I wonder if 100 years ago, someone proposed realigning the National League into Giants, Cubs and Pirates, and everyone else in the other division.

Could we realign Olbermann over to the Reelz Channel or someplace?

jeez, olberman, the rays don't play in tampa. is that too hard a concept to grasp? arrogant and careless is no way to go through life.

I think that MLB should add 2 teams, go to four, 8 team leagues set up geographically. Top 2 teams from each league are in the playoffs. Play only within your league, a 154 game season, eliminate the DH. This creates intracity/geographic rivalries, cuts down travel costs. Adds two teams to assuage the DH elimination for the players union, and while I know that the playing only within your league will cause problems for some, at least everyone plays the same schedule within their league. I am prepared for massive abuse from all.

A) adenzeno's plan is what Denny Mathews has been floating for nearly a decade, and I think it is a fine idea.

B) Olberman's proposal:

But if we're looking for something relatively minor, I like this (changes are underlined):

AL EAST: Baltimore, Boston, Toronto, Yankees.

AL CENTRAL: Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Minnesota, White Sox.

AL WEST: Angels, Houston, Oakland, Seattle, Texas.

NL EAST: Atlanta, Mets, Philadelphia,Pittsburgh , Washington.

NL CENTRAL: Chicago, Cincinnati, Florida, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Tampa Bay.

NL WEST: Arizona, Colorado, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco.

seems fine to me too. It seems a much better idea than floating divisions.

So why do the Rays luck out while their feathered friends remain in the torture chamber? Not that there's anything wrong with torture chambers, since that's where all the fun is.

I think I'd do something like this, but you know what I'd do? I'd move Washington into the AL East and Tampa into the NL East. (Except Tampa wants all the Boston and New York fans, so they'd never agree to it.)

Another trick might be to use north-south for the NL, although that does create a further problem. Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, Florida. Mets, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati. Chicago and St Louis cause the headache here.

I really don't see any reason why Toronto and Baltimore can't be competitive with Boston and New York. If you view Washington-Baltimore as a single market (which is what the Great Angelos argued), the disparity isn't all that great. All they have to do is spend wisely and draft intelligently. Toronto has a similarly sized potential market, although the mood up here is leaning more towards basketball and soccer as the #2 sports.

I really don't see any reason why Toronto and Baltimore can't be competitive with Boston and New York. If you view Washington-Baltimore as a single market (which is what the Great Angelos argued), the disparity isn't all that great

The size of the market is not really the problem. The Yankees and Red Sox are revenue-generating machines because of their ability to monetize the tremendously valuable brands that they've built.

Those brands were built based on a combination of their market size, history, and marketing prowess. The Jays and Orioles wouldn't stand a chance at building anything similar while finishing 3rd and 4th every year.

Realignment just papers over the problem by making the league a little more competitive. Until they find some way to normalize player payrolls (preferably without siphoning revenue away from successful clubs or giving a windfall to owners) among teams that are supposedly in the same league, this problem isn't going away.

But I don't really believe MLB sees it as a problem.

Until they find some way to normalize player payrolls

It goes further than that. In the end, it's an organizational thing. If Theo Epstein is truly a genius, why should he work for lesser money in Kansas City when he can make make more in Boston, while working just as hard?

The Jays and Orioles wouldn't stand a chance at building anything similar while finishing 3rd and 4th every year.

During Ricciardi's term, the Jays had two clear chances of making it past at least one of the Beasts, and into the playoffs: 2006 and 2008. They missed out the playoffs both times, for different reasons, but did finish ahead of the Red Sox once. The chances appear, and actually I wouldn't be surprised if this year and next offer another couple.

Oh look, the Jays have quit already. The Orioles are a bit better positioned, so maybe they can make some progress.

making the astros play in a "west" division is a problem because the division games won't start until 9:10 - will lose s LOT of audience.

and if they go to the AL and the D freaking H, they will lose a lot of NL fans, such as my own self

NL EAST: Atlanta, Mets, Philadelphia,Pittsburgh , Washington.

Well, Pittsburgh's in the East, so at least there's that.

and if they go to the AL and the D freaking H, they will lose a lot of NL fans, such as my own self

Well, yeah, but they'll gain an AL fan :)

making the astros play in a "west" division is a problem because the division games won't start until 9:10 - will lose s LOT of audience.

For 26 years the Astros were in a division with three teams in the Pacific Time zone.

and if they go to the AL and the D freaking H, they will lose a lot of NL fans, such as my own self

Cardinals Nation is always looking for new members, Lisa. And if you look on page 347 of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, it says that God affords every American one free rooting switch in her lifetime without consigning her to Hell. One more reason you're lucky that we freed Texas from the Mexicans.

If the Rays were in the NL it'd be NLCS: Rays-Whoever, for the next five years.

All this realignment talk really boils down to: "Change the AL East"*. Gimme a break. Maybe it'll shut up for awhile when the Rays win the division this year.

*At least Olbermann admits it.

Who cares what Olbermann thinks?

If the Rays were in the NL it'd be NLCS: Rays-Whoever, for the next five years.

I dunno, the Phillies sure play like an AL team sometimes.

and if they go to the AL and the D freaking H, they will lose a lot of NL fans, such as my own self

Ya gotta look at the upside -- no more Carlos Lee in LF. Oh sorry, it's the Astros. That means more Geoff Blum at DH. :-)

Cardinals Nation is always looking for new members, Lisa. And if you look on page 347 of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, it says that God affords every American one free rooting switch in her lifetime without consigning her to Hell.

Don't listen bbc -- this is the voice of Satan.

Who cares what Olbermann thinks?

Rachel Maddow.

DB

For three or four Abstracts in a row, Bill James' only comment for Dennis Martinez was "Why Dennis Martinez still in the major leagues?" So, my only comment is "Why does keith Olbermann keep getting linked to this site?"

Those brands were built based on a combination of their market size, history, and marketing prowess.
Except those brands were built in the last 10 years, by and large. The Red Sox much more than the Yankees, but they were hardly the titans of the game 10 years ago. They were up there, sure, but the Yankees weren't that much bigger than the Cubs, Dodgers and Mets, and the Red Sox weren't bigger than those teams at all. Hell, people in early 90s Boston were concerned that Toronto would dominate the AL East for years to come with their high payroll.

The Orioles have a sizable amount of history in the Baltimore/Washington area and a fantastic destination ballpark. The last time they were good they led the American League in attendance. The Jays have an entire G8 country to themselves and deep pocketed ownership. The problem with these teams is that they've generally been run like ass on the field. There is WAY too much caterwauling about the strength of the Red Sox/Yankees and not enough recognizing that they have had first and second place handed to them on a platter for most of the last decade.

For three or four Abstracts in a row, Bill James' only comment for Dennis Martinez was "Why Dennis Martinez still in the major leagues?" So, my only comment is "Why does keith Olbermann keep getting linked to this site?"

Assuming those Absracts were in the early-mid 80s, you might surprised to learn it was a good idea for Martinez to stick around. Even at age 43, he had an ERA+ of 93.

Hell, people in early 90s Boston were concerned that Toronto would dominate the AL East for years to come with their high payroll.

After being outspent by 25% during 1992-1995, Boston outspent Toronto by 70% in player salaries during 1999-2009. I guess that helped allay Boston's concern.

Rachel Maddow.

DB

And hundreds of MSNBC viewers.

The problem with these teams is that they've generally been run like ass on the field. There is WAY too much caterwauling about the strength of the Red Sox/Yankees and not enough recognizing that they have had first and second place handed to them on a platter for most of the last decade.

Exactly.

Being in the AL East maybe cost the Blue Jays the playoffs in 2008 - but that was as much because of Tampa as anything. Apart from that, it's been an irrelevance - the team just hasn't been much good. It has never affected the Orioles - the last time they had so much as a .500 record, they made the playoffs.

Meanwhile there have been plenty of actually good teams that have missed the playoffs in other divisions, but we don't hear whining from them.

Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: March 21, 2010 at 12:12 PM (#3483155)

and if they go to the AL and the D freaking H, they will lose a lot of NL fans, such as my own self

Well, yeah, but they'll gain an AL fan :)

- oh NO boy
not this here grrrl

heck will freeze before i EVAH root for a DH containing team
no
not strong enough

sam h will run as a conservative on the creationist platform with DMN as his running mate before i will EVAH root for a team with a DH

and andy,
tejas was part of cardinals nation before secession in 1962

The fact is that NY and Bos do not really have down cycles anymore. I think that salary taxes should stay in division. That would add incentive for teams to not go over. Of course, it is a little meaningless when money for a new stadium is not counted against this.

There is nobody dumber than a basball traditionalist...

After being outspent by 25% during 1992-1995, Boston outspent Toronto by 70% in player salaries during 1999-2009. I guess that helped allay Boston's concern.

The Blue Jays are owned by one of the largest corporations in Canada. am I supposed to feel bad for them?

They have the biggest market in baseball on their doorstep. Use it.

tejas was part of cardinals nation before secession in 1962

That's true of all of the South. Atlanta was Cardinals territory before '66. The Cardinals owned the South until expansion teams moved in.

As for David, I hope someone has him on suicide watch today.

The Blue Jays are owned by one of the largest corporations in Canada. am I supposed to feel bad for them?

They have the biggest market in baseball on their doorstep. Use it.

Bah we are playing into their hands. The Jays have a market big enough to compete in MLB but that is not the point.

The problem is neither the Jays or the Yankees or the Red Sox or the divisions. The "problem" (if there is one) is the business of baseball makes more money without parity. The Jays could find a way to allocate a $200MM payroll and if the Yankees and Red Sox felt threatened they could up their payrolls to $300MM leaving the have-not further down the line. No one is stopping the arms race because no owners want to.

The only way we would see serious change is if the league lost revenue because fans lose interest. Sadly, as a baseball fan, I can put up with a lot of abuse before I give up MLB altogether. If only there was another Federal League.

No one is stopping the arms race because no owners want to.

This is an unreasonable expectation, IMO. Since when have owners determined on winning ever got as much advantage out of their payroll capability as they felt they needed? The problem is that, for all the talk of 'baseball is a business', it's really not. It's a hybrid, like owning racehorses or a racing yacht. Rogers put more weight on the 'business', and less on winning - that punishes the fans, but look at Toronto fans and the Maple Laughs. But they could through astute management and wise spedning turn the Jays into a highly competitive team in the AL East. Same with the Great Angelos and the Orioles.

The Tigers are a good example of using deep pockets to win. Briggs did it in the 1930s, and Ilich is trying to do it today. Shame it hasn't worked out too well for Mr Ilich yet.

This is an unreasonable expectation, IMO.

It is not an expectation - I think I was speaking a fact I think we all agree on. Some fans may want some form of spending limit but the owners do not so it will not happen. Personally, I do not favour a cap system myself.

But they could through astute management and wise spedning turn the Jays into a highly competitive team in the AL East.

I agree with this, though in my ideal world the owners would care enough about the product on the field that the league would only include teams who had owners who wanted to win and had the pockets and will to ensure they fielded a team that was capable of contending every season.

All of these recent realignment proposals seem to be based on the proposition that we must realign to mitigate "the Yankee/Red Sox problem."

Realignment seems like an absurd way to address this problem.

The Cardinals owned the South until expansion teams moved in

That's generally true of all the areas reached by Cardinals radio. But locally there are some exceptions: Fort Worth had a strong Brooklyn connection because of the Cats' affiliation with the Dodgers, for instance.

Realignment would be nice for several reasons, none of which have to do with the Yankees and Red Sox being "too strong." The good reasons are timing of games, promotion of rivalries, evening-out of peculiar unbalanced schedule arrangments.

But I think we can safely say that whatever way the MLB powers ever go about the next realignment, it will be to make things more complicated and stupider. That's pretty much a given.

What is the problem that we are trying to fix? It's a team with the 3rd best record in the division having a better record than some weak division winner? We don't really want to split the Red Sox and Yankees up, nor even the other teams in the division.

I propose baseball realignment plan (assuming that we are not reducing the number of playoff teams) is to switch to 2 divisions per league and 2 wildcards from each league. This would allow the 3rd place Rays to make the playoffs if they have a better record than whoever might have won the old Central division. Split the Centrals in the AL send Cleveland and Detroit East and Chicago, Minnesota, and KC west. In the NL send Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Houston east, send Cubs, Brewers, and Cards west. The Houston one is the toughest call, maybe the Brewers instead but how do you split them from the 2 Chicago teams going west?

sam h will run as a conservative on the creationist platform with DMN as his running mate before i will EVAH root for a team with a DH

I'm working on that too.

All this realignment talk really boils down to: "Change the AL East"*

Perhaps Bud can convince CBS to buy back the Yankees.

What is the problem that we are trying to fix? It's a team with the 3rd best record in the division having a better record than some weak division winner?

You know what's really funny about this? It has happened in the AL only once since the advent of the Wild Card. The 3rd place team? The 2008 Yankees.

Split the Centrals in the AL send Cleveland and Detroit East and Chicago, Minnesota, and KC west. In the NL send Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Houston east, send Cubs, Brewers, and Cards west.

Never happen. There is no way the Chicago teams will allow 35% or so of their road games to start at 9:00 PM local time.

The Jays could find a way to allocate a $200MM payroll and if the Yankees and Red Sox felt threatened they could up their payrolls to $300MM leaving the have-not further down the line. No one is stopping the arms race because no owners want to.

No they can't. All baseball teams have a limit, even the Yankees. Unless you believe the Steinbrenners are a liar - OK, there might be some reason to do that - the Yanks are not that far off their limit. They could conceivably squeeze some more blood out of their market, I suppose, but the Red Sox certainly do not have this inbuilt advantage over everybody else.

The Jays are owned by one of the biggest corporations in Canada, have every game of theirs on national television, and play in Canada's largest city. Come on, why should I feel sorry for Rogers that they choose profits over winning?

I floated this a couple of years ago, still like it.

4 leagues, 8 teams per league, no interleague, 154 games.

League 1: Yankees, Mets, Toronto, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, New Jersey (expansion)
League 2: Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Cubs, White Sox
League 3: Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Kansas City, Houston, Texas, Arizona
League 4: Colorado, Dodgers, Angels, San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle, San Diego, Portland (expansion)

The main downsides are the separation of St. Louis from the Cubs and the span of the "southern" teams from Florida to Arizona. You could put an expansion team in Charlotte (although I don't think major league baseball will fly there) and pushing Arizona back to the West.

I would also eliminate interleague trades after May 31.

-- MWE

The main downsides are the separation of St. Louis from the Cubs and the span of the "southern" teams from Florida to Arizona.

That second one is major, with Arizona playing 43% of their road games 3 time zones away, and the rest 2 time zones.

That second one is major, with Arizona playing 43% of their road games 3 time zones away.

The first one is major too. The reason the Cubs were in the East while the Reds were in the West was because the Cubs and Cards did not want to give up that rivalry.

Also I hate the idea of no interleague in a regional setup. I think that really, really kills the national appeal of baseball. Ask hockey if that's worked for them.

The Jays are owned by one of the biggest corporations in Canada, have every game of theirs on national television, and play in Canada's largest city. Come on, why should I feel sorry for Rogers that they choose profits over winning?

You shouldn't. I agree with you - the Jays are not a poor team. My point is, I believe most owners like that the Yankees pay more than anyone else and the Jays (and likely the Rays and O's) like have winning Sox and Yankee teams come to town. It is more profitable for the league if the Yankees are in the post-season every year.

Re-aligning divisions and imagining new tax or cap schemes are nice intellectual pursuits (and I enjoy reading all of them) but I don't think the owners really see a problem with the status quo. Even Selig's think-tank focused on the re-alignment so more teams could have the Yankees and Sox come to town - it is not really about parity.

My point is, I believe most owners like that the Yankees pay more than anyone else and the Jays (and likely the Rays and O's) like have winning Sox and Yankee teams come to town. It is more profitable for the league if the Yankees are in the post-season every year.

Well, if you're an owner where the bottom line matters more than anything else, the guaranteed 30-40,000 crowds you get when those two teams come matters to you. It also provides a handy excuse for your failures. I agree with that, and with how baseball is currently structured, they probably do make more money with the Yankees in the postseason.

The problem is, and I think we agree on this, is that it shouldn't.

#42 Can't see that the mix of visiting teams has had anything to do with the problems the NHL has had in the US. Hockey's never been all that big (though it does OK in a few markets) and Bettman's anti-marketing plan sure hasn't helped.

Split the Centrals in the AL send Cleveland and Detroit East and Chicago, Minnesota, and KC west. In the NL send Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Houston east, send Cubs, Brewers, and Cards west.

Never happen. There is no way the Chicago teams will allow 35% or so of their road games to start at 9:00 PM local time.

In the AL this means 3 teams in the Pacific time zone. In the NL this means 4 (I think Arizona counts since they don't do daylight savings time.

In 2010 The Cubs play 18 games 2 time zones to the west. The White Sox play 10. Much of that is because the Cubs play the AL West in interleague while the White Sox play the NL East. The remainder of the difference is that there is one more west coast team in the NL than the AL (4-3).

What would a schedule look like: I tried to figure this out and frankly that is difficult. It looks like the NL might would play 12 games against each division opponent and the AL either 14 or 15. That would mean 24 Cubs west coast games and ~22 for the White Sox. This does not include interleague games which if you assume some rotation of teams 3/14 in AL and 4/16 in NL times 1/2 road games times some 15 to 20 interleague games and you get 2 more for the Cubs and 2 or 3 more for the White Sox. So you are right the numbers of west coast games goes up but some would be day or weekend games which cuts into the number. At some point that is too bad for the Chicago teams. But not only them also Royals, Brewers, Cards, and Twins. There can only be one non East Time Zone team playing in the East, under my scheme it is the Astros. That's the price you pay for not playing in the East I guess. For all I care play the same schedule they play now, just group the teams up so that there are 2 divisions so that the Orioles, Rays and Jays can have hope. Or how about 2 leagues, the two teams that win the most games in their league play in the World Series?

In the AL this means 3 teams in the Pacific time zone. In the NL this means 4 (I think Arizona counts since they don't do daylight savings time.

Aside: it actually means Arizona is in the Pacific Time Zone during Daylight Saving Time (or whichever one we're in currently) and in the Mountain Time Zone during Standard Time.

Sam Hutcheson is not authorized to view that forum Posted: March 22, 2010 at 07:58 AM (#3483579)

tejas was part of cardinals nation before secession in 1962


That's true of all of the South. Atlanta was Cardinals territory before '66. The Cardinals owned the South until expansion teams moved in.

As for David, I hope someone has him on suicide watch today.

- ain't him needs to be on suicide watch. he got a good job and could get another if he got fired
it's me
because this is the end of my life as i know it
i have NO idea where we are gonna come up with all that extra money to buy health ins and we are going to have to sell this house and move into an apt in a shttier place and use the sale of the house money to pay for the extra taxes which no one wants to admit are coming and extra ins. which i figure will last us 2 more years. maybe 3. unless the fine for not buying it is pretty cheap and then we might could be able to manage it

why on earth everyone insists that everyone can have everything at everyone else's expense and at no cost because the money will magically appear from i don't know where, i do not get

Why does keith Olbermann keep getting linked to this site?"

I certainly get not liking Olbermann, particularly from the POV of a guy with your politics, but this article seems like just another fan/blogger/writer musing about realignment, which we do here weekly.

Of course, now it seems we are heading into health care again.

I kinda like reading his blog on occasion. He knows a little bit about baseball history. I think I qualify as more of a history nerd than a stat nerd, so you can understand the appeal.

Of course, now it seems we are heading into health care again.

Lisa is a notorious politically motivated thread-jacker.

Lisa, who's been terrifying you about the health-care plan? Read the NYT's summary of fines, expanded Medicaid, and subsidies for the poor. Admittedly, paying absolutely nothing for health insurance is the best deal of all if you plan never, ever, to get sick. But the small amount people would have to pay under the plan is way, way less than something like an appendectomy. Of course, dying is very cheap. So is showing up at the emergency room and hoping it'll all be free, but that seems to fall into your category of insisting "that everyone can have everything at everyone else's expense."

Lisa is a notorious politically motivated thread-jacker.

Of course not. But she also just threw a chicken wing into a pack of hyenas.

Of course not. But she also just threw a chicken wing into a pack of hyenas.

'sup?

Lisa, who's been terrifying you about the health-care plan?

I think we can all come up with a couple of likely suspects ...

Of course, dying is very cheap

That depends on whether they privatize the Death Panels.

That depends on whether they privatize the Death Panels.

Amusingly enough, Death Panels were the best idea anyone from either side of the debate came up with... at least if you're serious about cutting health care costs.

Also I hate the idea of no interleague in a regional setup. I think that really, really kills the national appeal of baseball.

Except for a handful of teams, baseball hasn't had national appeal for a long time. The only interleague games that really work are the natural rival games. MLB *wants* you to believe that interleague works, but when you account for the rivalry games and the scheduling of most interleague games on weekends, there's really no uptick as a result of interleague. I think the regional approach develops the rivalries that make the game go while reducing travel costs, for the most part.

I agree that there's no way the Cardinals and Cubs are split. There are a couple of other things that could be done - for example, put Pittsburgh and Detroit in league 1, move Baltimore and Washington to league 3, and put KC and StL in league 2. That splits Baltimore away from the Yankees and Red Sox, which might be more tolerable than Cardinals from Cubs. If you do that, though, then I think you have to put an expansion team somewhere in the South so that Arizona can stay in the West - and I simply don't believe there's a market that will support MLB anywhere in the South that doesn't already have a team.

-- MWE

Keith's not a traditionalist. I'm a traditionalist. I always thought realignment would look like this.

AL--8 original cities except Baltimore replaces St. Louis (why not?)

New York
Boston
Baltimore
Philadelphia A's (Phillies change name and league)
Detroit
Cleveland
Chicago
Washington (can be the current franchise)

NL--8 original franchises except the former Mets (now the Giants) replace the Phillies (now the A's)

New York Giants
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
St. Louis
Chicago
LA Dodgers
SF Seals
Atlanta

Whatever League

Toronto
Tampa
Miami
Minnesota
Kansas City
Texas
Houston
LA Angels
Arizona
San Diego
Colorado
Seattle
Milwaukee
Oakland Oaks
2 more teams if you must

Death Panels were the best idea anyone from either side of the debate came up with... at least if you're serious about cutting health care costs.

Absolutely, because dying is not in fact, very cheap, unless you do it quickly.