MLB Realignment Talk

[Warner2BruceTD]

Lots of nonsense and fantasyland in this thread.

The reason baseball went to divisions to begin with, and the reason the divisions expanded from 4 to 6, was to keep more teams involved in the playoff chase deeper into the season. They aren't going to move backwards on this. Nobody here is old enough to remember the Washington Senators finishing 50 games behind the Yankees every year, and elimnated by Memorial Day.

If you even out the leagues 15 each, that means interleague every day. Pass.

Adding/subtracting teams would not increase/decrease quality of play. That's always largely been a myth. You will always have "replacement level" players whether you have 16 teams or 50 teams, because the curve changes. There are enough good players around the globe to support double the teams we have now, if not more. The issue of expansion is never quality of play, its economics. Qualit of play would not drop on noticable levels if you added 2, 4, 10 teams. You'd have to add significantly more than that for anyone to notice a drop in quality.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Look at it from this perspective.

Let's say you add two teams. This means you are adding 50 major league players. But you are not adding two 25 man rosters of below replacement level players. You are largely moving 50 players from existing teams. That's not even two players per existing team. Where you are adding the below replacement guys, is on the back end of the existing rosters. Every team has one or two (or more) "AAAA"/MLB fringe guys on the back end of the roster. You would be adding or replacing one or two on each team. Very few would be starters or major contributors. Its essentially the same bottom 2 or 3 roster spots that are in flux on teams today, as they cycle fringe major leagurss on and off the roster during the course of the season.

You get the point. It would take very large expansion to get to tghe point of modern day below replacement level guys starting, which is the point you would notice play quality issues. Even then it wouldn't be obvious.

[Leftwich]

I'm a big advocate of expansion and honestly think two major cities could support teams. hell Charlotte could definitely harbor a major league club and possibly Portland or Indianapolis. But that's a different discussion. As for the people that are not fans of Inter-league play everyday, why? Is there something I don't get about why you guys hate inter-league so much? Honestly this could be the best thing for baseball. Look what it did for the NFL.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm a big advocate of expansion and honestly think two major cities could support teams. hell Charlotte could definitely harbor a major league club and possibly Portland or Indianapolis. But that's a different discussion. As for the people that are not fans of Inter-league play everyday, why? Is there something I don't get about why you guys hate inter-league so much? Honestly this could be the best thing for baseball. Look what it did for the NFL.

I don't hate interleague play, I happen to like it. But I like it in small doses. I think there is waaaaaaay too much of it now, let alone having it every day.

In fact, if I had my way, i'd only have interleague for teams who have a natural rival. Nobody needs to see Seattle vs. Pittsburgh. But there are people obsessed with the overrated concept of schedule balance who will puke in their mouths at that idea.

[G-men]

why is everyone so against interleague play?

[EmpireWF]

why is everyone so against interleague play?

Too much of it makes it seem routine.

[strahanfan92]

No need to contract. I would like to see the switch to two 15 team leagues with the elimination of interleague play.

You're contradicting yourself.

[nflman2033]

Why would it mean more off days? If you are starting and ending the season at the same time and playing the same amount of games I don't see how that requires more off days, and you'd have more weekend baseball to capitalize on revenue from both ticket sales and TV. There wuld be no reason to make the days off on the weekend when those are the days when most of the fans are off and more available see the product. If anything they'd load the off days on to the weekdays. More interleague play doesn't really bother me in any way.

you have to have more days off if you don't increase inter-league play because of the odd number of teams in each league, so teams won't have a team to play without playing a team in the other league.

bottom line is I want less inter-league play not more.

[killgod]

Don't say that too load. Montreal Expo's talk will start in Canada.

Actually it's common knowledge that Vancouver wants a team, and could probably support it IMO.

I believe the re-design/upgrade of BC Place does allow for a setup that meets the requirements for the MLB.

I mean, BC is where all Canadian MLB talent comes from and I imagine many Mariners fans that live in Vancouver would support a local team instead.



I personally would agree that talent would remain fine with 32. Under that situation I'd still want to see two divisions of 8 on each side. I'm not a fan of one table per League.

[RyanLeaf16]

No it's not. Pete bitched and moaned about this yesterday in the chatbox. The A's and Rays both draw shit for attendance and play in the worst stadiums in MLB. Here's a nice article, I suggest everyone reads on the topic: http://www.athleticsnation.com/2010/...08/contraction


Contraction would lead to several positives for MLB.
*Improved quality of play. With 50 less major league players, the league would eliminate players like Yuniesky Betancourt, and other below replacement players who don't belong on a major league roster.
*Increased revenue sharing for the remaining 28 teams. The Rays and A's both draw shit for attendance, so they both require a lot of revenue sharing to stay a float. About thirty million a year each. If the two teams were eliminated then that sixty million could be split by the remaining teams.

Everyone likes to point out the Rays attendance. While it is not great, people seem to think it is the worst in the league. Last year alone, the Rays outdrew 8 teams at the gate. The attendance isn't fantastic, but, it isn't as bad as the media portrays it. This year, attendance is down however. Then again, the Rays have been on the road quite a bit, but, the avg per game is down about 4K. That's a battle this area has been fighting for a long time and no one wants to look at facts. Tampa is just the attendance punching bag. BTW, Goblinslayer, that is not a slight at you. I'm just referring to pundits/experts/analysts in general.

First, the players union will not allow for the elimination of 50 jobs. So contraction is not going to happen by choice. Lack of finances, defaults, etc. will cause a team to fold before the players union agrees to allow MLB to eliminate two franchises. On top of that, MLB is only operating at about 65% capacity throughout the entire league. Attendance is down in most cities as a whole. The costs of revenue sharing are then cut and a majority of that sharing actually comes from broadcast deals (both local and national).

You're contradicting yourself.

Touche.

Obviously, with the odd number of teams in each league interleague play would have to stay. Pardon my ignorance. I first considered the idea that the players union would be open to additional days off throughout the season, but, without interleague play, the season would drag out as teams would be off for 3-4 days at a time while they wait for an opponent.

However, I would still not be opposed to the 16/14 format with the elimination of interleague play. Not that it even matters since that is not a topic for discussion currently on the table.

[NAHSTE]

Is expanding to 32 not an option?

I would prefer it to contracting teams or staying at 30 and moving a team to the AL.

The problem would be that there aren't too many viable cities that don't already have a team.

[Goober]

Lots of nonsense and fantasyland in this thread.

The reason baseball went to divisions to begin with, and the reason the divisions expanded from 4 to 6, was to keep more teams involved in the playoff chase deeper into the season. They aren't going to move backwards on this. Nobody here is old enough to remember the Washington Senators finishing 50 games behind the Yankees every year, and elimnated by Memorial Day.

How does having divisions change anything? It's only June, but the Astro's are 14 games back in their division. Everyone knows that teams like Houston and Minnesota aren't going anywhere this year. MLB used to only have two teams make the playoffs from each league, now they take four and possibly five starting next year. With five teams in each league making the playoffs each year, a large majority of teams will remain in the hunt into September without divisions.

If you even out the leagues 15 each, that means interleague every day. Pass.

Give me some real reasons on my interleague everyday will hurt the league. I don't care that you don't like it, or that it will hurt tradition.

Adding/subtracting teams would not increase/decrease quality of play. That's always largely been a myth. You will always have "replacement level" players whether you have 16 teams or 50 teams, because the curve changes. There are enough good players around the globe to support double the teams we have now, if not more. The issue of expansion is never quality of play, its economics. Qualit of play would not drop on noticable levels if you added 2, 4, 10 teams. You'd have to add significantly more than that for anyone to notice a drop in quality.

Yes the curve will change with contraction, leading to replacement players still being in MLB, but the curve will change for the better, and the new replacement level players will be more talented then the current replacement level players. Look at it this way, with thirty teams, the league demands 30 starting quality Short stops, 150 starting pitchers, etc. As well as some depth to fill out benches. With 28 teams the league will demand two less of every starter. Take away the 2 worst starting first baseman, the ten worst starting pitchers in a rotation and throw them on a bench somewhere, you don't think the quality of play would improve?

[Goober]

I'm a big advocate of expansion and honestly think two major cities could support teams. hell Charlotte could definitely harbor a major league club and possibly Portland or Indianapolis. But that's a different discussion. As for the people that are not fans of Inter-league play everyday, why? Is there something I don't get about why you guys hate inter-league so much? Honestly this could be the best thing for baseball. Look what it did for the NFL.

Charlotte is currently claimed as broadcasting territory of the Nationals, Orioles, Braves and Cardinals. Good luck getting all of those teams to agree to give up a large city like that.

I agree with Killgod that Vancouver should get the next team. But beside that, good luck finding a city that won't piss anyone off. And Portland couldn't even support a AAA team. lol.

[killgod]

How does having divisions change anything? It's only June, but the Astro's are 14 games back in their division. Everyone knows that teams like Houston and Minnesota aren't going anywhere this year. MLB used to only have two teams make the playoffs from each league, now they take four and possibly five starting next year. With five teams in each league making the playoffs each year, a large majority of teams will remain in the hunt into September without divisions.

With divisional play you have a different schedule, teams playing divisional opponents more giving you more chances to make up ground vs the leaders.

I think the AL is in better shape with the Yankees and Red Sox playing each other 18 times, rather than half that and playing other teams instead. Just more games to put them 15-25 games up on everyone than their usual 10-20.

[Goober]

Everyone likes to point out the Rays attendance. While it is not great, people seem to think it is the worst in the league. Last year alone, the Rays outdrew 8 teams at the gate. The attendance isn't fantastic, but, it isn't as bad as the media portrays it. This year, attendance is down however. Then again, the Rays have been on the road quite a bit, but, the avg per game is down about 4K. That's a battle this area has been fighting for a long time and no one wants to look at facts. Tampa is just the attendance punching bag. BTW, Goblinslayer, that is not a slight at you. I'm just referring to pundits/experts/analysts in general.

Yes there were 8 teams below them, but besides Oakland all of those teams have new or recently renovated. The Rays however play in an absolute dump. Do they deserve a new stadium that's nicer to watch a game at and easier for fans to get to? Probably. But if the city, team, and fans can't get one built do they really deserve to keep the team in Tampa? No they don't. With the bad stadium, the Rays are an easy choice to contract. And for the record, this year only the Marlins have worse attendance numbers, however they are opening their new stadium in 2012, and are safe from moving/contraction.

First, the players union will not allow for the elimination of 50 jobs. So contraction is not going to happen by choice. Lack of finances, defaults, etc. will cause a team to fold before the players union agrees to allow MLB to eliminate two franchises. On top of that, MLB is only operating at about 65% capacity throughout the entire league. Attendance is down in most cities as a whole. The costs of revenue sharing are then cut and a majority of that sharing actually comes from broadcast deals (both local and national).

The owners could easily offset the contraction of two teams by making the MLB roster size 26/27 players. Or the owners could make some other concession to the players union. The players union has a history of looking after the more higher profile players over the lesser known guys anyways, and contraction would only hurt the lesser known players.