BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Selig, committee considering radical realignment plan

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Selig, committee considering radical realignment plan

One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs.

Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee’s discussions. It is important to remember that the committee’s talks are very preliminary and non-binding.

Like fine wine, Bud’s ideas just keep getting better as the years go by.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 02:45 PM | 118 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Amateur, Rumors

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

1. Harris Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:23 PM (#3476575)

seems to be like instilling a salary cap and salary floor would be easier.

2. SABRJoe Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:24 PM (#3476576)

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Bud's treating MLB like it's his own OOTP fictional league.

3. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:27 PM (#3476580)

Love it.

1. The league already has a soft cap and a hard floor. What you mean is that you want a hard cap and an increased floor.

4. RJ in TO Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:28 PM (#3476582)

A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

Or Toronto!

Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight.

5. BringBackTimTeufel Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:30 PM (#3476585)

Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee’s discussions.

I love this part. So could we basically eliminate the post-season and play a 180-game round-robin tournament to determine a champion?

Since Bud announced he is actually leaving we're going to get more ridiculous ideas for someone to come in and clean up.

6. The Essex Snead Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:30 PM (#3476588)

It'd make more sense to re-seed divisions based on astrological charts read upside down than by using this cross-eyed logic.

7. SoSH U at work Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:30 PM (#3476589)

If it's really a huge problem that just has to be overcome, move one of the Yankees or Red Sox out of the AL East. Or out of the AL, for that matter.

8. Sheer Tim Foli

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:32 PM (#3476592)

The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

I'd love to see how they set this up.

9. fra paolo Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:32 PM (#3476595)

There is a good idea in here, but not in the form described. Rather than make it optional, there ought to be a measure of compulsion. They should seed teams into two or three groups based on last year's record, and then distribute them through a draw, but keep the two time zones as a factor as well (so Detroit and Cleveland don't end up in the West). UEFA does this for the Champions' League, and gets a high-profile media moment out of it.

10. Sheer Tim Foli

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:33 PM (#3476596)

Bud's treating MLB like it's his own OOTP fictional league.

He's living the dream.

11. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:34 PM (#3476599)

How much would Cleveland really gain by moving to the AL East in terms of revenue, when it would be balanced out by a near-guarantee that they'd lose any chance of sniffing the playoffs again? A bump in revenue for 10 home dates doesn't seem like it would match any revenue from playoffs, or the attendance carry-over bump in the following season.

Yeah, Cleveland basically announcing that they don't plan to contend in the forseeable future will do wonders for attendance.

We might see that "Yankees-Red Sox only" division after all.

12. PreservedFish Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:35 PM (#3476600)

So they would be seeding the divisions, like in a tennis tournament?

13. RJ in TO Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:36 PM (#3476605)

The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

I'd love to see how they set this up.

"We intend to suck, but we still want money!"

"Off to the AL East with you!"

14. Sheer Tim Foli

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:38 PM (#3476607)

"We intend to suck, but we still want money!"

"Off to the AL East with you!"

Toronto: Hello Cleveland. Welcome to our hell.

15. greenback

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:38 PM (#3476608)

If it's really a huge problem that just has to be overcome, move one of the Yankees or Red Sox out of the AL East. Or out of the AL, for that matter

The 2004 World Series will be remembered the same way USA-Finland in 1980 is remembered.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

16. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:39 PM (#3476609)

Please kill Bud Selig. Now.

17. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:40 PM (#3476612)

Cleveland basically announcing that they don't plan to contend in the forseeable future will do wonders for attendance.

Another case of life imitating art?

18. RJ not in TO

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:40 PM (#3476613)

Wouldn't this plan of making the AL East the Yankees, Red Sox, and 3 rotating teams who suck but want some extra money from homes games against the Yankees and Red Sox pretty much guarantee the Yankees and Red Sox will make the postseason every year or at least give them a big leg up on any WC competition?

19. RJ in TO Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:41 PM (#3476614)

The 2004 World Series will be remembered the same way USA-Finland in 1980 is remembered.

As something I don't care about? You got that right.

20. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:41 PM (#3476616)

Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs.

More than two time zones? Unless we expanded to, say, Iceland or Guam when I wasn't looking, all this means is East Coast teams can't be in the West divisions and vice versa. Anybody could be in the Central, and Central teams could move anywhere. This is not "loosely geographic" by any stretch of the imagination.

21. RJ in TO Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:42 PM (#3476617)

Wouldn't this plan of making the AL East the Yankees, Red Sox, and 3 rotating teams who suck but want some extra money from homes games against the Yankees and Red Sox pretty much guarantee the Yankees and Red Sox will make the postseason every year or at least give them a big leg up on any WC competition?

Yes, because no team with anything approaching a realistic playoff chance is going to want to be in the same division as them.

22. SoSH U at work Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:43 PM (#3476622)

Wouldn't this plan of making the AL East the Yankees, Red Sox, and 3 rotating teams who suck but want some extra money from homes games against the Yankees and Red Sox pretty much guarantee the Yankees and Red Sox will make the postseason every year or at least give them a big leg up on any WC competition?

Isn't that what all of baseball is clamoring for?

Wait no. That's just Andy.

23. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:44 PM (#3476625)

There is a good idea in here, but not in the form described. Rather than make it optional, there ought to be a measure of compulsion. They should seed teams into two or three groups based on last year's record, and then distribute them through a draw, but keep the two time zones as a factor as well (so Detroit and Cleveland don't end up in the West).

Agreed. Then they should dig up the corpse of every former league president and urinate on them. Also, burn all books about baseball history.

24. SoSH U at work Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:46 PM (#3476628)

Then they should dig up the corpse of every former league president and urinate on them.

Are you telling me they didn't do that already?

25. fra paolo Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:51 PM (#3476636)

Then they should dig up the corpse of every former league president and urinate on them. Also, burn all books about baseball history.

That's the kind of helpful approach to discussion you are known for.

If it is accepted that there might be a problem with the current set-up, that the traditional solution of drafting smarter and spending wisely isn't working, then how do you solve that problem? Sticking your head in the sand after stating 'don't mess with history' is no help.

If there's no problem, why is MLB having this panel?

26. Sheer Tim Foli

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:53 PM (#3476638)

Agreed. Then they should dig up the corpse of every former league president and urinate on them. Also, burn all books about baseball history.

To be fair there is nothing sacred anymore. Once we moved to divisions, added the DH, then added more divisions and a wild card we've pretty much abandoned baseball's "glory years" of league champions playing a world series. What is one more change?

For the record, being a heretic, I would welcome something like #9 is proposing just for the spectacle and change. A random or rotation of some sort that slightly changed the divisions from year to year would be interesting.

27. Jose Canusee Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:53 PM (#3476639)

Moving teams out of their geographic boundaries to split up the top teams is what killed the NCAA basketball tournament and made a mockery of their finals that no one watches anymore.

28. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:56 PM (#3476643)

So could we basically eliminate the post-season and play a 180-game round-robin tournament to determine a champion?

I'd have no problem with throwing all the teams in, everybody playing everybody the same amount of times, and calling the team with the best record the champion. That's what European soccer does and what most college football and basketball conferences used to do -- and the Ivy League still does.

I'd prefer distinct leagues and a World Series between the regular season champs, but as between one league, best over 162 wins and the 2006 Cardinals, it's not close.

29. tl; dr (Voxter)

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:57 PM (#3476644)

The obvious solution here is to contract the Yankees, or forcibly relocate them to Lexington, KY.

30. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:57 PM (#3476646)

If it is accepted that there might be a problem with the current set-up,

It isn't accepted.

that the traditional solution of drafting smarter and spending wisely isn't working, then how do you solve that problem? Sticking your head in the sand after stating 'don't mess with history' is no help.

Solution to what? I don't know what needs to be solved. Baseball doesn't seem to be struggling.

If there's no problem, why is MLB having this panel?

Bud wants an even more idiotic "legacy" because interleague play has lost its luster?

31. Uncle Willy Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:58 PM (#3476649)

There may very well be a legitimate need for radical realignment. However, if done the clubs must not be allowed to choose their divisions and opponents (shades of college football). Any realigment should be by mandate of the commissioner's office and only every five years or so.

Of course, this might be a case of letting the worst case scenario leak out so that their real plans have a better chance of gaining acceptance.

32. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 04:59 PM (#3476650)

One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

They're not going to break up the Yankees or the Red Sox, and until they do, all this inane idea will accomplish is to reserve two playoff slots for them every year. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

----------------

If there's no problem, why is MLB having this panel?

For the same reason that FOX probably convened a panel to come up with Slider, the cartoon baseball. People were asking too many "how are you justifying your salary?" questions.

33. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:03 PM (#3476657)

However, if done the clubs must not be allowed to choose their divisions and opponents (shades of college football).

This. If you wanted to brutally eliminate all divisional rivalries and have every team's fanbase speculating as to who they'll be playing against next year, every year, by all means let teams choose.

34. tl; dr (Voxter)

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:05 PM (#3476661)

The problems with realignment are many, not least of which is that the Yankees-Red Sox thing is going to remain a problem pretty much no matter what you do. Consider:

1. Anybody you stick in the AL East is going to be one of three teams that get a shot at the playoffs about once every ten years -- the Rays are the only one to have done it this century, though I suppose it could have been done that year the Yankees won 87 games and the Red Sox 83 or whatever. It's a crippling disadvantage, and will become moreso if the Orioles become competently-run and build up their payroll again. That would basically lock out the other two teams in the division for good.

2. Moving one of the Red Sox or Yankees to a different division (unless it's the NL East) creates a different problem: It all but guarantees them both a playoff spot nearly every year, because the only AL team that can consistently match their spending (or come close, anyway) is the Angels. Flip the Sox and Tigers, play an unbalanced schedule, and we'll see if they can win that division by 15 games every year, or just most years.

The only obvious solution is to contract the Yankees. I say go for it.

35. fra paolo Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:08 PM (#3476664)

OK, the problem with this idea is that the Central division could wind up with an Eastern time zone and a Pacific time zone team, which would wreck the no more than 'two time zones' effect.

Unless, of course, you abolished the leagues. Or restricted it to one time zone, which would basically limit it to Eastern and Central teams.

36. just plain joe Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:08 PM (#3476665)

Moving teams out of their geographic boundaries to split up the top teams is what killed the NCAA basketball tournament and made a mockery of their finals that no one watches anymore.

Assuming that you're not being facetious what made a mockery of the NCAA basketball tournament was a) expanding the Division I field to 350+ teams when, realistically, there are only about 120 teams that have a snowball's chance of ever winning, and b) opening up the tournament to allow non-conference champions. It was a much better tournament before they started allowing the 8th place teams from the ACC and the Big East to participate. The NCAA is the most sactimonious, money grabbing institution on the face of the earth.

37. Not The Real Fausto Carmona (Dan Lee) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:17 PM (#3476678)

Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East.

You have got to be f***ing kidding me.

If Dolan does anything other than fight this tooth and nail, they might as well just rename the team the Washington Generals of Cleveland and announce to the fans that they're no longer attempting to win, that they're just hoping people will buy tickets to watch the Yankees and Red Sox.

It's life imitating art. It really is almost like they're trying to get people not to go to games.

F***.

38. tl; dr (Voxter)

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:18 PM (#3476680)

Okay, if we can't contract the Yankees, I say move all 30 teams to Kansas City, as that will be most convenient for television markets all over the country.

39. Gamingboy Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:20 PM (#3476683)

Bud's treating MLB like it's his own OOTP fictional league.

No, if it were his own OOTP league, he'd simply give Tokyo, Brooklyn and Mexico City teams.

40. tribefan Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:23 PM (#3476687)

Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to this. I'd love to see the Indians play the Yankees and Red Sox more often, and the AL Central hasn't really spawned any real lasting rivalries over the last decade. Just because we have crappy management now doesn't mean it always has to be that way.

41. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:29 PM (#3476692)

How about allocating revenue sharing/slush fund monies based on market size vs. average mkt size in your division? You'd need a formula to assess "market potential", but it makes sense.

42. Stevens Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:30 PM (#3476693)

Not sure if others are interested in this, but if you are, I'm curious what you think.

My ideal realignment requires 32 teams with 8 divisions, unbalanced schedules so the divisions actually matter, no interleague play and no wild card. Each league's best and worst division winners meet in the first round of the playoffs. Each playoff round is 7 games.

I periodically try to imagine which two markets would get the expansion clubs, based on which are under-served in terms of baseball. "Under-served" means I used some old baseball affinity data to see how many fans/city are out there. Then tried a median affinity for unlisted cities to figure out their fan numbers. Then calculated average fans per team. Using that info, I just looked at potential fans per team.

According to my (admittedly amateur) calculations teams have, on average, around 725,000 potential fans. Top group: NY teams (21% affinity) split 4.5 million potential fans. LA teams (15% affinity) split 2.7 million potential fans. Atlanta (25% affinity), with only one team, enjoys 1.2 million potential fans. And San Diego/Tijuana (24%) and Cleveland (36%) also enjoy over 1 million potential fans.

On the low end, Kansas City (9% affinity) has only 170,000 potential fans. Milwaukee (12%) has only 210,000. Pittsburgh (10%), Minneapolis/St. Paul (8%) and Cincinnati (13%) all are under 300,000 potential fans.

I used a 12% affinity (the median) to guess at new teams' potential fans. Here's what I came up with:

Mexico City (12)    2,640,000
New York3 (21)    1,561,768
Los Angeles3 (15)    605,302
Atlanta2 (25)    483,564
Monterrey/Guadalupe/San Nicolas (12)    449,414
Montreal (12)    434,933
San Diego/Tijuana2    425,922
Cleveland2 (36)    336,799
Portland    (11) 275,939
Juarez/El Paso (12)    273,694
Las Vegas/Henderson/Paradise     (13) 265,193
Sacramento (13)    262,255
Vancouver (12)    260,517
Boston2 (16)    256,640
Charlotte (15)    253,563

So a third team in NY would still have more than double the potential fans of today's average team. But if MLB is willing to travel the long, long way to Mexico City, there's just a ton of fans waiting. On the low end, a second team in Boston or a team in Charlotte would have roughly as many potential fans as the Twins do today.

If anyone is interested in this, I'm curious what you think. If not, sorry for the wasted space.

Finally, Maury Brown did a list of potential expansion sites a while back. Here's what he came up with:

New Jersey
Portland
Charlotte
Las Vegas
San Antonio
Monterrey
Montreal
Sacramento
San Juan
Norfolk/VA Beach

43. Jimmy P Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:37 PM (#3476697)

A bump in revenue for 10 home dates doesn't seem like it would match any revenue from playoffs, or the attendance carry-over bump in the following season.

A bump in revenue for those 10 home dates has to cover any possible playoffs, plus the loss of fans that give up on the season just like the team did. Telling your fans you have no plan to compete is just begging them to not show up.

Finally, Maury Brown did a list of potential expansion sites a while back. Here's what he came up with:

New Jersey
Portland
Charlotte
Las Vegas
San Antonio
Monterrey
Montreal
Sacramento
San Juan
Norfolk/VA Beach

You can cross Portland off. We've put all our local money into the MLS. Whoop-di-#######-do.

44. phredbird

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:38 PM (#3476699)

i'm going to chime in with this every time they talk about realignment. let's just go the whole hog. add a team in brooklyn, add a team in the west or maybe mexico city, and then set up all of baseball in 8 4-team divisions divided geographically (more or less), with 4 divisions west of the Miss. and 4 divisions east. NYY and BOS in different divisions but the same side of the miss. will mean the possibility of both getting in playoffs with enough chances for other teams. the divisions could be drawn to keep certain rivalries viable, and create others. heresy? c'mon, as someone noted upthread, with the unbalanced sked, interleague and wild cards the whole business is a mess anyway.

45. phredbird

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:40 PM (#3476700)

stevens, i didn't see your post. i've been proposing a similar thing for a while now, so good for you.

46. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:40 PM (#3476701)

Solution to what? I don't know what needs to be solved.

1. The playoff-heavy method of determining a "champion."
2. The New York duopoly and its attendant advantages/impacts.
3. The mishmash of interleague play, wild cards, and unbalanced schedules.

I can't understand the proposal -- what does "pick a division" mean; what if everybody picks the same division? -- so it's hard to address how it might solve the listed problems.

I don't see the Red Sox run as permanent; to me, there's nothing to "solve" there other than too many teams making the playoffs. In terms of payroll and economics, the Red Sox aren't a 1A to the Yankees 1, as often assumed; they're a very distant 2 and sometimes not even that. There's nothing keeping the Tigers from being the Red Sox. That's always the fatal flaw in the "break up the Yankees and Red Sox" ideas.

47. Tom Nawrocki Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:41 PM (#3476702)

This dire problem requiring radical solutions is all of seven years old at this point. In the past seven seasons, the Yankees and Red Sox have each made the playoffs six times apiece. I seem to recall another AL East making the World Series in that time frame as well, but I could be wrong.

It's not just that they are two very wealthy teams but they've been very well run over that period. The Red Sox' resources are no greater than those of the Dodgers or Cubs, certainly. Let's see what happens when Theo Epstein leaves, or when Hank and Hal start running the show in the Bronx.

48. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:42 PM (#3476704)

Norfolk/VA Beach

Not a chance. To the extent there ever was a chance, that ship sailed when the Expos relocated to DC. MASN controls that area for TV purposes.

In fact, MASN controls everything all the way down to Charlotte. I suspect an attempt at a Charlotte team might fare better at breaking up MASN's blanket over the region, but some money would have to come back to the Angelosians.

49. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:45 PM (#3476709)

Hate this idea. But didn't hate the part about Heyward:

The only thing louder than the buzz surrounding Braves outfield prospect Jason Heyward is the sound of the ball coming off his bat. The buzz is reminiscent of the noise for Albert Pujols in 2001 and Ken Griffey Jr. in 1989, when Pujols, then 21, and Griffey, then 19, simply were too good for their clubs to send them back to the minors. Heyward, 20, is that good.

50. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:51 PM (#3476719)

Anybody you stick in the AL East is going to be one of three teams that get a shot at the playoffs about once every ten years

OK, this kind of realignment is admittedly a horrible idea, but comments like the one above completely miss the point. There would be realignment every year, so that in theory nobody would be stuck in the AL East for ten years.

But pick your division ain't going to work. Maybe one or two AL teams would volunteer to be the Yankees/Red Sox punching bag each year, but most are going to put in for a central division slot each year. Compelling it would be a better idea -- OK, Cleveland, go ahead and trade Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez for peanuts while they're still relatively affordable, but you're playing in the AL East next year if you do.

51. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:52 PM (#3476721)

I don't see the Red Sox run as permanent; to me, there's nothing to "solve" there other than too many teams making the playoffs. In terms of payroll and economics, the Red Sox aren't a 1A to the Yankees 1, as often assumed; they're a very distant 2 and sometimes not even that. There's nothing keeping the Tigers from being the Red Sox. That's always the fatal flaw in the "break up the Yankees and Red Sox" ideas.

Worse than that: the Tigers have an edge on the Red Sox, since the Tigers don't need to beat the Yankees, plus the Tigers don't have to play extra games against the Yankees.

Indeed, the only teams "harmed" by any such duopoly are the Orioles, Jays, and Rays. It seems odd to adopt "radical realignment" to benefit three teams.

52. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:56 PM (#3476728)

In fact, MASN controls everything all the way down to Charlotte. I suspect an attempt at a Charlotte team might fare better at breaking up MASN's blanket over the region, but some money would have to come back to the Angelosians.

Every inch of the entire country is claimed by at least one RSN, sometimes multiple RSN's. That's not a huge obstacle to getting a team moved into an area.

New Jersey - viable, but the Yankees/Mets would never allow it.

Portland - viable. If the city/state ponied up for a stadium, they might make it happen. Last I heard, though, there was very little political will for this.

Charlotte - I thought Charlotte's biggest problem was the lack of an urban core. There's a lot of population in the Research Triangle, but it's all spread out over a lot of geography. I'd worry about the region's ability to support 81 home games, particularly the mid-week games.

Las Vegas - No. Setting aside the logistics of playing baseball in Las Vegas in the summer, Las Vegas is a tiny market, with zero growth potential, and the casinos have no reason to support a major-league team.

San Antonio - I don't know much about this. It's not something I've heard much about.

Monterrey - See San Antonio.

Montreal - Maybe, with the right owner, but it would take a lot of work. Loria burned a lot of bridges.

Sacramento - More likely the A's end up here.

Norfolk/Va Beach - seems dubious. Wouldn't they be competing with the Nationals and Orioles?

53. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 05:58 PM (#3476730)

Would somebody close the window? There seems to be a daft in here...

54. Sheer Tim Foli

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:01 PM (#3476733)

Indeed, the only teams "harmed" by any such duopoly are the Orioles, Jays, and Rays. It seems odd to adopt "radical realignment" to benefit three teams.

In baseball terms absolutely - but I have to wonder if some owners believe they will make more money doing a tour of duty in the AL East by getting the Sox and Yankees to come to their parks more often.

It would not be the first financially motivated decision under the guise of improving baseball.

55. billyjack Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:06 PM (#3476739)

Add a second wild card in the AL, and Selig's fake problem is solved... and the two wild cards play in a best-of-three.
Or add a third wild card, and have best-of-threes as 6 plays 3, and 5 plays 4.

Tampa won the AL in '08.
Cleveland was a game from winning it in '07.

56. MajorTom Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:11 PM (#3476745)

Or, do away with the divisions altogether. Two leagues with no divisions, unbalanced schedules weighted with "natural" rivalries and with obvious geographical logic, and the top four records in each league go to the playoffs, with the best record playing the 4th best record, and 2nd v 3rd.

Having the top four records go to the playoffs (as well as the elimination of the division) would also do away with the "stigma", if you will, of a wild card, for those who care about such things.

57. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:12 PM (#3476746)

Every inch of the entire country is claimed by at least one RSN, sometimes multiple RSN's. That's not a huge obstacle to getting a team moved into an area.

But this very region was the subject of a huge RSN stink only five years ago, leading to what MASN is today. MASN loves to trumpet that its coverage area is Harrisburg to Charlotte. Hampton Roads is square in its footprint, and MASN has spent a lot of effort in the past few years trying to ram itself into the basic tier pretty much everywhere in NC, as far down as Charlotte. I doubt very many people down there care at all about the O's or the Nats, and if Charlotte could sustain a team then it should have one, but the MASN deal can't simply be waved away.

58. billyjack Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:13 PM (#3476747)

Any expansion should be:
one in the NYC area, and
the 2nd in the LA area.
Or return to Montreal, which drew 2 million+ in the 80's.

All the other cities mentioned would struggle like Pitt and KC etc.

59. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:13 PM (#3476748)

I'd reestablish no-division leagues and add a European-style "cup" to satisfy the thirst for playoffs. Eight extra games for the winner -- no big deal. Indianapolis and West Michigan and the like get a guaranteed sellout gate and novelties like Red Sox at Cyclones set the national media abuzz. The winner gets to say they won something and everybody has a chance.

60. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:14 PM (#3476751)

61. Craig in MN Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:20 PM (#3476755)

Too bizarre, too crazy. If they want to make getting to the playoffs easier for some, they can do away with the unbalanced schedule, add a couple of more wildcards and it won't matter what division you are in. If they do the plan they are suggesting, divisions are farcical anyway. This way you get the same result without the craziness.

62. Stevens Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:32 PM (#3476760)

Just a thought.

AL WEST
Oakland
LA Angels
Arizona
Seattle

AL SOUTH
Mexico/Monterrey
Tampa Bay
Texas
Kansas City

AL NORTH
Detroit
Minnestoa
Chicago Sox
Cleveland

AL EAST
NY Yankees
Toronto
Boston
Baltimore

NL WEST
San Diego
LA Dodgers
San Francisco
Colorado

NL SOUTH
Houston
Florida
Atlanta
Cincinnati

NL NORTH
St. Louis
Pittsburgh
Milwaukee
Chicago Cubs

NL EAST
Brooklyn
NY Mets
Philadelphia
Washington

63. attaboy Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:41 PM (#3476764)

64. Cuban X Senators Posted: March 10, 2010 at 06:59 PM (#3476774)

My ideal realignment requires 32 teams with 8 divisions, unbalanced schedules so the divisions actually matter, no interleague play and no wild card.

Similar to my ideal - except no divisions, just four 8-team leagues . . . a return to pre-expansion, but with twice the teams/leagues.

NYY, NYM, Bos, Phil, Balt, Wash, NJ, Tor
Clev, Cinc, Det, CWS, ChC, Mil, Minn, Pitts
Atl, Hou, StL, KC, Col, Tex, TB, Fla
Sea, Port, SF, Oak, LAA, LAD, SD, Arz

154 game schedule, 22 games against each team in your league.

Or, if you want inter-league play, you could do 160 games - 16 against each league team & 6 against the 8 teams from one other league (which could rotate).

65. bunyon Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:01 PM (#3476778)

Perhaps they should make the AL East the 4 team division - move Toronto to the Central and Kansas City to the West. That would reduce, by one, the number of teams "harmed" by the two big guys. You could cut a deal where Toronto and Baltimore would switch places every five years.

66. Maury Brown Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:14 PM (#3476792)

You can cross Portland off. We've put all our local money into the MLS. Whoop-di-#######-do.

And, we're running out of site locations. You know PDX politics... Going to be a good while until they might consider funding after retrofitting PGE Park (again).

67. Craig in MN Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:29 PM (#3476804)

come on...give them credit for some out of the box thinking, even if it has its faults. They are charged with coming up with ideas, regardless of feasibility...this is accomplishing that! it's not happening but maybe there is some germ of an idea which comes from this and can be used.

I'll give them credit for coming up with ideas, even bad ones. This is a bad one. But the real problem is the quote "the concept gained strong support among committee members". Coming up with a crazy idea is fine. Needling some small good ideas out of big bad ideas is fine. Having a committee that has notable support for bad ideas is not fine. That is the problem with the article....it seems to indicate that they have put the wrong people on the committee.

68. villageidiom Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:29 PM (#3476805)

NL EAST
Brooklyn

If you're going to have a 3rd NYC team, I'd think it would need to be in the AL. Why people think NYC needs a 3rd team to counter the effect of the Yankees, then put that team in direct competition with the Mets, I don't get.

I think it would be interesting to have Philly, DC, and Baltimore in the same division. Not that I want the O's out of the AL... But I think that would be worthwhile for all teams involved. Swap Baltimore and Brooklyn in your proposal?

69. Kid Charlemagne Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:30 PM (#3476808)

I'm with MajorTom on this - 2 leagues, best 4 make the playoffs. If time zones are an issue, make it an eastern league and a western league.

70. Jimmy P Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:40 PM (#3476816)

I'm with MajorTom on this - 2 leagues, best 4 make the playoffs. If time zones are an issue, make it an eastern league and a western league.

Now this is an interesting idea. Imagine Philly, NY, Boston, and potentially Chicago in one league.

Are you talking 4 teams total make the playoffs? Because that ship sailed a long time ago, and I don't think it's returning.

71. Dale Sams Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:45 PM (#3476820)

The sheer hubris dismissing the Rays this year is maddening.

72. The Ghost of Sox Fans Past

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:49 PM (#3476822)

Best solution - let everybody play the Yanks and Sawks, but the losses don't count in the standings.

73. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:52 PM (#3476825)

I don't see the Red Sox run as permanent; to me, there's nothing to "solve" there other than too many teams making the playoffs. In terms of payroll and economics, the Red Sox aren't a 1A to the Yankees 1, as often assumed; they're a very distant 2 and sometimes not even that. There's nothing keeping the Tigers from being the Red Sox. That's always the fatal flaw in the "break up the Yankees and Red Sox" ideas.

74. MajorTom Posted: March 10, 2010 at 07:56 PM (#3476828)

Are you talking 4 teams total make the playoffs? Because that ship sailed a long time ago, and I don't think it's returning.

No... there's no way that MLB will ever go back to that- the more teams that are in the playoffs plus the longer the playoffs last equals the more revenue, so that's not an option.

2 leagues, still called "American" and "National", just no divisions. Interleague play can still be marketed as an "event", and you can even keep Bud's Folly in place and pin home field advantage in the W.S. on the winning All Star team, so the All Star game still "counts". At the end of the season each league's top four teams go to the playoffs, seeded 1-4 based on record, best record winning home field advantage. With no division or wild card designation, teams like Boston and New York can meet in the first round of the playoffs, unlike now.

75. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:06 PM (#3476835)

2 leagues, still called "American" and "National", just no divisions. Interleague play can still be marketed as an "event", and you can even keep Bud's Folly in place and pin home field advantage in the W.S. on the winning All Star team, so the All Star game still "counts". At the end of the season each league's top four teams go to the playoffs, seeded 1-4 based on record, best record winning home field advantage.

Why do people insist on making MLB more like the NBA? The NBA sucks.

76. Harris Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:08 PM (#3476839)

If it's really a huge problem that just has to be overcome, move one of the Yankees or Red Sox out of the AL East. Or out of the AL, for that matter

.

I would love this for the simple reason that it would assure me I would no longer have NYY-BOS hog 19 nationally televised games, instead it would only be 6 at most.

I've always thought it was kinda crappy that on pure statistics (quality of organization etc...aside) that an AL west team has a 25% chance of winning their division, but an NL Central team (not named the pirates) only has a 20% chance of winning their division.

77. Stevens Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:16 PM (#3476845)

If you're going to have a 3rd NYC team, I'd think it would need to be in the AL. Why people think NYC needs a 3rd team to counter the effect of the Yankees, then put that team in direct competition with the Mets, I don't get.

I think the 3rd NY-area team is not to go after the Yankees per se, but to go after the largest domestic concentration of baseball fans. In fact, you could argue that expanding the league to 32 teams should include two new teams in the area, not just one.

As for whether my theoretical Brooklyn team belongs in the AL or NL, I went with NL more out of respect to the Yankee/Red Sox rivalry. Maybe the Mets/Phillies rivalry is heating up, but I don't think it's historical. But I can totally see your point. I also like the historical tie-in with Brooklyn and the NL. I'm sappy that way.

I think it would be interesting to have Philly, DC, and Baltimore in the same division. Not that I want the O's out of the AL... But I think that would be worthwhile for all teams involved. Swap Baltimore and Brooklyn in your proposal?

I've lived in and around Chicago most of my life and I prefer having the two teams in separate leagues. I'm just assuming that fans of Os and Nats would feel the same. And yes, I realize the conflict with this point of view while suggesting that NY would add teams. NY is just a different animal than everywhere else.

78. Dan Szymborski

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:17 PM (#3476846)

I'm tired of hearing about radical realignment. It's about time we got awesome realignment.

79. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:27 PM (#3476853)

If there's no problem, why is MLB having this panel?

The same reason that all the bigwigs in hockey in Canada had a ridiculous "summit" about the state of the game in 1999.

For publicity.

There was all this talk about how Canada was losing its edge in the sport of hockey (after not winning the Olympics in 1998 (men or women), or the World Championship (for many years), or the World Under-20 (for a few years) or the World Cup (in 1996)).
Then, magically, after the summit occurred, Canada started to win championships on the international stage (starting in 2002).

A lot.

Of course, nothing discussed (kid's hockey development, rule implementation, etc) in that summit could have possibly trickled down to the national teams in time for the almost instant resurgence.

But everyone wanted to claim credit for it...

80. Dread Pirate Dave Roberts Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:29 PM (#3476854)

2 leagues, still called "American" and "National", just no divisions. Interleague play can still be marketed as an "event", and you can even keep Bud's Folly in place and pin home field advantage in the W.S. on the winning All Star team, so the All Star game still "counts". At the end of the season each league's top four teams go to the playoffs, seeded 1-4 based on record, best record winning home field advantage.

Why do people insist on making MLB more like the NBA? The NBA sucks.

I'd like to see something like this: 32 teams, 16 in each league, maybe even split up into two 8 team divisions. Top 4 teams make the playoffs (with division winners guaranteed if division set up). Then, round-robin tournament to win the pennant.

Tournament is played in 4 game sets: #1 (home team) against #4, #2 (home team) against #3. After those 4 games, off-day, then #1 (home team) against #3, #2 (home team) against #4. After those 4 days, then #1 (home team) against #2, #3 (home team) against #4.

First team to win 7 games wins the pennant. Significant home field advantages for higher seeds -- #1 plays all home games, #4 all road games. Feels more like regular season baseball where the #4 starter and bullpen management is of major importance. Teams won't get to set their roster to attack specific opponents. And very likely, all teams will have to face all the opponents, unlike the current set up.

It's unique in the professional American sports leagues so will likely draw positive attention. From a time perspective, can be played over same time period as the current DS/LCS so won't lengthen season. In the worst case scerario (team wins 7 in a row) there are 14 total games played per league versus the maximum of 17 total games in the current set up (10 is minimum) so the league should see more revenue from this . And fans will enjoy more baseball.

World Series proceeds as normal.

81. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:30 PM (#3476855)

82. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:31 PM (#3476858)

How bout:

AL East
Boston
New York

AL South
Baltimore
Kansas City
Tampa Bay
Texas

AL Central
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Toronto

AL West
LA Anaheim
Minnesota
Oakland
Seattle

I mean seriously, if you're going to have uneven numbers of teams in divisions anyway, might as well just go all-in.

83. Kid Charlemagne Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:33 PM (#3476860)

JimmyP - just like MajorTom explained; 4 teams make it in each league. I agree that cutting it down to 4 total would never fly. Ideally, you'd split up the big market teams a little more than would happen in an East/West League situation, but the issues with travelling across timezones is a legitimate concern.

As for the committee's plan as explained in the article - I don't think that would fly at all. However, I am glad to hear that they are talking about this. I think that any realignment plan should also include the assumption that it would be revisited after a set period of time - kind of like a census (or, and I don't really like this analogy, a congressional redistricting). The fact that Boston and NY are powerhouses is not a permanent fact; new ownership or management could lead to either one experiencing a drought in success.

84. John Northey Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:41 PM (#3476865)

To my thinking the easiest way would be to shift back to 2 divisions in the AL - East & West. Shift Detroit/Cleveland to the East and Chicago/Minnesota/KC to the west. Basically back to 1993 (which all Jays fans would love). Have 2 wild cards and 2 division winners. Best division winner gets weakest team of the 3 others to play against.

The NL would have to stay as is since you'd have a war over divisions (most likely) since I suspect Pittsburgh/Cincinnati would go east, Houston west, while all of St Louis/Chicago/Milwaukee would fight not to go out west. Maybe sent Atlanta back out there :)

Now all AL East teams have a playoff slot not assigned to the Yanks or Red Sox available, we get lower odds of a sub-500 team sneaking into the playoffs (see 1994 to see how it could've happened), and Detroit/Toronto can have the good old battles again.

85. Dread Pirate Dave Roberts Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:47 PM (#3476872)

How bout:

AL East
Boston
New York

AL South
Baltimore
Kansas City
Tampa Bay
Texas

AL Central
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Toronto

AL West
LA Anaheim
Minnesota
Oakland
Seattle

I mean seriously, if you're going to have uneven numbers of teams in divisions anyway, might as well just go all-in.

That's actually a pretty nice idea. Keep the NL the same (with wild card), eliminate WC in AL and have division winners only. Baltimore, Tampa Bay and Toronto have hope again. And, the entire AL has more hope since only 1 slot for Yankees/Red Sox, not 2.

Never going to happen though. The league will never give up on a Yankees/Red Sox ALCS after the events of 2003 & 2004. And I don't blame them, either. And as a Red Sox fan, I'd love to see that match up in the future again.

To my thinking the easiest way would be to shift back to 2 divisions in the AL - East & West. Shift Detroit/Cleveland to the East and Chicago/Minnesota/KC to the west. Basically back to 1993 (which all Jays fans would love). Have 2 wild cards and 2 division winners. Best division winner gets weakest team of the 3 others to play against.

That's probably the more realistic idea, and the most fair for the reasons you mention -- prevents a sub-.500 team from reaching the playoffs, plus doesn't guarantee a Yankee/Red Sox playoff spot in those recently rare years where neither win 90 games.

86. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 08:54 PM (#3476879)

Basically back to 1993 (which all Jays fans would love).

I'd like that. Tigers/Blue Jays was a great rivalry for a long time; lots of fans on both sides miss it.(**) The Tiger radio broadcasters noted same a couple days ago.

(**) As was Wings/Leafs, also snatched away by the vulgarian grasp of commerce.

87. AROM Posted: March 10, 2010 at 09:03 PM (#3476884)

I approve of #82. We would always have to see one of the Yankees-Red Sox in the playoffs, but don't have to suffer watching both. And more often than not, the Yankees win it. Even better.

The last year the playoffs did not have either of those teams was 1993, so for the rest of the AL this can only increase your playoff chances.

88. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 09:03 PM (#3476885)

I too endorse the two division, two wildcard format. It also gets around the ridiculous unequal divisions.

AL East - BAL, BOS, CLE, DET, MIL, NYY, TOR
AL West - CHW, KCR, LAA, MIN, OAK, SEA, TEX

NL East - ATL, CIN, FLA, NYM, PHI, PIT, TBR, WAS
NL West - ARI, CHC, COL, HOU, LAD, STL, SFG, SDP

I'm not sure the Brew Crew would jump back to the AL though. If they don't, you'd have to put them in the NL East, even though they are further west than Chicago or St. Louis, or else risk breaking up the Cubs/Cards. Or you could go back to ridiculous 1969-1993 geography with the Reds and Braves in the west and the Cubs and Cards in the east.

89. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 09:09 PM (#3476889)

I approve of #82. We would always have to see one of the Yankees-Red Sox in the playoffs, but don't have to suffer watching both. And more often than not, the Yankees win it. Even better.

Maybe they can join an "ESPN Division" with Brett Favre, T.O., and Ochocinco. They play baseball against each other three-four times a week; the rest is devoted to Home Run Derby, Dancing with the Stars, and an updated version of Wide World of Sports' Superstars, whereby among other things, A-Rod, Captain Dreamboat, and T.O. vie for strongest swimm'r.

The possibilities are endless.

90. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 09:22 PM (#3476895)

That's kind of an exaggeration, since the fan base of the Red Sox encompasses a far wider region than that of the Tigers. But I do agree that the Tigers haven't really developed the market that they have, and that the Red Sox advantage is no guarantee of a postseason berth.

I have no idea what this means. It's 293 miles from Detroit to Sault Ste. Marie, MI, further still to Marquette, MI and another 70 miles south of Detroit to the southern reaches of Toledo, Ohio. That's over 400 miles, all Tiger country, as is essentially all of Michigan, still a populous state. Add Windsor, Ontario and points further east to the Tiger/Blue Jay border. Drive comparable distances north from Boston and you're in the ocean. Drive comparable distances south and you're in Maryland. The Tiger market is all "developed" -- whatever the hell that means -- and has been for decades; games are on the Tiger TV and radio network far and wide throughout the region delineated.

There's no easily obtainable way to measure this, but given the relative appeal and economies of the two places, it's quite likely that the Detroit diaspora is bigger than Boston's. That factor pales in comparison, of course, to the people in the relative geographies. Population's akin to a wash; if anything the Tiger market is bigger.

You're confusing actual size and reach, with mouth-running and the admirable loyalty of the Harvard faculty. I doubt I'm the first to notice that you seem to have a blind spot in that area when it comes to Boston and the Red Sox.

Although you may be the first to think that I'm a Red Sox fan.

New England's population is about 14.5 M. Subtract part of Connecticut and add parts of upstate New York and Canada and you're still in the 15 M range.

Michigan's population is roughly 10 M. You can add what adjacent areas you want to that and it's not likely to get much bigger than 15 M.

I'll admit that I shouldn't have used "wider region," since that implies a geographical reach. But with roughly equal population bases, the smaller New England territory of course works to the Red Sox advantage, since traveling time is shorter from the outlying areas. And in case you hadn't noticed, Michigan is losing population and the entire adjacent area is depressed in a major way. The per capita income for Massachusetts and New England is significantly higher than that of Michigan and the Rust Belt in general. Metro Boston has the 4th highest PCI in the U.S.; metro Detroit is 29th.

You also have the tourist factor. Boston is a huge tourist area in the baseball season. I doubt if you'd say the same thing about Detroit, and although upstate Michigan draws plenty of tourists, those folks aren't a few T-stops from Comerica Park.

If you think that all this doesn't give the Red Sox a big marketing advantage, I don't know what more there is to say. The Tigers have room for improvement, but in great part it's a chicken-and-egg situation: The biggest and best way they can improve their financial base is to have a consistently winning team like the Red Sox. But in order to do that, they need to have a bigger financial base.

91. Shalimar Posted: March 10, 2010 at 09:25 PM (#3476900)

The only reason to consider realignment would be to split up the Red Sox and Yankees into separate divisions. They have the highest revenues and are most likely to continue having the highest revenues, making it harder for the other teams in their division to compete against both of them for spots. Anything else is a temporary fix that would need revamping every few years.

92. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 09:49 PM (#3476940)

Although you may be the first to think that I'm a Red Sox fan.

Your writings on the subject are but a short step from donning a Jeffersonian wig and uttering, "Every sports fan has two teams, his own and the Red Sox."

New England's population is about 14.5 M. Subtract part of Connecticut and add parts of upstate New York and Canada and you still have in the 15 M range.

You lose a lot more in CT than you gain in upstate NY and Canada. Probably a 1.5-2M deficit. The Tigers gain over a million in Ohio and -- rough estimate -- 500K in Canada. Slight advantage, Red Sox.

And in case you hadn't noticed, Michigan is losing population and the entire adjacent area is depressed in a major way. The per capita income for Massachusetts and New England is significantly higher than that of Michigan and the Rust Belt in general. Metro Boston has the 4th highest PCI in the U.S.; metro Detroit's is 29th.

I've noticed. I've also noticed that the Tiger and Red Sox payrolls have been roughly the same for wide swaths of time, including recently. I generally follow the money in matters financial. Mike Ilitch isn't taking tens of millions of dollars out of his pockets every single year and showering them on a baseball team. Over all but the very shortest terms, the money spent on the team comes from the team's fans.(**) All winter, all you heard was "The Tigers have to dump payroll, OMG how could they give away Curtis Granderson, the sky is falling, Detroit's rusting, can Hoovervilles be far behind?" After the nonsense stopped, out came the checkbook -- Justin Verlander, Jose Valverde, Johnny Damon. Check, check, check. All at the same time as continuing to pay Steinbrenneresque levels of dead weight -- Dontrelle Willis, Jeremy Bonderman (maybe), Nate Robertson -- and borderline dead weight -- Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Guillen.

You also have the tourist factor. Boston is a huge tourist area in the baseball season. I doubt if you'd say the same thing about Detroit, and although upstate Michigan draws plenty of tourists, those folks aren't a few T-stops from Comerica Park.

Don't see the relevance, assuming it's true. We can all read the game attendance, TV ratings, jersey sales, etc.; that more people are hanging around the Back Bay and Fanueil Hall with their guide books and fanny packs doesn't strike me as having much to do with anything.

And if you think that all this doesn't give the Red Sox a big marketing advantage, I don't know what more there is to say. The Tigers have room for improvement, but in great part it's a chicken-and-egg situation: The biggest and best way they can improve their financial base is to have a consistently winning team like the Red Sox. But in order to do that, they also need to have a bigger financial base.

What I'd say is that the "all this" really isn't all that. One thing you could say -- since it's true -- is that the Tigers spend as much money as the Red Sox -- almost certainly because they have as much money.

(**) Setting aside the accused hoarders in PGH, FLA and other franchises unrelated to the topic at hand.

93. DL from MN Posted: March 10, 2010 at 10:03 PM (#3476956)

AL East - BAL, BOS, CLE, DET, NYY, TBR, TOR
AL West - CHW, KCR, LAA, MIN, OAK, SEA, TEX

NL East - ATL, CIN, FLA, MIL, NYM, PHI, PIT, WAS
NL West - ARI, CHC, COL, HOU, LAD, STL, SFG, SDP

Swap Tampa and Milwaukee back, then nobody has to switch leagues. I endorse this one.

2 division winners and 4 wild cards in each league with a 3 game wild-card playoff series is fine with me. It only would add 1 more playoff game and would put 12 teams into the postseason but also makes winning the division worthwhile because of the bye.

WCS (3 games) (start the series on the road for the team with the better record, 1 game away and 2 at home)
DS (5 games) (2-2-1)
LCS (7 games) (2-3-2)
WS (7 games) (2-3-2)

That's 32 to 53 televised playoff games. Currently they offer 28 to 49 playoff games.

94. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 10:09 PM (#3476966)

That's 32 to 53 televised playoff games. Currently they offer 28 to 49 playoff games.

Yay! December baseball!

95. fret Posted: March 10, 2010 at 10:09 PM (#3476967)

Latitudes for AL team cities:

71° 2' Boston
73° 58' New York
76° 40' Baltimore
79° 24' Toronto
81° 51' Cleveland
82° 80' St. Petersburg
83° 1' Detroit
87° 45' Chicago
93° 13' Minneapolis
94° 35' Kansas City
97° 07' Arlington
117° 55' Anaheim
122° 18' Seattle
122° 19' Oakland

(Disclaimer: I know perfectly well how irrelevant this is, and I have no interest in reopening the debate over whether Pittsburgh is in the northeast. Just thought it was interesting given the topic under discussion.)

96. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 10:10 PM (#3476968)

Although you may be the first to think that I'm a Red Sox fan.

Your writings on the subject are but a short step from donning a Jeffersonian wig and uttering, "Every sports fan has two teams, his own and the Red Sox."

I think you may be confusing healthy respect with something else. The only time in my life I've rooted for the Red Sox was in the World Series (since I'm an AL fan), and one time in AL postseason history when they weren't playing the Yankees.

OTOH teams I have always rooted for against the Red Sox would have included the Orioles, Blue Jays, Rays, Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Twins, Royals, A's, Mariners, Rangers, and in all but one case (1986) the Angels.

I'll let the rest of your post stand, since it's obvious we're not converting each other, and since if you'll look back at my first post (#73) on the subject, you'll see that I was agreeing that the Tigers were at little or no structural disadvantage when it comes to being able to compete with the Red Sox for a postseason berth, thanks to not having to compete directly with America's Team within their division.

97. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 10, 2010 at 10:11 PM (#3476972)

I have no interest in reopening the debate over whether Pittsburgh is in the northeast.

Anybody else want a piece of this?

98. DL from MN Posted: March 10, 2010 at 10:21 PM (#3476991)

> Yay! December baseball!

You do know they don't play all those games sequentially, correct? If the schedule length is an issue, I'm in favor of shortening the regular season to 160 games.

99. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: March 10, 2010 at 10:23 PM (#3476992)

I'll let the rest of your post stand, since it's obvious we're not converting each other, and since if you'll look back at my first post (#73) on the subject, you'll see that I was agreeing that the Tigers were at little or no structural disadvantage when it comes to being able to compete with the Red Sox for a postseason berth, thanks to not having to compete directly with America's Team within their division.

Between the Tigers and Red Sox, who most recently earned the pleasure of beating America's Team in the postseason?

100. villageidiom Posted: March 10, 2010 at 10:59 PM (#3477027)

I'll admit that I shouldn't have used "wider region," since that implies a geographical reach.

Except in Michigan and maybe northwest Ohio, you can probably find more Red Sox fans in every part of America than you can find Tigers fans. The Red Sox do have an absurd advantage in geographical reach, in that sense.

You also have the tourist factor. Boston is a huge tourist area in the baseball season.

There's the college factor as well. Quite a few people who made the error of not following baseball much before college were turned on to baseball, and specifically the Red Sox, in the first two months of each college year in Boston.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Selig, committee considering radical realignment plan

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics