Since MLB won't do it, I will

[osfan83]

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.

[orangedive]

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.

[osfan83]

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!

[srock]

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.

[Spoonless]

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.

[mrbig1]

We would still come in last place in the tight wad division.

[BaltimoreTerp]

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.