A Modest Proposal (Realignment and Expansion)
by deadspy3 on Oct 9, 2009 12:57 PM EDT
66 comments
OK, it's an old and well-worn idea, but I'm dragging it back up. As a British sports fan, one of the hardest things for me to comprehend is that sporting competition in MLB is so unbalanced. I get the rational reasons why - market saturation, travel time; and I've heard the less rational ones - history (not unimportant, but not critical), rivalry (rivalries come and go, see current Mets v Phillies aggro) etc.
I'm referring here both to unequally sized divisions/leagues and to the fact that teams have to play certain others a huge amount and certain others strange numbers of times home vs road etc. My proposal is to completely fix the former - make baseball into two sixteen-team leagues of four divisions each - and to further mitigate the latter, by having teams play their own 3 division mates sixteen times each, eight at home and eight on the road, and their other twelve league mates eight times each, four at home and four on the road.
Practical results of this:
1) No wildcard - best record plays fourth, second plays third (1st and 2nd home advantage)
2) Less interleague play, no guaranteed 'natural rival' games
3) Marlins move to Las Vegas or Sacramento
4) New AL team in Portland
5) New NL team in New York (though NJ or Hartford are also possibilites)
6) Tampa moves to NL, Arizona and Colorado to AL
7) An end to 3 game series - sad, but this allows overall equal treatment of playing each time for either one or two series at home and away each
8) Travel is much more sensible, hopefully meaning game quality is higher!
9) Off days have to be staggered pretty evenly, but with two fewer games overall, the season could stay the same length.
10) Postseason is effectively the same except everyone in it has won a Division of the same number of opponents
My Post-Expansion/Realignment Line-up:
NL NorthEast
New York Expansion Team
NL SouthEast
NL Central
St Louis Cardinals
Miwaukee Brewers
NL West
LA Dodgers
SF Giants
Las Vegas or Sacramento Marlins
AL East
NY Yankees
AL South
KC Royals
AL Central
AL NorthWest
Portland Expansion Team
LA Angels
So I realise the Mets and Yankees would fight tooth and nail to stop a new NY team, but there is PLENTY of market room and a strong commissioner could theoretically push this through - Manhatten perhaps.
What do you think?
2 recs |
66 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Hell
give me a relegation and promotion system and I’d be a happy man.
I like most of the ideas here (not so sold on a third NY team); sadly, I’d imagine none of it will happen any time soon.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Oct 9, 2009 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Interestingly
Cricket in the UK moved fairly recently to a relegation and promotion system. I thought this would mean counties languishing for years in the lower divisions and/or higher revenue teams sticking in the top division, but it doesn’t seem to have worked like that; there’s actually been a fair amount of movement over the first few years.
by deadspy3 on Oct 9, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So I've noticed
Yes, yes, I also follow county cricket. I’m still not entirely sure why, tho. Just an addict, I suppose.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Oct 9, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always beef about how unfair it is
that Lancashire lose (usually) three-four games a year to weather. I think that needs to be sorted out, somehow. A different kind of unbalanced schedule!
by deadspy3 on Oct 9, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's fairly new to cricket.
Look at the premier league for an idea of how that would affect MLB. Cricket revenue differences between clubs just aren’t comparable to the differences between the Yankees and Marlins. Think Chelsea vs. Hull.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Oct 9, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
The payroll (more accurate transfer spending) difference between teams in the EPL is ridiculous. Also, the same teams have been at the top for years now.
The top four is pretty much always Liverpool, Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal and then you have Everton and a couple other teams that are somewhat competitive. It makes MLB look like the NFL.
by Balagast on Oct 9, 2009 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If MLB didn't have a draft and FA compensation, the EPL is likely what it would look like.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Oct 9, 2009 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm certainly not
averse to a luxury tax equivalent in the EPL, even as a Man U fan
by deadspy3 on Oct 10, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be bad news for Citeh
and Chelsea, and arguably Arsenal (not really Liverpool, because they always have to sell before they buy), but good news for everyone else.
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Oct 10, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think even Arsenal
are contracting their expenditure now. They have a very profitable enterprise but not a particularly high payroll, I believe.
by deadspy3 on Oct 10, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, their payroll is lower than the rest of the top 4
and Citeh adn Sp*rs. I always think the money is there, but Arsene doesn’t spend it, unless in certain cases (Arshavin for example). I for one don’t believe the rubbish that Adebayor said that they were in the red
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Oct 10, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
3rd NY team not needed
bring a team back to Hartford… we can call them the Whalers again and re-live the glory days when we had a real sports team in CT
by KeithsMoustache on Oct 11, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm slightly confused about the comparison
I don’t follow cricket, so if that is the main comp that is my issue, but I do follow the EPL and there is such a lack of parity there it isn’t funny (sidenote: Blues rule … eat it Liverpool!!)
I like the 4 division format you have here, its probably more fair than the wildcard.
Having said that, the biggest issue in MLB (IMO) is not the format of the divisions/leagues, but the financial structure. There need to be larger incentives for team that don’t sign FA and get draft picks and there needs to be regulation on draftee contracts so poorer teams that end up with more first round picks (because they don’t sign type A FA’s) can actually draft the best player and not have to worry about not being able to sign them. That would allow these teams to truly be able to build through the draft better.
Basically, richer teams should not be able to leverage both free agency, the draft and international signings. If you spend the huge bucks in FA you shouldn’t be able to use your money to still get top talent in the international market and the draft.
by Balagast on Oct 9, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well I wouldn't claim
this would sort everything out. I’d definitely be in favour of some further reforms. I would like something like the Rule V draft only slightly more punitive, for example, each year one player from each team in the top half of the finishing standings is lost to a “parity draft”. How is that player decided? Perhaps by plate appearances for batters or innings pitched – the idea being that the top teams wouldn’t be able to keep players on their rosters then underuse them; this could be cumulative over 2 years and would discount time on the DL of course. Say Murphy only got to play in 15% of the innings he was on the roster for, then he might be selected for this draft. Then in order the bottom half of the teams (sixteen in my plan, fifteen now), would get to each pick one from this pool. It wouldn’t be dramatic, but would mean that there was another movement of useful players into the lower half. There would be contractual issues of course, but something could be worked out.
Another additional rule change I would like to see would be to encourage players to stick with the clubs that brought them up once they hit free agency. This would greatly help teams like KC and the Pirates turn it around. This could be funded out of revenue sharing so that when a player hits free agency, and reaches a deal with another team, their original team gets to the counter-offer a contract which is subsidised by 20% by MLB. I’m just thinking out loud here, but something along these lines might help.
by deadspy3 on Oct 9, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're concerned about the Pirates being competitive
I don’t think placing them in a division with two NY teams and the Phillies combined with eliminating the wild card will help. That by itself is pretty much ending the chance of the Pirates ever playing playoff baseball again.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Oct 9, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like some of these ideas.
But I think a division with DC, Houston, and Tampa Bay in it doesn’t exactly help with travel.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on Oct 9, 2009 5:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's the trickiest division
but better than Texas to Seattle, no?
by deadspy3 on Oct 10, 2009 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily a bad idea though.
A third NY team is a pretty radical idea though, I don’t think it would sell very well and I don’t think the commish would want yet another team in the Northeast.
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 9, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
We should probably start a thread on what to call the team.
My vote: The Yats
by fxcarden on Oct 9, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer Yets and Mankees.
how about a community poll?
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 9, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that's true
but the market size is definitely the biggest “spare” capacity, and by a long way
by deadspy3 on Oct 10, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is
by putting them in New York you’re expecting most baseball fans to stray from their favorite teams, which I guess could happen in like Mississippi but it’s highly doubtful in NY
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 10, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really radical
If you consider that there were 3 teams in NY for a very long time, and before the expansion era, so the concentration in the Northeast was even stronger.
by yellomellojello on Oct 10, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was also less competition.
For most/all of that time, there weren’t other major sports, there weren’t TV contracts to deal with, and baseball also didn’t have to worry about further diluting its talent pool. 32 teams makes sense, since it can even out the divisions, but it won’t happen. Besides, I think owners like having markets without teams – otherwise, their threats to move unless they get the new stadiums they want would look empty.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Oct 10, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are way too many issues with this proposal as it stands.
1) Why are the Marlins moving to Sacramento now that they are getting a new stadium?
2) Why are teams being swapped randomly from the AL to the NL? You don’t think fanbases and franchises would be upset since the DH rule makes the game completely different?
3) What is going to happen to the franchises in Toronto and Baltimore? Forcing them to beat both the Sox and Yankees just to make the playoffs would pretty much ensure they never reach the post season again. The Sox and Yanks spending will go throught the roof if they have to beat out the other to reach October.
4) Have you ever been to Manhatten? Where would you find enough land for a stadium? Just owning that much land in Manhatten would make them the most valuable franchise in all of sports.
5) If you did actually have a division with 2 NY teams and the Phillies, what would you think is going to happen to the Pirates?
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Oct 9, 2009 6:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yo
1) Well, you know how much Loria actually likes baseball, right?
2) I disregard such things. Tampa Bay fans choosing between the division of death and the Mets/Phillies might take the latter, if not, too bad, I’m assuming it’s not up to them, and teams have swapped leagues plenty of times before
3) Same as now!? Still have to beat one of them at least to get to the PS
4) Yes, there’s plenty of unused land on the west side of Lower Manhatten where they were going to build a football or basketball stadium pretty recently as I recall?
5) Teams can turn around. If the Mets can go from 90 wins to 90 losses in a season, the same can happen in reverse to the 4th placed team of 4, I think, and particularly over time with other measures to help drafting
by deadspy3 on Oct 10, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if there's no chance of moving the Marlins
you move the Rays. Sorry, but Floridians have demonstrated that they only like baseball half the time!
by deadspy3 on Oct 10, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to have to agree with Schmidt on #4
There WAS a plan to make West Side Stadium for the Jets, but the only reason that was affordable was because Bloomberg offered to subsidize it and use it for other purposes, and the real “other purpose” was to bring the Olympics to New York, as a football stadium would be a significantly better olympic stadium than a baseball stadium. Now that the 2016 Olympics are already set for Rio a new stadium in Manhattan won’t happen until 2014 or so, and it’ll be for the Jets.
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 10, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shared venue?
I mean, this is only a small point really. It could be in NJ, or Brooklyn really. Also there are plenty of baseball fans in NY who don’t like either the Mets or Yankees, expats from elsewhere etc with pre existing animosities. They could go for this putative new team in the same way lots of Mets fans did when they were created. There were three New York teams before too, of course.
by deadspy3 on Oct 10, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This plan may make some sense for a fan, but what teams would really be for this?
Neither of your expansion markets will have a vote in this proposal, leaving 30 votes for thecurrent franchises. 24 votes would be required to ratify the proposal. Neither NY team is likely to support the idea, as it could cut into their market. The rays would likely vote against it as they are being re-located. Unless you move the Rays to Alaska, a team is likely to vote against the proposal due to their TV territory being impacted. The Mariners, A’s, and Giants will likely be against the Portland team for the same reasons.The Pirates, Jays, and Orioles are having their competitive positions severly impacted by the divisions they’d be placed in. The Red Sox would likely be against the elimination of the Wild Card if they share a division with the Yankees.
These are just the obvious issues with this proposal, and it already has no chance of actually passing. I’m sure plenty of other owners would have issues with this. The players union would still have to agree to this, and I’m sure they’d use their position to get a better deal for themselves, creating further competitive imbalance. Remember what transpired the last time baseball tried to implement major changes, and how long it took them to recover. Creating better competitive balance is a great thought, but something this radical will just never happen.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Oct 10, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There isn't going to be a new stadium in Manhattan, period.
The Jets are moving into the new stadium at the Meadowlands with the Giants, and I doubt they can break their lease anytime soon. Not to mention the enormous opposition to the stadium, the impact on our already horrific traffic issues, possible (and more feasible) uses for the land, the cost. Sure, Bloomberg (or a future mayor) could offer to subsidize the cost again, but people are really growing tired of paying for stadiums, especially in this economy.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Oct 10, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
if we got the Olympics I’m sure minds would change.
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 10, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was a need when the Meadowlands was in need of replacement.
I really dont see the need now. NY has more than enough world class outdoor stadiums to compete for an Olympic bid without building a new one. With the Brooklyn yard project moving forward, I’d guess they’re fin on indoor stadiums too. If anyone was to get a replacement from this, I’d guess its the islanders or a 2nd big soccer stadium.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Oct 10, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're not getting the Olympics.
2012 was our shot. I could be wrong, but cities rarely make an Olympic bid so soon after losing out.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Oct 10, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
London made 2 in a row before winning...Madrid just made its 3rd.
This was Tokyo’s 3rd consecutive. Salt Lake bid for 4 straight winter olympics before winning. It actually happens alot.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Oct 10, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's have the new team play in Staten Island
fuck the Staten Island Yankees
"Solo homers usually come with no one on base." -Ralph Kiner
by metsguy234 on Oct 9, 2009 6:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Terrible location
First off Staten Island is entirely out of the way of everyone.
Second of all, no one really wants to go there.
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 10, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shaolin's only use
is connecting Brooklyn to New Jersey.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
by Evan_S on Oct 10, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Wu Tang?
Ya do know the Wu Tang Clan ain’t nothin’ to fuck wit.
Beer is good! And stuff!
by R_Adragna on Oct 10, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
But RZA, GZA Masta Killa and Ol’ Dirty Bastard are from Brooklyn, Inspectah Deck from the Bronx, Method Man only spent half his time in Shaolin growing up, and since RZA was really the founder of a group that is Witty and Unpredictable, as well as having Talent And Natural Game, I think they would have been fine without Staten. I do know Ghost and U-God are both from there though, not really sure where Raekwon is from.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
by Evan_S on Oct 10, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, forgot about all their origins.
I figured since they give Staten the love, I figured that’s where they hailed from. But I did know that Method Man hailed from Hempstead.
Beer is good! And stuff!
by R_Adragna on Oct 10, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the second reason is why theres no teams in New Jersey
and also, obviously it wouldn’t work as the only team in the city, but as one of 3 teams, i think it’d work just fine… the way it is now we’re like an hour away from the yankees and mets
"Solo homers usually come with no one on base." -Ralph Kiner
by metsguy234 on Oct 10, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Syracuse Metkees?
Beer is good! And stuff!
by R_Adragna on Oct 10, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally...
I think Baseball should’ve never left the 2-divisions per league format. Additionally, with the scarcity of starting pitching in today’s game, I’d prefer if MLB did away with two teams and went to 4 divisions, 7 teams per.
http://www.capitolavenueclub.com/
by PWHjort on Oct 11, 2009 12:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Reminds me of a quote.
“Dear Mr. President: There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
PS: I am not a crackpot."
"It's Father's Day today at Shea, so to all you fathers out there, Happy Birthday." -- Ralph Kiner
by dissento on Oct 12, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even better idea.
1) Put Nats back in Montreal. The fans there got shafted big time.
2) Move the Marlins West. Ideally, I would like to put them in Toronto as a second team, but that just screws things up.
3) Put the Rays in Philly as a second team. As much as I admire the Rays, putting a team in decisively Yankee territory is a very bad idea. Also, I feel that Philly is big enough to have a second team again.
As unrealistic and extreme as it looks, it’s still fun to dream.
Beer is good! And stuff!
by R_Adragna on Oct 13, 2009 5:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd
move the Marlins to Puerto Rico. It’s about time they had a home team.
Then, I’d move the Astros to Las Vegas and put them in the AL West
5 teams per league, new markets tapped. All problems solved.
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 13, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't have five teams per division and 15 per league
because their would always be a team left over. Lets say you did this and on a given weekend, you have Mets vs. Phillies, Marlins vs. Braves, Cards vs. Brewers, Cubs vs. Reds, Pirates vs. Nats, Rockies vs Giants, Dodgers vs. Padres who are the Diamondbacks gonna play if the Astros are in the AL?
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
by Evan_S on Oct 13, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
Perhaps this:
AL East:
New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
Baltimore Orioles
Tampa Bay Rays
AL North:
Toronto Blue Jays
Detroit Tigers
Minnesota Twins
Chicago White Sox
AL West:
LA Angels
Seattle Mariners
Oakland Athletics
Las Vegas Team
AL South:
Texas Rangers
Kansas City Royals
Cleveland Indians
New Orleans Team
NL East:
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Washington Nationals
Puerto Rico Marlins
NL South:
Atlanta Braves
Houston Astros
St. Louis Cardinals
Pittsburgh Pirates
NL North:
Chicago Cubs
Milwaukee Brewers
Cincinatti Reds
Colorado Rockies
NL West:
LA Dodgers
San Francisco Giants
San Diego Padres
Arizona D’backs
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 16, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too many divisions
The wild card is a necessity because, like the Sox this year, sometimes a second place team deserves a playoff spot. With this set up the top four teams make it and a second place team that wins 94 games is left out of the playoffs while an 84 and an 89 win team make it. Also, I’d hate to expand the playoffs. Personally I think the setup is fine right now.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
by Evan_S on Oct 16, 2009 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the NFL has the best playoff system
but also the system we’re in now creates an imbalance between the leagues and leaves many areas without teams entirely. Also it sucks for a team like the Cubs who has to play 5 different teams in their division over 81 games instead of 3 of four, because it makes them play a lot of crappy teams in their division and less against real rivals like the Cards. Also outside of the Ohio and Puerto Rico teams the proposal above everyone is much closer to each other.
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 17, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think MLB wouldn't want to put a team in PR due to the travel issue.
It’s way out there away from everything. I remember when the Expos played there, teams were complaining about the long travel time. Also, Hiram Bithorn Stadium would need an upgrade, since it currently only seats 18,000.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Oct 13, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think travel would be the main issue.
I mean, Toronto isn’t even a US territory but they have a team.
by TheBigStapler on Oct 14, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rays to Philly is intersting.
Where they would play would be an interesting proposal.
by Balagast on Oct 14, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One or two choices
1) Where the Spectrum is still standing until they demolish it to smithereens.
OR
2) Probably in Chester like their pro soccer team. Casinos are booming in that town, so I don’t see why putting a baseball team there could hurt.
Beer is good! And stuff!
by R_Adragna on Oct 14, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the Spectrum
is like 100 yards from CBP – no way they build a second stadium right there
"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09
by cjmulrain on Oct 17, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm no historian
But if my research is right, Shibe Park (then home of the A’s) was just a few blocks from the Baker Bowl (the first Phils home). I know this was the olden days, but it would be neat to see opposing ballparks relatively near each other.
Then again, a location in, say, Chester, would have to be the next best thing.
Beer is good! And stuff!
by R_Adragna on Oct 18, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
