If it's broke, don't fix it.
Slash it.
For Major League Baseball, the new line of wisdom in handling the game's economic woes is to contract the league itself.
That means the outright shutdown of the league's cash-strapped bottom feeders.
Montreal Expos, you of the 3,000-person average attendance, adios.
Tampa Bay Devil Rays, you of the hideous uniforms and heinous record, sayonara.
Minnesota Twins, see you... wait, not so fast.
In a last-ditch effort to save the club from extinction, lawmakers in Minnesota, and, of course, governor and ex-pro wrestler Jesse Ventura recently fought to keep the team.
The thing is, lawmakers in the state can sell their souls for a new retractable-roof stadium, but even after the Twins' first winning season since 1992, a recent poll said 78 percent of local residents weren't inclined to finance new digs.
But for MLB, the problem isn't the stadiums. It's the revenue divide between the payrolls of the upper- and lower-echelon clubs.
Take for instance the New York Yankees' $109.7 million payroll in 2001. It dwarfs Minnesota's, which falls a whopping $85 million under the Yanks' mark.
Contract two, four, or even six teams, and the problem that belies the game continues.
Even without the financially deficient clubs, the league will continue with 10 to 13 teams as legitimate contenders until a salary cap and revenue-sharing system is installed.
Whack the hapless Expos and Devil Rays, and all that is solved is knocking the two lowest dominoes from the rack.
With those teams gone, the economic disparities between high and low would be settled somewhat, but it's just a quick fix.
New bottom feeders would take the place of the Rays, and the old problems would rise anew.
MLB has yet to replicate the success of other professional leagues, whose economic blueprints of salary caps make not for dynasty, but parity.
For the fans' sake, with a salary cap and revenue sharing, every team in the league is a given an equal stake to be successful.
To get the day's news and headlines in your inbox each morning, sign up for our email newsletters.
This allows for "small-market" teams like St. Louis Rams and San Antonio Spurs to reign victorious in any given year.
Say what you will about sports parity, but it makes the unexpected things happen expectedly.
With a sturdy economic framework, each season creates new story lines and fresh excitement in various cities.
But it's not the case in baseball.
How often are fans in Kansas City psyched about the Royals' prospects, or Floridians pumped about the Marlins?
They can't get psyched because their teams compete on an uneven playing field, a field in which only a select few clubs can tap into the high-priced talent that makes teams competitive.
By capping the spending of the top teams, not by contracting the low teams, this balance can be created.
And don't forget the logistical nightmares that would erupt from contraction.
It's impossible to give two teams the hook and expect to push on in 2002 without a glitch. Thousands of jobs would be axed, salaries left unpaid and cities abandoned.
Not to mention the legalities of transferring existing players from dead teams.
Should the Expos be sucked into the contraction machine, who would get to pick up Vladimir Guerrero?
If there is a pseudo-draft, then the worst team likely would pick him up.
But if MLB rules on some kind of open signing for the players, then it becomes a top-bidder scenario.
And that's the same situation that plagues the game in the first place.
Brad Broders can be reached at broders@email.unc.edu.
