MLB Should Use Promotion/Relegation Procedure?

[MylesKnight]

Just an idea....

Not sure how it would work, with the Minor League teams at different levels stocked entirely of players from one parent club, but this seems to be the closest structual set up to the European Futbol Leagues that use this method.

I do believe this would cause the regular bottom-feeders of MLB to pick up the pace though.. No more lolly-gaggin' D-Rays, Royals, Mariners, Pirates, Brewers, Rockies, Cubs (yes Cubs), etc...

Thoughts?

[cartman]

I'm all for it. Not only for baseball, but all sports. No more stealing teams from other cities. If a businessman wants to own a team, he simply starts one. And no salary caps. If you can't afford to pay to run with the big dogs, you'll settle into a level where you can compete.

That being said, it will be almost impossible to implement this with the existing leagues. But if we got to start over, the promotion/relegation is definitely the route to go.

[ice4277]

It would be nice, but it will never happen.

[WSUCougar]

Lolly-gaggin' Mariners?!?

[MylesKnight]

No offense Coug, the M's have just had a struggle of it the past couple of seasons..

[Joe]

minor league teams don't have big enough ballparks

[Easy Mac]

Neither do lower league teams in England. I think a few years ago a Scottish team couldn't promote in that country because of too small a stadium. They just would have to improve them to a certain level to move up.

[DeToxRox]

Pretty sure the MLBPA would go nuts at the thought.

[ice4277]

Pretty sure the MLBPA would go nuts at the thought.

Actually, I think the owners would have a bigger problem.

[Buccaneer]

In 1989, you would have relegated Atlanta and Cleveland (after a decade of ineptitude) wouldn't you? What would that have done for baseball in 1990s? Stupid idea if you think things will always remain the same. :rolleyes:

[Arctus]

Neat idea with zippy chance of happening.

I think the way to do it would be to keep the minor leagues "as is" and structure MLB into 3 tiers of 10 teams each.

[dacman]

Stupid idea if you think things will always remain the same. :rolleyes:

As if the relagated Braves and Indians would've permanently stayed in the minors.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[DeToxRox]

So basically it'd just make the strong stronger. I know I'd rather to to the Yankees or Sox then a medium level team who may not be in the Bigs. Interesting idea but just doesn't do it for me.

[DeToxRox]

Dola - Minor league talent is made up of a majority of teams prospects so then you'd have to rework the entire farm system infrastructure along with these AAA teams finding servicable guys to replace these high end prospects. The same teams would keep cycling up and down.

[sterlingice]

Cute idea but very, very, very bad and kinda dumb. There are only about a million reasons against it. Here's four easy ones...

minor league teams don't have big enough ballparks

Pretty sure the MLBPA would go nuts at the thought.

In 1989, you would have relegated Atlanta and Cleveland (after a decade of ineptitude) wouldn't you? What would that have done for baseball in 1990s? Stupid idea if you think things will always remain the same. :rolleyes:

So basically it'd just make the strong stronger. I know I'd rather to to the Yankees or Sox then a medium level team who may not be in the Bigs. Interesting idea but just doesn't do it for me.

SI

[Celeval]

International relegation = many levels of independent clubs
Baseball = many levels of structured clubs, affiliated with a small number of specific clubs.

[clintl]

It's not even a neat idea. It's a horrible idea. This is exactly the kind of idea that would kill interest in the small markets forever.

[Ksyrup]

Let me trot out Jayson Stark's annual public service statement for those of us who are sick of listening to people whine about baseball's lack of competitiveness:


MLB beats NFL in parity debate


posted: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 | Print Entry (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2604784&type=blogEntry)

This news isn't going to come as much consolation to our good friends, the Chicago White Sox. But their premature demise is a great thing for baseball in its never-ending quest to stick it to all those parity propagandists from the NFL.

OK, so it might not feel so great to members of the Guillen, Konerko or Pierzynski families. But hear us out on this:

As loyal reader David Hallstrom points out, the elimination of the White Sox this week continues a fascinating trend in our favorite sport:

Of the last five defending World Series champs, not one has won a postseason game the following season.

And yes, that word was "game." Not "series." Not "second straight World Series." The word was "game." Feel free to look this up.

Aw, never mind. We already did. Of the last five champs, the White Sox will be the third to miss the playoffs entirely (joining the 2004 Marlins and 2003 Angels).

The other two -- the 2002 Diamondbacks and 2005 Red Sox -- both got swept in the first round.

So obviously, winning is overrated.

All right, it isn't. But after a decade (1991-2001) where two teams repeated (the '92-93 Blue Jays and 1998-2000 Yankees), the Braves made it to back-to-back World Series twice (1991-92 and 1995-96), and the Yankees played in four World Series in a row (1998-2001), this competitive-balance epidemic is a beautiful affliction.

Now let's compare it to the NFL, where, according to league marketing rules, "Anything Can Happen."

The NFL matches baseball in one department. Three of the last five Super Bowl champs forgot to make the playoffs the next season.

But the other two SB winners -- the 2001 Ravens and the 2004 Patriots -- went a combined 4-1 in the postseason the following year, with the Patriots winning a second straight Super Bowl.

So which sport has its competitive-balance act together? The correct answer is now:

Both.

We can feel those NFL-apologist, you-can-still-spend-your-way-to-the-World-Series e-mails coming, though. So before you start typing, we want you to consider this:

If the Cardinals win the NL Central and the Phillies win the NL wild card, eight of the top 10 payrolls in MLB will miss the playoffs this year. The last time that happened:

1993 (the final season in which only four teams made the postseason).

In the meantime, the Nos. 17 (Padres), 19 (Twins) and 21 (A's) payrolls are all going to make the playoffs (with lower payrolls combined than the Yankees). The Reds (No. 22) are still breathing. And good old No. 30 (the Marlins) just finished scaring the living crappola out of the NL wild-card field.

So the NFL had better pour a little more premium unleaded into its propaganda engines -- because nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training. Turns out, you have a better idea who's going to win the Super Bowl.