User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.4620 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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.
1. Koot Posted: May 01, 2012 at 07:36 AM (#4120488)Getting rid of the repetitive "rivals" series is nice, but not worth the price.
I'm both astonished that I could conceive of this as an actual plan by Bud and also tremendously relieved that it is not so.
That's what I thought, but with Bud placing anonymous quotes in the papers about how much, say, the Cubs hate the Blue Jays and think their wives are fat.
Many of whom really don't (or shouldn't) need an attendance boost.
That's an interesting take. My big fear with interleague all the time is that it will lead to interleague more of the time. But if it's fixed at the current number, then I think I'd also prefer the games spread out so I could more easily ignore them.
The unbalanced schedule (at least among one's divisional foes) is the greatest crime against sporting humanity in baseball at the moment. Anything that helps make it possible for teams in a division to all play the same opponents the same number of times is something we should all support.
I hate the unbalanced schedule, less than I used to hate it, but still hate it. I have to agree that at the very least divisions should have the same schedule(I'm ok with 3 games difference, but the up to 9 game difference between interleague play, plus an extra half dozen due to varying schedules against your own division, was a bit over the top)
As for this proposed retooling, I'm all in favor. I thought the rivalry games were losing their luster and screwing badly with competitive balance.
Only way they expand to 32 would require a major change to the status quo, something like:
A) Major international expansion (Japan, mainly)
B) The Mets and Yankees fall asleep, teams are placed in Brooklyn and New Jersey.
C) Cuba becomes an open un-embargoed country rife for DR-level amounts of [slash]exploitation[/slash] prospects. Talent level becomes sky-high.
I think Portland and Charlotte could support franchises, but we're probably a decade from either of them having the political will to even consider building a stadium.
It would seem to me that the stadium issue is the biggest obstacle to expansion. San Antonio/Austin, Columbus, Indianapolis, Memphis, Orlando, Nashville, Charlotte – these are metro areas plenty large enough to support a major-league franchise. If Cincinnati and Pittsburgh and Kansas City, then those others, no question whatsoever. But they're locked in a kind of Catch-22: none of them is going to build a stadium without a franchise, and none of them is going to get a franchise without a stadium.
Portland and Vegas, sure they would be small markets in MLB terms but not outrageously so.
1998?
One of the problems with Vegas though is you're relying almost exclusively on the metro area, which is about the size of KC. KC can at least draw from lots of other decent-sized communities in the region - Topeka, Lawrence, Wichita, Springfield, even as far as Omaha. There is pretty much nothing around Vegas.
Plus the recession has hit that town hard. And I think MLB will be loathe to go to Vegas with the gambling stigma (although more states are challenging the right to have sports betting).
Charlotte makes a lot of sense because its a good sized city, great corporate presence, the Braves are really the only territorial rights issue, and that shouldn't be a big deal, and you have tons of good sized cities in the region to draw from as well. But Charlotte has lots of problems too, in that they're kinda stretched for four major pro sports teams AND college sports, and of course, who builds the stsadium?
Portland is on a growth track that they seem like a no-brainer for MLB in a decade if they want it.
Sacramento is an hour and a half drive from MLB already, so that's out.
Portland and Charlotte, particularly the latter, would be serious candidates. Also the San Antonio/Austin corridor.
We've had the territorial rights/New Jersey argument a fair amount, but I think MLB is *really, really, really* missing the boat on Brooklyn. It's growing, it's becoming more affluent, and while it would probably damage the Mets, I bet the cache of BKLYN baseball would be enough to put a dent into the Yankees too. There's an opportunity to have a halo franchise that MLB is passing up.
Generally, I think Charlotte, Portland, Montreal, and maybe Austin (it's growing *really* fast) are all also places to go next, provided stadiums can be worked out. However, I'd be happy if expansion were delayed until the 2020 season, and then had rapid-fire expansion (it's always more fun that way.)
One problem with Indy, from my perspective as a 20-year resident of the state, is that it's franchise locked. We've got some of the sport's most-established teams on all sides of the state (Cincy to the Southeast, Detroit to the Northeast, Chicago/Chicago to the Northwest and St. Louis to the Southwest, farther, but St. Louis has always had a far-flung reach). I can't see Indianapolis/Central Indiana supporting major league baseball.
Holes in the desert.
Much the same is said of central Texas (Austin or San Antonio or some location in between), and I can certainly see why. But it might also be that a franchise airlifted into a location like that can benefit from visiting fans deciding to make trips to see their own teams. I know that the NFL and NBA have a very different dynamic (smaller overall annual attendance, more reliance on national TV and revenue-sharing), but they're also more imaginative about markets and marketing. I wouldn't have thought Oklahoma City had much major-league basketball potential, with Dallas three or four hours down I-35, but here they are in the playoffs against Dallas again, and both teams drawing very creditably at the gate.
You would be wrong. A team in Brooklyn would absolutely destroy the Mets and have little to no effect on the Yankkes.
Exactly. The US now has twice the population it did near the end of the 16-team era. (Not to mention Canada. OK, I'll mention Canada. And they have twice their 1955 population, too.) I think that 32 MLB teams are by now a viable proposition.
Baseballia! They could get the fans to drive their pickup trucks to Houston, chainsaw up and unbolt the Astrodome, and cart the pieces to Baseballia where they would be reassembled.
As a relatively new resident to the area, I agree, can't see it happening. The region definitely has baseball fans, they are deeply entrenched though (Cubs/Cards/Reds primarily). However they can't support MLB, mostly because they can barely support 2 professional franchises now, and this is supposed to be the basketball mecca. It is, just not for pro basketball.
The only time we cared was during the highpoint of the Reggie era, which happened to coincide nicely with a decline in IU/Purdue's fortunes and the changeover from the single high school tournament. The natural state of apathy toward the Pacers has returned.
On what basis? As I said above, I think Brooklyn would be a halo team for MLB, much in the way the Yankees/Red Sox/Dodgers/Giants/Cards/Cubs are. It's Brooklyn, it calls to mind the game's perceived golden era, it would help competitive balance, and New Yorkers seem ready to root for Brooklyn. I can see this affecting the Mets (Queens/Brooklyn/LI form the Mets fanbase, basically) pretty significantly, but the Yanks as well (because BKLYN would prove a regional draw, and again, become a halo team that people in Omaha might root for.)
More games.
The only people in NY that are "ready to root for Brooklyn" are people who live in Brooklyn or grew up there. It doesn't matter if it's an AL or NL team, a team in Brooklyn would take fans away from the Mets(from Brooklyn and LI) and do nothing to the Yankees. There is no "regional draw" to Brooklyn outside of Brooklyn itself.
Fair enough, but do you run out of games on a normal night? Wouldn't you be worried that expansion would lead again to more payroll discrepancy and that the Royals would be on the low end again and 'forced' to trade away their best players?
Which saw four basket-case franchises having to relocate to smaller localities, which have subsequently had mixed fortunes (Milwaukee, Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis-St Paul). In some respects it might have made more sense to contract to a 14-team or 12-team single league, but Walter O'Malley probably didn't want the 'kooks' in his own league.
I am anti-expansion, for the moment. If you're an owner, I don't think it makes economic sense, just like it didn't in the late 1950s. Relocation would make more sense, except in practical terms there is nowhere to relocate to that would improve the situation for the teams (Athletics and Rays) who might need to relocate.
If you want expansion, you need talk of a new league, or else some kind of legal threat that demands the owners spend money.
Even Mets fans don't "like" the Mets.
FYI: I'm from Jersey, and I'm one of those insufferable Manhattanites that thinks Brooklyn is a shlep (and it is half the time, due to subway irregularities.)
Why are you so dismissive of this? We're about to see a great test case: the Brooklyn Nets. And they're already generating a ton of media. Do you really believe that Brooklyn, a relatively chic city unto itself with an incredible baseball history, couldn't draw?
An AL team probably does make more sense, insofar as it would differentiate Brooklyn from the Mets. Queens has a population of 2.2M. Brooklyn has a pop of 2.5M. Long Island would probably be split, with the Yankees' base going to Brooklyn. The Mets would be fine, and a Brooklyn team would cut down the regional allure (and thus cut down to size) the Yankees.
18 games vs each division rival = 72
6 games vs each non-divisional team in the same league = 60
6 games vs one division in the other league = 30
But what the article seems to imply is that teams will still have a guaranteed series with their interleague "rival", but not a home-and-home.
The Brooklyn Dodgers would have a halo national appeal. The expansion Brooklyn Hipsters would not. I think his concern is legitimate -- Brooklyn would draw, but at the expense of the Mets, and that nothing would be done to the Yankees. This is likely to still be the case even if Brooklyn were an AL team because the Yankee draw is so strong right now that their fans aren't shifting. Maybe 25 years from now, in-roads will be made, but not in 5-10 years.
No, a team in Brooklyn would probably draw fine. I never said they wouldn't.
And here is where you are wrong. Far, far more likely that the new team takes Mets fans from Brooklyn and LI than Yankees fans. At least as long as the Yankees are good and especially while the entire Mets franchise is in shambles. Or course, none of it will matter since the Yankees will still have Manhattan, Bronx, northern NJ, Westchester, and western Connecticut. A team in Brooklyn will do nothing to Yankees fans in those areas. It would basically take a sustained period of shitty Yankees teams for a third team to really be a hindrance to the Yankees profits. So unless this 3rd team in Brooklyn also manages to resurrect 80's era Steinbrenner, it will be the Mets who lose fans/money.
Now of course the reality is that the odd organization of MLB gives the Yankees and Mets a veto over such expansion, and the realities of stadium-building mean that a third MLB park there would be very difficult to organize. But three teams could certainly co-exist in NYC, and all could thrive.
1) Montreal - I think the city deserves another chance
2) Charlotte - it's got the money and business presence to sustain a team
3) Las Vegas - I think comps for the high rollers would fill enough luxury suites
4) Portland Ore - see #2
If I could also alter the international political situation at will, I would replace 3 & 4 with Havana & Monterrey. I do think Tokyo & Seoul would also be worth thinking about seriously.
On another note, I think even with 4 divisions in each league there should still be 2 Wild Cards. Round 1 of the playoffs would be 3 games with the top two division winners getting 3 days off. Round 2 would be 5 games and the LCS would stay at 7 (or could revert to 5). Maybe cut down on the number of off days in the middle of the postseason, with some of the getaway games scheduled as day games.
I don't care how forced it is; I'm still a fan of this rivalry. I realize I'm the only one.
If you're curious, I believe the current record is 44-36 in favor of the Mariners.
Only 3 are actually competitive though and one of those 3 only because it is the favorite toy of a Russion billionaire.
Also, I am pretty sure baseball requires a much larger population than soccer. Mostly it's the difference between 81 home games and 19.
I don't see how. The two new expansion teams would probably be smaller-to-mid markets unless Brooklyn/NJ gets a team.
The Royals are always going to be a small market and will have to battle the odds to make the playoffs. I don't think adding two mid-market sized teams, even if they initially have high payrolls, will change that much.
I'd put one in (a) either Brooklyn or northern NJ; and (b) Portland. I probably wouldn't add four, but the next two on my list are Montreal and Charlotte.
Salt Lake City, mentioned above, would be interesting, but they're probably a ways away.
I don't think it matters if the new teams are big spenders - it is still 2 more teams going after talent. The Rays haven't spent, and the payroll disparity grew since their expansion.
And the Royals aren't really players in going after talent. And when they do, it usually backfires.
This will probably affect the mid-sized markets like Toronto and Washington more than teams like the Royals and Pirates or Rays for that matter.
Division games: 18 x 4 = 72
League Games: 6 x 10 = 60
Interleague Games: 3 x 10 = 30
Total is 162.
The intercity rivalries are sort of preserved by each division playing its rival division every year. However, instead of Mets-Yankees for 6 games each year, it's 3 games in the Bronx this year, 3 games in Queens next year. This way, everybody in the same division has the same opponents.
That's my understanding also - the rival games are not going away, but there's no longer a guarantee of six of them every year.
You can also work with it if MLB wants to unbalance the schedule by one rivalry series - that is, each team plays a full division from the other league, plus a series against its rival (which makes it a home-and-home once every 3 years) as follows:
Division: 21 x 4 = 84
League: 6 x 10 = 60
Interleague: 5 x 3 = 15
Rivalry: 1 x 3 = 3
Or you can do 16 against each team in the division, and 8 against the teams in the other divisions. But it's probably tougher to schedule that option into series.
You do realize that the O's are leading the AL East, right?
Or that Baltimore is now in second place?
Or that on May 1st, 2011, Cleveland was 19-8, in first place by 4.5 games...over Kansas City, who was in second place with a 15-13 record?
Again: I would love to see Baltimore get a major-league franchise.
PS- I don't know how the market size measures I used are good indicators of possible support. They were just the numbers I could find.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main