The “Michael Corleone” contraction theory
Let’s be clear at the outset: contraction is not happening. Even in the articles that talk about people talking about contraction -- like Joel Sherman’s from yesterday -- it is stipulated that, no this is a non-starter. So what I’m saying is, don’t cite this post or the Sherman column I’m linking as “continuing contraction rumors” or whatever because it’s just talk. It’s like if I were to go on about how Carla Gugino and I could spend a long weekend in a cottage at Big Sur, sipping expensive wine and feeding each other the finest meats and cheeses while listening to Billie Holliday records. Great topic -- totally fun topic! -- but it doesn’t really mean anything. Well, to anyone besides me, to whom it means everything.
The point: Joel Sherman hears how the contraction thing -- which totally isn’t happening -- would go down if it were, you know, actually happening. Sherman calls it his Michael Corleone theory, in that it would be used by Bud Selig to settle all family business. Best I can tell is that The Athletics would be Carlo Rizzi and the Rays would be Moe Greene, with Lew Wolff and Stuart Sternberg moving in to take over the Dodgers and the Mets, respectively after Frank McCourt and Fred Wilpon get whacked. Which I guess makes them Barzini and Tattaglia.
Anyway, Sherman talks about how that would all make sense, and also talks about why it won’t happen (same reasons I mentioned a couple of weeks ago).
I hate the idea of contraction, but I like the idea of Bud Selig settling scores like that. Makes him way more interesting. But I still don’t know who “Strachi” was and why Michael had him whacked by Clemenza in the elevator. Even if Clemenza looked cool firing that shotgun through the door.