Jump to content

Since MLB won't do it, I will


osfan83

Recommended Posts

put teams in divisons based on payroll. Here are the current standings:

Obscene Spenders Division

Red Sox 25-16

Yankees 24-17

Tigers 23-16

Cubs 21-18

Mets 21-19

Big Spenders division

Dodgers 29-13

Phillies 22-17

Angeles 21-19

Mariners 19-23

Astros 18-21

Above Average division

Blue Jays 27-17

Braves 20-20

Giants 19-21

White Sox 17-23

Indians 16-26

Below Average division

Brewers 26-15

Cards 24-17

Reds 21-19

D-Backs 17-24

Rockies 16-24

Tight Wad division

Rangers 23-17

Royals 21-20

Rays 21-22

Twins 19-23

O's 16-25

Skin Flint Division

Pirates 19-22

Padres 19-22

Marlins 19-23

A's 15-23

Nationals 12-28

The O's are currently 10-9 within their division.

Notice Obscene Spenders division all teams above .500. Skin Flint division, all teams below .500!

I think this is the way I'm following the O's the rest of this year. I'ts more fair, and has to be more exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be interesting if MLB aligned divisions by spending but had it variable based on the spending per year? That is, every year the divisions could change based on a particular teams offseason spending.

So if the Dodgers were in the big spenders division in 2009 and they bought 3 high-priced FAs, they would get bumped to the obscene division for 2010 while the Mets, for example, would get bumped down.

It would never happen and would create chaos for scheduling, but it sure would be interesting as GMs in the offseason would try to jockey to get into lower divisions while improving their club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be interesting if MLB aligned divisions by spending but had it variable based on the spending per year? That is, every year the divisions could change based on a particular teams offseason spending.

So if the Dodgers were in the big spenders division in 2009 and they bought 3 high-priced FAs, they would get bumped to the obscene division for 2010 while the Mets, for example, would get bumped down.

It would never happen and would create chaos for scheduling, but it sure would be interesting as GMs in the offseason would try to jockey to get into lower divisions while improving their club.

Agreed! I think it would make following the league much more fun. But since NY, Bos and LA are happy, MLB is happy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying hard to detect sarcasm because I can't find the place to start tearing this apart.

Instead, I'll run with a different realignment suggestion based on market size, versus something as mercurial as spending.

You could divvy up the teams my market size based on mass media market ratings. But this would inexorably lead to an Premier league, 1st division, 2nd, 3rd and so forth. Like European soccer leagues are structured. Except demotion and promotion would be based on market fluctuations as opposed to performance. Still a bad idea.

If a wild restructuring takes place, it would be to move to the European soccer structure. Have 3 or 4 divisions and let 2 teams move and up and down per division based on standings. Thus, altering the entire way MLB works including Minor League Baseball, which would become the 4th and 5th divisions.

The effects of any such changes would be sweeping. The long term implications unpredictable.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do you do, reshuffle them every season? Every five? When do you do the shuffling? The O's spent $93M in 2007 and they still sucked. This would just lead to teams manipulating the player salaries to get into the lower spending brackets, and then spending money after they're set. Teams not doing well during the season would be giving up their big-salary players to the big spenders so that thei year-end totals weren't as high.

If you don't reshuffle them, then you end up in the situation we're in now. The O's have shown that they're willing to spend the money, so once they're in the penny pincher division, they can start spending again and dominate the division. How is that any better than the situation now? Just because they're your favorite team doesn't make it right or fix the problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't going to divide by geography or traditional-league structure anymore, you have to do it by performance. There is no other way worth discussing, and all this really shows is an attempt at a commentary on baseball economics which everyone knows already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • Yeah I just think he's a super interesting guy. Much like his time with the Red Sox, he's a divisive guy who had moments of greatness mixed with moments of not.  The same guy signed Chen, but got himself blacklisted in S. Korea. The same guy turned Miguel Gonzalez and Jason Hammel into very good pitchers, but couldn't get basically any pitching prospect to pop. Just an interesting, mixed body of work. 
    • I see Duquette as a mixed bag, neither all good nor all bad.  I do find it interesting that, despite having some success in his various stops, he went 9 years without a job in MLB after Boston fired him, and he’s been unable to land another position in the 4+ years since being fired by the Orioles.  That suggests he’s not the easiest guy to work with, regardless of whatever other merits he has.  At this point, I think time probably has passed him by.   
    • Oh right, I do remember that. Few things:   1) Britton was injured that year and was going to be expensive the next year, so the value was only so high. 2) We have no idea who else was in the trade. Just because players aren’t/weren’t top 100 guys doesn’t mean they don’t end up being very good players. What if Cristian Javier was a guy they identified (not even sure if he was in the org at that time but the point remains the same)?   
    • An epic derail one post into the thread. Some fans cannot get over their Chris Davis hangup.  Feel bad for @wildcard who had a nice original point that there are a lot of players **on the 40-man roster** (i.e.: not Chris Davis) Elias did NOT jettison simply because they weren't "his" guys. 
    • Had an offer on the table from Hou that had Colin Moran as a headliner.  Was nixed because of medical issues.  https://www.camdenchat.com/2017/8/31/16234234/orioles-trade-rumors-zach-britton-astros-colin-moran
    • DD did some good things, as for the rest of this thread, sheesh, has Spring Training started yet?
    • Davis contract, Trumbo contract, Hardy contract, Cobb contract... The rebuild has been painful and Duquette was the one who put us in that position. Ownership likely pressured Duquette and influenced his strategy and it sounds like Brady/Peter made the warehouse culture pretty toxic, so it's not all his fault, but his signatures were on all the contracts. It's good that Kremer has turned into a legit option but that's pretty much the bare minimum we should have gotten back for a player like Manny. I'm very bullish on Grayson but bearish on Hall. After those two you have Sedlock, Stewart, and Harvey... Gunnar alone is worth more than that group. 
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...