Your MLB Realignment

[knightni]

Well, if you look at it this way, these guys either are still available or signed a minor league or under 1 mil contract. You could field two teams with these guys and get Rule 5 guys. Granted, they'll both probably be a less than 60 win team, but still...you could. Most of these guys are under 35 as well.

 

Adam Eaton

Braden Looper

Jason Schmidt

Brandon Backe

Brett Tomko

Jason Jennings

Paul Byrd

Joe Beimel

Jorge Julio

Luis Vizcaino

Kiko Calero

Livan Hernandez

Jarod Washburn

Chris Capuano

Todd Wellemeyer

Kelvim Escobar

Guillermo Mota

Claudio Vargas

Chad Bradford

Jeff Weaver

Juan Rincon

Kip Wells

Josh Fogg

Joaquin Benoit

Bruce Chen

Luis Ayala

Gary Majewski

Matt Capps

DJ Carrasco

Jason Isringhausen

 

Michael Barrett

Paul Bako

Michel Hernandez

Rod Barajas

Hank Blalock

Garret Anderson

Darin Erstad

Felipe Lopez

Geoff Jenkins

Jermaine Dye

Wilson Valdez

DeWayne Wise

Fernando Tatis

Doug Mientkiewicz

Chad Tracy

Ronnie Belliard

David Eckstein

Bobby Crosby

Robb Quinlan

Joe Crede

Omar Infante

Reed Johnson

Eric Hinske

Frank Catalanotto

Austin Kearns

Jason Michaels

Andruw Jones

Endy Chavez

Mike Sweeney

Ryan Church

Jack Cust

Ryan Langerhans

[Chisoxfn]

Instead of just listing the new division, I'd be interested in what everyone was trying to accomplish?

 

reduced travel?

competition?

rivals?

 

Seems to me any plan would have as desired result of more revenue and profits.

The biggest thing to me is competitive balance. You need to make sure teams can compete. If they can't (see Royals & Pirates) you end up having a generation or two of fans that never end up liking baseball.

 

If you were a kid growing up in Pittsburgh or KC, you could only root for those teams so long before you gave up on the sport, imo.

 

That is very scary as it will ruin fanbases.

[Chisoxfn]

And I'm still a fan of going back to 2 division in each league with 2 wild card teams.

[whitesoxfan101]

And I'm still a fan of going back to 2 division in each league with 2 wild card teams.

 

I'm not sure I've ever heard that idea, but I actually like it. Makes it far more likely that the 4 best teams in each league are actually the ones in the playoffs, and at minimum, 3 of the 4 would be.

Edited March 15, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[G&T]

Kinda off topic, but if the problem is competitive balance then isn't it possible to just use the NFL model of scheduling? The best teams would play more games against the best teams regardless of league. Meanwhile, the Royals would have more games against the Nationals.

[southsider2k5]

Kinda off topic, but if the problem is competitive balance then isn't it possible to just use the NFL model of scheduling? The best teams would play more games against the best teams regardless of league. Meanwhile, the Royals would have more games against the Nationals.

 

That is actually a very interesting idea, but who is going to pay to see more KC/Washington games?

[G&T]

That is actually a very interesting idea, but who is going to pay to see more KC/Washington games?

 

Well the theory would be that if the teams actually have a shot at the playoffs, more people will come. I would imagine they would still have their fill of the Yankees and Red Sox to keep attendance up.

[Balta1701]

Well the theory would be that if the teams actually have a shot at the playoffs, more people will come. I would imagine they would still have their fill of the Yankees and Red Sox to keep attendance up.

Maybe we can make the Yankees and Red Sox play a 190 game schedule.

[WilliamTell]

Maybe we can make the Yankees and Red Sox play a 190 game schedule.

 

And go by wins to advance to the playoffs, not winning percentage. That way they always make the playoffs.

Edited March 16, 2010 by WilliamTell

[The Ginger Kid]

Have you seen this story on realignment? My knee-jerk reaction to the idea of floating teams to different divisions year to year is that I hate it.

 

Realignment

[G&T]

Have you seen this story on realignment? My knee-jerk reaction to the idea of floating teams to different divisions year to year is that I hate it.

 

Realignment

 

Read post 20

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Okay, I spent a while thinking about this, and taking everything into consideration, I've come up with the best plan I can possibly think of. And after typing this, I really think MLB needs to follow my plan because it's great. Here's my plan...

 

1. Scheduling format:

-Add 2 teams to the AL

-Create 4 8-team divisions: AL East, AL West, NL East, NL West

-Each team plays it's same-division rival 12 times: 2 3-game home sets, 2 3-game road sets (84 games)

-Each team plays its same-league, non-divisional opponent 4 times: 1 2-game road set, 1 2-game home set (32 games)

-Each team has 2 opposite-league, same-division rival opponents - i.e. 1 AL East team vs. 2 NL East rival teams

-Each team plays it's opposite-league, same-division rival opponent 6 times: 1 home 3-game set, 1 road 3-game set (12 games)

-Each team plays it's opposite-league, same-division, non-rival opponent 3 times, with home/road alternating each season (18 games)

-Each team plays it's opposite-league, opposite-division team 1 2-game set, with home/road alternating each season (16 games)

-Total = 162 games: 81 home, 81 road

 

From a Sox perspective, we get 6 games vs. the Cubs and 6 games vs. the Brewers each year, which is great for us. From a Yankees/Red Sox perspective, they lose 6 rivalry games per year, but they also increase their interleague rivalry potential and they actually *increase* the amount of interdivisional games they play by 12. So they also can potentially deepen rivalries with another 3 teams, and what if the Sox are one of those new teams in their division? Picking up games against the Sox that are lost to the O's and Rays isn't going to hurt them. So the Yankees and Red Sox IMO don't necessarily lose here, especially if they each pick up the Phillies and Mets as rival teams, meaning 6 guaranteed lucrative home games against NL opponents. Those 3 home games each team would lose against each other would be made up pretty quickly IMO.

 

2. Playoff format:

-The top 3 teams per division based on record make the playoffs. 1-game playoffs still are in effect in the event of a tie.

-No. 1 East seed faces the No. 1 West seed in a first round 7-game series. The winner goes to the ALCS with home field advantage.

-A 2-stage lightning round is created, and this goes on *at the same time* that the showcase #1 seed series is going on. The No. 2 East seed faces No. 3 East seed, and the No. 2 West seed faces the No. 3 West seed, each in a best-of-3 series. Games 1 and 2 are played in the stadium whose team has home field advantage, so the No. 3 seeds need to win on the road in order to force a home game. After the first stage winners are decided, the East Winner immediately meets the West Winner for a best-of-5 series. Home field advantage in the lightning round finals are decided by overall division record. The stronger division gets the HFA.

 

Here's a sample playoff schedule to illustrate what I'm talking about:

Day 01: All 1-game playoffs happen (if applicable)

Day 02: off day--------------------------No. 2 East vs. No. 3 East---------------------No. 2 West vs. No. 3 West

Day 03: No. 1 East vs. No. 1 West-----No. 2 East vs. No. 3 East (day game)-------No. 2 West vs. No. 3 West (day game)

Day 04: No. 1 East vs. No. 1 West-----No. 2 East @ No. 3 East----------------------No. 2 West @ No. 3 West

Day 05: off day -------------------------off day-----------------------------------------off day

Day 06: No. 1 East @ No. 1 West------East Winner vs. West Winner (day game)

Day 07: No. 1 East @ No. 1 West------East Winner vs. West Winner (day game)

Day 08: No. 1 East @ No. 1 West------East Winner @ West Winner (night game)

Day 09: off day -------------------------East Winner @ West Winner (night game)

Day 10: No. 1 East vs. No. 1 West-----off day

Day 11: off day -------------------------East Winner vs. West Winner (day game)

Day 12: ALCS and NLCS begins, with the No. 1 seed series winner getting HFA regardless

Day X: World Series begins as normal

 

Now all teams have a more equal shot at the playoffs, since even with the Yankees and Red Sox in the same division there are still 6 other teams and 3 playoff spots available in that division. So a good #3 team can fight its way into the picture by beating up on bad divisional teams without having to face the Yankees and Red Sox so much.

 

Also there's more playoff games, so there's more playoff revenue to go around without undermining and NBAing the whole playoff concept. The #1 vs. #2 series right out of the gate gives the matchups that most fans already want to see, and meanwhile the lightning round happens quickly and creates a hot team with underdog interest, and by forcing that team to win 2 series' to make the LCS, it legitimizes that team's position. Seeding becomes extremely important and goes way beyond the typical home field advantage, as the #1 teams only have to play 1 long series before making the LCS, and they get their rest in the process, while the #2 and #3 seeds have to fight like hell with little rest and win 2 short series to even get in.

 

So there's my plan. Thoughts?

Edited March 21, 2010 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[BearSox]

To the above post... your playoff system is almost as confusing as the BASEketball playoff system... also, whats the point of having a 162 game regular season when the playoff system is so long and confusing?

 

Make it simple, add two expansion teams, 16 in the AL and 16 in the NL. Eliminate divisions, and have the best 4 teams from each league advance to the post season. Eliminate interleague play except for 1 series a year against your opposite league rival (ie Sox and Cubs). Also, make each league play with the same set of rules. Playoff system works the same.

 

They had it right back in the day, they made the regular season actually mean something. And the team with the best record in their league won the pennant.

 

For some sports, a long, elaborate playoff system makes sense. However, when you are dealing with a 162 game regular season, there is no need for long playoff systems. I would prefer the best team from the American face the best team from the National league and let that be the playoffs.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

It might sound crazy but it's not confusing.

 

You have 2 divisions, East and West, like before.

 

The #1 seed in each division has a best-of-7 series where the winner goes to the ALCS.

 

4 other teams go through a single-elimination tournament to decide the second ALCS team, and this tourney takes the same amount of time as the first series, so the playoffs aren't being dragged out.

 

The whole idea of realignment would be to bring more revenue and competition, but especially revenue, to the game of baseball without killing off the good parts. Maybe my plan sucks, but, 1) the old system will never come back because too much money is made off it now, and 2) interleague play will probably stick around for quite some time because too much money is made off it now.

 

[knightni]

I'm fine with the playoffs how they are. Interleague is fair as well.

 

Just move Milwaukee back to the AL, and each league will get one expansion team.

 

16 in each league will help scheduling enormously.

[Quin]

I'm fine with the playoffs how they are. Interleague is fair as well.

 

Just move Milwaukee back to the AL, and each league will get one expansion team.

 

16 in each league will help scheduling enormously.

 

But that would take logic and Bud Selig agreeing.

[knightni]

But that would take logic and Bud Selig agreeing.

Neither Selig nor his family own Milwaukee anymore. It might be doable.

[MattZakrowski]

It might sound crazy but it's not confusing.

 

You have 2 divisions, East and West, like before.

 

The #1 seed in each division has a best-of-7 series where the winner goes to the ALCS.

 

4 other teams go through a single-elimination tournament to decide the second ALCS team, and this tourney takes the same amount of time as the first series, so the playoffs aren't being dragged out.

 

The whole idea of realignment would be to bring more revenue and competition, but especially revenue, to the game of baseball without killing off the good parts. Maybe my plan sucks, but, 1) the old system will never come back because too much money is made off it now, and 2) interleague play will probably stick around for quite some time because too much money is made off it now.

 

 

It took me a second to grasp it, but I like it. It keeps the regular season important, which I think is the major flaw of the NHL and NBA.

[maggsmaggs]

Here is mine. Yes, some rivalry teams are in the same division. Also remove the DH, everyone plays by the same rules. But I think logistically this makes the most sense. I have no idea if someone has posted similar as well. I haven't read the entire thread. Flame away!!

 

NL East

New York Mets

Washington Nationals

Pittsburgh

Philadelphia

Cincinnati

 

NL South

Atlanta

Tampa Bay

Florida

Houston

Texas

 

NL Midwest

St. Louis

Chicago Cubs

Colorado

Arizona

Kansas City

 

AL North

Chicago White Sox

Minnesota

Detroit

Milwaukee

Seattle

 

AL East

NY Yankees

Boston

Baltimore

Cleveland

Toronto

 

AL West

LA Angels

LA Dodgers

Oakland As

San Diego

San Francisco

 

 

[GoodAsGould]

Here is mine. Yes, some rivalry teams are in the same division. Also remove the DH, everyone plays by the same rules. But I think logistically this makes the most sense. I have no idea if someone has posted similar as well. I haven't read the entire thread. Flame away!!

 

NL East

New York Mets

Washington Nationals

Pittsburgh

Philadelphia

Cincinnati

 

NL South

Atlanta

Tampa Bay

Florida

Houston

Texas

 

NL Midwest

St. Louis

Chicago Cubs

Colorado

Arizona

Kansas City

 

AL North

Chicago White Sox

Minnesota

Detroit

Milwaukee

Seattle

 

AL East

NY Yankees

Boston

Baltimore

Cleveland

Toronto

 

AL West

LA Angels

LA Dodgers

Oakland As

San Diego

San Francisco

 

You cant have an odd number of teams in each league. Move Seattle to Al West and one of Colorado, Cincy, Pittsburgh, KC to Al North

[elgonzo4sox]

Im okay with it. The interleague schedule is bunched up together around June, instead of having that, the league can spread it out throughout the season, there would be at least one interleague series going. Each team has 18 interleague games- so that would be very easy to spread throughout the season.

 

If the league isn't okay with that, then expand. Why doesn't Omaha have an MLB team?- the entire state of Nebraska is baseball crazy. How about Portland or Las Vegas?

 

There are pleanty of options. .

 

 

For anyone relying upon an MLB team in Portland, Oregon as an expansion city to get to 32 teams to make their realignment scheme work, I can tell you (based on my 10+ years of living there) that Portland absolutely will not be able to support a competitive MLB team.

 

Portland is the classic AAA town, or NBA town, like Oklahoma City or Memphis - they can maybe sell 20,000 tickets to 41 NBA games during the winter when there's not much to do and no other major sports options, but not 30,000 tickets to 81 MLB games during the summer. It's a small city, in a poorer-than-average state. It's a very anti-business town and state, with no major Fortune 500 company headquarters (except Nike) and no billionaires except Nike's Phil Knight (who doesn't like baseball) - so who is going to own/bankroll the team? Paul Allen is the absentee owner of the Portland Blazers - he jets down from much wealthier Seattle in his private 737 for Blazer games. If you are thinking of putting a team in Portland, at best you'd be creating another lower-echelon small market team, like Tampa Bay or Pittsburgh, with an absentee owner. The more likely case is that you'd be creating the Montreal Expos.

 

Portland's a pleasant enough city to live in if you can find a job (I enjoyed it there), but no way is it an MLB town. I know there are delusional Portlanders who think otherwise and advocate for an expansion team, but they all have one thing in common: none of them has the money to put at risk in owning a team.

 

[knightni]

Charlotte/Durham/Raleigh might support the majors.

 

Nashville/Memphis might as well.

 

Vegas is a Wild Card (b****es!)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North...or_sports_teams

 

Montreal (16)

Orlando (23)

Sacramento (25)

Charlotte (26)

Portland (28)

Vancouver (29)

Indianapolis (31)

San Antonio (32)

Columbus (33)

Salt Lake City (36)

Raleigh (38)

Nashville (39)

Jacksonville (44)

Oklahoma City (45)

Memphis (46)

Buffalo (50)

[CrimsonWeltall]

It might sound crazy but it's not confusing.

 

You have 2 divisions, East and West, like before.

 

The #1 seed in each division has a best-of-7 series where the winner goes to the ALCS.

 

Aren't you likely knocking out two of the four best teams in baseball in the first round then?

 

 

[Quin]

For anyone relying upon an MLB team in Portland, Oregon as an expansion city to get to 32 teams to make their realignment scheme work, I can tell you (based on my 10+ years of living there) that Portland absolutely will not be able to support a competitive MLB team.

 

Portland is the classic AAA town, or NBA town, like Oklahoma City or Memphis - they can maybe sell 20,000 tickets to 41 NBA games during the winter when there's not much to do and no other major sports options, but not 30,000 tickets to 81 MLB games during the summer. It's a small city, in a poorer-than-average state. It's a very anti-business town and state, with no major Fortune 500 company headquarters (except Nike) and no billionaires except Nike's Phil Knight (who doesn't like baseball) - so who is going to own/bankroll the team? Paul Allen is the absentee owner of the Portland Blazers - he jets down from much wealthier Seattle in his private 737 for Blazer games. If you are thinking of putting a team in Portland, at best you'd be creating another lower-echelon small market team, like Tampa Bay or Pittsburgh, with an absentee owner. The more likely case is that you'd be creating the Montreal Expos.

 

Portland's a pleasant enough city to live in if you can find a job (I enjoyed it there), but no way is it an MLB town. I know there are delusional Portlanders who think otherwise and advocate for an expansion team, but they all have one thing in common: none of them has the money to put at risk in owning a team.

 

Portland is my second choice for an AL West because when I went there, it felt like a laid back, college-esque town. The first choice is Las Vegas. Sure, there is that gambling issue, but it can be resolved.

 

New Orleans or Memphis would be my AL South choice.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Quinarvy