Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

[kehlis]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

There is a need, simply because the leagues are unbalanced as well as the divisions. There shouldn't be a division with 6 teams and one with 4.

Moving the Astros makes the most sense. It takes the team from the 6 team division, and moves it to the 4 team. Not only does it rebalance the leagues and divisions, but it creates a rivalry for both the Astros and the Rangers.

Moving the Brewers to the AL west makes absolutely no sense at all....

Saying there is a need is agreeing to the fact to have an interleague series played year round which I personally am opposed to.

For those that wouldn't mind them then yes, it would be an obvious fix to the 6 team division and the 4 team division.

[rsox]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

Dbacks CEO Hall will consider moving to AL if MLB wants to realign: http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/...s_ari&c_id=ari

I'm all for it if we move to the AL West. Plus there are a lot of people from the midwest that live here and would love to see the Tigers/Indians here. Of course it doesn't hurt when we sell out whenever the Yankee's/Red sox come here.

The interesting thing here is that when Jerry Colangelo originally bought the Diamondbacks he did with the assurance from Selig that the D'backs would be a National League team. Now they would be willing to move to the AL, what a diference a new owner makes.

I wonder if the team thinks moving to the AL West would increase their chances of being sucessfull at returning to the postseason. I'm not sure how playing the Angels and Rangers would 18 times would be better than 9 games at Coors Field and 18 against the Padres but hey who knows...

[Bahnzo]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

He is saying that you would either need BOTH leagues to be an the same-even number of teams(two 14 or 16 team leagues) or one 14 and 16 team league in order to avoid the "odd" team from having to play the other "odd" team all season long, thus there being interleague play during the entire season.
(I think this is what you are alluding to)

IMO the leagues are too big now to go back to the "all in one" setup like what it was when it was only 8 teams.

M.K.
Knight165

Ahh, I see, thanks Knight. Yeah, I'd have to agree having interleague play thru the season wouldn't be good...hell I hate it as it is now.

[SlimKibbles]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

Dbacks CEO Hall will consider moving to AL if MLB wants to realign: http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/...s_ari&c_id=ari

I'm all for it if we move to the AL West. Plus there are a lot of people from the midwest that live here and would love to see the Tigers/Indians here. Of course it doesn't hurt when we sell out whenever the Yankee's/Red sox come here.

I've always thought one of the teams that made sense to me in a move to the AL was Arizona.

[spit_bubble]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

...I think baseball either needs to contract two teams to get to 28teams (which opens up a whole other can of worms), or add two teams to get to 32.

Contraction would not sit well with the MLBPA... It ain't gonna happen... At least not any time soon. There would have to be a serious need for contraction.

Expansion on the other hand... I wouldn't mind seeing it... Portland, San Antonio, Charlotte... These three cities come to mind. But as long as there are teams struggling in the smaller markets... Or at least, just getting by... Expansion will be hard to get the owners to agree to.

I think MLB is stuck at 30 teams for the foreseeable future.

[shadowpuppet]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

Expansion on the other hand... I wouldn't mind seeing it... Portland, San Antonio, Charlotte... These three cities come to mind. But as long as there are teams struggling in the smaller markets... Or at least, just getting by... Expansion will be hard to get the owners to agree to.

Expansion would do to MLB what it did to Hockey. There are already so many teams that struggle to draw a crowd and attract free agents that new teams would essentially make the poor get poorer. I can see the MLBPA being more for contraction than expansion, honestly.

I would be all for my Astros moving divisions, as long as we end up in the same division as the Rangers. I think the next great cross-state rivalry can happen in Texas.

[fugazi]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

I just can't see the playoffs ever expanding that much and really the small amount of teams that make the playoffs in baseball makes reaching the postseason all the more special, over half the NBA and NHL make the playoffs which takes some of the shine off of it.

Yeah...i HATE the 16 team playoff field. It would be really stupid in baseball.

And 30 teams is plenty.

Leave the leagues as is...2 divisions per league...or 1...either way.

If 2 divisions, top 2 make playoffs. Best of 5 first round, 4 at home for #1. (2 home, 1 away, 2 home) Make first place meaningful for real.
OR
top 3 in each division(A and B) make playoffs...#2A and #3B play 3 game series to face #1B.

[spit_bubble]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

Expansion would do to MLB what it did to Hockey. There are already so many teams that struggle to draw a crowd and attract free agents that new teams would essentially make the poor get poorer. I can see the MLBPA being more for contraction than expansion, honestly...

The MLBPA is plain and simply just not going to agree to contraction, unless there were a clear and obvious need for it... Like if Oakland and Florida starting drawing fans by the hundreds on a regular basis. Even then the MLBPA would very likely put up a fight to keep those 50 jobs... And you would probably see relocation before contraction.

As far as expansion... There are other markets out there, including the ones I mentioned, that would very likely draw better than teams currently in weak markets. Like I say though, as long as there are weak draws by current smaller market teams, owners in large markets aren't going to like the idea... Because they'd see any expansion team as just another team they might have to share revenue with.

Yeah...i HATE the 16 team playoff field. It would be really stupid in baseball.

And 30 teams is plenty...

There already is a 16 team playoff field in the NL.

Adding two teams in places like San Antonio and Charlotte would make too much sense for MLB. It would not only balance the leagues, it would add two healthy franchises into the mix. MLB isn't that smart...

In fact there really is no MLB... Just the MLBPA... And the owners... Each looking out for their own interests.

[IlliniM1ke]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

He is saying that you would either need BOTH leagues to be an the same-even number of teams(two 14 or 16 team leagues) or one 14 and 16 team league in order to avoid the "odd" team from having to play the other "odd" team all season long, thus there being interleague play during the entire season.
(I think this is what you are alluding to)

IMO the leagues are too big now to go back to the "all in one" setup like what it was when it was only 8 teams.

M.K.
Knight165

Didn't get a chance to check back in today but you nailed it this is what I was trying to say, thanks for helping clarify it for me.

[Bahnzo]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

If 2 divisions, top 2 make playoffs. Best of 5 first round, 4 at home for #1. (2 home, 1 away, 2 home) Make first place meaningful for real.
OR
top 3 in each division(A and B) make playoffs...#2A and #3B play 3 game series to face #1B.

As much as I dislike the wildcard (even tho it's helped my team) I'll admit it's better for the game to have something like you mention work for the playoffs. But I strongly disagree with best of 5 games, and very much 4 of them at home for one team.

Playoff series need to be 7 games, for all rounds. Playing 162 games to reach the playoffs only to have things be decided by 5 (or 3 as you suggest) games is a joke. They dilute the depth of the teams.

[Bahnzo]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

Didn't get a chance to check back in today but you nailed it this is what I was trying to say, thanks for helping clarify it for me.

I've given some thought to what you (and Knight) meant by having an odd team having to play interleague with a 15 team AL and NL. What about just having those odd teams sit? Baseball has too many games as it is, I don't see a problem with one team sitting for 3 days every so often.

[Trevytrev11]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

Two leagues: 15 teams each league (interleague play still exists).

You play each of the 15 teams in the other league (Interleague) one time for a three game series every year. Fair across the board. A team doesn't get penalized because they get stuck playing 6 games agasinst the Red Sox or Yankee's or Phillies.

This would take up 45 games leaving 117 games for your own league.

For 9 of the 14 remaining teams in your league, you would play 8 total games (2 - 4 game home-away series)

This would take up 72 games.

For the remaining 5 teams in your league, you would play nine games (three-3 game series). If baseball wanted to get creative some how, they could make a home-away-neutral site series...bring some great matchups to other cities...not sure how I feel about that, but Red Sox vs. Yankee's in San Francisco could be pretty damn cool.

This would take up 45 games.

45+72+45 = 162 games.

At worst, you are stuck playing a team only more more time than another team. It's not 100% balanced, but damn close in terms of # of games vs. common teams.

[Trevytrev11]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

Three leagues of 10.

You play all nine opponents in your league 9 times (three-3 games series).

You play each of the other 20 teams in the other divisions once a year for a 4 game series.

This is a 161 game season (we lose one game)...no more .500 teams, you are either +/- 1.

6 Playoff teams sorted strictly by record. Top 2 get a bye and face winners of 1st round (5 game series) in the second round (7 game series).

All Regular Season Awards are announced sometime during the playoffs.

[CMH]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

I've given some thought to what you (and Knight) meant by having an odd team having to play interleague with a 15 team AL and NL. What about just having those odd teams sit? Baseball has too many games as it is, I don't see a problem with one team sitting for 3 days every so often.

I'd be in favor of these three-day rests. Set it up so that those teams are the ones traveling across the coast and just finished a night game.

This could help resolve lots of issues with player fatigue late in the season.

Then you can set up their next game to be an afternoon start which we need more of in this world.

I rather baseball get rid of Interleague altogether. I guess they need to decide what they want to do with that first.

[DonkeyJote]

Re: Realignment ideas from Rosenthal

They aren't going to drop games from the schedule. And if you have teams sit when they're the odd team out, then you're going to lose 8-12 games per team. You might be able to shave that down to 5 or so lost games if you eliminate a lot of the regular off days.

The problem with doubleheaders is two-fold - for one, it will be difficult to get the mlbpa to agree to that - 3 doubleheaders a month, as suggested by someone earlier in the thread, isn't easy on players, especially in the middle of a 162 game season. Secondly, it is much more difficult to make up a double header than it is to make up a single game. Especially, if you're eliminating some of the regular days off in favor of three day off-periods where the game couldn't be made up.

The way I see it, if you go to two 15-team leagues, interleague play becomes a constant. At that point, I say blow up the leagues. They haven't been seperate for years any way (remember when they had different umps, Presidents, etc.?). Do it like the NFL, where there is a formula for who you play depending on how you finished the year before, or make it more cyclical rather than largely random like it is now. Get rid of geographic interleague rivalries (doesn't Mets vs. Yankees become less special when they play six games a year, every year?). And this is the big one: either everyone adopts the DH, or it is dropped.

I personally think the DH should be adopted by everyone. It does take some strategy out of the game (though not as much as people tend to think, imo). However, the trade off that it extends the careers of players that the fans want to see. Someone said "if a player is too washed up to play the field, that's his problem." I disagree. It's the fans' problem. They want to see that guy, and they can't, because he's on the bench. Also, it makes it more likely that when you go to the ballpark, your favorite player will be in the lineup, DHing instead of getting a day off. There's nothing worse than getting to the park, and finding out one of the visiting team's stars isn't playing that day because of a day off. Plus, who wants to see a pitcher (who's hitting .113 for his career, btw) hack a fastball and whif, or even more exciting; sacrifice bunt.