Bloops: MLB, Players Talk Realignment
Posted by Steve Lombardi on June 11, 2011
According to Buster Olney: Sources say MLB and the MLBPA are talking about realignment. What do you all think about what's being discussed in this report?
Posted by Steve Lombardi on June 11, 2011
According to Buster Olney: Sources say MLB and the MLBPA are talking about realignment. What do you all think about what's being discussed in this report?
June 11th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Houston to the AL? I'll take it. I was wondering how long they were going to let the AL West skate with just 4 teams. The TEX vs. HOU series is always a big draw in Arlington but I don't know if it would remain so if it's happening 3 times a year. I personally don't think the 2 X 15 thing will fly. It causes too many scheduling problems.
June 11th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I've never been a fan of wild cards. If you can't win your division, you shouldn't be in the playoffs. I'd rather see them go to 32 teams, have eight 4 team division, and eliminate the wild card.
June 11th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Two fifteen-team leagues is not likely to happen, IMO, even if Houston is willing to move.
How would the post-season teams be determined in the new proposed format? Top four in each league?
June 11th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
@1
FrankKing, if I understood the article correctly, it is not a given that Houston would move to the AL West. Wouldn't divisions be done away with entirely under the proposal?
June 11th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
I don't mind if they do this; I just wish they were putting the Brewers back in the American League instead of the Astros. It's been 13 years, and my brain STILL thinks of them as an AL team...
June 11th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
@4
Neil, I understood that this is VERY preliminary and it sounds as if they are just throwing stuff out there to see what the reaction from the league might be. From the standpoint of fostering that rivalry that the article mentioned, Houston to the AL West makes sense to me if they stick to the division thing. As does adding just 2 more teams (making 32 total) if they go to the 2 league free-for-all format. Where to put those teams is anybody's guess. They SHOULD put a team in Vegas... but won't.
The late season inter-league thing that the article mentioned doesn't bother me much in the 2 X 15 scheme. But that doesn't mean it won't bother the people who might actually be making the decision on this.
June 11th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
I really hope they don't do a divisionless league. That's for basketball and whatnot. Baseball should be specialer.
June 11th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
I'd rather see three leagues of 10 teams each, with or without divisions. Take the two leagues from the mid-'60s when they had 10 teams, and lump all the 1969-97 expansion teams into the third league. The three best teams from each league get in, with #9 vs #8 to get the field down to 8. Bonus: No need for interleague play in September.
NL: SF, LA, HOU, StL, Cub, CIN, PIT, PHL, NYM, ATL
AL: LAA, OAK, MIN, TEX, Sox, CLE, DET, BAL, NYY, BOS
3L: SD, AZ, COL, KC, SEA, MIL, FLA, TB, WAS, TOR
June 11th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Also remember that in the AL, 1977-93, there was one team that had to play the other division in September.
June 11th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
@8
Interesting proposal, Oneblank, but what are your divisions based on? One couldn't just lump post-1968 teams together.
Your AL is too strong, isn't it? And look at the travel miles for Toronto with its league opponents.
June 11th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Why not realign so that there are only 2 divisions in each league, with the 16 in the NL and the 14 still in the AL? I don't think that would be a bad thing. One could still have 4 or 5 teams make the playoffs. It would make for even divisions (two 8-team divisions in the NL, two 7-team divisions in the AL). It seems to me that this would fix a lot of the unbalanced scheduling problems.
June 11th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Considering how much against division play I was back in '68 {needless to say, I have amended that attitude} and how little I regarded the Wild Card idea {that one is still pretty iffy to me}, I am almost hesitant to say it; but this concept looks like something some idiot Congressional committee came up with after a wild party.
In case that was a little vague, I am TOTALLY against it!
June 11th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
I am happy that they are even considering finally evening up the leagues.... even if it takes years to actually implement it, it means it's actually on MLB's radar. Good for them....
I continue to be perplexed by the insistence on playing within division late season. Everything evens out in the end (more or less, and actually would under my interleague play proposal), so what does it matter who's playing who the last week of the season? A win in April is worth the same as a win in September....
June 11th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
@5
Agreed. Teams shouldn't ever switch leagues.
Fix the Brew Crew mistake.
June 11th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Here's how I would do things:
Expand to 32 teams, put the new teams in Portland and Las Vegas and put both in the A.L.
Now each league has 16 teams; split them into 4 divisions as shown below:
A.L. Atlantic
Boston
New York Yankees
Baltimore
Tampa Bay
A.L. East
Toronto
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland
Detroit
A.L. Central
Texas
Las Vegas
Minnesota
Kansas City
A.L. West
Seattle
Oakland
Los Angeles Angels
Portland
N.L. Atlantic
Florida
Philadelphia
New York Mets
Washington
N.L. East
Pittsburgh
Cincinnatti
Milwaukee
Atlanta
N.L. Central
Chicago Cubs
Houston
St. Louis
Colorado
N.L. West
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego
San Francisco
Arizona
Keep one wild card per league, thus expanding the playoffs to 10 teams; each league's wild card plays the division winner with the worst record in a preliminary playoff round which is a 4-game series. If the 4 games are split, the division winner advances - the wild card team must win 3 out of 4.
A 162 game schedule can be maintained for this alignment as shown below:
18 games versus each other team in your division (six 3-game series)
8 games versus each other team in your league but not in your division (two 4-game series)
12 interleague games (four different opponents, one 3-game series versus each)
June 11th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
I advocate moving either Arizona or San Diego to the AL West, bumping Houston to the NL West. Then, with those 6 divisions of 5, all "natural interleague rivals" would be in the analogous opposite division. Play 3 games against the interleague rival every year, alternating between sites annually. Then play 3 against an entire other division in the other league, also rotating annually. 15 or 18 interleague games, and distribute the rest between the other intraleague divisions to add up to 162 (or I'd advocate a return to 154 if they add another series to the postseason). Division foes play identical schedules except for the 3 games against their interleague rival 2 out of every 3 years, so determining a division champ is an apples-to-apples comparison.
If we MUST do the wildcard (which I hate with a passion), I'd actually rather have 2 wildcards than one, since that means they have to earn their way into the division series with a wildcard series win. But I'd rather have 8 divisions of 4 with no wildcards. Actually, I'd rather have 4 divisions of 8, but we're certainly not going that direction.
June 11th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
@15
Nice one, Admar! I like the geographical proximity of the division teams. Nothing fosters a rivalry like opposition fans in the home team's ball park and that is more likely when your division rivals are closer.
Admar for MLB comissioner. 🙂
June 11th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
I'd love to see divisions realigned yearly according to payroll. Then you'll always guarantee a small market team to have a legit shot at a championship. If a team like Pittsburgh can't pay for a big name team, they can still compete & that will put fans in the seats & increase revenue... which I think the union would like. It also means Baltimore & Toronto wouldn't be forced to outspend the Yanks/BoSox just to try winning the division.
I'd also like to see the September schedule be more playoff-like. For example, on any given weekend, instead of hard coding who plays who, the schedule would say something like this:
AL East 1st place team vs AL Wild card leader
AL West 2nd place team vs AL East 2nd place (if WC leader then next in line)
...and so on...
June 11th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
I like Houston moving to the NL West, and San Diego moving to the AL West. That way the Astros don't have so many west coast start times. I was watching the Sox/A's game tonight on the cumputer, and I noticed a very slick fielding second baseman for the A's by the name of Jemile Weeks. He appears to be a promising player for Oakland, in 18 PA's so far he has only 1 SO.
June 11th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Also during that A's/Sox game, Kurt Suzuki took a foul tip to the stugots and was clearly hurting. Next time he comes to the plate he went 0-2 in the count and Ken "Hawk" Harrelson says "Suzuki goes 0 and 2, in more ways than one." That's awesome and why Hawk is the Hawk.
June 11th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Agree with John ...keep it simple
Not one of the existing teams in MLB ever changed leagues before the Brewers had to...why make the same mistake with the Astros...?
Why not just reverse the move that caused the misalignment in the first place...?
If it didn't happen to begin with (unnecessarily, I might add), this conversation would never have had to take place.
It's also why you have such a bloated NL Central.
June 11th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
The Senators' move to Minnesota after the 1960 season was influenced by talk of the creation of a third major league. There were 3 major leagues in 1914-15, and there was also talk of a third major league during the 1981 strike. (The Chicago Mob would have played at Soldier Field.)
After all the objections to the Brewers changing leagues, why the objection to my plan that has nobody change leagues?
June 11th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Obvious choice to go from the NL to the AL - It doesn't seem right to me that the 1982 AL champion is no longer in the AL. After 13 years I still can't shake it from my mind that a Phillies-Brewers series is not an interleague series!
June 11th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Pointless. Why move HOU instea dof moving MIL BACK? Don;t need more WC's. One is more than enough. More of Selig's inane tinkering.
June 11th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Why would just one team in each league be stuck with the other league in the closing weeks of the season? Certainly some kind of rotation could be worked out. Yes, a team from each league would need to play the other league in the very last series, but this doesn't mezn that this team would have to do it for a longer period of time.
Road trips could be planned so that, for instance, an NL team going into Baltimore late in the season could also stop in Washington or Philaadelphia or both. A season-ending homestand by the Red Sox could feature visits by, for instance, the Braves and then the Yankees.
June 11th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
I like having two larger leagues... five-team divisions are too small, and four are atrocious. Having five teams each in the playoffs is stupid, though. Ruins baseball, really. Nobody cares about the race for fifth place. Look at hockey every year. That last place is virtually inconsequential in terms of regular season excitement. Solves none of the "pennant race-killing" problems. Only creates more. Why five? Why would the first place team want to sit around for a week? Why not four? Why not two? Or one?
I say, go back to two divisions each league and take first place teams only. You'd have two of seven and two of eight. Perfect!
June 11th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
If Milwaukee is moved back to the AL, they should go in the Central and KC should move to the AL West. KC fans should not be complaining about start times, etc. From 69-93, their biggest rivals we Angels and A's and we had all sorts of late starts.
Now, if I had things my way, we would do that switch, and have interleague play every week. Why does MLB and it's old-school fans think they are somehow above having the leagues, which are really just conferences play each other? It works fine in every other sport. The only thing I would do is get uniform rules. Either we abolish the DH or we make everyone use it.
60 games vs. non-divisional league opponents (10 teams x 6 games apiece)
72 games vs. divisional opponents (4 x 18)
30 games in interleague vs. one division on rotating basis (5 x 6)
This would allow each team to play only three game series, which would allow for an off day each week on either Monday or Thursday. I would also come up with a way to limit the amount of interleague play in September.
June 11th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Timmy P a potential fan of Jemile Weeks. That's absolutely classic.
You are a brilliant performer, good sir.
June 12th, 2011 at 12:02 am
This is off topic, but I just noticed it and I have to tell somebody:
There have been 29 seasons of 400+ Total Bases.
Four of them were in the N.L. in 2001.
June 12th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Timmy P. really wanted to get behind big brother Ricky's 2 for 3 and a walk tonight, with his 12th HR plating the tying and go-ahead runs -- but ach, that strikeout! 🙂
June 12th, 2011 at 2:35 am
Their proposal sounds pretty dumb. 15 teams in each league and no divisions? That'll go over well.
"Well, folks, it's the last weekend of the season, and the Brewers are trying to hold on to their division lead...I mean, their 5th spot in the playoffs. The Marlins are just behind them in 6th place, and the top 4 teams don't give a crap this weekend cause they're definitely making the playoffs. The Brew Crew is playing hated rival Cincinnati who are in 10th place but are looking to knock them out of the playoffs, and of course the Marlins start up a series with the....Orioles....cause we have useless Interleague games all season long now."
June 12th, 2011 at 2:45 am
Remember, Milwaukee was a National League town first - the Braves had a great run led by a few Hall-of-Famers during their stint there.
I always thought Bud Selig orchestrated the Brewers' move to the NL intentionally from the start. Wasn't it fishy that after a bunch of two-team expansions, suddenly the Rays and D-Backs had to go to different leagues? And only after that was decided did everyone realize the scheduling problems that would ensue? And then, after proposing some ridiculous realignment schemes, the move to the NL was offered to the Royals, who had no intention of leaving the AL? Then, finally, the Brewers said, "oh, ok, we'll move if it makes things easier for everyone." Pretty sneaky, Bud.
June 12th, 2011 at 3:14 am
@31
Rich, its like you read my mind. Year long Interleague seems not as enticing as when we have that period of "Interleague Time" we have now.
Also according to the article moving Astros to the AL will create a rivalry with Rangers when this thing has to have Interleague all year long anyways?
What?
June 12th, 2011 at 5:38 am
It's a surprising leak given how multiple divisions were implemented to create regular season interest. Granted, it matters not for the playoffs as the same number of teams will be in anyway, so I might conclude that a single-table setup for each circuit is a nostalgic nod to baseball history. On the other hand, Selig has continued to allow MLB's degradation into a modernist form of business. I know that's necessary in order to survive, but that doesn't mean stepping on tradition by allowing Interleague Play - which, incidentally, was enabled by his moving the Brewers to the NL. Now, instead of the Crew returning to the AL to make things right again, the Astros are said to be moving, thereby placing two Texas teams in the same league. That's Bud for ya, given an opportunity to make baseball what it should be, he instead fumbles it.
June 12th, 2011 at 8:25 am
@18 Devon,
That would provide incentive for teams to cut payroll in order to qualify for the easier division.
June 12th, 2011 at 8:29 am
@34
Bootman, well-written.
"That's Bud for ya, given an opportunity to make baseball what it should be, he instead fumbles it."
I missed what you meant by making baseball what it should be. Did you mean restoring Milwaukee to the AL, getting rid of Interleague play or what?
June 12th, 2011 at 8:49 am
I hope this is done as part of a grand bargain that reduces MLB roster size, Concentrating playing time among fewer players leads to greater fan allegiance to those players and hence to baseball as a whole. More fun for the fans and more money for the industry. But it can't happen in isolation because the MLBPA would strike over lost jobs. But in conjunction with expansion, it could happen.
June 12th, 2011 at 10:42 am
I can never understand why baseball fans are so scared of change. I can't believe people are talking about abolishing the WC and even going back to the two division format. I used to be against the expansion of the playoffs. I thought making the playoffs should be for the select few who play well, and having half the league make the playoffs is bad. I was wrong.
Baseball needs to expand its playoffs. There are way too many teams playing for nothing in July. Maybe not to 16 teams, but at least another WC. While the division races may not be as exciting, there is still the battle for position and more fans would be interested as their team has a shot now. And look at the A.L East. There's a good chance Tampa, Boston, and New York will have the top three records in the A.L. Yet, one of them won't make the playoffs because of the division they play in. How is it fair, or good for baseball, that a team with a worse record makes it to the playoffs over a team with a better record?
June 12th, 2011 at 11:11 am
@38, Dcarson -- Your last 3 sentences sound like an argument for eliminating divisional play and just putting the top N teams into the postseason. As long as divisional play exists, there is the potential for a team to miss the playoffs with a better record than some division winner.
As far as too many teams playing for nothing in July ... To the extent that it's true, it could also be said that most of those teams are already playing for nothing in April. I don't see how expanding the postseason (to what, 16 teams?) creates a preferable situation.
There is an inherent conflict between the goals of giving more teams a shot at the postseason, and ensuring that the eventual champion is really a good team. I would rather see 10 good teams miss the postseason, than see a .500 team win the World Series.
June 12th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Playoff byes and wild cards do not interact well, but doing a straight "top X teams" with no divisions ruins pennant races and provides for less Red Sox-Yankees matchups, which means worse ratings. There is truly no way the system can improve (other than moving the Brewers back to the AL, which still leaves another Central team to move to the West. Moving the Astros won't work, they're still in the Central time zone.)
June 12th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
I wanted to hear Neil's thoughts on the ruckus a couple of weeks ago when Jose Bautista threw his bat down on a pop out to the infield. There was some BS about it being against the unwritten rules, but I watched it and I am with Jose. Now since that goat-F!@#, Jose is in a slump. Hawk Harrelson was all over Jose which I thought was unfair!
June 12th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
@2 I hope not. The development of pitching has just caught up from the last expansion. I would rather see two divisions in each league with the top 2 in each division going to the playoffs.
June 12th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Seems to me that part of the problems is that there are too many teams- thirty is a really unwieldy number for scheduling. Fourteen in the A.L. from 1977-93 didn't work until a balanced schedule was adopted. Since contraction won't happen, maybe they should go to three leagues of ten. It would destroy the concept of AL-NL, but maybe that's a stumbling block to realignment- just thinkin"...
June 12th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
@32
Selig did acknowledge when he moved the Brewers to the NL that "Milwaukee is a National League town". If he could, he would change their nickname to "Braves". 🙂
I don't see what the rush is here. Why can't they just wait until the next expansion? At that point, I'd prefer four 8-team divisions instead of eight four-team divisions. With tiny divisions, the schedule would have to be extremely unbalanced and there are already complaints from fans that there are too many in-division games.
June 12th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Regarding the comment that: "Not one of the existing teams in MLB ever changed leagues before the Brewers had to..."
The Dodgers, the Cardinals, the Pirates, and the Reds all started in the American Association, a major league during the 1880s and early 1890s, and then changed leagues to join the NL.
If the fans in Milwaukee are satisfied with the Brewers' change, why should it bother anyone else?
June 12th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
@41
"Now since that goat-F!@#, Jose is in a slump."
Timmy P, what the ****. Why would you put a comment like that in BRef?
Bautista hit his league-leading 21st HR today and although he has been in a slump he is among the AL leaders in all-star votes.
I posted about Janks' overreaction to Bautista's bat slam in another thread.
I am not a champion of Jose Bautista, except to say that I believe he is clean!
Where do your bizarre tangents come from?
At least try to post something relevant to the thread.
Johnny Twisto, help me, please!
June 12th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
@15 I like your idea, but I don't know if MLB would go for a team in Vegas. How about a team in Charlotte in the AL East with the White Sox in the Central?
June 12th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
@8:The problem with your plan is that if you are going to have three distinct leagues, you really shouldn't mix the playoffs. The only way I could see it working is if you have it Caribbean Series style with round robin play between the three league winners.
@11: You are exactly right. Move both leagues back into two divisions. Top two teams in each division get in. Not only do you have a more balanced schedule, but you eliminate any advantages that LAA of A and Texas have over Baltimore and Toronto.
June 12th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
@47
Jay, I agree with you about Bud not allowing a team in Las Vegas. Poor ol' Sin City, the best they can boast of is a major-league affiliated AAA franchise.
That being said, I don't think a Charlotte MLB team is financially viable, long-term. Not enough corporate base to buy the private boxes etc......
June 13th, 2011 at 12:57 am
@45
Those defections are not the same thing. The AA was a rival league. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Brooklyn were stolen by the NL. Those defections were instrumental in weakening the AA so that it didn't have the strength to survive long after the chaotic PL season of 1890. In 1892, St. Louis and the now-defunct teams in Washington, Louisville and Baltimore were scooped up by the NL when the AA folded.
The annoying thing about the Brewers switch of leagues is that Bud Selig owns the Brewers. Seemed like special treatment to the Commisioner's team. Why didn't they just add the Devil Rays to the NL or the D-backs to the AL? Nobody ever had to switch leagues because of an expansion before.
June 13th, 2011 at 3:04 am
@KenS / 45
Ahem...didn't think I needed to clarify the existing Major Leagues...
If you really needed to go that far back (1880's American Association...?? --- seriously...??)...then, there's no point of reference for any real discussion about why these misalignments and realignments are having an effect in the PRESENT ERA.
Selig's over-tinkering messed up what should have been a logical move in simply realigning divisions without making a traditional (post-19th century, that is) team move leagues, only to force another team do the same thing a decade-and-change later --- to "correct" the original move that shouldn't have been made in the first place.
In the process, he messes up rivalries established within the league over generations...again. And this claim to set-up a Texas "rivalry" is nonsense. As if that's been a longstanding wish for Texans, let alone nationally.
Agree with DavidRF & Bootman...vintage Selig suspiciously acting in his own self(ish)-interests and abusing his authority as commissioner to flub this up in the first place, only to have to cover it with what else? another flub.
June 13th, 2011 at 7:07 am
@46 Well I don't think there was any doubt Baustista was in a slump for those 12 games after the Sox series, no homers and 5 RBI's. Why all the hostility? So I missed your response in a previous thread, big deal. You really do believe all the BS that rolls from your mouth.
June 13th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Also when I said goat-f@#$, I was not calling Jose a goat-f@#$, I was talking about the stupid situation that he found himself in for supposedly breaking some unwritten rule. My intention was to stick up for Jose, not to demean him.
June 13th, 2011 at 9:29 am
"If you really needed to go that far back (1880's American Association...?? --- seriously...??)..."
Yes, I am now mortified by the realization of the absurdity of posting historical information about teams switching leagues, on a website designed as a reference for baseball history dating back to 1871. What was I thinking? Who could possibly be interested in such arcane trivia on a site like this?
It is possible to discuss why realignment may be wrong in the present era without posting incorrect information about historical precedents.
June 13th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
@Ken S / 54
"Who could possibly be interested in such ARCANE TRIVIA on a site like this?"
(Emphasis mine)
Glad you could make my point for me, Ken S.
I only thought the discussion favored a more up-to-date point of reference...as in our lifetimes
I guess expecting a substantive response based on relevance was too much to ask. Also there's the blanket assumption that Milwaukee fans were "satisfied" with the change.
But I think the more important point of the discussion is -- what choice did the fans have in the matter...? What choice will the Astros fans have in the current proposal..? Are these decisions made in the fans' best interest, or Bud Selig's..?
So if you want to passively nod in approval on every move the owner-commissioner makes, then that's your choice. But don't assume that other fans are necessarily "satisfied" with it or accept it so sheepishly.
June 14th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Then your statement should have been "Not one of the existing teams in MLB changed leagues in any of our lifetimes before the Brewers had to..."
"Ever" means since the beginning, and people come to this website to look up information about professional baseball since its beginning. (Seriously.) I was merely making a correction based on the historical record, because, in contradiction to the (I thought) obviously sarcastic remark I had made wondering who could be interested, many readers on this site are interested. I did not state that because four other teams had previously moved, it is necessarily a good thing for additional teams to move now. I do not passively approve whatever move the baseball owners make, any more than I passively accept historical inaccuracies that are posted on a baseball history website. I do not like interleague play (thus I would not at all be happy about the 15-team league proposal), and I still find the designated hitter an abomination.
My comment about the Milwaukee fans, on the other hand, was meant to continue the discussion in a new direction, not as a statement of fact. I don't live near Milwaukee, and I really don't know how the fans there feel now or when the move was announced. I had hoped that someone with knowledge of the local fan reaction would respond to that part of my original post, perhaps to inform me that the fans are not satisfied.
June 14th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
@ Admar
Get out of my head and stop stealing my ideas.
Expanding to 32 and 4 (or 2--I'm partial to 2 nowadays) divisions per league is what I have been saying for (a couple) years to my friends. Though Vegas isn't going to happen (does Western Canada deserve a team?) and I don't know if Portland is better than Charlotte or Nashville.
June 14th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
@Fireworks: MLB doesn't need more teams. Have you seen how empty the stadiums are lately? They need to move Tampa to Indianapolis and condense into two divisions per league. 6 games against the seven non-division teams + twenty games against the 6 division teams = 162 games. And get rid of the DH.
June 14th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
@Ken S / 56
If that was really your goal, then you shouldn't have presumed their satisfaction to begin with...
My final point is that your insistence on adhering to minutiae rather than the bigger picture of the discussion has rendered it moot.
This is me letting it rest. I suggest you do the same.
June 15th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
This is my first time on the blog. It's good to see so many opinions here (and most are on-topic). Here are my picks for re-alignment. They consist of two leagues (AL & NL, but w/ expansion to 32 teams). There would be four divisions in each league, and the re-alignment would be roughly north-south. I will use nos. since MLB can call the divisions what they want, but I'm listing them in East-West order.
AL #1 AL#2 AL#3 AL#4
Boston Pitts. Balt. Milw. Notice the natural rivalries in
NYY Clev. CHC Minn. this plan--New York & Chicago.
NYM BJays CWS Oak. Also, Toronto has a chance to
Phils Reds Det. M's win a division (w/o RS & NYY).
NL#1 NL#2 NL#3 NL#4 Again, we have natural rivalries
Wash. Atl. Tex. SF --Stl. & KC. plus an entire Cal.
FLM Stl. Col. LAD division! Note the new teams, to
TBR KC. DBs LAA make the nos. even.
PR (new) Hou. LV (new) SD
I believe this is better geographically as well as being fairer to all teams.
I admit having to fudge a little (SF is a more "traditional" rival for the LAD, so would have to remain in their division; it was just not possible to put both Texas teams in the same division, but at least they're in the same league, under my plan. Also, the entire plan hinges on the acceptance of both Puerto Rico and Las Vegas (or logical substitutes) as expansion teams. Certainly, PR deserves a team. Players would love to play there and it would be a terrific boon to the economy. LV is not the boon town it was five years ago (what is?), but with a domed stadium, it would attract a lot of interest. You would just have to keep out the betting. That's doable. Thanks for reading this rather long post. Any comments would be appreciated; I just ask that you keep them on-topic and respectful. Thanks.
June 15th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
I hope you decipher my post (#60); it didn't come out as I expected once submitted. The plan, again, is for four teams and four divisions per league. I will leave any playoff plans to the pros. There would be no need for interleague play. I am not a fan of the DH, but if they decide to keep that, I can live with it. Thanks, and sorry it wasn't clearer (I intended to save room, but it didn't work out that way!).
June 15th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
@Jeffrey:
I don't see how that makes any sense at all geographically. How can you stick Puerto Rico and San Diego in the same division, or Tampa with LA, or New York with Minnesota, or Washington with San Francisco, or NYM with Oakland, or Florida with LAD, or Philadelphia with Seattle? You just physically can't travel that much unless you want to have two off days every single week. On top of that, you can't have "natural rivalries" with teams a thousand miles from your fan base. NYY - BOS, CHI - STL, and LAD - SFG work because of the proximity of the two stadiums.
June 15th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
I believe that Jeffrey's plan is supposed to be read vertically.
AL1: Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Phillies
AL2: Pirates, Indians, Blue Jays, Reds
AL3: Orioles, Cubs, White Sox, Tigers
AL4: Brewers, Twins, Mariners, Athletics
NL1: Nationals, Marlins, Rays, Puerto Rico
NL2: Braves, Cardinals, Royals, Astros
NL3: Rangers, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Las Vegas
NL4: Giants, Dodgers, Angels, Padres
This involves 6 NL teams switching to the AL, and 4 AL teams switching to the NL. I'm not sure why it was not possible to put the Rangers and Astros in the same division, or the Giants and the Athletics, or the Cardinals and the Cubs... With only four teams per division, you could divide them so that all of the teams are no more than one time zone apart, rather than having the Athletics and Mariners with the Brewers and Twins and the Rangers in the same division as the Diamondbacks (Arizona does not have Daylight Savings Time, thus it is essentially in the Pacific Time Zone during the baseball season). Basically, this plan obliterates the traditional leagues and creates two new ones. Given that fans of NL teams generally prefer NL baseball and that fans of AL teams generally prefer AL baseball, I don't think that there would be a lot of enthusiasm for such a huge change. In particular, I doubt that there would be support for moving any of the 1901-1961 NL teams to the AL, as Jeffery has proposed doing with the Phillies, Pirates, Reds, and Cubs, and I think that many Mets fans would gag at the thought of being in the same division as the Yankees.
June 15th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
To Ken S.:
Thanks for deciphering my plan. That is correct. I couldn't put Tex. with Hou. because I had to put the Braves in NL2 (Atl. is farther east than Arlington, where the Rangers play. As I alluded to in my plan (which, admittedly, didn't come out as I had typed it), I felt that SF needed to be with the LAD since they were traditional rivals (both in Ca. and when they played in NY). It's true that the Cards and Cubs have a rivalry, too, but I wanted to make the divisions (and the leagues) viable geographically, so The two Chicago teams seemed obvious, along with Stl. & KC, which are not too far from each other. As for the popularity of the plan, that's up to others, I guess. I remember when they played The Mayor's Trophy game in NYC (that's where I live), so there's a lot to be said for "bragging rights", and the prospect of up to 18 games a year being played between the two NY teams, in my opinion, would be good for the city. Of course, this is all speculative, anyway. Thanks for the comment.