"There were a number of teams that were contraction candidates, including teams from the state of Florida," DuPuy said.

Now, the comment could have been a throwaway line, although you would hope a top baseball official wouldn't comment so recklessly about such an important issue. Or maybe it was a meant as a scare tactic for franchises that haven't yet had a new ballpark built for them (DuPuy denied this, however).

So maybe baseball really did consider 18 different teams for the two contraction spots; the rationale apparently being that MLB was looking for any owner willing to join the Expos on a death march.

So, my mind being of the inquisitive type, I wondered who the 18 teams could be and the potential flaws for each organization:

1,2: Montreal, Minnesota. We know about these two.
3,4: Florida, Tampa Bay. Two other teams prominently mentioned with stadium issues (Florida) or on-field issues (Tampa Bay).
5: Oakland. Another rumored possibility, although A's management has adamantly opposed contraction. Not to mention that contracting a 102-win team would look rather ridiculous.
6, 7: Anaheim, San Diego. Disney, the owner of the Angels, has been reported to want out of baseball. The Padres' new park has been held up by legal issues.

After that, however, it starts getting dicey. But for arguments' sake:

8, 9, 10: Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati. Three small-market teams, two (Royals and Pirates) of whom have been unsuccessful on the field. Of course, Pittsburgh has a new ballpark and Cincinnati has one on the way ...

11: Chicago White Sox. Sure, they won the AL Central in 2000 and won 83 games last season and play in a huge market, but Comiskey is a horrible place to watch a game and the Sox finished just 26th in attendance in 2001. With the buyout fee, owner Jerry Reinsdorf could then pump some much-needed money into his Chicago Bulls. Plus we all know Chicago is a Cubs town.

12: Chicago Cubs. On the other hand, the Cubs haven't had consecutive winning seasons in 30 years. If you can't compete with the big boys, don't join the party.

13: Toronto. According to baseball's own economic statements released at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Dec. 6, the Blue Jays lost $43 million in 2001. Axe 'em, unless the exchange rate suddenly improves. And we all know Toronto is a Maple Leafs town (ignore for a moment that the Blue Jays are the only AL team to draw four million fans in one season).

14: Los Angeles. In fact, since Selig says baseball's financial problems are so severe, get rid of the Dodgers, who lost even more than the Blue Jays ($54 million). This is a huge financial drain on Fox and we wouldn't want to see "Ally McBeal" suddenly cancelled due to network budget cutbacks.

15: New York Mets. A two-team market, fan apathy (15th in the majors in attendance in the year following a World Series berth) and a stadium that looks like an industrial strength warehouse.

16: Arizona. Only 14th in attendance while winning the World Series. And first in loans needed to pay off mounting debt. Axe 'em.

17: Detroit. They have a new ballpark, but the old one was better. Plus, the Tigers are horrible year after year.

18: Texas. Fellow owners despise Tom Hicks since he pays big money ($252 million to Alex Rodriguez) and doesn't complain about financial losses.

Heck, we could get rid of all those teams and go with a 12-team league. The quality of competition would improve and we even kept the Brewers since (according to MLB's own figures) they were baseball's most profitable franchise in 2001 with profits of $16.1 million (after revenue sharing).

The American League would consist of the Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Indians, Mariners and Brewers (relocated from the National League). The NL would consist of the Braves, Phillies (they somehow escaped our contraction plan), Cardinals, Astros, Giants and Rockies.

The Red Sox would still finish second.

DuPuy said owners had considered asking the players' union for a competitive-balance draft, in which teams with the eight lowest winning percentages in the previous three years would make selections from the eight highest winning percentages. They shelved it, but when union chief Donald Fehr said at the hearing that the union would consider such a proposal, DuPuy said the owners would now reconsider.

Of course, without knowing the particulars of such a draft, it's difficult to weigh in on its merits. Suffice it to say, the good teams would protect a certain number of players; you won't see Mike Mussina going to the Royals.

I still wonder if baseball wants to help the "poor" franchises like the Royals and Twins or the "bad" franchises like the Pirates and Orioles.

For example, the worst eight teams over the past three years (from the bottom) are the Devils Rays, Expos, Royals, Pirates, Tigers, Brewers, Orioles and Twins. The eight best teams (from the top) are the Braves, Mariners, Yankees, A's, Indians, Diamondbacks, Giants and Mets.

Baltimore, with gate revenue of $53 million and local broadcast revenue of $21 million in 2001 (MLB figures), would steal a player from Oakland, with gate revenue of $25 million and broadcast revenue of $9.4 million. If Selig is concerned about financial inequities, well, the Orioles are a rich team. They should be giving the A's -- a poor team -- a player, not the other way around. Likewise, the Tigers have a new stadium and play in a major market. Any economic woes they suffer are self-imposed.

In fact, look at a team like Seattle. For the first half of the '90s, the Mariners would have been a likely candidate for contraction. They were bad on the field (mostly), played in the Kingdome (ugh) and had less-than-stellar fan support (believe me). Former owner Jeff Smulyan declared Seattle dead as a baseball city.

Well, in 2001 the Mariners trailed only the Yankees in total revenue. Why should an organization like Seattle, which plays in a medium-sized market but is expertly run from the business and baseball standpoints, be penalized?

In Peter Gammons' latest column, he notes that 22 teams have a chance at the playoffs this year. Among the eight that don't, are:

So, really, we're talking three franchises with competitive balance issues: Montreal, Tampa Bay and Kansas City.