I was so disappointed that no portion of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding baseball's anti-trust exemption was televised or even broadcast over the internet on C-Span 3 that when it came time to comment on the hearing yesterday, it slipped my mind. The hearing lasted only two and half hours, and from reports seemed to be riddled with the standard misconceptions that the players have an obligation to curb their salaries to benefit the owners. A competitive balance draft was discussed, as were revenue sharing, salary caps, and luxury taxes.

From what I can gather from the AP reports, the biggest news out of the hearings is that MLB officially considered 18 teams for contraction. Bob DuPay, baseball's chief legal officer, provided the testimony as Commissioner Selig's stand-in. As for the identity of those 18 teams, the AP quoted DuPay as saying "there were a number of teams that were contraction candidates, including teams from the state of Florida." Although beyond that and the knowledge that Minnesota and Montreal were eventually designated as the official targets, we have no specific information, speculation on the identity of the contraction candidates becomes significantly easier with the introduction of a number.

We can begin by eliminating teams that cannot be considered. New York has room for a third team without considerably diminishing the revenues of the two current franchises and a long history in the league, therefore both the Yankees and the Mets are safe. Boston has one of the longest, richest histories in baseball and a devoted fan base; they're safe. The Cubs and Dodgers are likely safe as well for similar reasons. San Francisco has a pretty new ballpark and a historic past. Seattle has a new stadium and a very solid fan base with impressive international appeal, so they're safe. St. Louis is one of the best baseball towns out there. Cleveland, Atlanta, and Texas all have large groups of active fans and wealthy owners. However, I run into a little trouble separating a 12th team from the rest.

We are left with 18 contraction candidates out of the remaining 19 teams of Anaheim, Arizona, Baltimore, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati, Colorado, Detroit, Florida, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Montreal, Oakland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Tampa Bay, and Toronto. That list defines the number one problem with contraction: no one deserves it. While the top 11 teams were fairly easy guesses, there are good reasons to keep every one of the remaining teams in the league.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, a law school classmate of Donald Watkins, seemed very interested in discovering if Watkins would be allowed to purchase the Montreal Expos and move them to Washington D.C. He evidently focused on the fact that a week before Commissioner Selig acknowledged that relocation to D.C. was a viable option, Selig told an inquiring Watkins that it was not available. Later in the day Watkins confirmed his interest in this option.

I have two problems with this new development. The first is that Watkins' interest appears to be jumping from franchise to franchise with all the commitment of a child in a toy store. The second is that from reports around the time of Selig's comments that relocation was an option; it appears that the city of Washington has already granted exclusive ballpark rights to the now-united group that has been attempting to bring a team back to the city for years.

Watkins is certainly allowed to be choosy about which team he wants to buy, but if he decides to jump from one to another he needs to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for him not to be the top candidate in all cases. This group in Washington has been there for years, so there's no reason for them to automatically step aside because he suddenly shows interest.

Neither of these complaints even addresses the fact that we first heard of Watkins as a man who simply wanted to a buy a baseball team, any baseball team, and who had no intention of attempting to relocate any team he purchased. Baseball is perfectly willing to let in Watkins, but there's no reason for them to do him any special favors.

Another thing that has begun to bother me about Watkins is his focus on incorporating plans for a Hall of Fame of black players into his new stadium. The last time I checked, baseball already had a Hall of Fame that honored players of all races, colors, and creeds. A Hall of Fame dedicated to black players is no more appropriate than one dedicated solely to players of any other heritage and serves only to reinforce racial separation.

The Negro League Museum in Kansas City makes sense. It was an entirely separate league that hosted many players worthy of memorializing. I have not as of yet had the pleasure of visiting the museum, but as described in several recent articles, it is extremely well run and a handsome tribute. There's no need for Watkins to reinvent the concept in another location that would have neither the historic significance of Kansas City as the home of the Monarchs nor the convenient centralized location. The official baseball Hall of Fame at Cooperstown also has made a point of honoring players from the Negro Leagues. Segregation was a moronic practice; to revive it under the auspices of a memorial would be in opposition to all progress that has since been made.

So as irritating and unproductive as the hearing was, I still managed to find enough related material to fill an entire article. Unfortunately, it isn't that the committee didn't hear the testimony; it's that the testimony they heard likely didn't contain the kind of information they need to make a decision on this matter. I will postpone discussion of Thursday's player news until tomorrow.