Master Index of Archived Threads


Selig to Retire

MFS62 Dec 01 2006 08:34 AM

in three years, according to ESPN Radio. This morning Peter Gammons said his replacement will be Larry McPhail, now working in the MLB office. If you were to be the next comish, what would you do to improve baseball? Later

KC Dec 01 2006 08:47 AM

Realignment. I'd start with moving one of the NL Cali teams to New York and shipping the Yankees out to the coast.

Vic Sage Dec 01 2006 12:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2006 12:29 PM

1) Expand and realign into 4 4-team regional divisions in each league: [u:95ee506566] AL East [/u:95ee506566] Boston Red Sox New York Yankees Baltimore Orioles Tampa Bay Devil Rays [u:95ee506566]AL North [/u:95ee506566] Toronto Blue Jays (realign) Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers Milwaukee Brewers (moves from NL) [u:95ee506566]AL Midwest [/u:95ee506566] Minnesota Twins Chicago White Sox Kansas City Royals Texas Rangers [u:95ee506566]AL West [/u:95ee506566] Seattle Mariners Oakland Athletics Los Angeles Angels - Las Vegas (expansion) [u:95ee506566]NL East [/u:95ee506566] New York Mets Philadelphia Phillies Pittsburgh Pirates (realign) Washington Nationals [u:95ee506566]NL Southeast [/u:95ee506566] Cincinnati Reds (realign) Atlanta Braves (realign) Florida Marlins (realign) -Puerto Rico (expansion) [u:95ee506566]NL Central [/u:95ee506566] Chicago Cubs St. Louis Cardinals Houston Astros Colorado Rockies (realign) [u:95ee506566]NL West [/u:95ee506566] Arizona Diamondbacks Los Angeles Dodgers San Diego Padres San Francisco Giants 2) Schedule: -12 games against 3 division teams = 36 -6 games against 12 league teams = 72 -3 games against 16 other league teams = 48 (home teams alternate each year) -4 additional games (a double-header in each stadium) against city/regional rival Total = 160 games - with 2 rounds of 7-game divisional playoffs; 1 round of WS (home field goes to team with best record); - WS winner plays winner of Japan/Europe/South-Central American championship series 3) other rule changes: - eliminate DH - expand roster to 26 (can expand to 40 UNTIL June 1st; 26 thereafter thru end of season) - municipal funding for ballparks ONLY if municipality owns a majority interest in the team; - eliminate draft, arbitration and anti-trust exemption - 50% revenue sharing with visiting team; and 50% revenue sharing between players/owners (with a % off the top going to a fund for retired players in need); - requirement of at least 10% of each team's games sold to broadcast tv; - 7pm weeknite starts, 1pm on weekends (including post-season) - kids tix (3-12) 1/2 price for all games - Post-season awards: Ruth = best offensive player Cy Young = best starting pitcher Hoyt Wilhelm = best reliever Ty Cobb = best baserunner gg = best fielder at each position / ss = best hitter at each position + Robinson/Clemente citizenship award; and post-season MVP - with every award voted by a rotating panel of writers, scholars, statisticians, gms, managers, HOFers

sharpie Dec 01 2006 12:16 PM

That's way too few games in the division and way too many games against the other league.

Vic Sage Dec 01 2006 12:23 PM

in a 4 team division, too many games in the division rewards a mediocre team in a weak division. having alot of games against every other team in baseball ensures that division winners will not just be the best of a bad bunch, but the best overall teams. It balances out the year to year vagueries of divisional weaknesses and increases the likelihood of the best teams in baseball advancing (and getting homefield advantage). furthermore, it gives fans an opportunity to see every team in baseball every year, nationalizing the game and, ultimately, internationalizing it. Declining TV ratings, and the move of younger fans to other sports, requires immediate action to save the sport from obselescence.

TransMonk Dec 01 2006 12:38 PM

I perfer contraction to expansion. I don't want the overall league talent watered down any more than it already is. I agree with most everything else Vic has after scheduling.

sharpie Dec 01 2006 12:40 PM

Why is it so important or so beneficial to the game if the Mets play the Royals every year? To me, the games against the other league are less compelling than against other league teams, particularly divisional teams. While it rewards the team in an otherwise weak division it would also make for great games in teams with two good teams (or at least two evenly matched teams at the top). Since you're eliminating the wild card (which I've kind of grown to like) it makes playing your division even more imperative.

Willets Point Dec 01 2006 12:41 PM

No way should MLB go to 4 team divisions, that NFL crap weakens competition. My realignment plan creates 4 larger regional divisions. NATIONAL LEAGUE EAST Baltimore Boston New York Mets New York Yankees Philadelphia Pittsburgh Toronto Washington Schedule v. East = 14/team v. Central = 8/team NATIONAL LEAGUE CENTRAL Chicago Cubs Chicago White Sox Cincinatti Cleveland Detroit Milwaukee Minnesota St. Louis v. Central = 14/team v. East = 8/team AMERICAN LEAGUE SOUTH Atlanta Florida Houston Kansas City Tampa Bay Texas v. South = 20/team (18v. one team) v. West = 8/team AMERICAN LEAGUE WEST Arizona Colorado Los Angeles Angels Los Angeles Dodgers Oakland San Diego San Francisco Seattle v. South = 8/team v. West = 14/team (16 v. one team) Post-season: top 2 teams of each division qualify. #1 team of each division plays the #2 team of the opposing division in the first round. Winners advance to the LCS, with the World Series to follow. I'm a traditionalist but the differences between the NL & AL have been obliterated and what we have now with the 4-6 team divisions and interleague play is half-assed. My plan puts all the historical baseball regions in the senior circuit and most of the expansion/movement franchise in the junior circuit. Regional play should encourage rivalries, reduce games played in a different time zone and the amount of travel for the players, while encouraging fans to travel to away games. Plus almost every game is against a divisional rival so they'll all count towards going up or down in the standings in a pennant race. There's room for expansion in the smaller AL South division (where expansion is most likely to occur under current demographic trends) but I wouldn't promote actually expanding until the circumstances are ripe for expansion. Another idea I think might work would be a European football-style promotion/regulation system, but I think the initial implementation would probably be too difficult. Basically in that case all the cities currently with AAA teams would gain independent franchises added to the current MLB franchises and the 60 teams would be divided into 3 twenty team tiers. These other proposals put forth by Ralphraddsage, I enthusiastically second: ]- WS winner plays winner of Japan/Europe/South-Central American championship series 3) other rule changes: - eliminate DH - expand roster to 26 - municipal funding for ballparks ONLY if municipality owns a majority interest in the team; - eliminate draft, arbitration and anti-trust exemption - 50% revenue sharing with visiting team; and 50% revenue sharing between players/owners (with a % off the top going to a fund for retired players in need); - requirement of at least 10% of each team's games sold to broadcast tv; - 7pm weeknite starts, 1pm on weekends (including post-season) - kids tix (3-12) 1/2 price for all games - Post-season awards: Ruth = best offensive player Cy Young = best starting pitcher Hoyt Wilhelm = best reliever Ty Cobb = best baserunner gg = best fielder at each position / ss = best hitter at each position + Robinson/Clemente citizenship award; and post-season MVP

Edgy DC Dec 01 2006 12:45 PM

I mostly disagree that intradivisoin games reward the weak. What's important about the Mets playing the Royals is merely that teams should have parallel schedules to one anohter. Why is it so important or so beneficial to the game if the commissioner announces his retirement three years in advance? (Likely answer: Lame-duck status will buy him the tolerance among the fan base that already distrusts him, perhaps tolerance which he intends to try with a radical agenda.)

Willets Point Dec 01 2006 12:46 PM

Oh and make all contracts for one year. That's right, each and every offseason every single player is a free agent. That will ensure that players are given fair pay and opportunity for movement while avoiding ridiculously high salaries. (Even as I type this I'm sure there's something dreadfully wrong with this proposal, but what the hell, I'm throwing out ideas).

Willets Point Dec 01 2006 12:48 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Why is it so important or so beneficial to the game if the commissioner announces his retirement three years in advance? Seeing how long it took to find a new commissioner last time (and then they just officialized the de facto commissioner), perhaps the three year lead time gives them a head start in finding Selig's replacement.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2006 12:49 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2006 01:31 PM

I think, in an era of ridiulously high revenues, fair pay is giving them ridiculouly high salaries.

sharpie Dec 01 2006 12:51 PM

Edgy wrote: ]What's important about the Mets playing the Royals is merely that teams should have parallel schedules to one anohter. They still wouldn't under Vic's plan. The Mets would be playing the Phillies, Nationals and Pirates (welcome back, Buccos) while the Royals play the ChiSox, Rangers and Twins (in this formulation, however, I would flip the Twins and Indians). The relative strength or weakness of the divisions would, of course, change over time, but if, say, the Phils and Nats were powerhouses and Chicago, Texas and the Twins (or Indians) were patsies then there would still be an imbalance.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2006 12:58 PM

Well, you raise an interesting question there, Tootie. With the teams established where they are and unallowed to move at will to pursue better fortunes, and with populations centers (and, therefore, large markets) are we not evolving into an eral where the central divisions will tend to be the weak ones?

sharpie Dec 01 2006 01:05 PM

Tootie? It doesn't seem, however, that population is necessarily a determinant of revenue. The Cards play in a smallish market and do quite well, thank you, while the Marlins haven't gained any traction in their market (granted, there are some other reasons for that, but still). Spent some time last summer in Minnesota and everyone was talking baseball so, no, I don't think the Central Divisions will necessarily always be patsies.

Farmer Ted Dec 01 2006 01:24 PM

Bud moved MIL to the NL to create a regional rivarly with the Cubs because their other regional rivalry with MIN was boring. He obviously had a vested interest in drawing more fans to the new stadium regardless if 1/2 of the fans passing through the turnstiles in the unbalanced schedule are Cubs fans venturing north. I'm sure that he's whispering in the Commish's ear about not touching that switcheroo. Bud Selig's legacy will be steroids, the tied all-star game, contraction, and the league looking the other way as he tried to save the Brewers. All bad.

sharpie Dec 01 2006 01:32 PM

Interleague play and wild cards will also be Bud's legacy.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2006 01:34 PM

I believe that, while there certainly are exceptions, it's hard to dispute that teams in population centers tend to have an advantage in garnering revenues.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 01 2006 01:43 PM

To be fair, Bud's other legacies will be enormous spikes in the popularity and profitability of the game that enriched all its participants but the fans.

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2006 01:54 PM

* 4 4-team divisions: HATE IT!!!! Not only are there too few in-division games and other stuff already mentioned, but with no Wild card there'd be almost no pennant races left. Look at the current NFL; with still almost 1/3 of their season to go most of the divisions are already in the bag and the "extra" teams are the only races left. Think about having that scenario for 50 or so games. Making the divisions so small reduces the odds of ever having 2 good teams in any one division and the lopsided in/out of division ratio makes it likely that you'll eventually have a sub-.500 winner. I also ain't wild about expanding at this point, particularly if its only purpose is to make some kind of pretty-looking realignment plan.

sharpie Dec 01 2006 01:54 PM

Yes, of course, large population centers are better than small ones. That being said, the midwest has one very large city and many pretty large cities and a culture that has baseball as part of its fabric. San Antonio is a very large city at this point and is probably a terrible candidate for a baseball team.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2006 02:24 PM

Tootie just came up. You in no way are Kim Fields-like.

Vic Sage Dec 01 2006 03:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2006 03:37 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: * 4 4-team divisions: HATE IT!!!! Not only are there too few in-division games and other stuff already mentioned, but with no Wild card there'd be almost no pennant races left. Look at the current NFL; with still almost 1/3 of their season to go most of the divisions are already in the bag and the "extra" teams are the only races left. Think about having that scenario for 50 or so games. Making the divisions so small reduces the odds of ever having 2 good teams in any one division and the lopsided in/out of division ratio makes it likely that you'll eventually have a sub-.500 winner. I also ain't wild about expanding at this point, particularly if its only purpose is to make some kind of pretty-looking realignment plan. 1) too few in-division games? -- so what? What is so great about beating up on (or getting beaten up by) the same team 18 times? I'd rather see all the other teams come in every year, with an extra series against the Yanks. My scenario still has each team playing its intra-division rivals 12 times, at least twice as much as any other team. 2) fewer pennant races wIthout the "wild card"? -- baseball survived for over 100 years without a WC. Not that i'm necessarily opposed to having one, but i don't see pennant races effected radically by their absence. With 4 teams in each division, teams are more likely to be in a race than they were in the old 8 team leagues. And intra-division games can be scheduled at the beginning and end of seasons, to allow for potential division race matchups. 3) Increases likelihood of a sub .500 winner? -- as i recall, this year's WS champion was one game over .500. Maybe if they had to play strong AL teams during the year (maybe if EVERY TEAM had to play every other team in baseball during the course of the year), they wouldn't even have made it to the post-season. And increasing the 5-game WC series to a 7-game series further lessens the chance of a bad team making it. 4) no to expansion? -- its purpose isn't to make allignment "prettier". Its to give both leagues the same rules and the same number of teams, and a presence in equivalent markets. Arranging divisions based on region and time zone also makes travel and broadcasting more sensible and efficient. There are a number of additional markets that can support baseball, and the additional income could subsidize alot of the other aspects of my proposals.

vtmet Dec 01 2006 03:29 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2006 03:38 PM

If I were Commish: Both leagues have same number of teams (currently, 16 vs 14, from pure odds it's much easier for the A's to make the playoffs than it is for the Brewers since 1 team has to have a better record than 3 others while the other team has to have a better record than 5 others)... Schedule goes down to somewhere in the 150-156 game range so that playoffs aren't so late in the year, with all rounds of playoffs being best of 7 games... Each league is one giant division with balanced scheduling, best 4 records win...none of this nonsense where a team like the Padres can have a worse record than several other teams that don't make the playoffs but they still win the "division"... All teams play each "Interleague" team the exact same amount...if it's going to be a circus, then it should be an even circus...not have the Mets play the Yankees 6 games each year while the Astros play the Rangers 6 times per season and the Cards get to stomp on the Royals 6 games per season... Playoffs: One network is not allowed to cover all of the playoffs at the same time...when ESPN has 3 games back to back to back, and one runs over into the other game, so they switch the second game to ESPN2 until the first game gets done, and then switch back to ESPN afterwards...that's just pure BS, especially when FOX or TBS is available but not broadcasting... No games starting at 8:15-8:30...start them at 7:30 with all the ceremonial stuff, this still starts the game by 8...when kids can't watch the games because they go until 11 pm or later, that is not good for the survival of the sport...and West Coast games shouldn't start before East Coast games just because the East Coast is the bigger TV draw...their games should be at a reasonable time for their area...does the NFL put games from California on early to clear viewing space for the Giants and the Ravens?

SteveJRogers Dec 01 2006 03:40 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I like the part where those attractions he defines as ahead of baseball will never be supplanted, but those behind baseball are an imminent threat. That means baseball is on a decline, hence the imminent threats and the fact that baseball will never touch those that are ahead. The NFL's place is very secure, and try talking October baseball in SEC country. Or in Southern California, Texas, Nebraska, Columbus, Ann Arbor or and other place were College Football is King. I can see MLB easily being in the lower portion of the Top 10, even the Top 20 in sporting attraction within the next 5 to 10 years.

Nymr83 Dec 01 2006 05:21 PM

theres a whole lot to respond too but heres some random bits and pieces: -i hate the idea of eight divisions with four teams each, i'd rather see four divisions that each have 7 or 8 teams. -i like the playoffs as is, 3 rounds, though i wouldnt mind lengthening the 1st round and/or a wildcard play-in game the day after the season ends. -i don't like any of vic sage's socialist ideas, revenue between the owners/players should be split in whatever way they contractually agree upon, we can also let the 30 owners divide up visiting team revenue as they see fit, if the small market owners wanted to change things they sure have the numbers to do it. -i don't like willet's free agency every year idea either, first of all its terrible for the already degraded sense of continuity of teams, but more importantly it wouldnt just allow players to make more money off a good year, it would prevent players from signing multi-year deals that provide them with financial security and the club with certainty as to salary costs. multi-year deals benefit everyone. -no way should there be any rules, as vic proposes, about municipalities paying for stuff, if taxpayers dont like it they can vote people out of office, but if a particularc ity feels that building a park is what they want thats their business. -an article in The Post today about Selig's retirement claimed annual revenue is 5.2 billion league wide up from under 2 billion in 1992 when Selig tookover, sorry SteveRogers, i know you hate math and statistics since they are always against you. -i wish this thread hadn't declined into steve's bullshit for 2 pages when it started out so well -i'd like to see the DH gone but the union would feel they need something in return since that would essentialy replace a multi-million dollar starting player with a bench guy on every roster. i'd offer them a raise in the minimum salary along with a roster expansion to 26, maybe some sort of pension increase thing too. -i'd get rid of losing draft picks for free agent singings, though i'd still give "supplemental" picks to the teams that lose guys. -i'd expand the draft internationally, i can't see how this would hurt the current players, the clubs, or american amateurs, and i couldn't care less if it economically hurt international free agents, we have no reason to look out for them. -i'd work out some sort of agreement with Japan, the current "posting" system isn't working properly and is in fact a huge detriment to small market teams (can they potentialy give Matsuzaka what Boston gives him, sure. can they pony up 51 million before that? not quite as easily.) i don't have any great ideas here (just letting the players come here without the japanese consent opens up a door that i wouldnt want to go through.) -set and enforce minimum dimensions for new ballparks, dont allow anyone who doesnt already have turf to install it, go back to the less-tightly wound baseball from years ago, raise the mound to its pre-1969 height -in the next contract with FOX/whoever tell them they cannot superimpose advertising behind homeplate, they can't let commercials cause the fans to miss pitches, and they need to show every pitch from over the pitcher's shoulder (no dumb angles)

metsguyinmichigan Dec 01 2006 06:21 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: The NFL's place is very secure, and try talking October baseball in SEC country. Or in Southern California, Texas, Nebraska, Columbus, Ann Arbor or and other place were College Football is King. I can see MLB easily being in the lower portion of the Top 10, even the Top 20 in sporting attraction within the next 5 to 10 years. Trust me on this, October baseball was very much discussed in Ann Arbor this year. And it's a nice little city, emphasis on little. If you're going to imply that the entire southeast Michigan corridor -- or any part of the state, for that matter -- is football crazy, you're dead wrong. Detroit's a baseball town when the team is even halfway decent, which, granted, it hasn't been except for 2006 in a long, long, time. Then you have the Red Wings and the Pistons and eventually the Lions. The MSU and UM football games are certainly big, but other than the OSU game it really doesn't dominate. Trust me, I live here.

Vic Sage Dec 01 2006 06:35 PM

As former MoFo-er THIRTEEN was almost always right, so is 83 almost always wrong. In fact, if i'm ever unsure about what position to take on any issue, 83 is my perfect reverse barometer. although i'd agree with 2 8-team divisions rather than 4 4-team divisions.

Nymr83 Dec 02 2006 12:14 AM

Vic Sage wrote: As former MoFo-er THIRTEEN was almost always right, so is 83 almost always wrong. In fact, if i'm ever unsure about what position to take on any issue, 83 is my perfect reverse barometer. although i'd agree with 2 8-team divisions rather than 4 4-team divisions. thats a compliment, i'd hate to agree with a socialist.

metirish Dec 05 2006 09:27 AM

Iraq is Seligs fault. ] By MURRAY CHASS Published: December 5, 2006 Bud Selig likes to refer to himself as a student of history, and in retrospect, the commissioner could have been part of history, a major part, having nothing to do with attendance records or wild cards. Not that he knew it then, in the mid-1990s, but Selig could have altered the course of recent history. If only he had given the nod to George W. Bush when Bush, then the managing partner of the Texas Rangers, let it be known that he was interested in assuming the vacant office of baseball commissioner. That was before Bush entered politics and became the governor of Texas. Selig had said he was not aware that Bush wanted to be commissioner, but plenty of other people in baseball ownership knew it, and Selig has always been in constant contact with owners and knows all. But Bush waited and waited for a signal from Selig, who as the head of the Major League Baseball executive council was the acting commissioner after the ouster of Fay Vincent from the office in September 1992. Finally, Bush could wait no longer. The Texas Republican Party wanted him to run for governor and needed an answer. Hearing nothing from Selig, Bush ran for governor and won. The rest is history. Selig didn’t say yes because he was planning to be commissioner himself, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. This is not a new story. But it is worth retelling because Selig last week said for the first time publicly that he planned to retire when his contract expires in three years. He had previously said it privately, explaining that his wife, Sue, was urging him to retire. Chances are that if not for the wishes of Sue Selig, her husband, health permitting, would remain commissioner as long as the owners wanted him to. The owners would probably want him to be commissioner as long as he wanted, as well they should. Baseball has flourished under Selig, with industry revenue reaching a record $5.2 billion this year, attendance at a record high of more than 76 million and labor peace with the players in place for another five years. Steroids zealots criticize Selig for doing nothing about steroids use for too long. But no one else made a case against it either, including those of us who watched players get mind-bogglingly bigger and wrote nothing about it. Not everything is perfect, though, and before he departs, Selig may want to devote some attention to the problematic issues. He could start with the decline in television ratings for the World Series. Despite the attendance record this year, the World Series between St. Louis and Detroit drew the lowest television ratings ever. Those ratings have to be viewed in the context of television ratings generally; the ratings of even the most popular programming have declined. But baseball cares about ratings as much as Fox and would like to see them higher. When M.L.B. and Fox were struggling with disappointing ratings for the All-Star Game, they came up with a novel way of dealing with them. Baseball created a link between the All-Star Game and home-field advantage for the World Series. The team from the league that won the All-Star Game would get to play Games 1, 2, 6 and 7 at home. With the All-Star Game taking on greater meaning, baseball and Fox figured, fans would more readily watch the game. How, then, could they induce more fans to watch the World Series? The rating for the most recent World Series was 10.1. That won’t do. Time to develop a reason that would make the World Series more compelling to watch. In an effort to inspire baseball to attack this problem, herewith are a few ideas: • Instead of assigning the game two years ahead, base home-field advantage for the All-Star Game on the outcome of the previous year’s World Series. If the All-Star Game, an exhibition game, is important enough to determine a critical component of the subsequent World Series, a championship event, home-field advantage for the All-Star Game should be important enough to be based on a legitimate event. • With baseball having increasing interest in opening the season in foreign countries, make the loser of the World Series open the next season in Japan. Baseball likes the idea of playing games in Japan, but the players who have to play them don’t like traveling that distance. As much as players want to win World Series rings, they may be even more passionate about wanting to stay home the next March, and that passion would be reflected in their play. Fans would notice and become more interested in World Series games. • Have fans predict the outcome of the World Series via the Internet, and give fans who pick the winning team two tickets to a game of their choice the following season. Fans would watch the games as if they had placed a bet on them. Ratings would rise. Imaginative minds in baseball and television could undoubtedly come up with other, perhaps better ideas. After all, they did create the All-Star link to the World Series. Just look at the ratings that concept has produced. The year before the plan took effect, 2002, Fox’s telecast of the All-Star Game drew a 9.5 rating. The first year of the link, 2003, the rating was 9.5. The ratings then went to 8.8 and 8.1. But then came this year’s game, and the rating soared to 9.4, nearly matching the rating for the last prelink game. It’s obvious the commissioner and his creativity team knew what they were doing. Now, before Selig leaves, they have another task. I’m confident they’ll be up to it. Next Article in Sports (10 of 17) »

Johnny Dickshot Dec 05 2006 09:31 AM

I kinda prefer W screwing up the world, and not baseball.

Willets Point Dec 05 2006 09:56 AM

Selig retires in 2009. Bush's term ends in 2009, but he's probably not ready for quiet retirement. I think we're getting an inkling on who's in line for the next commisioner.

metirish Dec 05 2006 10:03 AM

We can expect a team in Baghdad by 2012....

Nymr83 Dec 05 2006 01:52 PM

metirish wrote: We can expect a team in Baghdad by 2012.... they'll refuse to play their 18 division games against The Mets because theres a jew on the team...