The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating"...

The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

Source

I saw a fangraphs post relating to this story and I hadn't seen the original story posted here before, and this idea seems pretty radical.

almost 2 years ago Gina 12 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Too radical

I’m all for changing the schedules around, but I don’t want to see constantly changing divisions. I like having to compete against the same teams every year for the division. You get to know the opposing players and it allows for rivalries to remain strong. I know the starting rotations/lineups of the Braves and Phillies. I don’t know who the 4th starter on the Twins is or who plays SS for the Angels.

by Brittannia on Mar 12, 2010 7:53 AM EST reply actions

the flip side of that is the satisfaction you would feel

when your team sends its rival to Detroit by sweeping a series at the end of the season

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g09GtnWdBjc

It’s a 3h flight to Miami or St. Louis. The players aren’t flying coach, so I bet it doesn’t even matter to them.

The tricky part would be how to designate which teams go where. Do division winners get to pick where they go? If you limit it to a rule like a team that was 2nd place in its division, didn’t get the wildcard, but would have won the 3rd division, it would almost never get used. If you eliminate League-shifting, how do you account for the 2 extra NL teams?

by hotspur on Mar 12, 2010 9:56 AM EST up reply actions

Wow, this is really dumb

by JoshNY on Mar 12, 2010 11:27 AM EST reply actions

Can the Mets be in a division

with the Royals, Pirates, Reds, and Astros? If so, sign me up

2009 Did Not Happen

by cjmulrain on Mar 12, 2010 12:19 PM EST reply actions

Yeah that's one thing I'd wonder

if you had a team like the Rays in 08 who were going with a lot of young players and a pretty small payroll would they have been allowed to move into a league with other “developing” teams? If so they might have won 110 games.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Mar 12, 2010 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

That's one of the stupidest divisional splits I've seen.

And, there’s a lot of bad ones out there. And, that was drafted by a group working with the actual commissioner. Geeze…

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Mar 12, 2010 2:11 PM EST reply actions

I hate this idea

Obviously there would be rules and restrictions so the Yankees and the Marlins wouldn’t be together because of the payroll difference, and the Angels wouldn’t be with the Phillies because they are nowhere near each other in geography, and the Mariners and the Mets wouldn’t be together because of the difference in GM skill level, however, teams cannot just build for the next year. They have to build for the future. If I know that my division is mostly pitching based then I may want to get some really good hitters to offset the dominant pitching in my division. How am I supposed to do this if the divisions change every year?

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Mar 12, 2010 3:21 PM EST reply actions

Kind of like it

Rivalries are overrated. In the 80s, the Cardinals were our main rival. In the 90s, the Braves I guess. Now the Phillies. At one point somewhere along the way, it was the Pirates, and maybe for a week, the Reds.

I’d like to see it mixed up a bit, and chaos is fun.

by Dan Lewis on Mar 12, 2010 3:43 PM EST reply actions