ESPN's baseball experts were asked what they think of contraction.

Is contraction good or bad for baseball?

Dave Campbell

Anytime you take baseball away from loyal fans, it's a tough deal. But up in Montreal, it's obvious something has to be done. If you throw out Opening Day, the Expos probably averaged about 5,000 fans per game, so they'll have to contract or move the team or do something. Of course, if they do contract, they can't just take one team, so the Twins, Marlins and Devil Rays have all been rumored as possible candidates to go on the chopping block with the Expos. There are still lots of questions to be answered, but it's not necessarily a bad deal for baseball. The talent level in Major League Baseball -- especially on the mound -- has become somewhat diluted. The fans, however, don't seem to care much about diluted pitching -- they seem to prefer offense over 2-1 pitching duels.

Jayson Stark

This is bad for baseball for a couple of reasons. First, MLB is basically announcing to the world that they have a dysfunctional business. That is not a good thing. Second, there are still places to which they can move a franchise where it will be commercially viable. It's unfortunate that one of those places happens to be Washington or Northern Virginia, where there is a competing team -- the Orioles -- 40 miles up the road, but deal with it. Baseball can figure out a way to satisfy the Orioles. Or, they could move the A's to San Jose or someplace like it where they could be very successful. There are ways to make this work without dissolving teams. It sends a terrible message regarding what the business is all about. More people go to see baseball games now than ever before. The revenue coming into the sport is greater than it ever has been. It should be about making the whole sport viable -- it shouldn't be about folding franchises. The only benefit to contraction is that baseball will finally admit they made a mistake by expanding too much, too soon, even though one of those expansion teams just won the World Series. But the hidden cost of trying to retract teams is far too high a price to pay for a mistake that could be rectified in a different way.

Tim Kurkjian

Because baseball doesn't need as many teams as it currently has, I am in favor of contraction, with one caveat: Until there is a good plan in place to disperse the two teams that baseball will need to eliminate, I am not if favor of contraction. Until a good plan is in place, contraction is going to be very, very difficult to do and could cause all types of contractual problems. If owners have a plan that provides an easy exit for two teams, then it's a good idea. But until they have that plan, it's bad news, and it would be very difficult to accomplish prior to next season.

Karl Ravech

Contraction is ultimately better for the game of baseball, because the quality of the teams will improve. Anytime you reduce the number of teams, you can stop spreading the talent so thin, and the quality of the teams and the competition will improve. The depth on each team will grow, and the pitching competition will intensify. So sure, it's probably good for the game, but for the folks in Montreal, Minnesota or Florida, it stinks.