above. Didn't work for Chicago however since I can't bring myself to axe the Cubs and since there were only two AL teams to axe, and Chicago has way more history than the Angles or Tampa. Ditto for keeping the Yankees rather than the Mets, even though I hate the Yankees. >>
Okay, then why ax the 'Stros?
Are you saying that the Rangers, who are in the AL and zero history, deserve it more?
In baseball, I love how teams can spend time building up their club through the minor leagues and put together a winner that will contend year after year. I just can't stand it when each year it's a 'flavor of the month' that comes through, wins, then disappears again into oblivion. I would like to see the salary structure be reorganized so that teams who build from within get rewarded and teams who build by buying have to pay up.
1): All teams have to share a % of their revenue in a giant revenue pool. The more free-agents you posses on your 40-man roster, the less money you receive from this pool. If your team is composed of nearly all home-grown talent, or talent obtained by trading your homegrown talent, you get more money from this central pool. This will allow teams to keep their own players and build from within to put together a championship team. At the same time, it will punish those teams who just try to throw together a winner by buying every free-agent there is.
2): Money from this central revenue pool must be spent on coaching staff and your roster. Money obtained from this pool that is not used for the building of the team goes back into the central pool for the following year.
3): During free-agent bidding, teams will receive assistance in resigning their own players. So if both the Yankees and the Twins are going after Johan Santana, if they both bid the same amount for him the Twins will actually be offering more money as the 'central pool' will be used to pay his salary.
Now how would you go about sorting all this out? If I knew I'd have a different job and be making a lot more money.
<< <i>If we got rid of some teams; I would LOVE to see it, the first clubs I would whack would be
1. Tampa Bay
2. Tampa Bay
3. Tampa Bay
4. Tampa Bay
5. Tampa Bay
6. Milwaukee & Kansas City
...and the Atlanta Thrashers >>
what the Hell is wrong with Tampa bay?? I know they have not been competitive and have not drawn wel however the future is bright there. Didn't anyone see the Sports illustrated article saying 2010 baseball: Devil Rays are the Best in Baseball.
That right there is the only reason no one goes to the games. Last year they averaged close to 18 k and this year should be better and have had an increase in season ticket sales.
Oh well if you do cut the Marlins and Rays I still have the BRAVES (I want to bring this to everybodies attention that I am not a front runner and have been an ATL fan since I went to my first game in 1997 (6 years old), and Chipper Jones grew up 1 1/2 hours away from my house.
But yeah please off the Padres. It will make it easier on the Dodgers and get my San Diego buddy off my back.
New ballpark - check
New owner who isn't afraid to spend money - check
Great young talent - check
Growing fan attendence year after year - check
Can anyone offer a good reason why they should go? Now, I'm not claiming that the Brewers have the long, storied history of ballclubs like the Cubs and Red Sox, but I do believe that both teams also had very storied recent dry spells...and one of them is still in it.
Baseball is loved in Milwaukee. Look at our turnout for the 3 Indians / Angels games last week. The teams admitted to *hoping* for 10,000 per game. We brought 52,496 over the three games. Now I've read a lot of things on many sites about this. Some people say that baseball fans in Milwaukee "finally had 2 good teams to watch", "they only went for the $10 tickets", and my personal favorite, "there's nothing better to do in Milwaukee." While I think that the club SHOULD occasionally have reduced price games in midweek, but that wasn't the only reason I and 50k+ went to see games. Our home team was on the road and there was a game at our ballpark. Let's go!
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, it's easy for some people to just go down a checklist and look at teams that don't get all the ESPN coverage and decide they need to go. The lack of national media attention has as much to do with terrible teams over the past 15 years as it does with being in a "small market." While our market may be small, the hearts of the fans here are big...
Besides, if the team leaves, where will the sausages race? Think about that.
1) can't sell 2 million tickets in the best ball park in the world
2) has had losing seasons since Barry Bonds weighed as much as I do
3) has an owner who is so tight he sqeezes a nickel until the buffalo poops
4) has an annual pre-playoff talent fire sale
5) is in a city that is second only to New Orleans in recent population loss
I say we all remain silent and let this elephant quietly lumber through the living room.
Collector of Pittsburgh Pirates cards for a slightly less stupid reason.
My Pirates Collection
<< <i>
Okay, then why ax the 'Stros?
Are you saying that the Rangers, who are in the AL and zero history, deserve it more? >>
4 National League teams had to go. Texas already had a team. It's not personal.
"How about eliminate MLB and have the NFL year round"
how about we eliminate the NHL instead
Lee
<< <i>I may be in the minority here, but I say get rid of the Yankees.
Lee >>
That would open up enough talent to make EVERY team better!
<< <i>Can anyone explain why they can say the Brewers need to go? Don't come back with "Chicago is only an hour away." Chicago has 2 ballclubs and the people in Milwaukee generally can't stand either one of them. Let's see...
New ballpark - check
New owner who isn't afraid to spend money - check
Great young talent - check
Growing fan attendence year after year - check
Can anyone offer a good reason why they should go? Now, I'm not claiming that the Brewers have the long, storied history of ballclubs like the Cubs and Red Sox, but I do believe that both teams also had very storied recent dry spells...and one of them is still in it.
Baseball is loved in Milwaukee. Look at our turnout for the 3 Indians / Angels games last week. The teams admitted to *hoping* for 10,000 per game. We brought 52,496 over the three games. Now I've read a lot of things on many sites about this. Some people say that baseball fans in Milwaukee "finally had 2 good teams to watch", "they only went for the $10 tickets", and my personal favorite, "there's nothing better to do in Milwaukee." While I think that the club SHOULD occasionally have reduced price games in midweek, but that wasn't the only reason I and 50k+ went to see games. Our home team was on the road and there was a game at our ballpark. Let's go!
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, it's easy for some people to just go down a checklist and look at teams that don't get all the ESPN coverage and decide they need to go. The lack of national media attention has as much to do with terrible teams over the past 15 years as it does with being in a "small market." While our market may be small, the hearts of the fans here are big...
Besides, if the team leaves, where will the sausages race? Think about that.
I think this one is mine. I did say the Brewer's should be contracted but my reasoning was limited to Chicago being so close. I have no other reason than that. I listed at first just Wash. and Florida then added Milwaukee and KC only as must needs to meet the six.
I was born and rainsed in MN, and went to many Brew crew games, at the rough yet homey County Stadium, with my parents when we were visiting wisconsin dells and enjoyed them the most (after the Twins of course). I love the small market teams (i.e. Cleveland, Milwaukee, KC, and MN). Baseball needs the small market teams more than anything else it has. and the most embarrassing thing of all is I was so pissed when the Twins were going to be contracted and Milwaukee was not even mentioned. Nothing against Milwaukee, but imagine raising your kids without a pro ball game to take them to within six hours and that is why I said you have Chi town only an hour away, because if you lost the Brew crew the Cubs and w.s are a same day trip away.
Furthermore do not discount Milwaukee's history. You know a team has history when they have fans like you bringing back the Glory Days to remind the younger crowd that great things can happen in small market's. So man crush or not
As someone earlier stated, just go back to the teams and alignment from the early 1970s. The expansions since then have been a joke. The only change that needs to be made to the 24 is to get the Expos out of Montreal. Probably move them to Seattle.
<< <i>
As someone earlier stated, just go back to the teams and alignment from the early 1970s. The expansions since then have been a joke. The only change that needs to be made to the 24 is to get the Expos out of Montreal. Probably move them to Seattle. >>
That's not a bad idea.
<< <i>
<< <i>I may be in the minority here, but I say get rid of the Yankees.
Lee >>
That would open up enough talent to make EVERY team better! >>
But imagine the MASSIVE revenue loss for Major League Baseball. I'd love to say "Get rid of the Red Sox", but again, the MASSIVE revenue loss for MLB would kill the sport completely. The Yankees are known around the world and bring a lot of money to MLB and many other teams as well. (Take a look at the Yankees' road attendance figures compared to the rest of the sport). When you remove a team that has that much worldwide fanbase you lose billions of dollars from the game and there is no way baseball would be able to recover from that.
Lee
How about expansion to 32 teams and put a darn salary cap in place for MLB. Cut the season to 154 games and allow for 6 teams in each league to make the playoffs with the #1 and #2 seeds getting a bye. Make the 1st round of playoffs a best of 5 games and then best of 7 series rest of the way.
You could then have 8 divisions of 4 teams a piece with an AL and NL league -- just like NFL.
I've put the populations of these metro areas in parantheses.
A.L. East Division:
Boston, (6.1M)
New York, (22.5M)
Toronto, (6.1M)
Detroit, (5.9M)
A.L. South Division:
Baltimore, (8.1M)
Texas, (6M)
Charlotte (1.7M) or Nashville (1.4M)
Tampa Bay, (2.6M)
A.L. Central Division:
Minnesota, (3.2M)
Kansas City, (1.9M)
Cleveland, (3M)
Chicago, (9.4M)
A.L. West Division:
Las Vegas, (2M)
Anaheim, (17.7M)
Oakland, (400K --- team target for move)
Seattle, (3.8M)
N.L. East Division:
New York, (22.5M)
Philadelphia, (6.2M)
Pittsburgh, (2.3M)
Atlanta, (4.8M) ---- Like Dallas Cowboys who stayed in NFC East --- too good to move
N.L. South Division:
Washington (8.1M)
Florida, (4.7M)
Houston, (5.3M)
Arizona, (3.9M)
N.L. Central Division:
Chicago, (9.4M)
St. Louis, (2.6M)
Milwaukee, (1.7M)
Cincinnati, (2M)
N.L West Division:
Colorado, (2.7M)
San Diego, (4.8M)
Los Angeles, (17.7M)
San Francisco, (7.6M)
The MLB finanical make-up is its biggest downfall. It doesn't create enough balance. Some of the cities that do poorly also has a lot to do with having a bad place to play: Tampa Bay, Florida and DC come to mind. All of the cities have the people to sustain a winner (except Oakland) with better facilities and/or better financial competitiveness.
Erik
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>Not going to happen.
How about expansion to 32 teams and put a darn salary cap in place for MLB. Cut the season to 154 games and allow for 6 teams in each league to make the playoffs with the #1 and #2 seeds getting a bye. Make the 1st round of playoffs a best of 5 games and then best of 7 series rest of the way.
You could then have 8 divisions of 4 teams a piece with an AL and NL league -- just like NFL.
I've put the populations of these metro areas in parantheses.
A.L. East Division:
Boston, (6.1M)
New York, (22.5M)
Toronto, (6.1M)
Detroit, (5.9M)
A.L. South Division:
Baltimore, (8.1M)
Texas, (6M)
Charlotte (1.7M) or Nashville (1.4M)
Tampa Bay, (2.6M)
A.L. Central Division:
Minnesota, (3.2M)
Kansas City, (1.9M)
Cleveland, (3M)
Chicago, (9.4M)
A.L. West Division:
Las Vegas, (2M)
Anaheim, (17.7M)
Oakland, (400K --- team target for move)
Seattle, (3.8M)
N.L. East Division:
New York, (22.5M)
Philadelphia, (6.2M)
Pittsburgh, (2.3M)
Atlanta, (4.8M) ---- Like Dallas Cowboys who stayed in NFC East --- too good to move
N.L. South Division:
Washington (8.1M)
Florida, (4.7M)
Houston, (5.3M)
Arizona, (3.9M)
N.L. Central Division:
Chicago, (9.4M)
St. Louis, (2.6M)
Milwaukee, (1.7M)
Cincinnati, (2M)
N.L West Division:
Colorado, (2.7M)
San Diego, (4.8M)
Los Angeles, (17.7M)
San Francisco, (7.6M)
The MLB finanical make-up is its biggest downfall. It doesn't create enough balance. Some of the cities that do poorly also has a lot to do with having a bad place to play: Tampa Bay, Florida and DC come to mind. All of the cities have the people to sustain a winner (except Oakland) with better facilities and/or better financial competitiveness. >>
Check out my post on page 1 where I go over a method that could work pretty well. If you put a salary cap on, it's not going to force the owners to put the money back into the stadium or their teams. The ticket prices won't suddenly drop and it won't make it any less expensive for the fans. While we all complain about how the players union whines and complains about money, I would complain too if I knew that the owner of my team was waist high in money and pocketing every last cent he could while he was only giving me a pittance of what he was getting. A salary cap will not make any real difference in baseball. All it would do is create more and more 'fly-by-night', 'flavor-of-the-month' teams where they're great one year, then horrible, then great, then horrible, etc. etc. Frankly, I like baseball because it's the only sport left where dynasties can exist. Even then, look at the World Series winner the past 7 years. Each one has been different and only the Yankees and Cardinals made it to the World Series more than once in that time frame. We had 11 different teams make the World Series in those 7 years.
The problem is that baseball needs to find a way to still allow free agency, but penalize teams that use it to build a champion then immediately dismember it. (See the Florida Marlins as a prime example). They need to make it so that teams who develop their own talent have an easier time re-signing them. This way, if a player decides to leave it's not for more money, but because they hate the team they came up with and want to go elsewhere. In the method I posted earlier, teams would get assistance in re-signing their own players but little to none (depending on the percentage of their roster developed by other teams) when going after free-agents. Teams would be forced to take time and think long term and would be financially scolded for going the "I'll just buy a bunch of players, have one great year and then sell the team and dump payroll the next year."
I think there should be a cap on year-to-year payroll increases just as there should be a cap on year-to-year payroll decreases. That would all but eliminate this 'flavor-of-the-month' crap.