Expansion/Realignment

[LookinUp]

Good point. In an 8 division world, you might have a couple more teams/year in the hunt. That added benefit might be on the margins though.

[DrungoHazewood]

19 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Baseball was better when it had a balanced schedule. 

There's a beauty and a simplicity in everyone playing everyone else the same number of times, and whoever wins the most gets a pennant.

Things get less beautiful when you have to consider that the Yanks have $660M in annual revenues and few constraints on fully using that, while other teams are under $200M.

[spiritof66]

On 6/24/2019 at 9:01 AM, Greg Pappas said:

I agree with you. My format is based on my expectation that MLB would keep the current 4-team divisional format.  I would actually prefer four 8-team divisions, with no leagues... just one overall MLB, similar to Tracy Ringolsby's ($) following idea:

Why would the middle- and lower-revenue teams who under this realignment would be thrown in with the NYYs and RS for the first time ever agree to this? 

I don't much like the idea of having two 16-team leagues or one 32-team league but those are the only way that I can think of to keep the NYYs and RS in competition with one another (as I think they would demand to be) and not force other teams, with much lower revenues, to have their chances to make the playoffs significantly diminished by being aligned with the NYYs and RS when they don't already face that problem. (Of course the Orioles, Jays and Rays are stuck in that position, but there's nothing they can do about it, at least until there's a realignment.)

While I like the idea of shifting the makeup of eight-team divisions each year, or every few years, based on past results, the geography might create some serious scheduling/travel problems. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, JR Oriole said:

I totally agree with this.  I am not interested in seeing AL East teams 76 times a year (or 47% of our games).  Even in the NFL, you only get your division opponents 6 our of 16 games (38% - rounded).  If I didn't know any better, I would swear this move from 12-13 games a year up to the current model was solely to ensure the Yankees and Red Sox could play 19 times and be on national television 19 times.  You shouldn't need almost half of your games to prove that you are the best team in your division. 

There’s a big difference between traveling west to play one football game, and being out there for 7-10 games at a time.    I’m not surprised baseball chose to limit inter-division games to a degree.   

Basically, if we played in a more balanced division, we’d love this schedule.   I bet it’s fun as hell to be an NL Central fan with your team playing division rivals half the time.   

[DrungoHazewood]

13 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Why would the middle- and lower-revenue teams who under this realignment would be thrown in with the NYYs and RS for the first time ever agree to this? 

I don't much like the idea of having two 16-team leagues or one 32-team league but those are the only way that I can think of to keep the NYYs and RS in competition with one another (as I think they would demand to be) and not force other teams, with much lower revenues, to have their chances to make the playoffs significantly diminished by being aligned with the NYYs and RS when they don't already face that problem. (Of course the Orioles, Jays and Rays are stuck in that position, but there's nothing they can do about it, at least until there's a realignment.)

While I like the idea of shifting the makeup of eight-team divisions each year, or every few years, based on past results, the geography might create some serious scheduling/travel problems. 

Here's my unworkably crazy scheme of the day that I would implement if made king of baseball: Take the Yanks and Sox and make them field two independent teams each. Two independent front offices, two minor league systems, two major league teams sharing the same stadium. They can't trade with their other team.  They have to open their books to the league and split revenues evenly, between the Yanks and Highlanders, and the Sox and Beaneaters. It's not expansion, it's not contraction, it's cellular division.

Yes, of course, there are a million reasons why this is practically impossible.  But it would put them on similar financial footing with normal teams.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 hour ago, JR Oriole said:

I totally agree with this.  I am not interested in seeing AL East teams 76 times a year (or 47% of our games).  Even in the NFL, you only get your division opponents 6 our of 16 games (38% - rounded).  If I didn't know any better, I would swear this move from 12-13 games a year up to the current model was solely to ensure the Yankees and Red Sox could play 19 times and be on national television 19 times.  You shouldn't need almost half of your games to prove that you are the best team in your division. 

That was definitely a factor. Also the Cub-Cardinals and Dodgers-Giants playing 19 games a year against each other as well. For me it's not about the Red Sox and Yankees being better than the Orioles, I get bored seeing half the games against the AL East. Baseball is way too hyper focused on divisional play. You don't see this in the NFL, NHL and NBA. 

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

There’s a big difference between traveling west to play one football game, and being out there for 7-10 games at a time.    I’m not surprised baseball chose to limit inter-division games to a degree.   

Basically, if we played in a more balanced division, we’d love this schedule.   I bet it’s fun as hell to be an NL Central fan with your team playing division rivals half the time.   

Of course it would be fun running a 100m dash where two of your opponents aren't starting at the 30m mark.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Here's my unworkably crazy scheme of the day that I would implement if made king of baseball: Take the Yanks and Sox and make them field two independent teams each. Two independent front offices, two minor league systems, two major league teams sharing the same stadium. They can't trade with their other team.  They have to open their books to the league and split revenues evenly, between the Yanks and Highlanders, and the Sox and Beaneaters. It's not expansion, it's not contraction, it's cellular division.

Yes, of course, there are a million reasons why this is practically impossible.  But it would put them on similar financial footing with normal teams.

I like your idea because I want to see how it would play out, but MLB needs revenue sharing to help level the playing field. The large market teams like the Yankees have monster local television contracts, but they only get that because of MLB as a whole. The Yankees could not play 162 intra-squad games and expect to make the same television revenues. 

[Flash- bd]

Get rid of NL and AL, make one league. No pitcher hitting. Unjuice balls a bit to compensate for league-wide DH. East and West like in the NBA. Done. 

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Here's my unworkably crazy scheme of the day that I would implement if made king of baseball: Take the Yanks and Sox and make them field two independent teams each. Two independent front offices, two minor league systems, two major league teams sharing the same stadium. They can't trade with their other team.  They have to open their books to the league and split revenues evenly, between the Yanks and Highlanders, and the Sox and Beaneaters. It's not expansion, it's not contraction, it's cellular division.

Yes, of course, there are a million reasons why this is practically impossible.  But it would put them on similar financial footing with normal teams.

I’m reminded of Howard Cosell’s exchange with Jack Lambert.

Cosell:  Do you think there should be any rule changes for the safety of the quarterback?

Lambert: Well, it might be a good idea to put dresses on all of them.    That might help a little bit.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I like your idea because I want to see how it would play out, but MLB needs revenue sharing to help level the playing field. The large market teams like the Yankees have monster local television contracts, but they only get that because of MLB as a whole. The Yankees could not play 162 intra-squad games and expect to make the same television revenues. 

They get the monster deals because they've had 117 years of largely monopolizing the biggest market in the US.  The city and the very large population base are more than happy to subsidize the team.  15 million Yanks fans love the fact that 87 wins is a dystopian nightmare. Real revenue sharing has to be done over the strenuous objections of the owners who paid for a team with this market share, the fans, and the media companies who make money off of them.

Yes, the Yanks need opponents.  But really it doesn't matter who.  They'd bring in the better part of a $1B a year if they only played the Sox, Mets, Phils, Indians, and the Brooklyn Cyclones.  The Yanks would probably vote to form a superleague, where they only play the Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Mets and Sox.

[ExileAngelos]

Whatever they decide I hope they don't expand the playoff field.  Fewer teams that make the post season the better.  Too much of a crap shoot once you get to the playoffs.  That is why you play 162 games.   I like the set up the way it is now.  The one game wild card is perfect.  Unfortunately I expect they will follow the NFL model of 8 four team divisions.  Boooo

[spiritof66]

45 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Here's my unworkably crazy scheme of the day that I would implement if made king of baseball: Take the Yanks and Sox and make them field two independent teams each. Two independent front offices, two minor league systems, two major league teams sharing the same stadium. They can't trade with their other team.  They have to open their books to the league and split revenues evenly, between the Yanks and Highlanders, and the Sox and Beaneaters. It's not expansion, it's not contraction, it's cellular division.

Yes, of course, there are a million reasons why this is practically impossible.  But it would put them on similar financial footing with normal teams.

Well, that's thinking outside the box, all right.

Why would you impose this on the NYYs and RS but not on the Dodgers?

[Todd-O]

32 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Well, that's thinking outside the box, all right.

Why would you impose this on the NYYs and RS but not on the Dodgers?

Ha... and why not the Nats?  Have you paid attention to their spending over the last 4 years?

[Todd-O]

I actually think we are headed to a future of teams that split time between towns.  You think it's any mistake that the Rays are being discussed as a split team?

Games are unaffordable... but the burden would lessened while demand would be heightened if a team split home games between two cities.  It might be the only way for a team like Baltimore to survive going forward.