Master Index of Archived Threads


Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

TransMonk Mar 09 2010 03:15 PM

Selig, committee considering radical realignment plan When baseball commissioner Bud Selig named a 14-person "special committee for on-field matters" four months ago, he promised that all topics would be in play and "there are no sacred cows." 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. The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season). As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East. In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths. The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons. One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston. Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs. Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions. It is important to remember that the committee's talks are very preliminary and non-binding. "But if there is something that comes up we feel should be addressed during the season, we can make a recommendation then," said committee co-chair and Braves president John Schuerholz, referring to less complicated issues such as pace-of-game directives. "This is all about any ideas that help make the game better." The floating realignment idea is nothing more than a concept at this point, part of the brainstorming sessions that have occurred in the committee's one in-person meeting and occasional conference calls. (Selig is pushing for another in-person meeting, such as at the All-Star Game. The committee includes current managers and executives, making in-person meetings logistically difficult.) The mechanics of the system are far from nailed down. But what is important is that the committee is making good on its mission to look at absolutely any on-field idea that could make the game better. Blowing up fixed divisions as we know them -- and even leagues -- certainly qualifies as radical thinking. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... n&hpt=Sbin

Fman99 Mar 09 2010 03:27 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

If the Mets ever are forced to play a full season in a league with the DH in place I will stab myself in the eye with my own genitalia.

TransMonk Mar 09 2010 03:30 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

That's just one of many reasons why I can't see this ever working.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 09 2010 03:41 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Well, if you just float within your league, then that wouldn't happen. The Mets would only be able to be in the NL East or NL Central. (Based on the time zone rule.) The Rockies, though, would be able to play in any of the three divisions, East, Central, or West. You know, as weird as this is, I'm not necessarily opposed to it.

Valadius Mar 09 2010 04:04 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

This is fucking awful. AWFUL. Switching divisions because you think you're going to suck this year? Please.

Ceetar Mar 09 2010 04:26 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

I'm not tied to the divisional set up. In fact, the floating idea might do something for those that lament the old days of balanced schedules and rivalries between the Mets-Cubs or whatever your favorite was. But the way it's currently being presented is not good. Cleveland moving the AL East to get those lucrative games against the 'good teams'? Isn't that almost like giving the Yankees a bye? "Oh, you guys are good on paper. Let's move crappy rebuilding teams into your division to make it a forgone conclusion that you'll win." What about playoff teams being mandated to play all 7 other playoff teams the next year? Might be an interesting thought.

metsmarathon Mar 09 2010 04:37 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

why bother with divisions anyways? you can shuffle up the schedule unbalancedly, prioritizing on prior season's record and distance of opponent. if the mets win 100 games, and san diego wins 60, the don't play the padres much next year. but if san diego also wins 100, they play slightly them more, but not as much as they would play against a 100 win pirate team. so lets say the 100-win mets would play 4 games against a 60-win padres team and 6 games against a 60-win pirates team. and they would play, say, 18 games against a 100-win padres team, but 24 against a 100-win pirates team. how many games would we play against the phillies? well, more than two would just be unfair, seeing as how they only won 30... and maybe then you limit the inter-league games to teams with similar records, but ditch the locational priority...?

Farmer Ted Mar 09 2010 05:29 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

The only realignment I'd be in favor of mirrors the English Premier League. If you're in the bottom four in the standings at the end of the year, to the minor leagues you go. Baltimore, KC, Washington, and Pittsburgh...see you later. Hello Sacramento, Louisville, Durham, and *cough* Scranton.

Edgy DC Mar 09 2010 05:52 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Thing is, my first response is that this would sort of being doing the same thing --- allowing teams to shift their priortities as they rebuild --- while having the added un-American incentive of protecting those teams' Major League status (and opportunity), keeping the cartel closed to outside teams, and selling the fans of such teams down the river. I say oppose it.

A Boy Named Seo Mar 09 2010 06:11 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

That's the thing, allowing the Indians to shift to the AL East doesn't do anything to make the Indians better, and I doubt the added revenue from more Sox & Yanks games is gonna make up for all the pissed off fans. And like Ceetar said, it does nothing to slow the Boston/New York axis they seem so concerned with anyway. And how pissed would you be if you're the Tigers, who won 86 games, finished 1 back of the Twins, and now you've got the Rays coming over? Eff that. I think parity is lame. Even more so when it's forced.

Gwreck Mar 09 2010 08:00 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

The realignment I'd most like to see is moving a team back to the AL and keeping the leagues and divisions balanced in size. If they won't move the Brewers back to the AL Central (and then KC to the AL West), Houston seems like a logical choice to get the boot to the AL West.

Frayed Knot Mar 09 2010 08:20 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="A Boy Named Seo":2kp9ofby]I think parity is lame. Even more so when it's forced.[/quote:2kp9ofby] THIS!

batmagadanleadoff Mar 09 2010 08:32 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Gwreck":2r7114qh]The realignment I'd most like to see is moving a team back to the AL and keeping the leagues and divisions balanced in size. If they won't move the Brewers back to the AL Central (and then KC to the AL West), Houston seems like a logical choice to get the boot to the AL West.[/quote:2r7114qh] Can't do this. There'd be an odd number of teams in each league. A 162 game schedule requires that on most days of the week, every single team is scheduled to play. That's why the leagues are split at 16 and 14. The scheduling logistics can't be solved by having at least one interleague series scheduled every day. I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I was all for contraction. I'd prefer that the total number of teams is a multiple of four. 32 teams is too many for me. 24 is perfect. 28 is more realistic, even if improbable.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 09 2010 08:35 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

I also think artificially created parity blows. That said I don't mind they are discussing things, even whacky things.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 09 2010 08:38 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Selig discussing wacky things? I am shocked. Shocked.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 09 2010 10:14 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

I'm a little shocked.

Gwreck Mar 09 2010 10:41 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="batmagadanleadoff":ympyt662]The scheduling logistics can't be solved by having at least one interleague series scheduled every day.[/quote:ympyt662] Can you elaborate further? Because I was pretty sure that this *is* possible.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 09 2010 11:26 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Gwreck":37i3yk6x][quote="batmagadanleadoff":37i3yk6x]The scheduling logistics can't be solved by having at least one interleague series scheduled every day.[/quote:37i3yk6x] Can you elaborate further? Because I was pretty sure that this *is* possible.[/quote:37i3yk6x] Oh, I agree with you. Personally, I think that it could be done. But I read that it can't. Maybe the powers that be prefer all interleague games to be bunched up into a few weeks of the season, as opposed to spreading them out over the entire season. (Two 15 team leagues would guarantee interleague play throughout the entire season). Maybe it's a question of unwilling rather than unable.

attgig Mar 10 2010 06:49 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

one issue that preliminary schedules come out before the season's over. what if by the end of the year, a team like the pirates are having yet another miserable year, and the schedule first comes out that they're aligned with maybe the phillies, the mets (cuz we're going to be awesome this year), and the cubs who have just won their division..... then, the pirates decide this offseason is going to be THE offseason to open their wallets.... even if there's tons of free agents they want, they'll look at their schedule for that year, and be like... who am I kidding? and even if they push releasing the schedule back some, it'll become a chicken or the egg type of game for mid market teams like the orioles who could be greatly affected by this. do we really spend a lot of money but then potentially be screwed by being put with the sox/yanks again, or do we hold off until the schedule comes out, and THEN spend as much as we can? it's too messy in terms of re-aligning.... a more reasonable/logical way of keeping competitive balance are league min payrolls/salaries caps. that's how all the other sports do it, because it's a lot more easily managed and just makes more sense...

Frayed Knot Mar 10 2010 07:08 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="batmagadanleadoff":tbxk8l6p][quote="Gwreck":tbxk8l6p][quote="batmagadanleadoff":tbxk8l6p]The scheduling logistics can't be solved by having at least one interleague series scheduled every day.[/quote:tbxk8l6p] Can you elaborate further? Because I was pretty sure that this *is* possible.[/quote:tbxk8l6p] Oh, I agree with you. Personally, I think that it could be done. But I read that it can't. Maybe the powers that be prefer all interleague games to be bunched up into a few weeks of the season, as opposed to spreading them out over the entire season. (Two 15 team leagues would guarantee interleague play throughout the entire season). Maybe it's a question of unwilling rather than unable.[/quote:tbxk8l6p] Yes, it's certainly possible from a logistical standpoint. I think at least part of what made them skittish about going to a 15/15 arrangement is that if a vote were to come up to DIScontinue inter-league play then they'd really be up a creek without a Louisville Slugger paddle.

TransMonk Mar 10 2010 07:09 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="batmagadanleadoff":38tnriea]I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I was all for contraction. I'd prefer that the total number of teams is a multiple of four. 32 teams is too many for me. 24 is perfect. 28 is more realistic, even if improbable.[/quote:38tnriea] I'm in the "for" column on this.

Edgy DC Mar 10 2010 07:31 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

I think 1,000 teams is too few.

willpie Mar 10 2010 09:34 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="batmagadanleadoff":3cbx0wwr]I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I was all for contraction. I'd prefer that the total number of teams is a multiple of four. 32 teams is too many for me. 24 is perfect. 28 is more realistic, even if improbable.[/quote:3cbx0wwr] If I recall correctly, there's something about the number of teams being divisible by 8 that drastically reduces the difficulty of scheduling. I'm no mathlete, but I'm reasonably certain I read that somewhere. Assuming that's not something I made up out of whole cloth, I can see the argument for 32 or 24: A 24-team league would have spectacular talent on every team. It would make the league way more exclusive, and lend a certain prestige to the league. No talent dilution here. A 32-team league would probably result in more fans. I grew up in a medium-large state that has one pro sports team (get it, Blazers!). It was an 8-hour drive north or south to go to an MLB game. As a young baseball fan, I had no identity, and often wore a different cap every summer. It wasn't until my college years brought a burning desire to move to the city that I latched onto the Mets, and frankly, it still bums me out that I didn't have a home team to root for as a lad. Don't kids have a right to a reasonably local team to root for? The recent quality of play in the NBA suggests that, given time, the talent will catch up to the size of the league. The numbers work: even numbers, divisible by 8, in both leagues. More players would have jobs (this might only matter to the MLB union, but there you go). Hmm; reading my own notes, I guess I lean toward 32 more than I thought. It's completely stupid that Portland doesn't have a team.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 10 2010 09:52 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

There certainly are places that are expansion worthy, if they wanted to go that route, which I doubt. The South is the fastest-growing region of the country, and while there are teams in Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta (and St. Louis) there's still a big untapped region in the South East. I'm pretty sure the Carolinas or Tennessee could support a team. I know you need a larger population base to support an MLB team than you do the NFL or NBA, but there are plenty of people down there. And yes, the New York area can (and should) get a third team. North Jersey is the most likely spot, I'd think. I'd like to see a population-map of the U.S. overlaid with the market areas for the existing MLB teams. I think we'd see some obvious areas that could be exploited.

Edgy DC Mar 10 2010 09:55 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="willpie":3k1aqh1l]Don't kids have a right to a reasonably local team to root for?[/quote:3k1aqh1l] Which is why my first act as commissioner would be dissolving affiliation agreements so every team in every town small and large is fighting for their own interests. Struggling. Warring. On behalf of that tousel-haired freckle-faced Willpie in Mrs. McGowan's second grade class at Chinnichuk School.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 10 2010 10:05 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="willpie":331m44fc][quote="batmagadanleadoff":331m44fc]I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I was all for contraction. I'd prefer that the total number of teams is a multiple of four. 32 teams is too many for me. 24 is perfect. 28 is more realistic, even if improbable.[/quote:331m44fc] If I recall correctly, there's something about the number of teams being divisible by 8 that drastically reduces the difficulty of scheduling. I'm no mathlete, but I'm reasonably certain I read that somewhere.[/quote:331m44fc] Multiples of eight are the easiest to schedule, but especially so when there were 4 divisions (2 Easts and 2 Wests). I think that the formula is derived by multiplying the number of total divisions by two. But ease of scheduling is also dependent on whether MLB wants a schedule weighted towards divisional play or a more balanced schedule. As to Grimm's post, about a year ago, I read a study about potential baseball expansion cities. If I remember correctly, Portland, Charlotte, Nashville and Las Vegas were considered to be the cities that would best support expansion baseball, according to that report. The report questioned whether "best" was good enough, though.

Edgy DC Mar 10 2010 10:13 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Most such studies though, leave out adding teams to esteablished territories. Greater New York could handle six teams and New England three.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 10 2010 10:29 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Edgy DC":3ah002x0]Most such studies though, leave out adding teams to esteablished territories. Greater New York could handle six teams and New England three.[/quote:3ah002x0] I wouldn't mind another NY metropolitan area team. I also agree with the idea expressed in your earlier post that teams should have the freedom to relocate freely. That freedom should produce more balance. Being the lone baseball franchise in Pittsburgh or Kansas City all of a sudden might not be so disadvantageous if the mega market revenues were divided among five or six franchises instead of two. That study I referred to was knowingly limited to expansion into cities without a MLB team.

Edgy DC Mar 10 2010 10:36 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Yeah, I could never get that point home to my Pittsburgh-fan friend Tim. Letting teams move particularly into established markets, while perhaps creating initial shuffling, should bring long-term stability to suffering markets by cutting down the competitive advantage of the well-situated teams. Plus, the way the Lords of Baseball honor each other's territory is contrary to the American law that other industries live under.

Valadius Mar 10 2010 06:38 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

So here's a map: Basically, if anything, we need more teams in the South and West.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 10 2010 06:56 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Well, that map ignores population, which is a key component.

Gwreck Mar 10 2010 07:10 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Edgy DC":2ezr99qs]Most such studies though, leave out adding teams to esteablished territories. Greater New York could handle six teams and New England three.[/quote:2ezr99qs] In theory, sure. In practice, a third NY team might work but that's about it.

Swan Swan H Mar 10 2010 07:13 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

The disparity in the size of the leagues has always bugged me. Four of fourteen teams make the playoffs in one league, and four of sixteen in another. One of six is guaranteed a playoff spot in the NL Central, one of four in the AL West. Another issue, which was meaningless until they changed the rules, was that sixteen NL teams are guaranteed an All-Star representative, and fourteen are in the AL. While the drop-off in talent might not be that great, if the game means home-field for the World Series the AL could have a small advantage, considering that a better player may be left off the NL squad in favor of an automatic pick for a lousy team. Not a big deal, but it could matter.

Edgy DC Mar 10 2010 08:16 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Gwreck":2og52hj8][quote="Edgy DC":2og52hj8]Most such studies though, leave out adding teams to esteablished territories. Greater New York could handle six teams and New England three.[/quote:2og52hj8] In theory, sure. In practice, a third NY team might work but that's about it.[/quote:2og52hj8] Why? You don't think the Jersey Jackasses, the Long Island Lugnuts, and the Brooklyn Thugs could out-profit the Royals and the Padres? Sure intitially, they'd be a joke in comparison to the established teams, but the tickets would be easy to get, a loyal following would ensue, and with any luck, eventually, they'd land a transformational superstar.

GYC Mar 10 2010 08:33 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Valadius"]So here's a map: Basically, if anything, we need more teams in the South and West.

After looking at that and this:




I agree that it's ridiculous Portland doesn't have a team.

I'm moving my Baseball Mogul Kansas City Royals to Portland in the next few years.


You're welcome.

Valadius Mar 10 2010 09:12 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

What county is that in New York where virtually no one lives?

Gwreck Mar 10 2010 09:18 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Hamilton.

Gwreck Mar 10 2010 09:22 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Edgy DC":1sdd9l2q]Sure intitially, they'd be a joke in comparison to the established teams, but the tickets would be easy to get, a loyal following would ensue, and with any luck, eventually, they'd land a transformational superstar.[/quote:1sdd9l2q] That's the problem.* Who's gonna pay the expansion fee and suffer through 5-10 years of that before their team gets good enough to start turning a profit? *We're assuming the Fred/Jeff and Uday/Qusay's objections were already overruled, of course.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 11 2010 07:08 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Gwreck":syn3pd6g]We're assuming the Fred/Jeff and Uday/Qusay's objections were already overruled, of course.[/quote:syn3pd6g] Not me. In my hypothetical, any team could relocate to anywhere -- league permission not needed. I'm talking about a free for all. Or a free to move for all. With four teams in NYC, the Mets and Yankees might even lower their ticket prices. An average income family of three or four might then be able to buy choice seats to a game once in a while without having to spend a week's paycheck to do so.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 11 2010 07:13 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

I know it only seems fair for teams to locate their businesses wherever they see fit, but I'd hate to see MLB become like the NFL, with all the shuffling that's occurred. I know the NFL isn't exactly hurting for fans, but if I had been a Baltimore Colts fan, I wouldn't have embraced the Ravens. We'd probably think we're safe as fans of a major market team, but New York has lost baseball teams before, and Los Angeles has lost two football teams, to lesser markets like St. Louis and Oakland. I may not be the typical fan, but if the Mets ever left New York I'd be done, finished as a sports fan. I wouldn't root for the Indianapolis Mets, and I wouldn't root for the New York Padres.

Edgy DC Mar 11 2010 07:33 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Has there been that much movement --- in the great scheme of things --- in the NFL? The NFL has a terrible labor situation that turns my stomache, but their shared TV income has made it the only sport where a major league team can survive (and prosper) in Green Bay. (I may be woefully out of date, but I think the NFL restricts franchise movement, requiring an approval vote of three fourths of owners before a team can move.)

Valadius Mar 11 2010 07:44 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

I want MLB to add teams in Portland, Charlotte, and Sacramento. I would move the A's to Sacramento because 1) the Bay Area doesn't have the population warranting two teams and 2) Sacramento is Oakland's AAA affiliate already anyway.

Frayed Knot Mar 11 2010 08:12 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[quote="Edgy DC"]Has there been that much movement --- in the great scheme of things --- in the NFL?

There was for a time - 80s into '90s - not so much recently. In something like a 15 year span the league abandoned Oakland, Houston, St Louis, Los Angeles (twice), Baltimore and maybe one or two others, plus threatened a whole bunch more.
The kicker is that it's the shared revenue situation which caused a lot of that movement. With a cap on how much they could make via TV (divided evenly), radio (minute piece of the pie), and ticket sales (only 8 games), it was the race for luxury boxes (treated as rent rather than tickets so not forced to share) that drove owners to look for new cities willing to foot the bill for construction so that they could get a team (and maybe a future Super Bowl) waved in front of their eyes.

I may be woefully out of date, but I think the NFL restricts franchise movement, requiring an approval vote of three fourths of owners before a team can move.

No, that got swatted down back when Al Davis first moved the Raiders as it was judged to be too restrictive and without any standards. The league was told that they would still be able to control franchise movement but needed to adjust their rule to something more fair like a simple majority plus maybe a list of conditions that needed to be met before a team could leave a city.
As an aside the league never adjusted the rule, hoping instead that some politician(s) would get pissed off enough when a team left their city/state that they'd lead a fight to grant the NFL the kind of blanket immunity from anti-trust laws that MLB was (wrongly) awarded now nearly a century ago to prevent that from happening again.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 11 2010 08:17 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

And there really do have to be some restrictions. Otherwise an owner can move his team (to make an extreme example) to Tokyo. The travel would be grueling, both for the Tokyo team and all the visiting teams, but if he didn't care about that, he'd make a hell of a lot of money in a huge baseball-crazy city.

Edgy DC Mar 11 2010 08:21 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Sorry to talk like a republican, but presumably the market itself can provide some restrictions. Moving has it's costs. Re-establishing yourself in a new market isn't easy. It's the lack of a free market that has made Kansas City such a wasteland, so the establishment of a truly free market, while allowing Kansas City greater leave to move, would also diminish the incentive to do so. Presumably, the league would still be allowed to OK or refuse extra-national moves.

metirish Mar 23 2010 10:55 AM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Olbermann has a good read take on this http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/archi ... t_too.html

Frayed Knot Mar 23 2010 12:09 PM Re: Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

Nothing wrong with Olberman's take on this - but for the most part I find these realignment plans akin to nothing more than a re-arranging of the furniture and are usually based on conditions as they exist now but may not in the future. I don't think they really solve any problems.