If you look at the teams who have had long streaks of losing, it's all incompetent ownership chosen by Bud Selig (or Selig himself). Illitch is the only outlier, a guy whose team is not small-market by any definition and whose benign neglect led to the rot. Once he ended that the Tigers almost immediately became good again. I suppose Angelos would be there as well, someone who would open up his pockets but whose megalomaniacal tendencies are responsible for his team's losing.

The article comes nowhere close to explaining its conclusion, so I'll ask: how did the agreements decrease the ability of poor clubs to compete?

Agree completely with # 2. Also:

Since 1994, five franchises (1993-2009 Pittsburgh Pirates, 1993-2004 Milwaukee Brewers, 1994-2005 Detroit Tigers, 1998-2007 Tampa Bay Rays and the 1998-2009 Baltimore Orioles) have registered stretches of 10 or more consecutive seasons with a losing record.

While baseball as a whole has grown significantly stronger since 1994, this statistic illustrates that there are clearly places where the agreements reached in 1994 have hampered the ability to compete in an era of spiraling salaries and unbridled spending by the largest franchises.

Since 1994, those five franchises have recorded more World Series appearances than the New York Mets, Chicago Cubs and Los Angeles Dodges combined.

DB

2 compared to 1. Hooray!

And 4 playoff appearances, compared to 12 for your three unfortunate teams.

2 compared to 1. Hooray!

Which, of course, is two more than a group which could not compete would have.

DB

This thread is like Jonah-nip.

Since 1994, five franchises (1993-2009 Pittsburgh Pirates, 1993-2004 Milwaukee Brewers, 1994-2005 Detroit Tigers, 1998-2007 Tampa Bay Rays and the 1998-2009 Baltimore Orioles) have registered stretches of 10 or more consecutive seasons with a losing record.

Kinda funny that the Twins, and not some other hapless midwest baseball team, was put up for contraction?

In addition, the Kansas City Royals have had a losing record in 14 of the last 15 years (winning mark in 2004 interrupted their streak)

I'm not even a Royals fan, but even I remember that their last winning season was in 2003.

Since 1994, five franchises (1993-2009 Pittsburgh Pirates, 1993-2004 Milwaukee Brewers, 1994-2005 Detroit Tigers, 1998-2007 Tampa Bay Rays and the 1998-2009 Baltimore Orioles) have registered stretches of 10 or more consecutive seasons with a losing record.

Come on... arrested by the cherry picking police. Both the Tigers and the Rays IMMEDIATELY followed that streak with an American League championship.

Kinda funny that the Twins, and not some other hapless midwest baseball team, was put up for contraction?

I don't mean to justify the events of 2001 with respect to contraction, but at the time, the Twins were at the tail end of a period of sad sackdom (8 consecutive losing seasons). They had posted a winning record in 2001, which only in retrospect was the beginning of what has turned out to be the most successful decade in franchise history.

The key difference, of course, is that the Twins (at least in recent years) has always seemed to have a solid farm system, whereas the Royals have struck out in all aspects of franchise development: they haven't drafted well (although for the time being I'll give the Moore regime the benefit of the doubt), the money they've spent on free agents has been poorly spent, and until recently, the payroll was kept at bargain basement levels.

How does one define a decade?

If one defines a decade as "ten consecutive years," then 1962-1971 is (likely) better than 2001-2010.

1962-1971: 891-726 (with 4 ties). Winning percentage: .551
2001-2010: 775-656. Winning percentage: .542

The Twins would need to do better than 116-70 (a .624 winning percentage) through the end of next season for the post-2000 "decade" to be the Twins' best "decade."

Meanwhile, if one defines a decade as "the Nineteen-Sixties" or "the Twenty-Aughts" or whatever, well...

...the "Twins" didn't exist in 1960. The team that would become the Twins were still "the Senators" at that point, played in Washington, and weren't especially good. Still, let's include the 1960 Senators with those 1960s Twins. We still get...

1960s: 862-747: .536
2000s: 844-749: .530

The Twins have 35 games left in the Twenty-Aughts. They need to win something like 28 or 29 of those remaining games (I don't feel like re-adding the numbers to figure the decimal point out exactly) in order to have had their best decade, by this definition of decade.

Of course "best" could refer to playoff appearances, success in the playoffs, World Series wins, etc.. Those 1960 Twins teams are at a definite handicap in that regard -- most of those years they played in a ten team league with no wild card. Thus, when they finished second best in the AL to the Yankees (1962), Orioles (1966), and Red Sox (1967), they missed the playoffs. Not so for the Twins of the 2000s. Still, the 1960s teams did make the World Series one more time than the 2000s teams (though, again, if we define success as winning the World Series then the 1990s Twins and 1980s Twins (and 1920s Senators) had more success than either the 1960s Twins or the 2000s Twins.

EDIT: I'm tired and suspect I mistyped a number or two above. My apologies if I did. I just like the 1960s Twins, that's all, and don't want their successes to be forgotten.

Yeah, wait, what?

They had posted a winning record in 2001, which only in retrospect was the beginning of what has turned out to be the most successful decade in franchise history.

You cannot rank it above the 80s or 90s.

If one defines a decade as "ten consecutive years," then 1962-1971 is (likely) better than 2001-2010.

You mention it later, so I'm not sure I see why you're going with 62-71 and not something that encompasses 87 and 91. '83-'92 inclusive: .502 winning percentage, 2 1sts, 3 2nds, and two World Series titles.

Dates with destiny often do not end well.

Yeah Moe, The Orioles, Royals and Pirates sure did suck from 1994-2009. They just plain sucked! I've seen teams suck before but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked.