Jump to content

MLB response to tanking: more playoff teams?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

One thing I have heard is that they do want to go back to 154 game schedule. That was tied to going with 32 teams though. 

I used to be against that because of the importance of setting regular season records, but after Barry Bongs sterioded most records out of reach, I'm all for it if it will help the season not end at the end of October.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be more in favor of splitting the season up into two seasons (essentially wiping the slate clean halfway through the summer).  Winners of each of the mini-seasons would meet in the end of season playoffs.  If the same team won both mini-seasons, the runners up would be included.  This would eliminate teams tanking in July when they eliminated from contention.  It would also make the mid-season trades more interesting (and more strategic) and perhaps provide incentive for teams to not sell off star players mid-season.  Teams that suffered major injuries or slow starts in the first half of the season would still have a chance for a playoff run in the second half.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, andrewochs615 said:

Or they could just make a salary floor like they should do if the want to stop extreme tanking. 

I think it is foolish to make teams like the Orioles sign the available FA’s who aren’t good enough for contenders to want. It is a fake effort to be more competitive. 

If they are going to have a floor it should be tied to a period of time, say 6/8/10 years. I think teams should be able to do what the Orioles are doing. That way teams can’t be cheap over a long period of time. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Yossarian said:

I would be more in favor of splitting the season up into two seasons (essentially wiping the slate clean halfway through the summer).  Winners of each of the mini-seasons would meet in the end of season playoffs.  If the same team won both mini-seasons, the runners up would be included.  This would eliminate teams tanking in July when they eliminated from contention.  It would also make the mid-season trades more interesting (and more strategic) and perhaps provide incentive for teams to not sell off star players mid-season.  Teams that suffered major injuries or slow starts in the first half of the season would still have a chance for a playoff run in the second half.

This is what most, if not all, Minor League leagues do. It can actually make the season a bit more exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I used to be against that because of the importance of setting regular season records, but after Barry Bongs sterioded most records out of reach, I'm all for it if it will help the season not end at the end of October.

The fact that they have bumped up the regular season really shows they don’t want to go into November. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

One thing I have heard is that they do want to go back to 154 game schedule. That was tied to going with 32 teams though. 

That's how they need to revise their playoff format -- 154 games, 2 leagues, two divisions per league, eight teams per division. Season ends @ September 22. The division winners get byes while the four wildcards per league play 3-game series to determine which teams meet up with the division winners. Thereon, all series are best of 7. World Series never stretches into November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oriole said:

A bye in baseball is sort of silly. A team can be on a roll and then it’s gone after not playing a full week 

Well, it's just a 3 game series.   If they eliminate travel days, it's not that long a bye.

Even last year, the season ended on a Sunday.   One wild card game was Tuesday, one was Wednesday, and the league that played its wildcard on Tuesday started its division series on Thursday, while the league that played its wildcard on Wednesday started its division series on Friday.

So even with the 1 game playoff, three teams didn't play between Sunday and Friday.   And they probably rested all their starters on Sunday too.

If you play these division series Tue-Wed-Thu (have to leave Monday for possible tiebreak games as always), you could start the division round on Saturday, so it might only add one day off, and only for the top team in each league.   I don't think it's that big a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomic said:

I would like to go back to 4 playoff teams total.  If you play 162 games that should be enough to pair it down to 4 teams.  I don’t see a need for a wild card and bigger divisions would be more enjoyable so you aren’t playing the same team 15 times a year.

$.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non-competitive team is a non-competitive team - period.  These proposals do little to help smaller market teams compete in anything other than a cycle.  And given how high payrolls go as teams compete, when does MLB expect an owner to make a profit if not during rebuilding years - so IMO a salary floor is artificial and stupid.

The BEST way to insure teams like the Os or Royals or Reds or Padres or similar teams can compete more frequently and perhaps have shorter or less rebuild cycles is to either skew the draft slots toward these teams MORE than the current set-up (either through additional draft picks or more draft $ that can be used to sign better players before or after the 10th round), alter the 40 man roster for smaller market teams (let them keep more than 40) or something in the spirit of the above two ideas that  help smaller market teams build and retain more competitive rosters.   

I think adding more teams to the playoffs simply insures that the LAD, NYY and other high payroll organizations have a lower hurdle to get to the post-season.  To me, nothing hurts those teams more than when they miss the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • What about the Rays? I know it’s hard to trade in division. They need offense and you could kill 2 birds with one stone. Zach Efflin and Jason Adam would solve both starter and bullpen issues. Rays may be extra incentivized to get rid of Efflin contract.
    • Let’s be clear. He’s pitching like an ace THIS YEAR. this is his first year in mlb and he was considered a back end starter when he was signed.  No one rational would say a 2.5 month performance in your first year in MLB requires the number one prospect in baseball PLUS MORE! Respectfully it’s lunacy.
    • I’m not saying we can’t trade for Scott. Or that we shouldn’t trade for someone. More that we basically already have one reliever we don’t have to trade for. But a guy who will likely have a relatively high whip due to command issues but have a well above average k rate… I also just don’t love rentals in general. Hit or miss as to whether they perform well anyway (hey jack flaherty) and then it’s gone. If you don’t win that year it’s all for nothing. For the right cost I’m okay with it, but I don’t want to give up a major prospect for a rental unless it’s the piece that puts us over the top 
    • They are not in a rebuild. And I don't want to waste time imagining that the team is bad and trading our best young players. As a matter of fact, I hope we don't have to do that for years to come. I envision adding good players not how can we get rid of the good ones that we have. I have waited my whole life to finally have a team this good. I don't mind at all trading good prospects. And have no delusional expectations that we can get value without surrendering value. Nor am I in love with the notion that we have to have a cheap, homegrown team. As a matter of fact, I want and expect the org to spend much more money on payroll than it is doing currently. Lastly, what happened with Gausman is in the past and under a totally different administration (ownership + front office). We were selling then. We are buying now.
    • Is there a reason it should be? He’s still walking 5.5+ batters per 9. He’s still got things he can work on. No rush to get him up unless it’s as a reliever down the stretch or a spot start. 
    • I mean Tanner Scott at least has a Major League track record. How much do you think Scott will really cost? Also, we have more position players and prospects that we could ever use. I understand maybe not wanting Scott, but I don't understand the logic of not wanting surrender any prospects (even some good ones). We almost have to at some point. Otherwise, you have 25 year old top level prospects like Kjerstad, who is in his prime now and killing it at AAA but has no place on the Big League roster. Stowers is even older and has contributed relatively nothing to the Orioles and is now age 26.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...