Re-alignment of the MLB? I hope so

[CubBlue]

Here I am sitting and looking at the standings on mlb.com. What stands out? Yes, the obvious eye sore, the NL Central.

How do we even out this 'oddity' of four teams in the A.L. west, and 6 in the N.L Central?

Simple solution, move the Astros to the N.L. West, and move the Dbacks to the A.L west.

There can be many other combinations or possibilities, but I found this one to be the most fitting. What do you think? Will it happen anytime soon? Is this a good idea? Share your thoughts, thanks.

[moviegeekjan]

Simple solution, move the Astros to the N.L. West, and move the Dbacks to the A.L west.
Nope.. Not going to happen.

Houston lies in the Central time zone and the Dbacks are past the 5 year limit. They will NOT readily agree to relocate to the AL West. People east of the Mississippi may not realize it, but in their short history, the Dbacks have already established strong rivalries with the Giants, Dodgers, and Padres and already have represented the National League to win a World Series. For economic reasons the Dbacks organization would (and already have) strongly opposed any murmurings about relocating to the AL.

You can make an easier case for relocating the Rockies (who have yet to really develop a rivalry with anyone) or for the Brewers (who started out in the AL)

[CubBlue]

I realise that Houston is in the Central timezone, however, if you look at the Texas rangers, what do you say then?

I would agree, the Rockies or the Dbacks, I only mentioned the Dbacks because they are a newer franchise, and I was trying to be "fair" to Colorodo. You do bring up valid points of Dbacks being in the world Series. You must realise that a compromise needs to be made, if the Rangers can be in the AL West, surely the 'stros can be in the NL west.

If you dont agree, who should move? I find this unfair and really only because we are the only division with six, and the one with 4 to me just is not right, if there can be balance, why not go for it? What do you suggest?

[moviegeekjan]

Obviously, MLB is NOT going to consult this board for any realignment decisions.

What you are also overlooking is the unbalanced league situation. With 30 teams, MLB is NOT apt to place 15 teams in each league unless a total blending takes place and much more interleague play.

That's not going to fly. The numbers dictate that one league is going to have 14 teams while the other has 16.

Bud tried dropping the contraction item a while back that would have balanced both leagues at 14 teams, but that was completely shot down.

[CubBlue]

Before I reply, I have to tell you my other reason why I didnt mention the Rockies. Moving Colorado, with their hitter friendly park to the A.L. would be HELL for the pitchers. The D.H. in the A.L simply wouldnt be fair to Colorado. Its not like theyre rich like the Yanks or Cubs and can get any pitcher on their team.

Now, as far 15 teams in each league not being able work, it doesnt make sense or add up. How so? AT LEAST, they will be in EQUAL situation with 15 teams each and im sure they can work out any difference (which I dont see you havent showed me whats wrong or why it wouldnt work)

Its bad enough theres a DH in AL and none in the NL, and theres 14 teams in one league and 16 the other...this is absurd, its as if its two different sports. No other sport has different rules for their league AND a team imbalance...whatever your reasoning for why the 15-15 team is no good, sure BEATS the 14-16 situation any day, and that is, because it is fair and BALANCED.

ALSO, any sport that had a team imbalance ALWAYS worked toward FIXING that by equalizing the divisions, look at football and basketball for examples. I dont see baseball moving toward this goal, as if theyre content with the way it is. Baseball IMO loses credibility with this situation, even though its supposedly americas "pasttime"

[Bluesteve32]

Before I reply, I have to tell you my other reason why I didnt mention the Rockies. Moving Colorado, with their hitter friendly park to the A.L. would be HELL for the pitchers. The D.H. in the A.L simply wouldnt be fair to Colorado. Its not like theyre rich like the Yanks or Cubs and can get any pitcher on their team.

Now, as far 15 teams in each league not being able work, it doesnt make sense or add up. How so? AT LEAST, they will be in EQUAL situation with 15 teams each and im sure they can work out any difference (which I dont see you havent showed me whats wrong or why it wouldnt work)

Its bad enough theres a DH in AL and none in the NL, and theres 14 teams in one league and 16 the other...this is absurd, its as if its two different sports. No other sport has different rules for their league AND a team imbalance...whatever your reasoning for why the 15-15 team is no good, sure BEATS the 14-16 situation any day, and that is, because it is fair and BALANCED.

ALSO, any sport that had a team imbalance ALWAYS worked toward FIXING that by equalizing the divisions, look at football and basketball for examples. I dont see baseball moving toward this goal, as if theyre content with the way it is. Baseball IMO loses credibility with this situation, even though its supposedly americas "pasttime"

In Baseball, except during interleague play, the leagues do not comingle. Having an odd number of teams in each league would cause an interleague game virtually everyday. That would be a scheduling nightmare. Until MLB expands two more teams (not likely for at least a decade) the current alignment will continue to exist.

[Bleacherbee]

In Baseball, except during interleague play, the leagues do not comingle. Having an odd number of teams in each league would cause an interleague game virtually everyday. That would be a scheduling nightmare. Until MLB expands two more teams (not likely for at least a decade) the current alignment will continue to exist.

Exactly it, same reason they moved Milwaukee to the NL. Two more teams, two less teams, or its 16/14 for a while.

[rsturgis]

A couple of thoughts.

1. The Brewers and Pirates don't count as teams, so the NL Central has only 4 "real" teams.

2. The Rangers are dumb for being the AL West and their fans constantly complain about the time zone issues.

3. Long Term, the answer is to have either 28 teams or 32 teams like the NFL.

4. The NL Central has been just fine the last several years, so I don't see the need to rush to a fix.

[Bleacherbee]

A couple of thoughts.

1. The Brewers and Pirates don't count as teams, so the NL Central has only 4 "real" teams.

That's kind of stupid to say, I think the Astros would disagree after being swept by an unreal team.

[racosun]

I say we contract the White Sox!! :clapping Just kidding...but not really.

I'm all for interleague play. It seems to work out fine for the NFL, which is a fantastic sporting league. I'd like to see a lot more of interleague play in baseball, so I have to agree that each league should have an equal amount of teams. But it's hard to win a fight with baseball "purists", so this will be my only effort to champion this great cause.

BTW, welcome to the boards CubBlue. Keep up the good work. :waving

[Bleacherbee]

I'm all for interleague play. It seems to work out fine for the NFL, which is a fantastic sporting league. I'd like to see a lot more of interleague play in baseball, so I have to agree that each league should have an equal amount of teams. But it's hard to win a fight with baseball "purists", so this will be my only effort to champion this great cause.

I'm one of the biggest purists ever, but I agree with you 100%. Have everybody play a series against everybody else at least once, home or away.

[racosun]

One reason I'd like to see a lot more interleague play is the HOF. Players are given entrance to this great hall because of how they played against their contemporaries. Having two separate leagues that don't play against each other very often takes away from the true greats of the game, who often don't get an opportunity to play against the other league's HOF-calibur players enough. I'd like to see more Mark Prior versus A-Rod matchups, and so on and so forth.

[Bluesteve32]

Exactly it, same reason they moved Milwaukee to the NL. Two more teams, two less teams, or its 16/14 for a while.

Milwaukee has been in two leagues, two cities, and four divisions since its inception. First the Seattle Pilots in the AL West and after the move to Milwaukee remained for two season in the AL West. After the Senators moved to Texas, the Brewers moved to the AL East and after the three Division configuration, became part of the AL Central. After the switch to the NL, they went to the NL Central.

Thanks Bud.

[racosun]

I'm one of the biggest purists ever, but I agree with you 100%. Have everybody play a series against everybody else at least once, home or away.

Thanks, but I was hoping you were agreeing to the "contract the Sox" statement. But, seeing as you are a Tigers fan like me, I'm sure you already have those feelings (especially this year). :laugh

[Bleacherbee]

One reason I'd like to see a lot more interleague play is the HOF. Players are given entrance to this great hall because of how they played against their contemporaries. Having two separate leagues that don't play against each other very often takes away from the true greats of the game, who often don't get an opportunity to play against the other league's HOF-calibur players enough. I'd like to see more Mark Prior versus A-Rod matchups, and so on and so forth.

Another reason is that there is no reason why there are still three teams that I've never seen.

I've been to nearly 1,000 major league games but I've still NEVER seen the Expos/Nationals, Padres or Giants. There's no reason for that.

Of course, that's a selfish reason :)

[racosun]

Another reason is that there is no reason why there are still three teams that I've never seen.

I've been to nearly 1,000 major league games but I've still NEVER seen the Expos/Nationals, Padres or Giants. There's no reason for that.

Of course, that's a selfish reason :)

I agree. Since interleague play was implemented, I've used my "one series per summer" journey to CoPa on a National League team, just so I can see different players who I normally wouldn't get a chance to see. A couple years ago, I caught the Diamondbacks series with hopes of watching RJ or Schilling pitch, but both were injured at the time. Last summer we watched the Marlins, mainly so we could see Dontrelle Willis (he pitched great, a CG). This year I thought about catching the Giants series, just to see Bonds (even though I severely dislike him), but most likely will pick an AL team if Bonds isn't healthy by then.

[STLCards2]

How do we even out this 'oddity' of four teams in the A.L. west, and 6 in the N.L Central?

.

With the Brewers and Pirates, in acctuality, there are only 4 teams in the Central too. :) Hey, I am just kidding. I like the Brewers and Pirates and hope they perform better than the Cubs and Astros. Especialy the Brewers. Their fans are always so classy and friendly to Cards fans who go up to WI to see a game. Just a joke.

[CubBlue]

Thanks raco :)

I see people saying our division is really 4 teams, but I wasnt talking about the difficulty per se. I was mainly referring to how we get less cracks at St Louis and Houston because of the other teams. I believe we play 2 games less than that of those who have five teams in their division. Correct me if I am wrong there.

Also let me apologize if I came off as harsh or dictator like Im just really sick right now and I havent gotten any sleep! hehe

[ElHalo]

Remember something: If there's an odd number of teams in both leagues, then SOMEBODY has to sit out for three days every series. It would be a logistical nightmare to try and schedule games around that simple fact. That's why there's the strange number of teams in the league.

[Sweet Lou]

(tounge in cheek) I'm for putting Colorado in the AL West, since I'm tired of how tight that division is every year, and it would give the rest of the teams in the AL West a few more wins each year! :D

Obviously, MLB is NOT going to consult this board for any realignment decisions.\

Yes, obviously, but we're here to discuss and theorize and learn, not to convince MLB of anything. ;) :)

Sweet Lou

[The Dude]

Then if we are to expand to 32 teams, it comes to the question: do we go with 2 divsions of 5 and 1 of 6 in each league, or do we go the football route and go to 4 divisions of 4 each? If we go with an uneven schedule, let me tell you, there would be some INTENSE rivalries in every division.

THe NL north could be the Cards, Cubs, Brewers, and Reds. Brewers and Cubs already have a rivalry going. 10+ more games a year would heat that up even more.

[Bleacherbee]

Then if we are to expand to 32 teams, it comes to the question: do we go with 2 divsions of 5 and 1 of 6 in each league, or do we go the football route and go to 4 divisions of 4 each? If we go with an uneven schedule, let me tell you, there would be some INTENSE rivalries in every division.

THe NL north could be the Cards, Cubs, Brewers, and Reds. Brewers and Cubs already have a rivalry going. 10+ more games a year would heat that up even more.

I would love to see the original 16 grouped together. But since some of them fled for the west coast, it would create a whole problem with scheduling

[trosmok]

Then if we are to expand to 32 teams, it comes to the question: do we go with 2 divsions of 5 and 1 of 6 in each league, or do we go the football route and go to 4 divisions of 4 each?

A thousand times, no. I have long advocated expansion to 32 teams, 16 in each distinct league, two divisions of 8 in each. Schedule 154 games, play teams within your division roughly twice as often as the others. No interleague play except for exhibitions, crosstown and otherwise. Division winners play for league championship, league champs play World Series. Neat, simple, and easy enough for even the commissioner to fathom. It also would restore the integrity of the "regular season marathon to get to the post season", and make the season again more meaningful. I congratulate the expansion Marlins, and Diamondacks for their championships, and still love saying "World Champions Boston Red Sox," same for the Angels of Orange County, but I dislike the whole idea of the wild card. Furthermore, shortening the season and the post-season would go a long way to avoiding the early season snow-outs, and playing the World Series in November. Finally, any financial impact that owners would scream about could be easily remedied by mid-season exhibitions, and true broadcast revenue sharing, but that is the topic for another thread.

[mojorisin71]

I see a lot of people here who want to add two more teams to MLB. Where would they play? Two 16-team leagues seem plausible, as only the division winners would make the postseason, and eliminating the wild card. Portland and Montreal should get teams. But it's all speculation on our behalf.

[ElHalo]

I see a lot of people here who want to add two more teams to MLB. Where would they play?

One in either Northern New Jersey or Brooklyn, to balance out a bit the revenue advantage the Yankees have and stop the other teams from whining about it, and one in Vegas.

[The Dude]

There are a number of options. However, I believe there are two distinct places that should get another team:

1.Somewhere in the western united states. Portland or maybe Vegas? We're on a shortage of western teams. Especially if we were to go with 8 teams in the west. Someone from the east would get stuck there.

2.To expand even more nationally, how about Mexico? I've heard Monterrey mentioned a few times.

Here's how it could work:

AL:
West-
Oakland Athletics
Los Angeles Angels
Seattle Mariners
Portland SKATERS (=P)/Las Vegas Gamblers (Innagural Owner-Pete Rose)
Texas Rangers
Kansis City Royals
Minnesota Twins
Chicago White Sox

East-
New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
Detroit Tigers
Cleveland Indians
Monterrey ?????
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Balitmore Orioles
Toronto Blue Jays


NL:


West-
San Fransisco Giants
San Diego Padres
Los Angeles Dodgers
Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
Houston Astros
St. Louis Cardinals
Chicago Cubs

East-
Milwaukee Brewers
Cincinnati Reds
Pittsburgh Pirates
Philladelphia Phillies
New York Mets
Florida Marlins
Atlanta Braves
Washington Nationals

[TXRangersFan]

Another reason is that there is no reason why there are still three teams that I've never seen.



Speaking of which, anyone know how mlb decides who plays who in Interleague play each year? The Rangers only now are finally playing the Phillies, and they still haven't played the Brewers since they went to the NL.

Plus, they've played the Marlins 3 years in a row.

[TXRangersFan]

Also, I don't see any expansion happening any time soon, or any contraction, so the leagues will stay unbalanced for the time being.

[ndistops]

They have gone division by division for a while now, I believe. Until 2001 they only had Central vs Central, East vs East, etc. but in 2001 the Cubs played AL West teams Seattle and Texas. In 2002 they went back to the Central and the Cubs played Cleveland and Kansas City. In 2003, they played the East and the Cubs played the Yanks, D-Rays, O's and Jays. In 2004, the Cubs played the West, Oakland and Anaheim.

This year, the Cubs are playing the East...Jays, Yanks, and Sawx.

I don't know how they decide which division plays which each year or who plays who within those matchups but I do know that it's divisional matchups.

[moviegeekjan]

I don't know how they decide which division plays which each year or who plays who within those matchups but I do know that it's divisional matchups. It's supposed to go on two year cycles, so the Cubs are on their second year of playing AL East squads... and next year they should play the division that they haven't played for four years.

Exceptions (and this is where MLB looks at attendance/hype/$$$) are the marquee "rivalry" series games ... annual matchups that have the Yankees play the Mets, the Cubs play the White Sox, the Giants play the A's, the Angels play the Dodgers, the Cardinals play the Royals, etc. However, that never does much for many teams (like our local Dbacks who for some inexplicable reason are annually matched with the Tigers)

[Clockwork]

yeah, no matter what my Phillies play the Orioles and the Red Sox every year. "Natural rivalries" I think they call them.

I think it's fine just the way it is. I would like for two more teams to be added to the AL though. The Portland Somethings in the AL West and the New Orleans somethings in the AL Central. Baseball in the big easy!!!

[Vidor]

More interleague play is a horrible, horrible idea. We need to have less. Heck, getting rid of it would be great. I would rather see the Cardinals play more games against teams like the Giants and Dodgers than stupid interleague games against Kansas City. Interleague exists pretty much solely to get the Yankees and Mets together. Bud certainly isn't going to get rid of it, but more interleague play? No.

So that's why two 15-team leagues won't fly. Two 14-team leagues wouldn't fly either, because contraction isn't feasible. It's a shame, really, because putting a team in Tampa Bay was a terrible idea, but we're stuck with them. I like the idea of expanding to two more teams and having four 8-team divisions. At least it would eliminate the stupid Wild Card. And we wouldn't have the Yankees and Red Sox meeting in the playoffs. Actually, ending the possibility of a Yankees-Red Sox ALCS is all by itself reason enough to make this happen.

[trosmok]

American League East
Baltimore
Boston
New York
Cleveland
Detroit
Chicago
Toronto
New Jersey


American League West
Los Anaheim
Oakland
Seattle
Texas
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Milwaukee
Kansas City


National League East
Washington D.C.
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Chicago
Atlanta
Florida

National League West
Arizona
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
Colorado
St. Louis
Houston
Las Vegas

I realize there would be all kinds of grousing about my proposed reallignment, and I'll admit it has it's faults, but the Brewers are an AL club, putting the Cards and Cubs in different divisions is not what I really would want, but it could mean they could meet in the NLCS. Wonder if north/south would be better then east/west?

[Bleacherbee]

Why not return it to the way that it always was before all this wild card crap, just correcting the crazy Atlanta in the NL East by moving Milwaukee to the AL West?

AL East

Toronto
Baltimore
Cleveland
New York
Detroit
Boston
Tampa Bay
NJ Expansion

AL West

Oakland
Minnesota
Chicago
Texas
Anaheim
Kansas City
Seattle
Milwaukee


NL East

Pittsburgh
Washington
St Louis
Chicago
New York
Philadelphia
Florida
Atlanta

NL West

Colorado
Cincinatti
San Diego
Houston
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Arizona
Las Vegas Expansion

[ndistops]

I like the eight four team division idea:

NL North
Brewers
Mets
Phillies
Reds

NL South
Braves
Marlins
Nationals
D-Backs

NL East
Cubs
Cardinals
Pirates
Astros

NL West
Rockies
Giants
Dodgers
Padres

AL North
Twins
White Sox
Tigers
Buffalo expansion

AL South
D-Rays
Orioles
Rangers
Royals

AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Indians

AL West
Angels
Athletics
Mariners
Portland expansion

It doesn't always make the most sense geographically, but I could see this working. I doubt any major pro sports franchise will be in Vegas anytime soon.

[leecemark]

--Not sure why Atlanta in the East is crazy? They were misplaced when they were in the West, being one of the easternmost teams in the league. An EST team playing in a divsion with PST teams isn't very logical.
--I don't think there is much chance of reducing the number of playoff teams either, increasing is actually more likely (not that I'm advocating it). I'm not deadset against the WC myself, but using your proposing teams and eliminating the WC, here is something that might work

AL West
Seattle
Anahiem (or whatever they are calling themselves next year)
oakland
las vegas

al central
milwakee
texas
minnesota
kansas city

al north
detriot
cleveland
toronto
chicago

al east
new york
tampa bay'
baltimore
boston

nl west
san diego
arizona
san francisco
los angeles

nl central
houston
colorado
stlouis
chicago

nl north
pittsburgh
cincinatti
new york
new jersey

nl east
philadelphia
washington
atlanta
florida

--actually there are a number of different ways to sort the nl. only the west doesn't have several other just as good arrangements.

[leecemark]

--beat me to the punch on 8 divisions ndi. i agree lv is questionable, but buffalo even more so.

[Bleacherbee]

Hey, no white sox, I like it Leece :)

[Knick9]

I also seem to like the 8 division of 4 team format. Here would be my realignment.

AL East
Baltimore (Montreal?) (If the Tampa team moves to Quebec, Baltimore moves to the AL North)
Toronto
Boston
New York

AL North
Cleveland
Detroit
Chicago (Baltimore?) (If the O's move here, the White Sox would move to the AL South, hey they'll be in the same time zone)
Minnesota

AL South
Texas
Kansas City
Tampa Bay* (Chicago?) (see above)
Monterrey expansion (the league has to be internationalized)

AL West
Oakland
Seattle
Anaheim*
Portland expansion


NL East
Philladelphia
Washington
Pittsburgh
New York

NL North
Chicago
Millwaukee
St. Louis
Indianapolis (relocated Colorado Rockies)

NL South
Atlanta
Florida
Houston
Cincinnati

NL West (or the nearly All California division :laugh )
San Fransisco
Los Angeles
San Diego*
Arizona

* = I dream for changes to the teams with asterisks beside them, but that's secret.

[TXRangersFan]

I like Leece's. All the divisions seem to be set up good.

[Brooklyn]

In Baseball, except during interleague play, the leagues do not comingle. Having an odd number of teams in each league would cause an interleague game virtually everyday. That would be a scheduling nightmare. Until MLB expands two more teams (not likely for at least a decade) the current alignment will continue to exist.

There would have to be an interleague game everyday to make it work with 15/15, but I don't really see why that is a problem. You set up 6 divisions of 5 teams each. Each team play an interleague 3-game series against a differnt (rotating) division, plust the "natural rivalry", if you want to include that, so each team has 18 interleague games. That would leave a total of 270 interleague games on the scheudle. The baseball season is about 180 days long, so you could have one interleauge game every day, with 45 days having three interleague games.

I agree this would be somewhat more difficult to set up, but it can be done, and the simmetry would be better.

The teams can play 18 intereuage games, each team in the other divisions in the same league 6 times, and 21 games in the division. Or 8 times against teams in the other division and 16 agains teams in the division.

If teams are to be added, I llike Halo's suggestion of Brooklyn/NJ and Vegas

[Knick9]

In all honesty, 3 teams in the New York area have worked, however, I don't think Steinbrenner and whoever the Mets owner is (forgot his name), would want extra media coverage coming from a different NY area team.

The only way I see Brooklyn getting an MLB team again would be that the Mets owner would move the team to Brooklyn where the Cyclones play temporarilly. I would like the Cyclones and Mets to swap names as well if that happened. Plus, it won't be a loss to Mets fans as the team won't be that far away. Very short drive.

As for Las Vegas, I don't get the point. Las Vegas was a late entry for the Expos derby and I think it crumbled in the end with DC getting the team. Anyone remember Pete Rose? Well, putting a team in the middle of a gambling mainstream is, at least to me, asking for trouble to pull another Pete Rose scandel. And yeah, there is a AAA team out there but I'll still have my doubts.
For expansion I say no, but for relcoation, the A's are a possibilty to get.

Portland was in it for the Expos derby for the long haul and finished second
supposedly, only behind DC. I consider Portland the front runner of the next relocated team, and for an expansion team also.

[trosmok]

For expansion I say no, but for relcoation, the A's are a possibilty to get.


The Oakland A's have been lobbying for a new ballfield, and I heard there is more than a small posibility they are looking to the south end of the bay. San Jose has been mentioned as a distinct destination, but I wonder if any bay area residents think this is just rumor of leverage to get what they want, without actually leaving Oakland?

[CubBlue]

I like a lot of your suggestions. Leece and Knick came up with some decent ones too.

Would it be strictly division winners advancing? Or maybe one playoff team with the team of the best record getting a bye in the first round= 10 play off teams? What you think? 12 playoff like football or 10 to be unique? I like 10, better for baseball

[west coast orange and black]

eight four-team divisions lends itself to eliminating the wild card: if a team does not win a four-team diviosion outright then too bad, too sad for them.

the division winner with the best record could then play the fourth-best, with the second- and third-best division winners meeting. tie-breakers could easily be had.

there will be teams that win 99 games but finish second, true. but in the old days a 99-win team in an eight-team race would be outta luck. the giants, in baseball's last pure pennant race in '93, stayed home even thought they won 103 games.

i like the eight four-team setup the best so far.

[Knick9]

Now what would've happened if the standings format was like this at the time of today?

For example, if my proposed format were active at this moment, here's a sneak peek at my proposed NL South Division.:

NL South (what if?)

--------------GB----pct.
Atlanta 17-11 --/////.607
Florida 15-10 0.5----.600
Arizona 17-12 0.5---.586
Houston 11-16 5.5---.407

[Be The Reds!]

OOps! I made a thread not realizing that this one was already here...

Anyway, here's my idea... with the intent to make the divisions as geographically close as possible, without breaking up rivalries, and without having 2 teams in the same league in the same metropolitan area.

Whoever is in charge can delete the other thread...
----------------
This is a re-alignment proposal for MLB modeled on the NFL's alignment. It's definately not going to ever happen, but I thought it would be neat to localize the divisions like they do in the NFL... (If we are going to have divisions in the first place, which I think we shouldn't... but whatever). Anyway tell me what you think...

American League

East
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
New Jersey Athletics (They want to move.... might as well let them..)

North
Chicago White Sox
Milwaukee Brewers [switching back to AL]
Minnesota Twins
Kansas City Royals

Central
Toronto Blue Jays
Cleveland Indians
Pittsburgh Pirates [switching to AL]
Detroit Tigers


Southwest
Houston Astros [switching to AL]
Texas Rangers (Dallas)
Arizona Diamondbacks [switching to AL]
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim


National League
East
New York Mets
Washington Nationals
Philadelphia Phillies
Montreal [expansion team]

Central
Cincinati Reds
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis Cardinals
Indianapolis [expansion]

South
Atlanta Braves
Tampa Bay Devil Rays [switching to NL]
Florida Marlins [Miami]
New Orleans [expansion]

West
Seattle Mariners [switching to NL]
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Francisco Giants
San Diego Padres


The Rockies....
While I am sure there are many Rockies fans, and it is pretty mean to suggest moving them after Denver built them a stadium... I believe for the good of baseball and the team itself, it should be relocated so that we can escape the thin air. They can move to one of the cities I suggested for expansion... (Indy, N.O., Montreal)

Montreal... They deserve to have a team under better circumstances... I think that if DC gets a 3rd chance, Montreal should get a second one.

------------------
I tried to keep the most heated division rivalries in tact, but failed ot come out with a viable solution for the Indians and Whitesox. I suppose switching the Royals and Indians would work, but it would make both of those divisions a lot larger... But I suppose that's not really a huge problem...


Another idea I thought might work instead of forcing colorado to move is to put colorado in a division with Seattle, Portland, and Las Vegas and reconstruct the National League on that premice..

[Be The Reds!]

Now what would've happened if the standings format was like this at the time of today?

For example, if my proposed format were active at this moment, here's a sneak peek at my proposed NL South Division.:

NL South (what if?)

--------------GB----pct.
Atlanta 17-11 --/////.607
Florida 15-10 0.5----.600
Arizona 17-12 0.5---.586
Houston 11-16 5.5---.407


That division is in 3 different time zones, so I don't think it's a great idea...

A better "South" Division would be....

Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, and New Orleans

or

San Diego, Arizona, Houston, Dallas

[Be The Reds!]

I also seem to like the 8 division of 4 team format. Here would be my realignment.

AL East
Baltimore
Toronto
Boston
New York

AL North
Cleveland
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota

AL South
Texas
Kansas City
Tampa Bay*
Monterrey expansion (the league has to be internationalized)

AL West
Oakland
Seattle
Anaheim*
Portland expansion


NL East
Philladelphia
Washington
Pittsburgh
New York

NL North
Chicago
Millwaukee
Cincinnati
St. Louis

NL South
Atlanta
Florida
Houston
Arizona

NL West (or the nearly All California division :laugh )
San Fransisco
Los Angeles
San Diego*
Colorado

* = I dream for changes to the teams with asterisks beside them, but that's secret.


I thought of doing an alignment something like yours, but having some of your divisions (such as your NL south, make it so the division spans all four timezones. With teams getting lots of TV money these days, they'd get more viewers if their most frequent opponents are in the same time zone.... and by the way.. Colorado isn't in Cali.. haha)

[Knick9]

and by the way.. Colorado isn't in Cali.. haha)

That's why I said "nearly" all California division, with Colorado as the exception. :rolleyes:

Now that I think of it, I think the Colorado Rockies should relocate to...Victory Field in Indianapolis, just add seats. There will never ever be a winning season in the thin air of Colorado again. 1995 was Colorado's only shot.

I'm fixing my divisions. :atthepc

[Imapotato]

A thousand times, no. I have long advocated expansion to 32 teams, 16 in each distinct league, two divisions of 8 in each. Schedule 154 games, play teams within your division roughly twice as often as the others. No interleague play except for exhibitions, crosstown and otherwise. Division winners play for league championship, league champs play World Series. Neat, simple, and easy enough for even the commissioner to fathom. It also would restore the integrity of the "regular season marathon to get to the post season", and make the season again more meaningful. I congratulate the expansion Marlins, and Diamondacks for their championships, and still love saying "World Champions Boston Red Sox," same for the Angels of Orange County, but I dislike the whole idea of the wild card. Furthermore, shortening the season and the post-season would go a long way to avoiding the early season snow-outs, and playing the World Series in November. Finally, any financial impact that owners would scream about could be easily remedied by mid-season exhibitions, and true broadcast revenue sharing, but that is the topic for another thread.


My feelings exactly

I would love Brooklyn and Portland to get teams, but more likely Portland and Las Vegas

[Knick9]

Who here thinks the Rockies should move to Indianapolis for the sake of remodeling divisions?

Brooklyn deserves another chance at MLB, however I don't think expansion will be there for the city, rather it could be by relocation of a certain NY team.

Las Vegas? Ugh, again.

I guess most of us agree on Portland's chances at MLB.

[Halos]

Right now, I don't think that baseball needs it, but if baseball does do any realignment, I hope it goes like this

American League East
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Toronto Blue Jays

American League North
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Minnesota Twins

American League South
Charlotte/New Orleans Expansion
Kansas City Royals
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Texas Rangers

American League West
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Oakland Athletics
Portland Expansion
Seattle Mariners

National League East
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
Washington Nationals

National League North
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Colorado Rockies
Milwaukee Brewers

National League South
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
Houston Astros
St. Louis Cardinals

National League West
Arizona Diamondbacks
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants

I don't see any point in putting another team in New York or one in New Jersey. Two is enough. Charlotte might not work, but I like the idea of a "Charlotte Stallions" team. It just sounds good.

[west coast orange and black]

...if baseball does do any realignment, I hope it goes like this...
if this plan were to drop down from the sky and be approved, halos, are you looking at a balanced or unbalanced schedule?

[CubBlue]

Question for the people (or anyone who wants to jump in) who are in favor of the 8 division, 4 team each set up.

Now, would you want to take the football approach to the playoffs, meaning, the 4 division winners (from each league of course) with 2 wildcard spots totalling to 12 playoff teams? How about the current setup with 1 wildcard spot but since there are more divisions the total for playoff teams for both leagues would be 10?

Or, dump the whole wildcard altogether, and go with the division winners only totalling 8 playoff teams.

?

[mojorisin71]

32 teams, 8 divisions, only winners make the postseason. That's the way baseball should be.

[west coast orange and black]

...dump the whole wildcard altogether and go with the division winners only...gets my vote.

[CaptHowdy]

I think the league needs to expand to 32 teams and divide them up into the 8 divisions of 4 teams each. Give Charlotte and Portland a long deserved Major League baseball team, considering they have had AAA teams forever. Division winners go to playoffs 1 seed vs. 4 seed, 2 seed vs. 3 seed, best-of-7, and so on to World Series. In this format its simpler, and better for baseball.

NL ATLANTIC
Florida, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Washington
NL CENTRAL
Atlanta, Chi Cubs, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh
NL MIDWEST
Colorado, Houston, Milwaukee, St. Louis
NL PACIFIC
Arizona, LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco
AL ATLANTIC
Baltimore, Boston, CHARLOTTE KNIGHTS, NY Yankees
AL CENTRAL
Cleveland, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Toronto
AL MIDWEST
Chi White Sox, Kansas City, Minnesota, Texas
AL PACIFIC
LA Angels, Oakland, PORTLAND BEAVERS, Seattle


Just my thoughts...
Even Schedules, No DH, and No Interleague Play, get baseball back to the way it use to be.

[Be The Reds!]

Right now, I don't think that baseball needs it, but if baseball does do any realignment, I hope it goes like this


National League North
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Colorado Rockies
Milwaukee Brewers

National League South
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
Houston Astros
St. Louis Cardinals




U broke up the cubs/cards rivalry!

[aaarg]

interesting stuff...the more I read, the more I unbelievably tend towards the Bud Selig approach (gasp!). Do nothing until absolutely necessary. There are a lot of proposals and none of them seem to be glaringly necessary, people in the NL Central / AL West most likely have something to say about it, but I don't have a rootin interest in either division.

I really don't think the idea of expansion is good, and its easy to say contract the league when you're from the Bay Area and you have two hallowed franchises so I'm down for stasis. I really think that any expansion (which I diagree with) would need to be tempered with some rules that give pitchers a fighting chance, if we are going to dilute things more. (Am I incorrect that expansion hurts pitching more than hitting? another question for another day)

NO EXPANSION of playoffs. The great thing about baseball is the LACK of play off berths. I personally like the wildcard, it really spices up the end of the season -- and also I think that if we have 4 divisions, it would be unfair to have a crappy 4th-best division leader go to the playoffs in lieu of of a really amazing 2nd place wildcard team (look at the NFC playoffs this year). If we go with 4 divisions, we could have the 4th playoff spot go between the division leader with the worst record or the wildcard . Or maybe have the worst division leader and the wildcard have a one game play-in. (I know its totally crazy) No matter what, NO EXPANSION of the playoffs.

Also, the unbalanced schedule is good for baseball. A little of interleague is fun, especially for cross-town/cross league rivalries. To much balance and too much interleague and we would have a schedule like the NBA. Screw it.

Interleague needs to be non-exhibition, it has to count. Otherwise, its just not as fun to watch because its not being managed like a normal game.

[DaleC76]

1. Combine the NL and AL. I mean, what's really the point of having two leagues anyway? One league, one MVP, one Cy Young winner, batting champ, ect.

2. Everyone plays everyone else the exact same number of times. Instead of so many New York-Boston, St. Louis-Chicago, or LA-SF games, give us those Tampa Bay-Colorado, Kansas City-Atlanta, and San Diego-Baltimore games.

3. Instant replay. Nothing to do with realignment, but the NFL has it, so it has to be good for baseball.

4. Expand to 33 teams, eleven divisions of three teams each. Teams are aligned based on alphabetical order.

5. Wildcard in every division.

6. 177 games a year.

7. There's only one league, so the All-Star game consists of a team chosen by the fans against a team randomly chosen by computer.

8. All playoff teams are entered into a lottery, drawn out by the MVP of the All-Star game at the end of the season. The winner of the lottery is seeded directly into the World Series.

9. The rest of the field battle each other in a round-robin double elimination tournament.

10. The winner of the tournament then meets the lottery winner in a championship game. It's still called "The World Series", though, because baseball loves tradition so much.

[Bluesteve32]

Dale,

Just throw out 125 years of history of one league and 105 years of another? Having interleague play was radical enough but baseball people would never accept your proposal.

Baseball will never have instant replay, for part of the game is the human decisions of the players and officials. Besides, has the NFL's quality of officiating gotten better with instant replay? No. Besides, baseball has a lot more unique angles and would require a prohibitive number of cameras.

Most people want ot eliminate the wild card, but adding, no way.

More than 162 games? Be realistic, many locations cannot support that type of scheduling due the the bad weather in many parts of the nation.

Having an odd number of teams would mean one team would have to be off while the others played and especially if you want more game, that becomes very untenable.

Random all-star teams by computer, do you work for the BCS? :grouchy

Changing the playoff format would also erase all previous connection with the history of the game. 99 44/100% of your suggestion would end up in the wastebasket.

[Knick9]

Well, if we keep it the way it is, it will end up being the same playoff matchups, the wild card could be an undeserving team, and the whole thing can obviously go vanilla at any given point, so I do think that a change is in order. If the Yankees win a 4 team AL East division (ugh at the thought, but they have been doing so) and the Red Sox get 2nd place with the 8 division/4 team format, the Red Sox would be out of the playoffs without getting a wild card spot since it wouldn't exist in this format.

Changing it to this format would do baseball some good, it could give teams like the Rangers and the Rockies some recognition if they make a big run in this format.

It would still be uneven to have 30 teams if it's 14/16 or 15/15. And no, the AL and NL aren't merging any time soon, but that is creative Dale.

[mojorisin71]

Dale,

Just throw out 125 years of history of one league and 105 years of another? Having interleague play was radical enough but baseball people would never accept your proposal.

Baseball will never have instant replay, for part of the game is the human decisions of the players and officials. Besides, has the NFL's quality of officiating gotten better with instant replay? No. Besides, baseball has a lot more unique angles and would require a prohibitive number of cameras.

Most people want ot eliminate the wild card, but adding, no way.

More than 162 games? Be realistic, many locations cannot support that type of scheduling due the the bad weather in many parts of the nation.

Having an odd number of teams would mean one team would have to be off while the others played and especially if you want more game, that becomes very untenable.

Random all-star teams by computer, do you work for the BCS? :grouchy

Changing the playoff format would also erase all previous connection with the history of the game. 99 44/100% of your suggestion would end up in the wastebasket.

I believe Dale was being sarcastic. Who in their right mind would propose something like that (unless your name is Allan Selig)?

[moviegeekjan]

U broke up the cubs/cards rivalry!
Cubs and Cards would NEVER agree to break up... MLB talked about that possibility during a previous expansion, and the owners of the two clubs automatically took that discussion off the table.

[Halos]

Originally Posted by Be The Reds!
U broke up the cubs/cards rivalry!

Here's one solution, but it would be messing up some "traditional" alignments

AL East
Baltimore
Boston
Detroit (from AL North)
NY Yankees

AL North
ChiSox
Cleveland
Milwaukee (from NL North)
Minnesota

AL South
Same as before

AL West
Same as before

NL East
NY Mets
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Toronto (from AL East)

NL North
Chi Cubs
Cincinnati
Colorado
St. Louis (from NL South)

NL South
Atlanta
Florida
Houston
Washington (from NL East)

NL West
Same as before

This fixes the Cubs/Cards problem but puts the Jays in the NL and the NL South is now very large

[The Dude]

It would make more sense just to move the Rockies into the south and the Cards into the North. Rockies have to go the same difference either way.

[Clockwork]

You can't break up rivalries, its just not right. I'm still mad about them breaking up the Phillies and the Pirates.

Anyway, whats so bad about the current system? I think its just fine. The only changes Id like to see are two more AL teams.

[CaptHowdy]

Well if MLB doesnt decide to expand two teams then they need to get rid of two teams. Florida and Tampa Bay are the prime candidates. Just make it the way it use to be with four divisions. Heck, they could even do that right now, just in the NL have two divisions of 8 and in the AL two divisions of 7. Problem solved. Have the top two teams in each division go into the playoffs. 2nd seed plays 1 seed in each division, they division winners meet up in AL/NLCS. Then winners crack at it in the World Series, problem solved.

NL EAST
Atlanta, Chi Cubs, Cincinnati, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
NL WEST
Arizona, Colorado, Houston, LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis
AL EAST
Baltimore, Boston, Chi White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, NY Yankees, Toronto
AL WEST
Kansas City, LA Angels, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Oakland, Seattle, Texas


Screw the Cards/Cubs rivalry, two teams shouldnt get a say so over the whole set up.

[DownUnderDodger]

I'm all for interleague play. It seems to work out fine for the NFL, which is a fantastic sporting league. I'd like to see a lot more of interleague play in baseball, so I have to agree that each league should have an equal amount of teams. But it's hard to win a fight with baseball "purists", so this will be my only effort to champion this great cause.

I'm with racosun here, not being a purist. I cannot understand why one competiton is played under two seperate rules, and I believe that it should be one rule for all. In saying that I am sure it will never happen. If there is to be any realignment of MLB I would go with two divisions in each league and the top two teams in each division qualifying for the WS playoffs.

AL:
West-
Oakland Athletics
Los Angeles Angels
Seattle Mariners
Las Vegas Lights *
Texas Rangers
Kansas City Royals
Minnesota Twins
Chicago White Sox

East-
New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
Detroit Tigers
Cleveland Indians
Montreal Olympics **
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Baltimore Orioles
Toronto Blue Jays


NL:
West-
San Francisco Giants
San Diego Padres
Los Angeles Dodgers
Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
Houston Astros
St. Louis Cardinals
Chicago Cubs

East-
Milwaukee Brewers
Cincinnati Reds
Pittsburgh Pirates
Philladelphia Phillies
New York Mets
Florida Marlins
Atlanta Braves
Washington Nationals

* I cannot see the problem with Las Vegas as far as gambling is concerned. Ok, so the city is a gambling mecca because of the Casinos, but there are now Casinos appearing all over the country. Also, there is betting on baseball, and all other sports, available to anyone outside of Las Vegas (telephone/internet) so what is to stop betting now? Pete Rose is the example used as far as gambling on the game is concerned - he was not playing out of or living in Las Vegas, so how was he gambling?

** I agree that Montreal should be given the opportunity to get back into the fold but that probably won't happen either. Failing that idea move the White Sox from the AL West to AL East and add the other suggested expansion team to the AL West - say Portland Storms.

[TXRangersFan]

Well if MLB doesnt decide to expand two teams then they need to get rid of two teams. Florida and Tampa Bay are the prime candidates. Just make it the way it use to be with four divisions. Heck, they could even do that right now, just in the NL have two divisions of 8 and in the AL two divisions of 7. Problem solved. Have the top two teams in each division go into the playoffs. 2nd seed plays 1 seed in each division, they division winners meet up in AL/NLCS. Then winners crack at it in the World Series, problem solved.

NL EAST
Atlanta, Chi Cubs, Cincinnati, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
NL WEST
Arizona, Colorado, Houston, LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis
AL EAST
Baltimore, Boston, Chi White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, NY Yankees, Toronto
AL WEST
Kansas City, LA Angels, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Oakland, Seattle, Texas


Screw the Cards/Cubs rivalry, two teams shouldnt get a say so over the whole set up.

If Florida and Tampa Bay stay, then you could have it like this and keep the rivalry:

NL EAST
Atlanta, Cincinnati, Florida, Milwaukee, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
NL WEST
Arizona, Chi Cubs, Colorado, Houston, LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis
AL EAST
Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, NY Yankees,Tampa Bay, Toronto
AL WEST
Chi White Sox, Kansas City, LA Angels, Minnesota, Oakland, Seattle, Texas

[1995hoo]

I've heard people mention Charlotte but I'm not sure a team would succeed there at the present time because all the corporate money in the area is already tied up with the Panthers and the Bobcats. It's one reason why Peter Karmanos moved the Hartford Whalers to Raleigh instead of to Charlotte--the business community in Charlotte said they were not able to support another team at the time. If you're looking at the southeastern US, Nashville might be a better location than Charlotte.

Anyway, I know it will not happen, but I prefer the alignment with four divisions of eight teams each. Having eight teams in each league with no divisions worked well for a long time and it was only after going to twelve teams in a league that divisions were needed. I have no problem with the principle of divisions when you're going to have ten or twelve teams in a league. I do not see the point of having four-team or five-team divisions in baseball because of the length of the season. In football, with the limited number of games and the fact that a team does not play every other team in the conference, small divisions are a good way to decide who's playoff-worthy. In baseball, a team plays every other team in its league in at least two series, so the same concern is not present.

So here's an alignment with that thought in mind. I agree that Montreal got a raw deal (even though I benefit as a DC baseball fan) through years of mismanagement, but I think that the current Lords of Baseball have a serious bias against Montreal and that we will not see a team back there any time soon.

American League East

Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Toronto Blue Jays
Baltimore Orioles
Miami Devil Rays <---see below
Detroit Tigers
Cleveland Indians
Nashville [something or other]

American League West
Minnesota Twins
Chicago White Sox
Kansas City Royals
Texas Rangers
Seattle Mariners
Salt Lake City Athletics
Angels of wherever the heck
Mexico City [something or other] <----more money there than Monterrey

National League East
Washington Nationals
Brooklyn Mets <---time to replace Shea Stadium
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
Atlanta Braves
Havana Marlins <---see below
Cincinnati Reds
Milwaukee Brewers <---Selig is adamant about wanting them in the NL

National League West
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis Cardinals
Houston Astros
Colorado Rockies
San Francisco Giants
Los Angeles <---I cannot concede them the name Dodgers
San Diego Padres
Arizona Diamondbacks


***Florida Marlins fail to get new stadium built in Miami; meanwhile, Fidel Castro dies, the US trade embargo is lifted, and the Marlins move to Havana to take advantage of the city's history in hosting spring training and to make inroads on signing Cuban talent. It also solves the problem of allowing one league to co-opt the whole Latin American market, which would occur if the AL expanded to Mexico City and the NL stayed put. Meanwhile, the departure of the Marlins gives the Devil Rays their chance to escape from Tropicana Field and they gladly move into Joe Robbie Stadium because, even though it is not ideal for baseball, it is 1000 times better than the Trop.

(Of course the chances of that are about zero.)

[Mattingly]

Or, dump the whole wildcard altogether, and go with the division winners only totalling 8 playoff teams.

?
Forgive me if I haven't been absent from the discussion, but with 6 divisions (3 from each league), how do you get 8 playoff teams?

I think that before the WC, that the league's top team got a "bye", so that they simply sat out the first round of playoffs. Or was it done some other way?

Thanks.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think that before the WC, that the league's top team got a "bye", so that they simply sat out the first round of playoffs. Or was it done some other way?

Thanks.
There has always been a wildcard as long as there has been an odd number of divisions per leagues. 1995 was the first year for that.

[CZzyzx41]

A thousand times, no. I have long advocated expansion to 32 teams, 16 in each distinct league, two divisions of 8 in each. Schedule 154 games, play teams within your division roughly twice as often as the others. No interleague play except for exhibitions, crosstown and otherwise. Division winners play for league championship, league champs play World Series. Neat, simple, and easy enough for even the commissioner to fathom. It also would restore the integrity of the "regular season marathon to get to the post season", and make the season again more meaningful. I congratulate the expansion Marlins, and Diamondacks for their championships, and still love saying "World Champions Boston Red Sox," same for the Angels of Orange County, but I dislike the whole idea of the wild card. Furthermore, shortening the season and the post-season would go a long way to avoiding the early season snow-outs, and playing the World Series in November. Finally, any financial impact that owners would scream about could be easily remedied by mid-season exhibitions, and true broadcast revenue sharing, but that is the topic for another thread.
I LOVE THIS IDEA!!! Except instead I'd contract two teams. Tampa Bay would be one and I hate to say probably Toronto only because the stadium's old, they haven't competed since 1993, they're the only Canadian team and with all the East Coast teams we can't contract Arizona or Colorado both of whom I'd rather contract than Toronto. So now we'd have 4 divisions of 7 teams. This would increase the level of play. This coupled with further media attention to the minor leagues (esp AAA) and I think baseball would thrive again as America's Pastime. Moreso let's start showing AAA games on ESPN and such. This way fans can learn even more about the young prospects on the farm because they'd get to see them more often.

I also wish I'd see a bit more shows devoted to educated the fans, turning them from casual to average and from average to advanced fans. When to hit and run, where the hit in what situation, how to set up positioning the fielders, what pitch to throw in certain situations and even how to throw some of the basic pitches. Maybe even how to recognize various pitches so that watching at the ballpark or on TV, fans can really get into the little details of the chess match within the game.

[1995hoo]

I LOVE THIS IDEA!!! Except instead I'd contract two teams. Tampa Bay would be one and I hate to say probably Toronto only because the stadium's old ....
It opened in 1989. That's not really all that old. It seems more dated because shortly after it opened Camden Yards came along and completely changed the thinking on how ballparks should be designed. The facility itself, with the retractable roof, was exactly the right idea for Toronto, although I certainly won't dispute that later iterations of the retractable roof idea have worked out better from a baseball fan's standpoint.

[Knick9]

There are some places that I think are possible places for expansion/relocation:

Indianapolis, Nashville, Cuba (if Fidel Castro gets out of there), Monterrey, Portland, San Antonio, Raleigh, Montreal (if Bud gets out of MLB), and Brooklyn.

Well, my second choice would be the 4 division of 8 team format, and there may have to be something that MLB needs, some type of spark that doesn't involve steroids. I think a division remodeling is one of the answers.

[CubBlue]

Forgive me if I haven't been absent from the discussion, but with 6 divisions (3 from each league), how do you get 8 playoff teams?

I think that before the WC, that the league's top team got a "bye", so that they simply sat out the first round of playoffs. Or was it done some other way?

Thanks.


Question for the people (or anyone who wants to jump in) who are in favor of the 8 division, 4 team each set up.

Now, would you want to take the football approach to the playoffs, meaning, the 4 division winners (from each league of course) with 2 wildcard spots totalling to 12 playoff teams? How about the current setup with 1 wildcard spot but since there are more divisions the total for playoff teams for both leagues would be 10?

Or, dump the whole wildcard altogether, and go with the division winners only totalling 8 playoff teams.

?

There ya go, I mentioned 8 divions and the winner of each advancing to the playoffs, maybe you just read it wrong :crazy

[leecemark]

--The three division set up and wild card came about in the same year. Prior to that there were only two divisions in each league and only the winners of those divisions made the playoffs. A bye wouldn't work for baseball. Too much a game of timing and the week off would hurt more than help.

[Knick9]

I just thought I'd bring this topic up again.

Anyway, if there are any active BBF posters who are in Nevada, I'll get rid of this part right away but...I don't think people in Las Vegas, a popular city mentioned for expansion, would be all that hyped up to watch a season full of MLB in their town when they know they can go to casinos to gamble.

Answer me this, how many people would rather go to a MLB ballpark, spending their cash while they can go to casinos to possibly win cash? And no stage shows aren't a factor, they don't take as long as a ball game. (ugh) Plus, the heat in the Nevada area can get real hot, 100 degrees even.

[whatswailing]

Everyone keeps on posting about getting rid of the wildcard to get rid of the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS but in reality do you think baseball wants to get rid of the most watched series of the playoffs? Not damn likely! If you want the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS to be over your team's owner should pay the money and compete and beat them out. To win you have to pay quite a bit of money. The Red Sox finally started dishing out the money and they finally got their World Series. It's baseball, whiners aren't winners. Just keep the divisions the same. If MLB should change anything, have the owners of the low budget teams sell their teams to owners who are willing to pay lots of money to win a championship. Yes, players are overpaid but it isn't going to stop. If you can't beat them (big payroll teams) and trust me, small payroll teams can't, join them.

[skeletor]

Nope. bad choice. Too many things to do there. Too hot.
Minor league teams been there for an number of years..with
baited success...The overall interest for a full season, just
ain't there....The small market teams, is the engine that drives
MLB..Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc is what
defines the league..not the @#$%ing RED SOX or Yankees..

And eventually. some of those teams will prevail as well..
Atlanta is small market, and has done fine for the past 15
seasons...but baseball in Las VEGAS...I sure hope not !

[whatswailing]

MLB..Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc is what
defines the league..not the @#$%ing RED SOX or Yankees..

And eventually. some of those teams will prevail as well..
Atlanta is small market, and has done fine for the past 15
seasons...but baseball in Las VEGAS...I sure hope not !

??? Are you kidding me? Eventually some of those teams will prevail? Who are you kidding? No one outside of the local area would tune in to watch a Royals vs. Tigers ALCS. Of course someone on this board will say differently to spite me. There are Yankee and Red Sox fans all over the world. I see Yankees and Red Sox all the way over here in California. I do not see any Royal hats or Pirate hats. That's for damn sure.

Besides the Tigers have been steadily increasing their payroll these past two seasons. Ivan Rodriguez, Troy Percival, Magglio Ordonez, that doesn't sound like bringing up the farm kids. That sounds like paying a whole lot of money to guys who played for other teams in previous seasons. Honestly the Tigers really got screwed on the Magglio Ordonez deal, Scott Boras is a real villian who gets a lot of his clients a lot more money than they're worth.

If the Tigers or any of those other teams you mentioned are in the playoffs I'll eat my hat.

[whatswailing]

Come on, the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS is one of the most watched ever. Why would Bud Selig screw up the possibility of them meeting every year in the ALCS? Yeah, you don't like the series but millions and millions of others do and it's proved by tv ratings, ticket sells and merchandise.

[Knick9]

Everyone keeps on posting about getting rid of the wildcard to get rid of the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS but in reality do you think baseball wants to get rid of the most watched series of the playoffs? Not darn likely! If you want the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS to be over your team's owner should pay the money and compete and beat them out. To win you have to pay quite a bit of money. The Red Sox finally started dishing out the money and they finally got their World Series. It's baseball, whiners aren't winners. Just keep the divisions the same. If MLB should change anything, have the owners of the low budget teams sell their teams to owners who are willing to pay lots of money to win a championship. Yes, players are overpaid but it isn't going to stop. If you can't beat them (big payroll teams) and trust me, small payroll teams can't, join them.


N-O, no. It can't continue that way for the next 15 years, if you can't beat 'em, join them? No again. I suppose the other teams will be ignoring trading with the BoSox and Yankees for years to come. If a Red Sox / Yankees ALCS continues for the next 15 years straight, you know there's gonna be a strike or revolt by other teams, and quite possibly another lockout, so that makes baseball better? Nope. If MLB management thinks they're pulling a fast one us then they're wrong.

I believe a change is in order to get rid of the Wild Card with expansion. Scratch contraction, expand it to other cities. If baseball continues in this rate to hype up Boston/New York, other teams suffer and their attendance rates dwindles down to Expo-like numbers. That helps MLB? Now you know why some people want a salary cap. This discussion has been made to think outside the box, and yeah our voices probably won't be heard on this board, but hey.

When expansion happens the divisions will be changed, at least most likely will be changed. Keeping the divisions the way they are won't do favors for many teams, so there are more cons than pros by keeping the divisions the same.

[whatswailing]

If baseball cotinues in this rate to hype up Boston/New York, other teams suffer and their attendance rates dwindles down to Expo-like numbers. That helps MLB?

My team and the Angels aren't involved in that rivalry and our attendance is 2nd and 3rd in the league. I'm telling you, teams need better teams to bring the audiences out. When the Pirates actually competed the stadium was packed full of fans. Teams need to put a real team on the field, otherwise the owner and GM just look selfish. Bowden, the Gm of the Nationals even said, if we're going to compete we have to be within at least 20 million dollars of other teams in our division. You have to spend money. It's as simple as that. Salary caps aren't for baseball, they have no place in baseball. Owners need to spend money or otherwise the Red Sox, Yankees rivalry will continue to dominate. Why change the league to stop them from flourishing? Don't punish those teams for winning, now that's wrong.

[Knick9]

My team and the Angels aren't involved in that rivalry and our attendance is 2nd and 3rd in the league. I'm telling you, teams need better teams to bring the audiences out. When the Pirates actually competed the stadium was packed full of fans. Teams need to put a real team on the field, otherwise the owner and GM just look selfish. Bowden, the Gm of the Nationals even said, if we're going to compete we have to be within at least 20 million dollars of other teams in our division. You have to spend money. It's as simple as that. Salary caps aren't for baseball, they have no place in baseball. Owners need to spend money or otherwise the Red Sox, Yankees rivalry will continue to dominate. Why change the league to stop them from flourishing? Don't punish those teams for winning, now that's wrong.

But a majority of the small-market teams have been punnished for so long now, and that's not wrong? I rest my case for now. ;)

Low payrolls:

* Hardly competing because of the lack of talent willing to go to that squad which leads to:

* no excellent attendance which means:

* no postseason and eons of rebuilding

[whatswailing]

Like I said, small market teams need to sell their clubs to owners who are willing to pay a lot of money for big players. I don't exactly agree with it but it has to be done. Baseball isn't for whiners.

[sandlot]

Not to complicate an already complicated topic, but there's a lot of non-baseball factors involved in the expansion question. Population, demographics, availability/price of land, and media, to name but a few. New York has a core urban population as well as suburbs with good transportion links. Same for Boston. Both teams have their own stadiums, with histories. Both cities have media links that serve their respective regions. It's a rivalry not just between teams, but between cities (as the Dodgers-Giants rivalry was once between neighborhoods). From a biz view, it's a clash of major markets, a fight between major brands, Coke vs. Pepsi. But other cities have lost urban populations, and that totally changes the business model, as well as the politics and tax issues (e.g., who funds a new stadium?). SF fans know the best thing that's happened to the Giants was moving into a downtown stadium, into a real neighborhood, one well-served by transportation. Happily for the Giants, that move coincided with an upturn in an urban population that had been declining for decades, and the new folks brought money. So SF is an anomoly that makes the point: Teams succeed in the long term in communities with strong identity, sense of place and population centers. In short, there's a ready brand to sell, and a market to sell it to. But expanding into suburban areas makes many things more difficult, including the development of rivalries lasting long enough to become a tradition. Look at what's happened to hockey. 'Nuff said. Baseball's future might well be in contraction.

[west coast orange and black]

teams will prevail? Who are you kidding? No one outside of the local area would tune in to watch a Royals vs. Tigers ALCS. Of course someone on this board will say differently to spite me...dude, this is not out of spite:
i watch baseball games 'cause i enjoy baseball. it makes no matter to me (unless it's my giants) who is playing.
really.

and yeah, baseball is looking at contraction sure as the sun rose today.

[Knick9]

We live in an already complicated world, as if things in baseball weren't complicated enough to begin with. :crazy

It's not that small-market teams are whiners, it's just that how can you put a sucsessful team on the field by having hardly any money in your team's payroll? and you're not as flexible as the A's or Twins? (who are small-market teams yet manage to win)

I personally don't see a problem with expansion, it expands the MLB map as far as fan bases are concerned. Land, building, and marketing are issues, but those are accomplishable tasks.

There are more teams out there like KC and Colorado than those who are like Oakland and Minnesota, and I'm not saying to punnish Boston and New York circa Bronx, I'm just saying one of those two teams have to come with it if the divisions are changed into the 8 divisions of 4 teams format. Always have to be thoughtful of the little guy.

[Knick9]

Come on, the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS is one of the most watched ever. Why would Bud Selig screw up the possibility of them meeting every year in the ALCS? Yeah, you don't like the series but millions and millions of others do and it's proved by tv ratings, ticket sells and merchandise.

*Ahem* There are other teams that make MLB, not just Boston and New York circa Bronx. If MLB was just Boston and New York, it wouldn't last long and would fold. Tampa and Colorado are exceptions. ;)

Anyone willing to help uncomplicate this situation out for expansion?

BTW whatswailing, why do you hate Harold Reynolds besides him being an anchor?

[whatswailing]

Yeah there are other teams but you can't deny that a Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS is watched more than just about any other ALCS. What I'm saying is that Bud Selig loves any matchup that sells, the reason he loves interleague is because of the revenue brought in by Yanks vs. Mets, White Sox vs. Cubs and Angels vs. Dodgers. They all sold 97 percent of capacity in tickets. They had the highest ratings for baseball games this season second to only the Yankees vs Red Sox series this season. I'm not saying its the best for the game but do you honestly think Bud Selig would change something he likes? He loves the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS, I'm not saying it's right but it's what's happening. There is no way Bud would change the leagues while that rivalry is as heated and as watched as it is now. The only way the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS isn't going to happen is if other teams beat them out, not if you change the leagues. Selig isn't doing that anytime soon. I know people would still watch baseball if those two teams weren't there but that series brings non baseball fans into the mix. People who don't even like baseball watch that series. I've seen it with my own eyes on several occasions in that past couple of seasons. I think switching up the league would be nice but don't think Selig would change the league to make it where that series matchup wouldn't happen. It's the cold hard truth. I hate Harold Reynolds because he's always parading the Yankees and constantly talking non stop about them. I also find him to be absolutely annoying. When ESPN has that celebrity soft ball all star game at the all star break he gets on my nerves so bad. I'm also tired of hearing him say during the little league world series that 2nd base isn't scoring position in little league. We know Harold, we know that already. I wish Harold Reynolds was abducted and was left on an uninhabited island for the rest of his days.

[Knick9]

Just a link concerning the MLB expansion/relocation ordeal. According to some press releases, the people there seem to consider Portland as the favorite:

from SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/mike_mcallister/05/23/expansion.cities/index.html)

Scroll down to the MLB section and note that there is a poll there which the results are:

For MLB: Should MLB put a team in Portland?

YES: 61%
NO: 39%

Just making more of a point of why Portland is worthy of a MLB franchise.

[Explorers]

I am new to baseball-fever, so I don't know how far off topic we should go, but the recent post motivated me to add to the support for MLB in Portland.

Please review some of the population data:
http://www.demographia.com/db-usmet2000.htm
You will see that Portland is not only the largest metro market without baseball, but the largest city in America with only one professional team. Note that St. Louis, Denver, Tampa Bay, and Pittsburg are just ahead of Portland in population, but they all have at least 3 pro teams. And if you follow the list in the other direction, you will see that six cities- Cincinnati, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, New Orleans, and Buffalo have less people than Portland yet they all have at least two pro teams.

With TV deals providing major financial support for MLB, it is important to note that Portland is the 24th largest media market. Las Vegas is 51st:
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

I realize that Vegas makes a good, if not 'flashy', case for a professional team; however, I feel that they better fit the NBA. Bizjournal agrees:
http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/sports2004/story1.html
As well as the previously mentioned article at Sports Illustrated:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/mike_mcallister/05/23/expansion.cities/index.html
Although Vegas is fast growing, Portland has roughly 700,000 more permanent residents. (Also, I realize the Bizjournal article likes Orlando and MLB; however, I think most would agree that three baseball teams in Florida would be too much. How about the Devil Rays move to a new stadium in Orlando?)

Here is a quote from Marc Ganis in the Pasadena Star News on Dec. 19th, 2004:
http://www.arroyoseco.org/news.php?artic=361
Marc is a sports-finance expert who is president of Chicago-based Sportscorp Ltd. He states:
"It's much harder to successfully operate a small-market club today than it has in a long time in the NFL. Ten years ago, you had teams leaving L.A. and going to places like St. Louis, and there was expansion into markets like Charlotte and Jacksonville. There was the feeling these small markets did better than big-market teams. That's turned on its head."
I have to ask- Is this true for Major League Baseball as well? Portland is clearly much larger than Las Vegas.

Also, from an aesthetic value, an open air stadium in downtown Portland would be much more beautiful than a retractable dome ballpark; which in the extreme desert heat, would be closed most of the time. Portland does not need a retractable dome. During baseball season, Portland receives less rainfall than all the MLB teams east of the Rocky Mountains, except Denver. Also, dome stadiums are restricted more architecturally than open air, flexible to the neighborhood, ballparks. Note Portland rainfall amounts:
http://oregonbaseballcampaign.com/season_weather.htm

Portland has a financing package:
http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/submission.html

In defense of Vegas and Portland regarding our attendance at our AAA minor league parks; keep in mind that the minors and Majors are two drastically separate products. Compare PGE Park here in Portland, with Safeco Field in Seattle. The recent renovation to PGE Park was $35 million vs. $520 million for Safeco Field. The MLB field cost nearly 15 times more. I think you'll find the same examples if you compare the payroll, marketing, attendance, etc.

I live in Portland. Thank you all who stick up for, and agree that the Rose City makes a great fit for MLB.

More on Portland and Major League Baseball:
http://www.portlandbaseballgroup.com/whypdx_04.cfm
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1600284.html

[wamby]

The wild card has cheapened basebal's post-season by watering down the World Series. In my mind, the Marlins, Angels and Red Sox are not legitimite WS champs because they could not win their divisions and had to enter the post-season through the back door. The Yankees-Red sox ALCSs are nothing special because the whole concept of finishing first to make the post-season had to be thrown out to make this post-seaon rivalry a reality.

Bud Selig sounds pretty happy that wild-card teams have won the WS. That's great Bud that a team that doesn't have to worry about catching a division leader can make the playoffs. Great work there!!!

Baseball used to have ther best post-seaon of any sport, but now it is the same as the rest of the sports: watered down.

[CubBlue]

Wow im convinced! Portland is a PERFECT candidate for a baseball team, also the West desperately needs teams! This would help shape realignment possibilities

[Knick9]

How this could all tie up to MLB in New Orleans, (and I'm going in a different direction now, now that it is mostly agreed on that Portland is a canidate for expansion/relocation for MLB), all this would have to happen.:


The New Orleans Saints of the NFL move out and go to LA
The NFL wouldn't go to San Antonio because the MLS would get a deal done for an expansion team
New Orleanians (sp?) will get upset after the Saints move and push for another pro sports franchise
Fact: The Louisiana Superdome will be vacant if the Saints move.


I don't like New Orleans' chances, it's not a real contender for MLB to me, I'm just throwing it out there for others to discuss.

[CubBlue]

I would definetely not be against Louisiana having a baseball team, just get some out of California for Gods sakes...

[Nutt]

Ok, I'm new to the site, so bare with me on "newbie" comments. I found the site when I was looking for the NL Expansion of 1993 and what happened with Nashville. But on with the topic....

No re-alignment should take place unless it's to make six five-team divisions and inter-league play everyday (I'm a purist, I couldn't see the Marlins vs. Rangers on October 2nd, and then opening the World Series against each other 20 days later; also). Contraction is completely absurd. There's this thing called "moving franchises". (Expos to D.C.) Bud Selig said "we would expand after contraction if both were right". But, on to the teams who "suck", or should be "deleted".....

Kansas City - Established in 1969 after the A's moved to Oakland, the Royals were one of the "elite" franchises of the AL from 1976-1985 winning seven division titles, 2 pennants, and 1 World Series. We all remember the Royals-Yankees LCS battles (like Reds-Pirates), and the owner is to blame here. Why? THE MAN OWNS WAL-MART FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD!!!! Shouldn't he be able to put a competitve team on the field every year (2003 was a fluke!!!!)????? This is one of the franchises hurt in the attendance (and competitve) level from the 1994 strike (also Cincinnati, Montreal, and Milwaukee). Mr. Wal-Mart should either be forced to sell to someone who will put a competitve team on the field, or put in some of that profit he makes in the Sun Belt Region.

Tampa Bay - This city wanted a franchise so bad, they didn't care if they stunk. Well, now they do. Nobody shows up. They have one of the best managers who even wanted a "payroll enhancement" which they wouldn't comply. The Rays should be moved to Orlando, or to Charlotte.

Detroit - Once a tradition-rich franchise, the team has been in bad shape since the retiring/firing of Sparky Anderson. In 2000, they were supposed to be the competitor to Cleveland in the Central, but managed to reach .500 only once (September 8th). After setting an AL record for losses two years ago, the Tigers could be back to competitve level by next year.

Oakland - Nothing bad to talk about year. If they move, where do they go? Las Vegas or to Anaheim if the Angels move down south to Mexico?

Milwaukee - County Stadium used to be packed (remember how bad the stadium was? I don't). Miller Park was built for "a competitive return". Hovering around .500 this year doesn't cut it. The #1 Minor League System running on three years now, they should be able to be at the top. Atlanta spent the late 80s developing talent (Glavine, Justice, Gant, Wohlers, Stanton, Merkcer, Avery, Sanders) AND acquiring prospects (Smoltz, Freeman) for againg players (Murphy, Alexander). Sure, in 1990 they spent some money (Esasky) and failed. But in 1991, they bought "bargain" chips (Bream, Pendleton, Nixon) that got the franchise over the hump. The Brewers claim to have the best prospects, but shouldn't they spend money on another starter and possibly a catcher?

Pittsburgh - Once again, the Detroit/Kansas City of the NL. In a span of three straight seasons, the Pirates organization let Bonds, Bonilla, Drabek, Smiley, Belinda, and Van Slyke go. They crapped out on Tim Wakefield, who's turned out to be a success in Boston. Another once again: They built a ballpark to compete. The best team they've put on the field since 1993? The 1997 edition that finished 79-83, 5 GB Houston in the Central.

Colorado - a .500 club at home, a .300 team on the road.....what gives here? They've developed great hitters (Helton, Barmes, Holliday, Closser), and only two pitchers?? (Francis, Jennings) What the Rockies need are pitchers who throw hard, have great off-speed stuff, and MAYBE a sinker-ball pitcher (will it work?). They should invest in Mile High Prospects who pitch in the thin air in High School and College.

Now, onto Washington....

Once this team is sold, good ol' Budweiser Select (Bud Selig for short) should force EVERY team to take their cut of the sell (roughly $15-30 Million) and keep the players they have, or get A-List or B-List players. No more C, D, and F guys. In this day and age, George Brett would be playin in the Bronx, Robin Yount would be in St. Louis, and we all saw where Barry went.

ok, re-alignment.....

IF they were to expand, it's gotta be in Portland and Las Vegas.

AL East:
Baltimore, Boston, New York, Tampa Bay

AL North:
Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto

AL Central:
Colorado, Kansas City, Minnesota, Texas

AL West:
Anaheim, Las Vegas, Oakland, Seattle

NL East:
Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

NL South:
Atlanta, Cincinnati, Florida, Washington

NL Central:
Arizona, Chicago, Houston, St. Louis

NL West:
Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco

Scheduling:
18 vs. Division opponents (54 total) or 20
12 vs. rotating division in legaue (48) or 9
6 vs. other league division opponents (48)
6 games vs. Inter-league rival (see below)
6 vs. other inter-league opponents or 12

Rivals:
Atlanta-Boston, Baltimore-Washington, Dodgers-Angels, Cubs-White Sox, Yankees-Mets, Houston-Texas, Cincinnati-Cleveland, Florida-Tampa Bay, Philadelphia-Toronto, Pittsburgh-Detroit, Portland-Seattle, San Diego-Las Vegas, Kansas City-St. Louis, San Francisco-Oakland, Arizona-Colorado, Milwaukee-Minnesota

[Knick9]

As Explorers has posted, Las Vegas probably would not be a good option for an MLB team, rather more suited for the NBA. When you talk about the sizzling heat of Vegas, not many people would want to go to a ballgame when it's hot over there, and for the ones that do, they would like to get a tan. Plus Vegas has been turned down by some big name sports leagues because it was overshadowed by the likes of gambling and shows. The only thing close to proffessional sports are the Las Vegas Gladiators of the Arena Football League, and note that the AFL is an indoor football league.

I'm leaning towards changing my thoughts on Monterrey. I would still like to see MLB expand internationally but I'm worried that Mexico won't have enough money to support a new stadium.

I'm interested in San Antonio, as I've said before, it's more possible for the city to get MLS than MLB or NFL, but anything is still possible.

[scrabblehack]

Thankfully, talk of contraction has gone away but I don't think expansion is the answer. I would like to see 15 teams in each league. I'm not sure how best to accomplish that -- one of the earlier posters thought that Colorado might move to the AL West.

It wouldn't require any more interleague play than there is now. I've worked on two schemes.

Each team would play other teams in its own division 19 times. = 76 games
Each team would play other teams in its own league, other divisions
6 times = 60 games
Each team would play five 4-game series and two 3-game series
in the opposite league = 26 games
Total 162

So that's 7 series in the opposite league, 20 in the same league, other divisions, and 24 series in the same division for a total of 51.

For the first 10 series of the season, teams would play their own division home and away, plus 2 series in the opposite league, same division. (This would make travel much easier.) Which team was playing in the opposite league would rotate by series.

For the next 15 series, teams would play a circuit around the league, including one series in the opposite league.

The 26th series, right before the All-Star break, would be entirely interleague.

Then after the all-star break, there would be another circuit around the league (15 series), followed by two circuits within the division (with the odd teams playing in the same division, opposite league).

I found
16 * 4 = 64
8 * 10 = 80
3 * 6 = 18
= 162

appealing as well, but unfortunately there were too many 4 game series when I tried to work out the details. I would not be opposed to this, but a lot of fans find a weekend series of Fri-Sat-Sun to be more appealing than a Thu-Fri-Sat-Sun or a Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon series.

Anyway, it's a more appealing schedule than they've got now.

[plask_stirlac]

nm nnnnnnnnn

[plask_stirlac]

Let's go all out. We already play 162 games from coast to coast and into Canada, including hard balls and small parks, so here's my aggressive plan (for fun) to make things pretty fair.

1. Move Kansas City to the AL West, move Milwaukee back to the AL Central. Texas already plays in the West in the Central time zone, Kansas City can probably manage. Milwaukee had some good NL moments and rivalries, but they can joing the AL.
30 teams, 15 per league, 5 per division

2. Experiment with a new way of doing things. Abolish the DH. Also institute a new rule in both leagues allowing players to be subbed in or out more than once, like every other team sport I can think of. So the pitcher hits and a hit/field combo takes one lineup spot. Boston can start Olerud in the field, bat Ortiz, and keep Olerud in the field, but Olerud doesn't bat if Ortiz does and the pitcher hits 9th. There's still the strategy of the pitcher spot and subs there. This would probably be limited to one spot that can be subbed in and out. Maybe this is just a designated fielder, taking out a position player in the field instead of a pitcher in the batting lineup as the DH does. Does that make sense?

Going by NL rules would be the "purest," no doubt. But if we're considering reality, the union would want to keep Ortiz, Hafner, etc.

Teams bring in pinch fielders and hitters in late innings and they stay until subbed out. That's baseball. But there was also a time when football players played both ways a lot. The game has prospered since that became much less common. Basketball teams (in the late stages, when there are lots of stoppages) sub in offense/defense for singular possessions, not entire half innings. That's just how it is.

3. Why not expand interleague play and have WS home-field advantage decided by best record?

4. Possible schedule
54 games intra division (14 vs. two teams, 13 versus the other two, rotate yearly)
54 games intra league (6 games against 7 opponents, 4 against the other three, rotate)
54 games interleague (3 games against 6 opponents, 4 games against 9 opponents, rotate)

[CubBlue]

^^^

youre a genius

[wamby]

Everyone keeps on posting about getting rid of the wildcard to get rid of the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS but in reality do you think baseball wants to get rid of the most watched series of the playoffs? Not damn likely! If you want the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS to be over your team's owner should pay the money and compete and beat them out. To win you have to pay quite a bit of money. The Red Sox finally started dishing out the money and they finally got their World Series. It's baseball, whiners aren't winners. Just keep the divisions the same. If MLB should change anything, have the owners of the low budget teams sell their teams to owners who are willing to pay lots of money to win a championship. Yes, players are overpaid but it isn't going to stop. If you can't beat them (big payroll teams) and trust me, small payroll teams can't, join them.

The wild card needs to go. Put a big, fat asterisk next to the Red Sox, Marlins and Angels WS championships. The only thing that got the Red Sox to the WS last year was the wild card. As a second place team, they should have been home watching the Series.

The Real Yankees/Junior Yankees post-season rivalry is phoney and contrived. It took a major (and unneeded) rule change to bring it about.

[efin98]

The wild card needs to go. Put a big, fat asterisk next to the Red Sox, Marlins and Angels WS championships. The only thing that got the Red Sox to the WS last year was the wild card. As a second place team, they should have been home watching the Series.

Funny, the Red Sox wound up with a better record than the other two division winners in the AL. Sox finished with a better record than Oakland and Florida finished with a better record than Chicago in 2003. Anaheim finished with a better record than Chicago in 2002. Cardinals finished TIED with Houston and Oakland finished with a better record than Cleveland in 2001. Those teams should have been out of the playoffs as well- they got in only on the backs of the weak opponents in their divisions.

You don't like the Wild Card format- fine. But how dare you try to take away Boston's, Florida's, or Anaheim's glory in the World Series.

[wamby]

Funny, the Red Sox wound up with a better record than the other two division winners in the AL. Sox finished with a better record than Oakland and Florida finished with a better record than Chicago in 2003. Anaheim finished with a better record than Chicago in 2002. Cardinals finished TIED with Houston and Oakland finished with a better record than Cleveland in 2001. Those teams should have been out of the playoffs as well- they got in only on the backs of the weak opponents in their divisions.

You don't like the Wild Card format- fine. But how dare you try to take away Boston's, Florida's, or Anaheim's glory in the World Series.

Second place teams do not belong in the World Series.

[efin98]

Second place teams do not belong in the World Series.

They made it into the playoffs, they beat two "better" teams to get there- they earned their right to play in the World Series.

Don't like it don't watch. Don't read about it. Sit in ignorance for a year. The rest of the world will watch two teams play.

[wamby]

They made it into the playoffs, they beat two "better" teams to get there- they earned their right to play in the World Series.

Don't like it don't watch. Don't read about it. Sit in ignorance for a year.

They had no business being in the playoffs. They should have had to win their division for the right to make it to the playoffs.

Second place must be comfortable for the Jr Yankees. How long have they been there? Going on eight years?

[efin98]

They had no business being in the playoffs. They should have had to win their division for the right to make it to the playoffs.

Forget it. It's arguing with a brick wall.

[wamby]

Forget it. It's arguing with a brick wall.

Boston brick?

[efin98]

Boston brick?

Alamaba..but then again that explains the hatred of anythign remotely new

[wamby]

Alamaba..but then again that explains the hatred of anythign remotely new

The Alabama is only temporary, I would hardly qualify as a typical Alabamian. I like a lot of new things. I dislike most of the new things in basebabll however.

[Knick9]

Moving on...

I still say expansion should happen, 4 divisions of 4 teams sound good. That would eliminate the Wild Card entirely, though I'm not against the Wild Card idea. I even heard that Bud Selig* is thinking about switching the DH and P rules in the two leagues. Hey, I got a good idea Bud, why don't you stick with one rule rather than juggling the two rules continously!??

Portland is agreed on and now where else?

Interleague and Interdivision play should happen more often I will agree.

[efin98]

Moving on...

I still say expansion should happen, 4 divisions of 4 teams sound good. That would eliminate he Wild Card entirely, though I'm not against the Wild Card idea. I even heard that Bud Selig* is thinking about switching the DH and P rules in the two leagues. Hey, I got a good idea Bud, why don't you stick with one rule rather than juggling the two rules continously!??

Portland is agreed on and now where else?

Interleague and Interdivision play should happen more often I will agree.

Wild Card gets eliminated in the 4 division format with the addition of two expansion teams, exactly the same format the NFL has for it's 32 team league. Only the 4 division winners play, leaving the same three series per post season format that is in place now.

Also New Orleans should be the next expansion city after Portland. New Orleans could allow for a southern division in one league to work, probably the NL.

[mojorisin71]

Is there a baseball audience in Louisiana? I was listening to the Herd on ESPNRadio a couple of weeks ago and a bunch of callers agree with Cowherd's statement that New Orleans is a party town, not a sports town. Anyone here from LA or from the South than can corroborate?

[sandlot]

For the quality of play, contraction is better than expansion. But if there is to be expansion, then get rid of both the wild card and inter-league play. A radical and practical restructuring would be to divide the divisions and leagues by time zones -- say, East and Central in American, Rocky Mountain and West in National. That would reduce travel time and cost, while increasing regional rivalries. My even-more-radical preference, which will get nowhere, is for relegation as in English football. You perform beneath a certain level, you get dropped into a second league and have to play your way back out. That would really light some competitive fires and rearrange the salary structure. But it won't get a look.

[scrabblehack]

Hmm...I thought my schedule idea would start more conversation....I guess not. As I say it would make more sense than the current schedule. Anyway, the 4*16,10*8,6*3 schedule would have only 50 series and a lot of them would be 4-game series, and others would be 2-game series. I think it would be possible to arrange the schedule such that no team was off for more than two days in a row though. (with most off days being Tuesday-Wednesday).

The basic scheme involves 6 series against divisional opponents, plus 2 series against each league opponent not in the division, plus 6 or 7 series against the opposite league. With the unbalanced schedule, I've noticed some really funky travel.

So, the possibilities for a balanced schedule:
19*4 = 76, 10*6 = 60, 4*5 = 20, 3*2 = 6.
(My preferred option would be to have each team play the opposite league, same division at least once -- the 6th series could be against the "favorite" team in the opposite league (such as Mets-Yankees or Cubs-White Sox), and the 7th series could rotate among the rest of the league (on a 10-year cycle).

18*4 = 72, 10*7 = 70, 3*6 = 18, 1*2 = 2
Hmm...maybe 5 games against the "favorite" team in the opposite league?

17*4 = 68, 10*7 = 70, 3*2 = 6, 4*4 = 16
16*4 = 64, 10*7 = 70, 4*7 = 28
16*4 = 64, 10*8 = 80, 6*3 = 18

[whatswailing]

Hmm...I thought my schedule idea would start more conversation....I guess not. As I say it would make more sense than the current schedule. Anyway, the 4*16,10*8,6*3 schedule would have only 50 series and a lot of them would be 4-game series, and others would be 2-game series. I think it would be possible to arrange the schedule such that no team was off for more than two days in a row though. (with most off days being Tuesday-Wednesday).

The basic scheme involves 6 series against divisional opponents, plus 2 series against each league opponent not in the division, plus 6 or 7 series against the opposite league. With the unbalanced schedule, I've noticed some really funky travel.

So, the possibilities for a balanced schedule:
19*4 = 76, 10*6 = 60, 4*5 = 20, 3*2 = 6.
(My preferred option would be to have each team play the opposite league, same division at least once -- the 6th series could be against the "favorite" team in the opposite league (such as Mets-Yankees or Cubs-White Sox), and the 7th series could rotate among the rest of the league (on a 10-year cycle).

18*4 = 72, 10*7 = 70, 3*6 = 18, 1*2 = 2
Hmm...maybe 5 games against the "favorite" team in the opposite league?

17*4 = 68, 10*7 = 70, 3*2 = 6, 4*4 = 16
16*4 = 64, 10*7 = 70, 4*7 = 28
16*4 = 64, 10*8 = 80, 6*3 = 18

Look at all the pretty asterisks! :crazy

[Bluesteve32]

Look at all the pretty asterisks! :crazy

Ford Frick would be proud. :grouchy

[scrabblehack]

Ah, I can see that most people don't have the desire for balanced divisions that I do....

[Bluesteve32]

Ah, I can see that most people don't have the desire for balanced divisions that I do....

I would love a balance divisional situation. Until baseball adds or subtracts teams, the current alignment is necessary.

[scrabblehack]

I just outlined above that you CAN construct a 162-game schedule (there are several possibilities), with no team being off...it's just that you would intersperse interleague play throughout the season....

[Bluesteve32]

I just outlined above that you CAN construct a 162-game schedule (there are several possibilities), with no team being off...it's just that you would intersperse interleague play throughout the season....

Interleague play was something the American League favored decades ago. With many still opposed to interleague play and even the DH, how would you have these same people allow an interleague game virtually every night of the season?

There will be no changes in the current alignment, despite what anyone says here or how much it makes sense to you or me, until MLB subtracts or adds two teams, period!

Those of you who think they would be able to suggest this really have no clue how "traditional" so many in baseball's upper echelon really are. Having Milwaukee switch leagues was only possible because Bug Selig had his own team switch, for none of the others were willing. You can have all this information about how you can do a 162 game schedule work out, but until baseball is willing, which it won't be, it is all for naught.

[Knick9]

I would like to ask some questions.

How do you like San Antonio's chances?

How do you like New Orleans' chances?

How do you like Memphis' chances?

How do you like Jacksonville's chances? :noidea

It makes me wonder which of these cities are the best suited for MLB.

[Bluesteve32]

I would like to ask some questions.

How do you like San Antonio's chances?.

San Antonio is a rather large city itself, but its metro area seems to be not large enough for a MLB team. Texas heat is not loved by the players.

How do you like New Orleans' chances?.
Play in the suprdome? I really don't know if baseball interest seems to exist in the Big Easy. Weather would be another factor, or another dome, which baseball people hate.

How do you like Memphis' chances?.
Good question here. This may be a good play for that region, How has the minor league teams been supported here?

How do you like Jacksonville's chances? :noidea .

Since Tampa Bay and Florida are in the league, I think it will be a cold day in purgatory before you'll see another MLB team in that state other than Spring Training. Besides, the summer weather is not very cooperative.

I don't think Vegas would be a good site for MLB, but Portland may be a good site. Sacramento would not be, unless the A's decide that would be better than Oakland and they don't get a stadium deal.

[TwelveGage]

I personally like it how it is now. Interleague play to me is just cool. It's a nice change up in the middle of the season, and if we were to have it more often it'd water it down, and it wouldn't be as neat. I know that those are the games that I definitely try to goto.

Also, why compare baseball to the other sports? It's nothing like the other sports. I love the fact that one league has a DH and one doesn't, it makes them distinct from one another, and makes the World Series alot more interesting, IMO. Look at Roger Clemens, dominant against both leagues =)

I think if expansion were to happen, and we were to add 2 teams, that none of them need to go in the northeast (no offense fellas) simply because those guys have like...I don't even know, over 5 teams to pick from that are relatively close together. I'd make a case for states that don't have a team to cheer for. I agree with the Las Vegas, as there's no teams within safe driving distance for them, and maybe somewhere in the midwest. I'm sure there's some cities with big fan bases that would sell a stadium out that are without teams, and if you wanna talk about fair, that's not fair to them.

My 2 cents.

[scrabblehack]

What difference does it make whether the interleague games are played in spurts or throughout the season?

I glanced at a few schedules in cursory fashion; it appears that teams play an average of 5 series with the opposite league. My plans would call for 6 or 7. So it would appear that I am advocating a few more interleague games than there are now. So the 18x4, 10x7, 6x3, 1x2 option would cause the least disruption to the current arrangement. The 16x4, 10x8, 6x3 option would cause a lot of 4 game series and force consecutive days off for each team.

I don't think interleague play is going to go away either, and I admit that baseball execs are not going to be swayed by my opinion. Neither do I think expansion or contraction is going to occur any time soon.

One thing that might sway them is that doing as I suggest would allow for more intelligent scheduling.

For instance, this September, Tampa Bay has to travel to the Angels and then Cleveland, before closing out the season with Baltimore. Baltimore has to travel to Seattle then Texas, and then closes out the season with 5 series in the division.

With any of my plans, AL Eastern teams would make one far western swing all season (LAA-Oak-Sea) -- as I say 6 of the 7 series would be against the opposite league, same division -- the 7th could float -- in years that an AL East team was playing an NL West team, there might be two far western swings.

Also there would be one near western swing (Tex-KC-Col, if Col is the team that switches leagues) and one or two midwestern swings (Min-Chw-Det-Cle). It would add up to far fewer miles traveled. Those pennypinching owners might find that appealing.

Also the last 5 weeks would feature 8 series in the same league, same division and the other two series would be in the opposite league, same division. I'm sure Baltimore would prefer to travel to say, Philadelphia or the Mets (in the midst of a road trip to say the Yankees and Boston) rather than have to travel out to Seattle and Texas in the middle of September.

[whatswailing]

Plain and simple, your schedule isn't going to happen. Interleauge will be played at only certain points in the season and that's how it's going to be.

[Bluesteve32]

Plain and simple, your schedule isn't going to happen. Interleauge will be played at only certain points in the season and that's how it's going to be.

Some of these people just really don't understand the relative autonomy of each league in baseball and think they are more like the conferences in football or basketball. They really don't understand how the traditionalists really control most of the major decisions in baseball. To many of these people, interleague and even the DH is sacrilege, much less comingling the league throughout the whole year.

[scrabblehack]

Obviously each league cannot autonomously decide how many interleague games they will play, or when they will be played.

You may be right about the Disilluminati running baseball, but what does it get them? Fans that don't understand the schedule? Increased travel costs?

It reminds me of the old joke, "Johnny, do you want your pie in 5 slices or 51?"

Johnny says, "Five. I couldn't possibly eat 51."

Starting in 1998, I do not see an adherence to tradition.

With an 7 opponents in an 8-team league, 7 x 22 = 154.

But 9 is not an even factor of 154, so tradition was broken; 9 x 18 = 162.
Would anyone have accepted 8x17+1x18?

11 is not an even factor of 162. but 5a + 6b = 162 such that a > b has a nice solution of (a,b) = (18,12), as well as the less elegant solutions of (24,7) and (30,2).

6a + 7b = 162 has the solutions (13,12) and (20,7).

With 3 divisions in a 14-team league, the equations 3a + 10b = 162 and 4c + 9b = 162 do not admit solutions in the positive integers. Thus interleague play brought forth the elegant solution in 1997 of (12x4)+(11x9)+(5x3)=162 and (12x3)+(11x10)+(4x4)=162.

1998 brought two additional teams. Elegant and near-elegant solutions were staring MLB in the face. It's as though they went out of their way to avoid getting it right.

They're still not satisfied with their schedule; playing divisional opponents at first 12 or 13, no wait, now 19 times, other league opponents 8 or 9, now 7 or 9 times, and the opposite league 5, then 6, and now 4, 5, or 6 series. Today, even the most rabid fan cannot describe his team's schedule, but in the old days, even a casual fan could. Today, some eastern teams will make a trip all across the continent three times during the season, when in the old days they would have played all three far western teams in one road trip.

Playing teams in the same division, opposite league requires less travel than playing teams in the another division, opposite league, although the situation is worsened if the schedule is heavily unbalanced in favor of playing teams in your own league, same division. But in 1998-99, when teams played divisional opponents 12 or 13 times, the interleague games were ones in the same division. Now with 19 games against a divisional opponent, MLB rotates the divisions.

There was a story on 60 Minutes or some such many years ago -- "Ask a spirit-of-the-game question and you get a business answer; ask a business question and you get a spirit-of-the-game answer."

Ask both simultaneously, and what happens?

[Imapotato]

I would like to ask some questions.

How do you like San Antonio's chances?

How do you like New Orleans' chances?

How do you like Memphis' chances?

How do you like Jacksonville's chances? :noidea

It makes me which of these cities are the best suited for MLB.


San Antonio...no, too small, I lived there...the love the Spurs, but baseball, try and find a little league field in San Antonio...maybe 3 of them

New Orleans...yea I see baseball there, move the D-Rays
Memphis...no
Jackonsville...no, baseball in FL just doesn't seem to work, too many beaches and other outdoor activities

Portland is the best bet...the mayor tried her hardest and Selig didn't even give her a chance

[Knick9]

Talk about expansion, this bid bit the dust before it ever was made up. The unfamous Indianapolis Arrows failed expansion team never really was a team, rather just (at the time) overhyped hopes of the ownership group.

http://www.logoserver.com/baseball/IndianapolisArrows2.GIF

The Indianapolis Arrows! :atthepc

I can only wonder if soon the same ownership group will be at it again. :rolleyes:

[d-rock]

First off, I would probably be classified as a traditionalist.
That said, I dislike the DH, but understand that most fans
want more offense (I enjoy a low scoring game myself).
If you must have a DH, bat 10. You add a hitter, but the
pitcher is still there for the purist (me) strategy on when
to pull or pinch hit for pitcher.
Do away with divisions. Add two teams (making 32) and play
4 8-team leagues. 22 games vs. each of 7 opponents (154 game
pre expansion schedule). The 4 LEAGUE winners have at it.
Rotate year to year which 2 LEAGUES play in the first round.

Another thought, the one place I really don't mind the DH would
be the All-Star Game.

D-ROCK

[pastimelover]

I'm not a fan of interleague play at all. I long for the days that I barely saw (I'm only 17) when the AL played the NL in the AS Game, and the World Series. Their was something special about it. We should NEVER get to a World Series and have them talk about how the two teams faired against eachother in the regular season. Part of the magic of the WS was two teams that have maybe never played eachother battling for the title. Not to mention that it puts an un-fair elememnt into the game. Division rivals play the same teams for the most part with the exception being I believe only one series every year. But in a Wild Card era (Which is an issue I'm undecided about as well) where teams from different division are battling for playoff spots, they should play the same teams.

I'm a huge football fan, but it's one of the only things I don't like about football. Schedules vary so much that it can be hard to compare how well a season actually went. It should be random, or have each division play the same opponents. Luckily my Patriots have overcome the issue. :-)

[Brad Harris]

A proposal:

Move the Washington Nationals from the NL East to the AL East for the 2006 season. WAS --> AL East, TOR --> AL Central, KC --> AL West, PIT --> NL East. This move is feasible - the 2006 schedule hasn't been made yet, Washington is co-owned by the 29 other clubs, the new team doesn't have a history in Washington beyond this first season - and it could be a condition of any sale of the team (which ought to happen as soon as possible anyhow.) The team could retain "Nationals" (as in, "Americans" or "Federals", etc.) or could revert to the historic AL version "Senators", or create a new nickname. Either way, this is the one franchise most easily moved at this point.

Eliminate Interleague Play, Increase Unbalanced Schedule. Two leagues of 15 teams each (3 divisions of 5 teams each) can play the following schedule: 18 games against each opponent within its division and 9 games against each other team in the league. This can be broken down nicely into 3-game series, making for an easy 162-game schedule. If I'm not mistaken, the wording of the Collective Bargaining Agreement leaves a lot of legal maneuvering for the owners to unilaterally eliminate interleague play if they so choose. I haven't seen any evidence that interleague play significantly increases attendance or profits.

Expand by Two Teams in Near Future. Say, plan to start play in 3 (maybe 5) years? Most feasible choices are now in Montreal and Portland. With Washington having a team, Portland is now the long-standing leader among viable sites for a ML club. Awarding Montreal an expansion franchise is a sort of moral gratuity for what MLB did to Expos fans over the past 5-10 years. When owned by a man who sought profits and championships, the Expos drew very, very good crowds. Montreal is a metropolis of over 3 million and a mid-size media market that wasn't cultivated well by the Expos last two owners. (It's bigger than Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Phoenix, Denver, etc.) No reason to suspect a fresh start under new ownership couldn't spur local interest to new highs. Steinbrenner and Wilpon make a NY/NJ-area club a no-go and Vegas is a terrible choice. There won't be expansion into Mexico anytime soon and Indianapolis, New Orleans, Charlotte, Sacramento, etc. all have significant detractors to the possibility of hosting a club.

Tampa Bay would transfer to the National League to make room for both the Montreal and Portland expansion franchises in the AL. That solves some geographical problems that would otherwise confront having Tampa Bay in a "North" Division.

The two 16-team leagues would split into 4 divisions of 4 teams each. The schedule would remain the same - 18 games vs. each divisional opponent, 9 vs. each other opponent in the league. The divisions would align much like leecemark's suggestion:

AL West
Los Angeles Angels
Oakland A's
Portland expansion team
Seattle Mariners

AL Central
Chicago White Sox
Kansas City Royals
Minnesota Twins
Texas Rangers

AL North
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Montreal Expos
Toronto Blue Jays

AL East
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Washington "Nationals"

NL West
Arizona Diamondbacks
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants

NL Central
Colorado Rockies
Houston Astros
Milwaukee Brewers
St. Louis Cardinals

NL North
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates

NL East
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
New York Mets
Tampa Bay Devil Rays

Especially nice would be the elimination of the luxury tax and an agreement among the owners to increase revenue sharing to 50%. Oh yeah...and while we're wishing for some Christmas miracles, how about the owners realize that they can solve their own problems without precipitating a labor war with the Players Association over the next 2-3 years.

[Knick9]

I'm not fond of having baseball in Tampa. Since the old Expos are gone, I consider the Tampa team the next to be on the cutting block for relocation. I don't consider MLB to work in Florida. Numerous hurricane threats/warnings for the Marlins along the shrinking hopes of getting a new stadium deal done makes me think of relocation. I still root for the fish, rest assured, but I wonder how much longer will these weather problems take a toll on the FO.

Don't get me started with Tampa, in detail, this sunk before it even started. With the old Expos gone, the new team that's the behind of the joke are Tampa Bay. A resume of six 5th place finishes and only 1 fourth place finish since the organization's beginning in 1998. That's not team progress, I call this a waste of space and a laughing stock. A change of scenery is in order for this team I believe.

Why dance around this fact? Tampa Bay is awful and I see this team relocated before ever winning in a division already stacked with the Bronx and Boston. In fact, I just had a brainstorm. Here's my new proposal.
---

AL East
Montreal Expos (expansion)
New York (Bronx)
Boston
Brooklyn ??? (relocated Tampa team)

AL North
Chicago White Sox
Detroit
Toronto
Minnesota

AL Central
Baltimore
Cleveland
Kansas City
Texas

AL West
Oakland
Seattle
Portland expansion
LA of Anaheim*

NL East
Philladelphia
Pittsburgh
New York (Queens)
Washington

NL South
Atlanta
Florida
Houston
Cincinnati

NL Central
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis
Milwaukee
Colorado

NL West
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Diego*
Arizona

*= still dream of changes

Limit Interleague play to only 9 games, and that's it. No more matchups until the All* game and World series. And obviously I'd prefer a salary cap.

[Knick9]

AL East
Montreal Expos (expansion)
New York (Bronx)
Boston
Baltimore

AL North
Cleveland
Detroit
Toronto
Minnesota

AL Central
San Antonio/Memphis ??? (relocated Tampa team)
Chicago White Sox
Kansas City
Texas

AL West
Oakland
Seattle
Portland expansion
LA of Anaheim*

NL East
Philladelphia
Pittsburgh
Brooklyn Mets (relocated)
Washington

NL South
Atlanta
Florida
Houston
Cincinnati

NL Central
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis
Milwaukee
Colorado

NL West
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Diego*
Arizona

*= still dream of changes


This is what it would be like if Tampa was moved to Memphis or San Antonio. I'm intrigued by 3 Texas teams, and I believe Memphis can establish an MLB fanbase.

[trosmok]

http://www.logoserver.com/baseball/IndianapolisArrows2.GIF




Wow! How long has it been since anyone even remotely imagined MLB could work in this decidedly AAA town? There was a concentrated push to have the Hoosier Dome, now RCA dome (sounds catchier than the "Thomson Consumer Electronics Dome") configured with seats on rollers that could collapse to form a HHH Dome style baseball venue. Now that the Colt's playground is obsolete, and Irsay has delayed moving to LA, at least for the time being, the boondoggle of a retractable roof stadium is going full steam ahead. Funded almost entirely by taxpayers in the county, with the state kicking in a token amount, and the surrounding counties opting to tax with creative food and beverage levies, it appears the HOK project will be strictly for football and NCAA hoops in design and use. Even though the land has not even been acquired yet, and the approval for the stadium and convention center expansion has not yet been granted from the legislature, the moronic mayor and imbecilic governor are trying to convince the taxpayers that it is an absolute neccessity for the city and state. Meanwhile, school funding has been cut drasticly, the parks departments budgets have been slashed, police and fire dept. layoffs are iminent, the mass transit system and homelessness problems are stricly third world, still, and violent criminals are being released daily due to jail overcrowding. Seems the windbags in charge have their priorities in order, and corporate welfare to the Irsay, Simon (Pacers), and Hilton (New Conrad hotel & residences) families is the only thing keeping our state from becoming a virtual wasteland. Just hope they don't mess with my IndyIndians who are riding a five game win streak into the All-Star break. I can only imagine if they really tried to bring MLB to town, they would suffer the same fate as the American Gran Prix (F-1) did a couple weeks ago. Believe me, some of the decision makers here could screw up a two car parade, and then charge the citizens to bail them out. BTW, the owner of the local ball club here has managed to turn a profit each year for the last thirty, including building a new park, four different MLB affiliations, two recessions, and countless economic downturns. All this almost in spite of the forces of government here that are focused on such issues as voter identification requirements, daylight saving time, ten commandment displays, school prayer, highway speed limits, seat belt, motorcycle helmet, and curfew laws as the most important items on their agendas. :crazy

[Knick9]

AL East
Montreal Expos (expansion)
New York (Bronx)
Boston
Brooklyn ??? (relocated Tampa team)

AL North
Chicago White Sox
Detroit
Toronto
Minnesota

AL Central
Baltimore
Cleveland
Kansas City
Texas

AL West
Oakland
Seattle
Portland expansion
LA of Anaheim*

NL East
Philladelphia
Pittsburgh
New York (Queens)
Washington

NL South
Atlanta
Memphis/San Antonio ??? (relocated Marlins)
Houston
Cincinnati

NL Central
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis
Milwaukee
Colorado

NL West
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Diego*
Arizona

*= still dream of changes


And this is what it would look like if the Marlins move to Memphis or San Antonio.

[Astros4Life]

heres what i think could happen with 4 teams in 4 divisions in each league

AL EAST
NY Yankees
Boston
Baltimore
Toronto

AL CENTRAL
Chicago White Sox
Detroit
Cleveland
Minnesota

AL SOUTH
Tampa Bay
Texas
Kansas City
Memphis (expansion)

AL WEST
LA Angels
Seattle
Oakland
Colorado

NL EAST
New York Mets
Washington
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh

NL CENTRAL
Chicago cubs
Milwaukee
St. Louis
Cincinnati

NL SOUTH
Atlanta
Houston
Arizona
Florida

NL WEST
LA Dodgers
San Diego
San Francisco
Portland (expansion)

and i think the playoffs could have the 4 winners of divisions and the playoff spots are chosen by record...for instance the best record is 1 seed and has home field through the playoffs and in the world series the higher seed is home field advantage

example
ALDS
#1 vs #4
#2 vs #3
NLDS
#1 vs #4
#2 vs #4
ALCS
#1 vs #3
NLCS
#1 vs #2
WS
NL #2 vs AL #3 so the nl team would have home field for games 1 and 2 and 6 and 7

[#1Rangerfan]

why put another team in Montreal? I think it is pretty clear than French Canadians don't like baseball that much. I think in the next 25 years the Jays will get out of Canada. MLB should look to Mexico and Latin America to internationalize the sport. Canada had its shot at MLB and blew it. There are plenty of other places that deserve baseball more and would appreciate it more.

[skeletor]

Been a real interesting thread..some very good ideas, on how to
alter the two leagues..even the bad ideas, had some sort of merit..

In an earlier post, someone mention Memphis, as a possible ML city.
It could happen..They have a fantastic downtown ball park, AUTOZONE
park, which probably could be expanded for ML use...The AAA Memphis
Redbirds,(St.Louis farm club ) draws over 800,000 each year..Good support
for this AAA baseball town..But it won't happen..Nashville, with it's team
the AAA Nashville Sounds, is building a new state-of-art-downtown park,
in the vein of Memphis's AUTOZONE...and might be a better choice for a
team to relocate..simply because THERE is MUCH more MONEY in Nashville,
more spendable income..than Memphis..Nashville, is more white collar,
while Memphis, is more blue collar....

I think baseball in my opinion, doesn't need to expand..the talent is at times,
woefully thin and watered down...Too many current teams, like the DEVIL RAYS, are really basically AAA teams..in the show..Until MLB expands to
place a team in Mexico, or Cuba, not enough quality players to go around..
but tapping into those markets, might allow more real good players to
arrive in the big leagues..but BASEBALL , simply will not fold the D-Rays,
and another team..as the UNION wouldn't allow it...as they won't allow the
American League to do away with the DH...The union , really doesn't care
about the game...they care about saving spots and jobs on the roster.
But allowing crappy teams like the D-Rays,and Rockies, just zaps the heck
outta the game....

[Knick9]

Forgive me, I am somewhat PO'ed at Selig's response at expansion talks in his recent chat with fans, but anyway I would like everybody who support expansion show how they feel about expansion as holding up signs "We want expansion" or something similar to that. Please make your thoughts known.
Some interesting and surprising ideas here.

[Knick9]

There Knick goes again with Portland getting a team...Portland isn't getting a team anytime soon, before 2010 anway... if a team ever moved it would be to Las Vegas.

:rolleyes: -> :lookitup :lookitup :lookitup

I've heard this so much that it makes me want to say this: "Check the stats."

If you look at the earlier pages of this thread, you'd see tons of evidence against the idea of Las Vegas having an MLB team. I look at it this way before I list the evidence, the Brooklyn mayor is focused on NBA when he should be focused on MLB, and Oscar Goodman is focused on having MLB in Vegas when he should be focused on NBA. A complete mess.

I'm reviewing it again:

* Portland has small rain fall compared to Florida and Vegas. As we know, the summer heat can be unbearable for many people in Las Vegas, so in thought, we wouldn't have many happy people at the games, right? Even with air conditioning, I still believe it wouldn't be enough to convince Las Vegans that MLB is for real in Vegas. I know that you can make a case for it to still work for Vegas by using Arizona as example with the B.O.B., personally, these are two completely different products to handle.

* Portland already has a stadium deal in place, and what does Vegas have? Zilch. Nada. Nil. Not even an unofficial blueprint has been submitted by Vegas. I'll say it now, Oscar Goodman is sleeping in a moving car and is only dreaming. I have not heard anything from him since he and the Marlins broke off talks for the time being. Early bird gets the worm situation here.

* Gambling cannot, will not, and should never, in my mind, influence the idea that professional baseball (MLB) can work in that city. Just because you have bright casinos here and there, doesn't mean you have final say about getting MLB. Shows?, yeah, gambling machines?, yeah, no limit Texas hold 'em poker?, yeah, but the fact of the matter is this, baseball and gambling are two seperate products also. You need true passionate fans of the game at the end of the day. You can't have people who are easily distracted by casinos and end up forgetting about going to a game and go gamble their money off. I find it extremely hard to do this in Vegas.

* The potential of another Pete Rose scandal? 'Nuff said. You cannot afford to have another mess like this happen. It leaves a sour taste in the average baseball fan's mouth when he/she hears about something like this happening just a few miles away from the place that the player plays in.

* Tourism. It is very easy to have a Vegas MLB team ignored in the shadows of all the gambling and casinos by the tourists. Just watch.

* The Arizona D-Backs might not be happy go dancy about the idea. Even as I speak, Peter Angelos has a problem with the Nats. From 1998 until now, the D-Backs have been the only team around and to say "We're cutting D-Back territory now, make room for Vegas" is at the very least, a slap in the face to the D-Back fans. Question, why didn't MLB choose Vegas before Arizona in 1998? Exactly.

* Portland has a larger population than Vegas. Even as Vegas grows, Portland is either half a step or a full step ahead of them. Just recently I heard that Portland is expected to grow soon, which is after Vegas' expected growth earlier this year....

* The old PCL history does matter here. The old Portland Beavers were a huge part of the city's baseball history dating back to the 1900's. What did Vegas have before the 51's? Again, zilch. Nil.
---

All in all, I just think it's not worth it for MLB to try Vegas. Vegas has a AAA team, why gamble to grow bigger? There are more cons than pros for the idea of Vegas getting baseball as it will crumble like the Seattle Pilots of 1969.

*Just to be polite I'll post in small print here, but if you don't have a case for Vegas to have MLB baseball to match the previous evidence, then don't post. Just by saying "Vegas will have a better shot than Portland" doesn't cut it.*

[Knick9]

On a recent episode of Jay Leno (yeah I watch his show from time to time), he said that (at the time) it was 116" degrees hot out in Las Vegas. That is laughable. Even air conditioning wouldn't help much for a temporary stay in Las Vegas' AAA venue. The 51's are already complaining as well about the heat. Now, I know Phoenix can get to 100-ish" degrees out but with the solid air conditioning at the B.O.B., it is not a real problem.

Oscar Goodman has a better chance at NBA than MLB, plain and simple. In an article I read, he said that he didn't care which sport he wanted, he just wanted one. It tells me one thing, he is not all that serious about MLB, just to get one pro sport team in his city is what he really wants.

Another problem that derails the Vegas bid, the gambling/betting line buisnesses. I don't see them sacrificing their buisness just so MLB and NBA can come in. That's impossible. They know they can make more money in their current buisness than working at a ballpark.

Just wanted to clear that up for anybody.

[#1Rangerfan]

Knick9 I think you got a good cause in all about Portland, but what about markets that already have franchises, but could stand another. Like Brooklyn, or LA area, or maybe in future, Chicago. Portland would be a good choice for Al expansion, but were else?

[Knick9]

Well, Brooklyn should get a franchise, (after what happened to the Dodgers), but I'm on the fence whether it should be by expansion or relocation. I have no idea there.

I've been thinking about these cities (in no particular order):


Salt Lake City
Vancouver
Montreal (if done properly)
San Antonio
Almost anywhere in Mexico
Nashville
Indianapolis
Brooklyn


All sound good, really. To tell the truth, I don't know where else after Portland, but I won't jump ship and say "Las Vegas" given the evidence. I'm skeptical if these cities want MLB, which is sad. You can flip numerous coins here.

[#1Rangerfan]

Well, Brooklyn should get a franchise, (after what happened to the Dodgers), but I'm on the fence whether it should be by expansion or relocation. I have no idea there.

I've been thinking about these cities (in no particular order):


Salt Lake City
Vancouver
Montreal (if done properly)
San Antonio
Almost anywhere in Mexico
Nashville
Indianapolis
Brooklyn


All sound good, really. To tell the truth, I don't know where else after Portland, but I won't jump ship and say "Las Vegas" given the evidence. I'm skeptical if these cities want MLB, which is sad. You can flip numerous coins here.

That's a pretty good list, except Canada. I mean, the Expos were in all reallity a failure, and the Jays will probalby get out of there in 25 years anyway.

[Blackout]

I say we just get rid of some teams. im not saying we have to get rid of ALL these teams, but look at things this way:

florida only needs one team, the bay area doesnt need both the A's and Giants , who needs the Brewers? god knows what a friggin deathpit Kansas City has been, Colorado will win never in that stadium, Arizona is a hellhole as well

thats a logical mans thinking

[Knick9]

There is no going back (hopefully) from contracting teams. If a team is doing poorly somewhere where there is slim to no shot at performing good in, then relocation is the answer. As I've said earlier, the cities I mentioned would be good choices to house a team rather than Tampa or Colorado if it's done properly, (plus I feel bad for Rockies fans, but it may be time to move on.)

The only reason why the teams don't do well isn't because of effort, it's because of this. -> $

[BristolBoy]

*Puts on European hat*

Team with the worst record in the AL and NL plays AAA ball next year. 28 teams, 4 divisions of 7. Top two teams in AAA that following season switch with the bottom AL and NL the following (except for scenarios whereby the team promoted from AAA is the affiliate of a team relegated from ML ).

*Takes off European hat and puts on baseball hat*

Barring expansion, 6 divisions of 5, division winners plus 2 wild cards go to playoffs. NO AL or NL DIFFERENTIATION. It's simply 6 different divisions, separated geographically.

Against own division:
4 series of 6 games (2 home series, 2 road series) per team = 96 games
Against 2 closest divisions geographically:
2 series of 3 games (1 road and 1 home) per team = 60 games

156 game schedule, All-Star Game counts for nothing other than fun and is East vs West. All playoff rounds are best of 9. Most of the rivalries are kept, no expansion is needed and all of a sudden a division series becomes a whole lot more interesting - the team's there for a week, you're bound to see their ace at least once, and if you get hammered in the first two games the series is not completely dead and buried. As for how the divisions would break up, well, I'll give it a shot - remember, there is no AL and NL, everyone plays NL (the real) rules:

Northeast:
Yankees
Mets
BoSox
Phillies
Blue Jays

East:
Nationals
Orioles
Pirates
Indians
Reds

North:
Cubs
ChiSox
Twins
Brewers
Tigers

Southeast:
Devil Rays
Marlins
Braves
Cardinals
Royals (I know, Cards and Royals don't fit, but this is hard!)

California:
Padres
Dodgers
Angels
Giants
Athletics

South and West: (very loose terminology...)
Rangers
Diamondbacks
Mariners
Rockies
Astros

As you can imagine, my US geography isn't good. As I'd have it though, the chain of inter-divisional play would be:

Northeast-East-Southeast-California-South and West-North-Northeast

IE if you were the Athletics in the California division, you'd play teams from the Southeast and South/West divisions. Again, using the Athletics as an example, your total games for the season would be:

2 home series of 6 games each against Padres, Dodgers, Angels and Giants
2 road series of 6 games each against Padres, Dodgers, Angels and Giants
A home series of 3 games each against Rangers, Diamondbacks, Mariners, Rockies, Astros, Devil Rays, Marlins, Braves, Cardinals and Royals
A road series of 3 games each against Rangers, Diamondbacks, Mariners, Rockies, Astros, Devil Rays, Marlins, Braves, Cardinals and Royals

Got that?

[Knick9]

I got it, but I'll drop it. It is Bud's fault for letting his sidekicks choose Tampa and Colorado in the first place. Domes in Florida will never work, kapeesh to that. And I like the Rockies, I really do, but quite frankly, I believe it is time to move on and go somewhere else. I've tried to play it out with the Rockies having a high powered offense but it just cannot continue in that way anymore. As for Tampa? Horrible pick to begin with, Nashville would've been a better choice had they stepped up to the plate in 1997/8.

Relocation is the answer for these clubs, not contraction. I am a firm believer that there is plenty of MLB to go around to 32. I can't understand why people shoot down the idea of expanding to just 32 teams immediately. People love baseball, it is a good game, give it to them. Portland has worked hard only to be slapped by Bud by saying "no expansion" and by losing to DC for the Expos. That is hard for any baseball group to just accept, and I expect the group to keep trying. They're serious. MLB is popular. End of story. If a city wants MLB so much and a group tries so hard to get a team, then just give it to them.

I mean, we all have a love for the ol' ball game, do we? I really do see your point BristolBoy, it's just that it would be premature (on his part) and make him look like a stupid fool if Bud Selig contracted any team. If he relocated once, he'll very well do it again. Just my thoughts.

[leecemark]

--I kind of like Bristol Boy's suggestion, although I've got a few modifications. I see the 6 divisons this way;
Western Conference or National League or whatever
Pacific Divison.............Western..............Central
SF............................SD.................. .....Mil
LA............................AZ.................. .....Minn
Sea..........................Col.................. .....StL
Oak..........................Tex.................. ....Chi Cubs
Ana/LA/Cal.................Hou.....................KC

North........................East................. ...South
Det..........................NYY.................. ..Atl
Chi WS.....................NYM....................Fla
Cle..........................Bos.................. ....TB
Pitt..........................Phil................ ......Wash
Tor..........................Balt................. ....Cin

--I'd also stick with the more traditional 3 game series with 18 games in your division (72), 6 vs each of the teams in your league/conference (60) and 3 vs 2 of the 3 divisons in the opposite league/conference (30) for a total of 162. The team with conference's best record would get home field in a 3-2-2 home away set up vs the wild card as opposed to the 2-3-2 between the division winner and in the league championship/word series.

[BasEbaLlKnoItAll]

who needs the Brewers? Arizona is a hellhole as well

with those state of the art stadiums, and contracts with the cities, those 2 wont be going anywhere.


Looks like i jumped on this subject pretty late. this is something ive discussed with friends a lot, and i agree with Knick9 that MLB should be expanded to 32.

[Clemente70]

Very interesting topic here.

I agree that the Central is screwy, infact, I want my Pirates outta there. I feel we belong in the NL east.

[whatswailing]

The NL central has to have 6 and the AL west has to have 4 unless you want interleague play every day or 3 day rests. I guess you could put the Pirates in the East, it wouldn't make a difference, they'd still finish at the bottom 3 of the division.

[Clemente70]

The NL central has to have 6 and the AL west has to have 4 unless you want interleague play every day or 3 day rests. I guess you could put the Pirates in the East, it wouldn't make a difference, they'd still finish at the bottom 3 of the division.

We need an owner, with Cojones, and some money. Cuban would be the perfect guy, as I have heard some rumors going around. But thats for a different topic.

I believe that the leagues should play each other more often, why not? I think it's about time. I understand there are purists but there are purists on both sides, the National and American league. They should come to a compromise. In my opinion, they should have the same rules. I, even though I am a Pirate fan and NL follower, am a big fan of the DH. I am in favor of the pitcher not batting and I really enjoy the extra offense. Not to mention, it gives more job opportunities, if you understand what I mean by that. Another player is needed to bat.

[whatswailing]

Yeah, I'm not a purist. I like the DH in the AL, love the All-Star game having the homefield advantage riding on it and I like interleague play. But, having it at certain times of the year is good enough for me, not every single series. I think the Pirates should remain in the central and I do wish they'd get Cuban as the owner to return some glory to the franchise. I don't want the NL having the DH though.

[Clemente70]

I don't want the NL having the DH though.


Why not? Do you think that the quality of the pitching will decrease or something? The fact is that the AL is the more attractive or successful league, and I feel, its because of the DL and the added offense. I also really cannot stand when the pitcher bats, it is a momentum killer.

[whatswailing]

The DH as you said adds another job. It also means that all teams would have it around the league. That makes the talent pool worse than it already is. I like the way it is now, there's no need to add another bat and I would watch an NL game over an AL game any day. They can have the DH if they want, keep away from the NL.

[Clemente70]

Well, I don't see the logic in that statement. I would take a double or single A minor league position player to bat anyday over an MLB pitcher, even if hes the best hitting pitcher. Another positive in having the DH in the NL, is when you have an aging veteran on your team, you can keep him around. But, this is my opinion I guess.

[JaysRus]

I didnt read through all this topic, but Im a bit paranoid so let me just say, TORONTO AINT GOING ANYWHERE!

[#1Rangerfan]

--I kind of like Bristol Boy's suggestion, although I've got a few modifications. I see the 6 divisons this way;
Western Conference or National League or whatever
Pacific Divison.............Western..............Central
SF............................SD.................. .....Mil
LA............................AZ.................. .....Minn
Sea..........................Col.................. .....StL
Oak..........................Tex.................. ....Chi Cubs
Ana/LA/Cal.................Hou.....................KC

North........................East................. ...South
Det..........................NYY.................. ..Atl
Chi WS.....................NYM....................Fla
Cle..........................Bos.................. ....TB
Pitt..........................Phil................ ......Wash
Tor..........................Balt................. ....Cin

--I'd also stick with the more traditional 3 game series with 18 games in your division (72), 6 vs each of the teams in your league/conference (60) and 3 vs 2 of the 3 divisons in the opposite league/conference (30) for a total of 162. The team with conference's best record would get home field in a 3-2-2 home away set up vs the wild card as opposed to the 2-3-2 between the division winner and in the league championship/word series.

What kind of alignment is that? With the leagues aligning like that, you're doin away with the whole concept of 2 different leagues. Thats looks like the NBA's alignment. Why would MLB screw everything that's been around since 1901. MLB isn't like other sports and leagues where it can just realign teams depending on what is geography correct. We 129 years of history here (since NL first season in 1876). All this western conference, eastern conference stuff is stupid. MLB is 2 different leagues based on history, not geography. Just expand the AL by 2 teams. Why does it have to be so difficult.

[leecemark]

--Well the Rangers have closer to 29 then 129 years of history and have already been in 2 different divisions. The Brewers have more "history" than the Rangers and changed leagues a couple years ago. Interleague play has pretty much killed the idea of 2 distinct leagues IMO. Still I do have a sentimental attachment to the AL/NL concept. An earlier proposal of mine suggested going to a 5 "league", no division setup, with the original name/location teams being assigned to the AL/NL ,mostly just to perserve the historical connenction.

[Bluesteve32]

--Well the Rangers have closer to 29 then 129 years of history and have already been in 2 different divisions. The Brewers have more "history" than the Rangers and changed leagues a couple years ago. Interleague play has pretty much killed the idea of 2 distinct leagues IMO. Still I do have a sentimental attachment to the AL/NL concept. An earlier proposal of mine suggested going to a 5 "league", no division setup, with the original name/location teams being assigned to the AL/NL ,mostly just to perserve the historical connenction.

And there is no way baseball will change that at all. The AL and NL will remain and I actually see Milwaukee coming back where they beong in the AL as soon as two teams are added within a decade.

Milwaukee actually has been in four divisions, AL West when it was formed, AL East when Texas came from Washington, AL Central when the three division format was created, and NL Central when they switched leagues.

[#1Rangerfan]

--Well the Rangers have closer to 29 then 129 years of history and have already been in 2 different divisions. The Brewers have more "history" than the Rangers and changed leagues a couple years ago. Interleague play has pretty much killed the idea of 2 distinct leagues IMO. Still I do have a sentimental attachment to the AL/NL concept. An earlier proposal of mine suggested going to a 5 "league", no division setup, with the original name/location teams being assigned to the AL/NL ,mostly just to perserve the historical connenction.

Just to give u a little history listen here, the Senators/Rangers are 8 years older than the Pilots/Brewers. Nobody question how much history a team has. Your crazy alignment propasol is just what we don't need in MLB. You said that interleague play has killed the 2-league concept. I think it has deepen the idea. For 5 months of the year, the leagues play within themselves. For 1 month, interleague play gives fans from the other leagues to witness players and teams they would normally ever see. Why would any true baseball fan want to kill the idea of 2 seperate leagues.

[trosmok]

Why would any true baseball fan want to kill the idea of 2 seperate leagues.

No true baseball fan would, which is how we all now know Bug Selig is no true baseball fan. :p

[Knick9]

Then if we all know that Bud Selig is no true baseball fan himself, then by golly, go find all the "Impeach Bud Selig" petitions and sign them all! I'm serious, that's how baseball fans can rid themselves of one village dope!

It shouldn't matter how much history a franchise has, if that franchise is in the dumps for a very long time, then there is something wrong. I can just see for a split second that there are problems with this Tampa team. This team plays in a dome in Florida. This team, at best, can only range a low amount of wins. Low attendance, and etc. I don't have anything against the team's fans, BTW, it's just that this team in Tampa is a bit out of place. Again, as I said before, hardly any money is generated and that is spelled bad business.

I would like to hear from fans in the cities that I mentioned along with Portland on what they think about if MLB should go to thier city or not.

[west coast orange and black]

The fact is that the AL is the more attractive or successful league...please explain, roberto, jr.
i just don't see how the american league is more attractive. more successful.

[Clemente70]

please explain, roberto, jr.
i just don't see how the american league is more attractive. more successful.
Its pretty self explanatory, isn't it? Yanks, Red sox, White Sox, Twins, Texas and it goes on and on.

You can also look at the all star game. The last time the NL won was like 10 years ago. Oh, doesnt that game have meaning today, btw?

[trosmok]

You can also look at the all star game. The last time the NL won was like 10 years ago. Oh, doesnt that game have meaning today, btw?

Only because the puppet Commissioner felt he needed to do something after declaring a tie in one of the worst decisions by Bug in season or so. And no, the AS game means really next to nothing to most, it is the World Series that really matters, and the last winners have been the Red Sox, Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks..... sounds fairly evenly divided to me in recent years, or am I missing something? ;)

Besides, if the AL is more successful and attractive why do the attendance figures so far this season show, in order:

Yankees
Cards
Angels
Dodgers
Giants
Mets
Phillies
Cubs
Rangers
Padres

So seven of the top ten makes the NL less attractive? Bizarro Universe MLB?

[Clemente70]

I guess I never looked at it that way. The Yanks and Redsox do make the AL stand out in a big way though.

[Old English D]

Getting back to the topic of realignment, I think MLB would be best off expanding to 32 teams even though it will water the league down more. I would like to see 2 leagues with 2 divisions in each league (the old way). But, I know it would never work out that way, so here is my proposal for an 8 division alignment keeping in tune with geography, tradition, and natural as well as older rivalries. Here it is:

AL East
Baltimore
Boston
New York
Tampa Bay

AL North
Cleveland
Detroit
Milwaukee
Toronto

AL Central
Chicago
Kansas City
Minnesota
Texas

AL West
Los Angeles
Oakland
Portland (expansion)
Seattle

NL East
Atlanta
Florida
New York
Philadelphia

NL North
Cincinnati
Indiana (expansion)
Pittsburgh
Washington

NL Central
Chicago
Colorado
Houston
St. Louis

NL West
Arizona
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco

Portland should get a team because it is the largest metropolitan area that does not support a MLB team, also it is an ideal western city for the AL. The Milwaukee Brewers should go back to the AL, they are not the Milwaukee Braves. Indiana should get the other expansion team because of its ideal location in the Midwest and a strong fan support of other professional sports teams (Pacers & Colts).

Let me know what you think. If you don't agree tell me why and how you would align the teams.

[sschirmer]

Please tell me I didn't just read that someone wants expansion! Holy crap, there are probably thirty pitchers in the Bigs right now that don't belong there, and you want to try to fill two more complete staffs? Get ahold of yourself! :crazy :eek:

[Knick9]

What are people going to say if MLB continues to have lopsided leagues? 14 in the AL and 16 in the NL? "Hey dad, why does the AL have 14 teams and the NL 16 teams?" Now exactly what would the dad say why it is this way? Oh, just because the NL does have more teams? :crazy

I'm just saying expand the league by two more teams then enough with expansion altogether. If the NFL can work with 32 teams, then so can MLB. Probably the main factor in this is the talent pool. Well, the NFL has a salary cap, and MLB doesn't. If you want MLB to have a salary cap then give Bud the boot via petition to impeach him! So that there can be a commish who can install one.

Don't worry, I have a hold of myself, I feel fine. :crazy Kidding! :laugh

[Bluesteve32]

Please tell me I didn't just read that someone wants expansion! Holy crap, there are probably thirty pitchers in the Bigs right now that don't belong there, and you want to try to fill two more complete staffs? Get ahold of yourself! :crazy :eek:

It seems a few too many people in here do not like the unbalanced leagues and divisions. There are only two solutions to that, one would be contraction and the other would be expansion.

To me, it is not that big of deal. From 1977 until 1993 the AL had 14 teams and the NL had 12. For a couple of seasons, the leagues were even until 1997 when the Devil Rays and the D-Backs entered. These people would rather have interleague play everyday (which would have to happen) if the leagues and divisions were balanced; than the status quo.

I actually think expansion would be down the road, especially when even more foreign players start filling in the numbers and the resurgence of baseball in many areas. Not for several years, maybe a decade, would this be practable.

[Srschirm]

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if there were like, 16 teams.

[CubBlue]

After reading through all of this, absorbing all essential info, I have come to the conclusion that getting rid of 2 teams is the best way to go.

The quality of baseball would INCREASE, this, is the most important thing.

Of course, it would be even finally, 14 and 14. 8 teams can STILL go to the playoffs. The first and second place team from all 4 divisions. Baseball makes more money this way, and again, the quality of teams would be much better than today's 8 teams that play.

Finally, I think MLB should implement the "either or" as far as utlizing DH. I am at the point where I dont care, as long as its THE SAME in both leagues. Letting the pitchers bat, would help out pitching. Using dh, would increase offense. Either way, just go with one already, for petes sake.

[CubBlue]

What are people going to say if MLB continues to have lopsided leagues? 14 in the AL and 16 in the NL? "Hey dad, why does the AL have 14 teams and the NL 16 teams?" Now exactly what would the dad say why it is this way? Oh, just because the NL does have more teams? :crazy

I'm just saying expand the league by two more teams then enough with expansion altogether. If the NFL can work with 32 teams, then so can MLB. Probably the main factor in this is the talent pool.

I agreed with this up until you suggested expansion. Lets compare it to the NFL for a sec, as you brought up. Now, what positions stand out to you, in their respective sport? To me, its the pitcher, and the quarterback. The more teams you have, the more quarterbacks, right? However, football is proven to have teams succeed with a not so great QB. On top of that, teams get 3-4 QBs tops, per team, and the talent factor isnt compromised.

Now in baseball, its different. You almost always need great pitching to succeed. Not only that, but there are MORE pitchers used, compared to QB's so this means it will be a watered down product. The thing is, the art of pitching is a very much appreciated part of baseball, no one wants to see crappy second rate watered down stuff.

I strongly believe that the answer is to go back to 28 teams. 14 each league, and you can still have 8 playoff teams so baseball can still make its money. The first and second place teams from the 4 7-team divisions will more than probably be superior in talent. If people want to cut down down, then the next best record can be used for only one playoff spot, with 6 teams in total.

[sschirmer]

After reading through all of this, absorbing all essential info, I have come to the conclusion that getting rid of 2 teams is the best way to go.

The quality of baseball would INCREASE, this, is the most important thing.

Of course, it would be even finally, 14 and 14. 8 teams can STILL go to the playoffs. The first and second place team from all 4 divisions. Baseball makes more money this way, and again, the quality of teams would be much better than today's 8 teams that play.

Finally, I think MLB should implement the "either or" as far as utlizing DH. I am at the point where I dont care, as long as its THE SAME in both leagues. Letting the pitchers bat, would help out pitching. Using dh, would increase offense. Either way, just go with one already, for petes sake.

Ah, the calm, collected voice of reason. Thanks CubBlue.

[BristolBoy]

I've just thought of an absolutely great way of sorting out this DH/no DH business - have the home team nominate for each game which rule is to be played.

Think of the possibilities! The Giants have just come to town, and Bonds' knee is still dodgy, so you play no DH, thus taking him out of the game. Mike Hampton is starting for you today, so you play no DH so the other team has to hit with their pitcher. Your opponent's slugger is on the shelf for a week, yet you have a fully healthy David Ortiz who can't play first - so you play with a DH. Your slugger on a hot streak? Your opponent's big stick colder than Bristol in winter? Play a DH.

Anyone else think this would be absolutely brilliant, especially when it comes to the playoffs?

[sschirmer]

I've just thought of an absolutely great way of sorting out this DH/no DH business - have the home team nominate for each game which rule is to be played.

Think of the possibilities! The Giants have just come to town, and Bonds' knee is still dodgy, so you play no DH, thus taking him out of the game. Mike Hampton is starting for you today, so you play no DH so the other team has to hit with their pitcher. Your opponent's slugger is on the shelf for a week, yet you have a fully healthy David Ortiz who can't play first - so you play with a DH. Your slugger on a hot streak? Your opponent's big stick colder than Bristol in winter? Play a DH.

Anyone else think this would be absolutely brilliant, especially when it comes to the playoffs?

That's radical, but really quite interesting. I like the creativity.

[Big_Mac]

I've just thought of an absolutely great way of sorting out this DH/no DH business - have the home team nominate for each game which rule is to be played.

Think of the possibilities! The Giants have just come to town, and Bonds' knee is still dodgy, so you play no DH, thus taking him out of the game. Mike Hampton is starting for you today, so you play no DH so the other team has to hit with their pitcher. Your opponent's slugger is on the shelf for a week, yet you have a fully healthy David Ortiz who can't play first - so you play with a DH. Your slugger on a hot streak? Your opponent's big stick colder than Bristol in winter? Play a DH.

Anyone else think this would be absolutely brilliant, especially when it comes to the playoffs?

quite interesting, though it would never go through

[Imapotato]

Ok 1st NO DH

Offense is too high already

2nd

drop Tampa Bay and Milwaukee, 2 teams that don't belong because the first is horrid, and the 2nd was a flip flopping Al to Nl team run by the Commish and now he gets kickbacks from his daughter

AL East

NYY
BOS
BAL
CHW
CLE
DET
TOR

AL WEST

MIN
KC
ANA
OAK
TEX
SEA
COL

NL EAST

ATL
PHI
NYM
FLA
WAS
PIT
CIN

NL WEST

STL
HOU
CHI
LA
SF
ARI
SD


Oh? Is that 1993's divisions??

Hmmmm, right before Selig screwed it up by allowing TB and Arizona into the league

"People love ST , why not have it summer training!!!"

That's Selig's thought process in action

[sschirmer]

The Seligs sold the Brewers last year. Drop Tampa and Florida, and find an owner for the Nats already!

[CubBlue]

Heres 1993's divisions and standings

http://www.baseball1.com/statistics/team/std-1993.html

National League

Eastern Division

CHI
WAS
PHI
STL
PIT
FLA
NYM

Western Division

ATL
SF
HOU
LA
CIN
COL
SD


American League

Eastern Division

TOR
NYY
BAL
DET
BOS
CLE
MIL

Western Division

CHI
TEX
KC
SEA
CAL
MIN
OAK

ahhhh look at those nice, healthy competitive divisions. Tell me that aint pretty? The top two teams from each division (more than fair) advance to the playoffs.

[Steve Jeltz]

Heres 1993's divisions and standings

National League

Eastern Division

CHI
WAS
PHI
STL
PIT
FLA
NYM




Correction. Philadelphia won the division in 1993.I think you got the CHI and PHI mixed up. Washington was still known as the Montreal Expos and St. Louis finished in third place that year, not fourth.

Eastern Division
PHI
MON
STL
CHI
PIT
FLA
NYM

[CubBlue]

Correction. Philadelphia won the division in 1993.I think you got the CHI and PHI mixed up. Washington was still known as the Montreal Expos and St. Louis finished in third place that year, not fourth.

Eastern Division
PHI
MON
STL
CHI
PIT
FLA
NYM

I'm sorry, I don't think you read that correctly, or maybe I did a poor job of presenting it. The link I gave was for the 1993 standings. The divisions I showed, are what I think SHOULD be, - a couple of teams. You can add Arizona in there to replace Toronto.


National League

Eastern Division

CHI
WAS
PHI
STL
PIT
FLA
NYM

Western Division

ARZ
SF
HOU
LA
CIN
COL
SD


American League

Eastern Division

ATL
NYY
BAL
DET
BOS
CLE
MIL

Western Division

CHI
TEX
KC
SEA
CAL
MIN
OAK

[Southlake CubsFan]

I'm sorry, I don't think you read that correctly, or maybe I did a poor job of presenting it. The link I gave was for the 1993 standings. The divisions I showed, are what I think SHOULD be, - a couple of teams. You can add Arizona in there to replace Toronto.


National League

Eastern Division

CHI
WAS
PHI
STL
PIT
FLA
NYM

Western Division

ARZ
SF
HOU
LA
CIN
COL
SD


American League

Eastern Division

ATL
NYY
BAL
DET
BOS
CLE
MIL

Western Division

CHI
TEX
KC
SEA
CAL
MIN
OAK
i dont like it, the cards are still with us..lets switch them in the rockies...sounds fair to me

[CubBlue]

Fear not those inferior Cardinals! I love to hate them, I like them in our division. Dont you love the rivalry? :eek:

[Southlake CubsFan]

Fear not those inferior Cardinals! I love to hate them, I like them in our division. Dont you love the rivalry? :eek:
yea, i hate the losing and being 13 games back..though

[Clemente70]

:clapping Im a fan of having Pittsburgh and Philly together again in the same div so Im all for that suggestion

[Knick9]

I found this interesting article here, (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/sports/12249900.htm) an interview with Bud "I'm single-handedly killing baseball" Selig (I got that nickname from a fellow poster) about some main event type of topics, such as steroids, Kenny Rogers, the DH, and the current team alignment of MLB.

Reading through the interview, you'll notice how continously ignorant he is towards the unbalanced leagues, the DH situation (in which I don't think he mentioned at all), and the All* game. To see how much in a traffic jam he is with these things makes me wonder, as in I'm skeptical.

If you have a sporting product to sell, you need to make sure that fans are happy with the way your sport is doing. I, for one, am not happy about baseball's position right now, and I haven't been for some time now, in which partially I will always believe that Bud had/has a part in, and right now, I am at the breaking point, and I'm saying words (seriously) like "impeachment" and "the boot." Bud doesn't know what fans want because he doesn't ask the fans, and he won't. I don't expect him to. He tries to add a supposedly new flavor to the game of baseball such as the winner of the All* game gets home-field advantage. Was that in the fans' best interest? No.

Steroids obviously exposes the weaknesses in Bud Selig's strategy as commish because at times I believe he is hesitant. Yeah, now he's doing something about it, but you'd think he'd be doing this earlier than now? Steroids ruins many aspects of the game because you, as a fan, don't know who to trust. Can you even trust Lenny Harris, a pinch hitter for the Marlins, now? (no offense) Plus, can you even wonder if Bud, himself, had a bigger role behind the scenes when this issue wasn't even an issue during the '80's/'90's?

Bud clearly has to make a decision on many things, things that I don't think he will make a decision on when reading the interview. Make up your mind, Bud, on whether it's 2 pitchers hitting, or whether it's 2 DH's hitting. Make up your mind, Bud, on whether to contract two teams or to expand by two teams. Plus, don't even mention Las Vegas, again, because that will, one way or another, be the dagger in your term as commish if you let Vegas have a team.

Sure, Bud, you may be happy with the way baseball is right now, but how do you think fans such as myself, Dodger Deb, OntarioGuy, and the passionate fan that DianasMoon82 was, and others felt/feel? My conclusion? I believe Bud puts himself and his followers above us fans in importance.

Whenever I find a petition that says "Impeach Bud Selig", I'll be happy to let you all know.

[Imapotato]

In that article Selig repeated ad naseaum about "setting attendence records"

Now what side would that place him on?

Yea, the owners...what ever makes the most money quickly, is what baseball will do.

Now back in the day, owners had the same principles, but mainly you had ONE owner, the team was his income...nowadays a team is an investment, with no heart so a Commish that sides with the owners, makes this sport the souless entity it has become

[CubBlue]

Indeed..great post their Knick.

You are not the only fan that isn't happy, I too, am not pleased with the on going 'imbalance' of number of teams, and different (DH) styles of leagues. We are not the only ones displeased, MANY are. Impeached he should be, Bud is lousy at his job and I don't care what he's done or lack thereof, he just is plain ignorant IMHO.

Sports EVOLVE, and IMPROVE, why not create a balance of teams? Why not decrease the number of teams, to improve the quality of baseball? Why not rid of the DH, to improve overall pitching, or why not create the DH in the NL so that there is EQUALITY in the leagues?

Even if you want to expand to 32 teams, go ahead and water down the product, thats fine, so long as you have BALANCE in the leagues and the full use or full elimination of the DH.

We need to clean up the garbage and inconsistencies in our beloved sport that is baseball.

[Knick9]

Here is the link to the old PCL. (http://www.coastleague.com/)

Notice that there is no "Las Vegas" team found in the old PCL. Some have already explored through this website, but go ahead and take another look. I mentioned about Portland's past baseball history, and it is worth taking notice.

[trosmok]

Fascinating stuff from the mouth of Bug Selig. So now we have an imbecile that denies being an imbecile, to go with a hypocrite that denies being a hypocrite. :grouchy

Local reporter had a good take on the disparities of attendance, check this out:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/SPORTS/508030413/1004/SPORTS

[Knick9]

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/htdocs/News/co2pics/selig2.gif

Apparently that college education hasn't helped you much, Bud. Where's your IQ on baseball, by the way? :eek:

This fool never ceases to amaze me every time he speaks. He thinks about contracting the Twins, then stops thinking about contracting altogether a few years later while stopping at 30 teams? Hello, 14 AL teams, and 16 NL teams and you think it's even, Bud?

I guess you can say that Bud Selig is a walking, breathing question all on his own whenever he pulls stunts like this. I wouldn't be surprised if he attempted to jump over the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle. :rolleyes: Why has he become what he has tried to condemn? He tried to get rid of problems while he doesn't care that he, himself is a problem to baseball. He is the posterboy for all the things that have happened in baseball recently. If he said that the game of baseball is for the fans, then why exactly does he do what he does to hurt the game night in and night out? It's about ca$h.

If Bud was talking so much about contraction, why didn't he look at the mirror? If anything, it is he who should be contracted. All these ideas of MLB's realignment won't even be mentioned as long as he is in the commissioner's chair. I urge you fellow fans, contract (impeach) Bud Selig!

[Bluesteve32]

Here is the link to the old PCL. (http://www.coastleague.com/)

Notice that there is no "Las Vegas" team found in the old PCL. Some have already explored through this website, but go ahead and take another look. I mentioned about Portland's past baseball history, and it is worth taking notice.


Not to advocate a MLB team in LAs Vegas, but during the PCL's "Golden Era" of the 1950s when it received the AAAA designation, LAs Vegas was still a small town in the desert. Notice that Phoenix did not have a team, which withing two decades became one of the top ten largest cities in the US. Phoenix is now home of the 2001 World Champs, Arizona Diamondbacks.

[Knick9]

How would you compare a city like Nashville to a city like Salt Lake City? Just a simple question thrown out there. What are the pros and cons to these two sample cities?

EDIT: sschirmer: Get that link out of your sig.

[sschirmer]

At long last, I have found it, or at least one. It's the petition to rid Bud Selig out of the commissioner's chair which can be found here. (http://www.petitiononline.com/mlb/petition.html)

For those of you who approve of getting rid of Bud, please sign this petition, tell your friends about it, tell your friends to tell their own friends about it and to sign it, and so on and so forth. Obviously, they all have to be baseball fans.

Ahem, anyway, how would you compare a city like Nashville to a city like Salt Lake City? Just a simple question thrown out there. What are the pros and cons to these two sample cities?

SLC rolls up the sidewalks at 10pm. Try luring a FA into that. Nashville is a party town, I'd much rather go to a game there.

[CubBlue]

SLC rolls up the sidewalks at 10pm. Try luring a FA into that. Nashville is a party town, I'd much rather go to a game there.

Is Tennessee big on baseball and are they even trying to get a team (or an owner trying to get a team there)?

[Old English D]

I'm taking a survey on which 2 U.S. cities (sorry Canada & Mexico) are most deserving of new MLB franchises. Here is a general list to help out:

Buffalo
Charlotte
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Las Vegas
Memphis or Nashville
New York (Brooklyn)
Norfolk
Portland
Salt Lake City
San Antonio

I would definitely want Portland because it is a western city (AL) and it has the largest market othan than New York obviously. I also would like to see a team in Indianapolis (NL) because it has a strong sporting fan base. If there isn't going to be a team in Portland then I would want Las Vegas represented as a new western team because of its rising population and popularity. If Indianapolis is not available I would probably want to see a team in either one the Tennessee cities or Charlotte. I really don't like the idea of putting another team in New York, Florida, or Texas. Norfolk would have probably been better suited before Washington came back into existence. Salt Lake City is a very small market not to mention what someone else previously said about its dazzling night-life.

Let me know what you think.

[sschirmer]

The problem with Indy would be Cincinnati and Chicago complaining about market share being lost. Maybe even Detroit.

[Knick9]

I'm taking a survey on which 2 U.S. cities (sorry Canada & Mexico) are most deserving of new MLB franchises. Here is a general list to help out:

Buffalo
Charlotte
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Las Vegas
Memphis or Nashville
New York (Brooklyn)
Norfolk
Portland
Salt Lake City
San Antonio

I would definitely want Portland because it is a western city (AL) and it has the largest market othan than New York obviously. I also would like to see a team in Indianapolis (NL) because it has a strong sporting fan base. If there isn't going to be a team in Portland then I would want Las Vegas represented as a new western team because of its rising population and popularity. If Indianapolis is not available I would probably want to see a team in either one the Tennessee cities or Charlotte. I really don't like the idea of putting another team in New York, Florida, or Texas. Norfolk would have probably been better suited before Washington came back into existence. Salt Lake City is a very small market not to mention what someone else previously said about its dazzling night-life.

Let me know what you think.

I guess if I were to put it all in a nutshell, to me it would be Portland (as a lock), and either Tennessee or Brooklyn, (you'd have to get back to me on that one, I can't decide right now.) Use this as a detour, if Tennessee gets an ownership group and the people there are willing to want MLB, then it's Tennessee. If things can get resolved with Steinbrenner and Wilpon (hopefully), then Brooklyn fits as well.

I'm kinda partial towards San Antonio, but I have to think realisticly and I'm fine with Buffalo, Jacksonville, and Las Vegas not getting new MLB franchises. Thanks for bringing your survey up, O-E-D.

[Srschirm]

I'm not seeing this whole Portland thing.

If Portland got a team, Seattle would be pissed (And probably San Fran too). The Braves and Reds would lose out if TN got a team.

Personally, I'd vote for Vegas and probably Brooklyn.

[Old English D]

I'm not seeing this whole Portland thing.

If Portland got a team, Seattle would be pissed (And probably San Fran too). The Braves and Reds would lose out if TN got a team.

Personally, I'd vote for Vegas and probably Brooklyn.

If your reasoning is based on existing teams losing part of their fan bases then one could easily say San Diego or Arizona would lose fans to Vegas and the Yankees and Mets (maybe even the Phillies) would lose fans to Brooklyn. I'm sure Florida didn't appreciate Tampa Bay coming into the league or Washington taking away some of Baltimore's fans. The point is, it doesn't matter where a new team is located; any existing franchise potentially has the chance of losing fans.

[Knick9]

I'm not seeing this whole Portland thing.

If Portland got a team, Seattle would be pissed (And probably San Fran too). The Braves and Reds would lose out if TN got a team.

Personally, I'd vote for Vegas and probably Brooklyn.

Along with OED, here, if Vegas got a team then the D-Backs or any of the SoCal teams wouldn't be PO'd? It would be bound to happen regardless of where you put a team at. I agree that there's always the potential of these things happening.

[Bluesteve32]

I'm not seeing this whole Portland thing.

If Portland got a team, Seattle would be pissed (And probably San Fran too). The Braves and Reds would lose out if TN got a team.

Personally, I'd vote for Vegas and probably Brooklyn.

Las Vegas is 274 miles from LA/Anaheim, 285 miles from Phoenix, and 337 miles from San Diego. That is four teams within a relatively short mileage by Western standards. Seattle is dome 816 miles from SF/Oakland, but only 170 miles from Portland.

Portland seems to be a more logical choice, with a constant population of locals, rather than a tourist destination in unbearable weather in the summer. I think the Mariners would not be hurt as much by a team in Portland than the other four clubs competing with a Vegas team. BTW. Las Vegas is 575 miles from the Bay area, and may lose some regional coverage as well.

[CubBlue]

I'm not seeing this whole Portland thing.

If Portland got a team, Seattle would be pissed (And probably San Fran too). The Braves and Reds would lose out if TN got a team.

Personally, I'd vote for Vegas and probably Brooklyn.

Then shouldn't you go by that way of thinking when you mention Brooklyn? That the Mets and Yanks would be "pissed"? If we go by your way of thinking, New Jersey should get a team.

[Old English D]

Going slightly off the current topic, does anyone know the reason why in 1969 when MLB went to divisional play the Cubs and the Cardinals were put in the NL East and the Reds and Braves were put in the NL West. Cincinnati and Atlanta are both east of Chicago and St. Louis. At first I thought it was because of the Braves being in Milwaukee at the time and MLB wanting to keep the Cubs and Cardinals together, but the Braves moved to Atlanta three years before divisional play even took place. I just don't understand why the teams were put where they were. Anyone help me out.

[Bluesteve32]

As far as I know, the NL was attempting to balance the Divisions level of play so that the best teams were not in one division, this would also balance where the new expansion teams would only have two in each division. The AL did it simply by location, when Washington moved to Texas, Milwaukee (ex Seattle) went East while Texas went to the West. What as balanced in 1969 may not have been the same in 1979 or 1989.

It was odd that Chicago was East in the NL and West in the AL.

[Old English D]

Thanks for the answer, but if the MLB tried to realign today based on that explanation it wouldn't fly. Texas has legitimite gripes about being in AL West today as it is. Can you image if MLB said today that next year the Yankees and Red Sox or the A's and the Angels are to be put in seperate divisions in order to balance the competition? In my opinion, if MLB realigns again it has to make geographical sense without sacrificing rivalries like Cards/Cubs, Yankees/Red Sox, or Dodgers/Giants. I also strongly feel Philadelphia and Pittsburgh should be in the same division.

[trosmok]

Bug has said he doesn't forsee any further expansion during his tenure, and he doesn't dare mention contraction or relocation, again. Probably the only prudent thing he has done in a while, and his legacy is now pretty well set as being "The steroids Commissioner." for generations to come.

My view on re-allignment is rather well documented, and it does include thirty-two teams, but not here in Indy. See posts #140 and #199, but I couldn't find my take on the proximity question mentioned by one of the squirmers, it must be on another thread, so to share: Indy is so close to so many MLB teams, and previous efforts were dead before seeing the light of day. I can drive to eight MLB parks, with a tail wind, in less than six hours:

Reds 112 miles
White Sox 185
Cubs 200 :gt
Cardinals 246
Brewers 278
Tigers 298
Indians 319
Pirates 366

Not much further:
Royals 496
Blue Jays 536

Not that it would ever be seriously considered, but conceivably eight clubs could have their fan base directly affected by relocation/expansion of MLB. The locals are primarily Reds fans here, with considerable contingents of Cards, Cubs, Pirates, White Sox, Indians, and Tigers fans. Gangs of Yankee fans abound here, and there are always the transplants from all over, as well as the usual bandwagoneers that used to be LA Dodgers, Marlins, Angels, or Braves fans that now support the World Champion Boston Red Sox. Imagine that!

[Old English D]

You bring up an interesting point. I never really considered how Indianapolis is so close to so many teams. I've actually even went so far as to alter my opinion about a franchise being placed there. Perhaps a team in the Southeast where baseball is not really as prevalent would be better. I'm leaning toward Charlotte, but would consider Nashville or Memphis, too. Here is my new take:

AL East
Baltimore
Boston
New York
Tampa Bay

AL North
Cleveland
Detroit
Milwaukee
Toronto

AL Central
Chicago
Kansas City
Minnesota
Texas

AL West
Los Angeles
Oakland
Portland
Seattle

NL East
Cincinnati
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh

NL South
Atlanta
Charlotte
Florida
Washington

NL Central
Chicago
Colorado
Houston
St. Louis

NL West
Arizona
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco

All teams play divisional opponents in the same time zone with the exception of Milwaukee and Colorado (where there really is no alternative-5 AL teams in the Central time zone and Colorado being the the only team in the Mountain time zone). Also, all the great rivalries are intact and some are a welcome renewal.

[tinytimf]

here is my realignment plan. i know this does screw with the al-nl thing, but I KNOW and dont care. anyway, instead of 2 leagues, just have one "major league" with 6 divisions of 5 teams each based on geography. for playoffs, ONLY division winners go into postseason. so the 6 teams will have a playoff style like the nfl, the top two get byes, etc. just like the nfl. also, i kept the states with two+ teams in the same division.

an example of what the standings and playoff picture would look like if the season ended now under my plan:

ATLANTIC
1. BOS 66-47
2. NYY 61-52
3. WSH 59-55
4. NYM 58-56
5. BAL 56-58

EAST
1. CLE 63-52
2. PHI 60-55
3. TOR 59-55
4. CIN 52-62
5. PIT 49-66

NORTH
1. CWS 74-39
2. MIN 58-56
3. MIL 56-59
4. CHC 55-60
5. DET 53-61

SOUTH
1. ATL 66-49
2. HOU 62-52
3. FLA 59-55
4. TEX 56-58
5. TB 43-72

WEST
1. STL 73-42
2. ARI 55-61
3. SEA 49-64
4. COL 44-71
5. KC 38-76

PACIFIC
1. OAK 66-48
2. LAA 65-49
3. SD 58-56
4. LAD 51-63
5. SF 49-64

now for the playoff picture as of now:

BYES IN FIRST ROUND:
1. WHITE SOX
2. CARDINALS

1ST ROUND SERIES:
3. RED SOX
VS.
6. INDIANS

4. A'S
VS.
5. BRAVES

[Bluesteve32]

You just threw out 100 years of AL and NL tradition.

It will never fly with anyone connected with baseball.

[sschirmer]

You just threw out 100 years of AL and NL tradition.

It will never fly with anyone connected with baseball.

Brutal, but I agree.

[Yankee Legend]

What is so great about the AL-NL system anyway?? Just because its 100 yrs old we shouldnt disregard the "tradition"?

[Bluesteve32]

What is so great about the AL-NL system anyway?? Just because its 100 yrs old we shouldnt disregard the "tradition"?

What gets me is that people are proposing to do what has happened in the NFL, NBA, and even NHL to baseball. What was part of the charm in baseball was two seperate leagues, at one time very autonomous, playing each other for the ultimate championship at the end of the year.

I just don't understand people who want to toss out 100+ years of AL history and 125+ years of NL history. When there are baseball people (who are among the most traditionalist in all of sport) who cringe at interleague play and the DH; how would they accept any kind of proposal such as some that I see here in this thread.

The AL is the AL and the NL is the NL and will remain. There will be no major change unless two teams are contracted (doubtful) or two teams are added (most likely, but not before a decade has passed) and I can see four divisions in each league with the winners only advancing to the playoffs. That would eliminate the wildcard, which would make traditionalist happy. Until then, we are stuck with the current format and the wildcard. Oh yeah, Milwaukee would and must return to the AL where it belongs!

Also I have no problem with the NL not using a DH and the AL to continue with the DH, it brings great conversation and debate, and I love limited interleague play, but I'll draw the line there by saying I could never support any comingling of the current leagues and format. Shoot, even the NLF has resisted messing too much with the NFC and AFC teams.

[Yankee Legend]

What about aligning it like the NHL and NBA with a Western/Eastern Conference that way there will be "two teams playing for the ultimate chamionship" as you said?

[JaysRus]

This is total rubbish.

First of all, there would and should NEVER be "one major league" I applaud you on your creativity, but that is just "not right".

However, having different conferences or leagues is a good thing, its not only a part of baseball but ALL sports.

The difference however, is that the other sports may have different conferences or leagues, but they follow or adhere to the same rules..baseball, does not.

This is what must change.

Find a common ground, and go with it. Its a total insult to the sport of baseball, and many non fans (that I have spoke to) look at it as a joke because of the irregularities.

Expand by two teams, or contract. Then, go with the DH or just abolish it. It would then be a "normal" sport because it would be universal ruling and fair game. I don't see anything wrong with that, this is just logical. Sometimes, tradition doesn't mean its the right thing, sports always evolve, and this would be for the better.

[CubBlue]

^
I totally agree.

Although I favor the contraction of two teams, the more I hear about the 8 division (4 per league), only winners advancing (eliminating wildcard) system the more it appeals me, I am definetely intrigued by it.

I'm always more a fan of playing your division rivals so the more games, the better...you get to play the 3 teams in your division a lot more because the teams are concentrated.

75 games within your division.
75 outside division, within league
12 interleague games

Cub fans, imagine playing the Cards 25 games a year? WOW talk about controlling your own destiny!

[Bluesteve32]

What about aligning it like the NHL and NBA with a Western/Eastern Conference that way there will be "two teams playing for the ultimate chamionship" as you said?

No, that would lose the tradition of the AL and NL. I would never want baseball to be remotely like the NHL and, God Forbid, the NBA.

[tinytimf]

Major League Baseball

East West

New England Heartland
1. Red Sox 84-60 1. Cardinals 93-53
2. Yankees 81-62 2. White Sox 88-55
3. Phillies 77-68 3. Twins 75-69
4. Mets 71-73 4. Cubs 72-73
5. Pirates 57-87 5. Royals 46-96

Atlantic Mountain
1. Braves 83-62 1. Astros 76-68
2. Marlins 78-67 2. Rangers 70-75
3. Nationals 74-71 3. Diamondbacks 65-80
4. Orioles 69-75 4. Mariners 63-81
5. Devil Rays 60-85 5. Rockies 58-86

Great Lakes Pacific
1. Indians 83-62 1. Angels 81-63
2. Blue Jays 72-72 2. Athletics 80-64
3. Brewers 72-72 3. Padres 71-73
4. Reds 67-77 4. Dodgers 66-78
5. Tigers 65-78 5. Giants 66-78

[DownUnderDodger]

Portland seems to be a more logical choice, with a constant population of locals, rather than a tourist destination in unbearable weather in the summer. I think the Mariners would not be hurt as much by a team in Portland than the other four clubs competing with a Vegas team. BTW. Las Vegas is 575 miles from the Bay area, and may lose some regional coverage as well.
Just picked up on this comment, and would like to add that Las Vegas is continually growing, therefore the constant population is getting larger by the day. As for the tourists, I am sure there would be a number of tour groups who would pick up on an MLB team and include a "Day at the Ballpark", as a tour option. In fact I may even consider that myself when I eventually retire to Vegas and they get a team. Regarding the unbearable heat, is it any more unbearable than Arizona, or even Texas and Florida where the humidity is really high. The heat in Vegas is generally a dry heat!!

[west coast orange and black]

...The heat in Vegas is generally a dry heat!!dry heat aside, dodger, i shudder to think of the dancing waters beyond the outfield fence.
i wonder if special permission would be granted to have the water show on the field. hmmm...

[Bluesteve32]

Just picked up on this comment, and would like to add that Las Vegas is continually growing, therefore the constant population is getting larger by the day. As for the tourists, I am sure there would be a number of tour groups who would pick up on an MLB team and include a "Day at the Ballpark", as a tour option. In fact I may even consider that myself when I eventually retire to Vegas and they get a team. Regarding the unbearable heat, is it any more unbearable than Arizona, or even Texas and Florida where the humidity is really high. The heat in Vegas is generally a dry heat!!

Even 110 dry heat is bad when you are playing ball. Also Vegas would have to suffer having many of the fans root for the visitors dur to transplants and vacationers. I don't think it is major league, and wit hthe gambling interests there, I really don't see baseball expanding or moving there.

[eddiejc1]

Nope.. Not going to happen.

Houston lies in the Central time zone and the Dbacks are past the 5 year limit. They will NOT readily agree to relocate to the AL West. People east of the Mississippi may not realize it, but in their short history, the Dbacks have already established strong rivalries with the Giants, Dodgers, and Padres and already have represented the National League to win a World Series. For economic reasons the Dbacks organization would (and already have) strongly opposed any murmurings about relocating to the AL.

You can make an easier case for relocating the Rockies (who have yet to really develop a rivalry with anyone) or for the Brewers (who started out in the AL)

I believe the Diamondbacks VEHEMENT opposition to moving to the American League---even though they signed an agreement saying MLB could move them has less to do with their recent rivalries with the Giants and Dodgers and more to do with how teams are perceived in the West. On the East Coast, the Yankees and Red Sox are regarded as the premier "name" team in baseball, but on the baseball, it is the Dodgers and Giants that are the name teams. (Never mind that both the Athletics and Angels have won several World Series---in the minds of fans, they still don't count as "real" teams despite their success---sort of like the White Sox in Chicago.)

I believe this is unfortunate, because I do not believe that the National League should be allowed to have a stranglehold on the Mountain Time Zone. This also makes traveling hell for the Texas Rangers, which was the original reason that MLB wanted the D'Backs to move. If the Marlins do end up moving to Vegas, Lorie should be required to switch leagues...

Eddie Cunningham

[Knick9]

so I happen to see that everybody has conceded and wants a team in Vegas? I'm sorry but quite frankly you're going to see that crumble, and you should look back in this thread for TONS of evidence against having a MLB team in Vegas.

"Oh, look at the shiney lights of those casinos! I'm sure the gambling business would give up part of its stock for a major league team!"

^ Case in point, no the casinos will not. You can't rely to put your judgement for whether Vegas should get a team because there just happens to be gambling over there, or with all the bright lights and whatnot. Like I said before, baseball and gambling are two completely seperate things. Just because Vegas is known for gambling, doesn't mean the city will see the day for a MLB team. Vegas, aside from the 51's, have no other baseball track record, whereas Portland does with the Beavers of the old PCL.

Oscar Goodman already has the 2007 NBA All* game, he has the blueprint already to lure an NBA team to Vegas, all the talk about baseball makes me laugh, no really, it does. No offense, but it's ridiculous.

So Arizona has similar weather? Yeah, I know that, but they have a built-in air conditioning for the B.O.B. Though I know Vegas would do the same, there is no stadium plan in place. Compared to Portland, which happens to target SEVEN, count them, seven spots for a stadium plan, and there is already a deal in place carried over from the Expos derby.

I can't see this working, and I will never see it that way. Even if Vegas gets a team, it'll be a hard, long process for me to root for them. Portland has been waiting in line longer than Vegas and to say that Vegas can cut in line is an insult. Dry heat in Vegas? So what?, it's a bad decision.

[runningshoes]

It's probably just as easy to bet on baseball in Cleveland as it is in Las Vegas. I think tight regulations would stop any shenanigans.

[strosfan]

I think it would be interesting to see more interleague play. I bet the White Sox and the Astros would have a good rivalry going...And I hear the Astros are putting their wives through Spring training self-defense classes so they can actually watch a game in Chi -town.:rolleyes:

[nyyanks13]

Have 32 teams: 8 divisions 4 teams per
AL East:
Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte (Expansion), New York Yankees

AL North:
Chicago White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota

AL South:
Florida, Indianapolis Jays (From Toronto), Kansas City, Texas

AL West:
Los Angeles Angels, Portland (Expansion), San Jose Athletics, Seattle

NL East:
New York Mets, Philly, Pittsburgh, Washington

NL North:
Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis

NL South:
Atlanta, Colorado, Houston, Tampa Bay (I know its 3 time zones but)

NL West:
Arizona, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego, San Francisco

For scheduling
3 games interleague (48)
6 games intraleague (72)
14 games vs division (42)

Have 4 game divisional series to start and end the year on weekends mixed with 3 game league series on tuesday-thursday
Then do one cycle of league games, then interleague, then league again

8 division champs in playoffs

players always get mondays off so they should be pretty happy
decently balanced
no increase in playoffs

[Transplanted Fan]

I was bored at work one day over the summer, so I came up with all sorts of realignment possibilities for Major League Baseball. Here's one I remember off the top of my head.

First of all, expand to 32 teams. Let's say, Portland and Nashville. For this particular scenario, Nashville plays in the National League and Portland, the American League. For this particular scenario, the Colorado Rockies move to the American League (Who's really going to notice?). This scenario calls for four, four-team divisions in each league.

THE DIVISIONS

NL West: Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco
NL Central: Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis
NL East: New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
NL South: Atlanta, Florida, Houston, Nashville

AL Pacific: Anaheim, Oakland, Portland, Seattle
AL Midwest: Colorado, Kansas City, Minnesota, Texas
AL Lakes: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto
AL Atlantic: Baltimore, Boston, New York, Tampa Bay

The season consists of 156 games. 17 games against the three in-division opponents, 8 games against the other 12 teams in one's respective league, and 6 interleague games: one series against a natural interleague rival, and one series against a random opponent. The season is shortened to allow for an extra playoff round.

However, rather than expanding the playoffs to eight teams per league, the NFL playoff format is adopted. The two division winners play a three-game series against the two non-division winners with the winningest records. The winners move to the NLDS, and the current system unfolds.

Personally, I don't like this proposal. For baseball, I think a four-team playoff is the limit before the quality of the postseason becomes watered down. So, I prefer my second proposal.


Again, expansion to Portland and Nashville, for practicality's sake. Only two divisions this time in each league. This time, Portland's in the National League, Nashville's in the American League, and the Washington Nationals change leagues.

THE DIVISIONS

NL West: Arizona, Colorado, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco
NL East: Atlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Florida, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis

AL West: Anaheim, Chicago, Kansas City, Minnesota, Nashville, Oakland, Seattle, Texas
AL East: Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, New York, Tampa Bay, Toronto, Washington

The schedule remains at 162 games. 12 games against each divisional opponent, 8 games against each non-divisional opponent, and 14 interleague games. The division winners, plus the two winningest teams otherwise, regardless of division, advance to the playoffs. No change to the playoff format.

[Knick9]

Ah, I found my signature thread. :cool:

I am also here to give some more info on Portland's resume for MLB.

* A poll conducted for the Portland Tribune and KOIN TV determined that 67% of Portland-area voters would endorse the effort to bring Major League Baseball to Portland.

* More than 600 business organizations, of all types and sizes, have endorsed the campaign to bring baseball to Portland.

* Portland's TV ratings for the World Series have consistently demonstrated a tremondous interest in baseball: (contradicting what Mayor Tom Potter says)

- Portland ranked 8th in the nation with a 14.8 rating for the 2005 WS between the White Sox and Astros. Excluding markets in Texas and Illinois, Portland had the 4th best rating in the entire country.

- For the 2003 WS between the Yankees and Marlins, Portland generated a 14.7 rating per TV average, better than all 5 markets outside Florida and the New York area.

- Even for the 2002 WS between the Giants and Angels, Portland generated the 7th best TV rating in the nation (15.8)
---------------------------------------

And yet, Mr. Mayor Tom Potter says Portlanders don't care about baseball. (ROFL :laugh ) Oh for shame on his ignorance!

[tinytimf]

ok this realignment goes back to the four divisions but it is based on geography:

North
reds
indians
twins
brewers
tigers
white sox
cubs

South
d-rays
braves
marlins
astros
rangers
cardinals
royals

East
yankees
red sox
orioles
nationals
phillies
pirates
blue jays
mets

West
rockies
d-backs
dodgers
giants
mariners
padres
a's
angels

[geezer]

They need to add 2 more teams on the AL, so that can be 32 teams and 4 divisions in each league with 4 teams each.

[Jake83]

Arizona was slated to play in the AL in 1998 but the reasons state above caused Milwaukee to be moved and the NL instead of the AL to have 16 teams. Once the Marlins move to Portland Colorado will be moved to the NL Central and Pittsburgh will be moved to the NL East.

[Knick9]

Well, I'm obviously a huge defender of the Portland campaign, but I'm also realistic. I believe the chances of the Marlins of staying in South Florida have actually sky-rocketed up in spite of what reports are saying. To be honest, the only teams that could move are the A's and the Twins (but I like where the Twinkies are right now, and the A's are fine).

I'm confident that Portland will have an expansion franchise the next time expansion happens, I just don't know when exactly. I know, there are obstacles, but compared to other candidates for MLB, Portland is in a more comfortable position.

My most realistic alignment of MLB with 32 teams:

AL East
New York Yankees
Boston
Toronto
Baltimore

AL North
Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota
Chicago White Sox

AL South
Texas
Tampa Bay
Kansas City
San Antonio (expansion)

AL West
LA of Anaheim
Oakland/Bay Area
Seattle
Portland (expansion)

NL East
New York Mets
Pittsburgh
Washington
Philladelphia

NL North
Chicago Cubs
Milwaukee
St. Louis
Colorado

NL South
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Houston
Florida

NL West
LA (the real LA)
San Diego
San Francisco
Arizona

[chrismarullo]

A couple of thoughts.



2. The Rangers are dumb for being the AL West and their fans constantly complain about the time zone issues.
.


It's not enitirely their decision what division they're in. They're complained for year's about the time zone issues. I'm not one to feel sympathy for Tom Pri-I mean Hicks, but the team and their fans need a break. Even something like putting the Rangers in the NL West where they could play Colorado & Phoenix(do they use the West Coast or Mountain time zone) would be an improvement over playing all their rivals on the west coast. But then you'd have to add a team to the AL West and there are no obvious candidates.

[Rose4theHall]

Right now, I don't think that baseball needs it, but if baseball does do any realignment, I hope it goes like this

American League East
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Toronto Blue Jays

American League North
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Minnesota Twins

American League South
Charlotte/New Orleans Expansion
Kansas City Royals
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Texas Rangers

American League West
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Oakland Athletics
Portland Expansion
Seattle Mariners

National League East
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
Washington Nationals

National League North
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Colorado Rockies
Milwaukee Brewers

National League South
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
Houston Astros
St. Louis Cardinals

National League West
Arizona Diamondbacks
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants



I like this, as I hate the fact that Wild Card teams dont at least have the decency to win a division before winning a Wold Series as whats been happening lately). This way you get all 4 team divs and the winners all go to the playoffs with no BS wildcard. But expansion is definitely NOT what the game needs right now....

An easier move, to relegate expansion, is to put the Marlins in the AL West, because the odds are high they will move to Portland, Las Vegas or San Antonio and move Pittsburgh into the NL East. This seems the most logical.

[TXRangersFan]

Phoenix(do they use the West Coast or Mountain time zone)

I think they're in the Mountain time zone but they don't do Daylight Savings Time (unless I'm mistaken) so most of their games start at the same time as the West Coast teams.

[trosmok]

No interleague games except for exhibitions or spring training would be the ideal. The only pure contests between teams from the American and National Leagues: The World Series!:cool: So it is written, so it is done.

Sure, Vegas has dry heat, but then so does a pizza oven so I'm in no hurry to stick my head in there, even for an MLB team or a Chicago style deep dish. nyyanks13 claimed to have the perfect plan, but, I think four divisions, eight teams each is a better idea than eight divisions, four teams each by a magnitude in the gazillions.

If MLB should expand to thirty two teams, which I think would be in the best interest of all concerned, then the best re-alignment would be for Milwaukee to return to the AL where it belongs, add a team to the AL in Portland, and get the needed ownership first for the a new NL team in the NY/NJ market. The news now about the "done deal" ownership agreement for the Washington Nationals is about five years too late, and I would hate to see a repeat of the abomination puppet Sleig has perpetrated on our beloved game again. Baseball suffers when the commissioner allows criminal activity into the sport, and more importantly when the law breaking isn't substance abuse by the players, but rather the fraud committed by pants on fire Loria in Montreal and being repeated in south Florida with the tacit approval of his buddy Bud.

Adopting a post-season format like other pro sports would be a huge mistake. A better idea which I have long advocated : Two distinct leagues, two divisions of eight teams in each, division winners play for league championship, league champs play the World Series. Neat, simple, and easy enough for even a judge to understand.

Sleazeball Selig is killing us in his last days, and will be forever known in the history of baseball as the steroid era commissioner. The rest of us should be happy and rejoice that the day will soon come when our beloved game will have a real, bright, forward thinking steward as the chief executive, instead of the malfeasant, sincerely ignorant, conscientiousley stupid walking abortiion we now are suffering with.

[chrismarullo]

The problem I have with interleague play is that it's unfair in nature. Pulling just one exmple, in 2003 Astros had to play both Boston and the Yankees on the road while Cubs did not. The Astros finished 1 game behind the Cubs in the wild card race.

The solution to that would be for every team to play at least 1 road and 1 home series against everyone. But that would greatly diminish the league and division schedules, not to mention increase the year to 174 games.

This current system of interleague play is just silly. Why do the Astros play the Rangers the same amount of time they play the Dodgers?

[tigers527]

The problem I have with interleague play is that it's unfair in nature. Pulling just one exmple, in 2003 Astros had to play both Boston and the Yankees on the road while Cubs did not. The Astros finished 1 game behind the Cubs in the wild card race.

The solution to that would be for every team to play at least 1 road and 1 home series against everyone. But that would greatly diminish the league and division schedules, not to mention increase the year to 174 games.

This current system of interleague play is just silly. Why do the Astros play the Rangers the same amount of time they play the Dodgers?

I like interleague play. Since the unbalanced schedule, your Astros argument doesn't quite have the same bite. Interleague play should have this change, however, which should lessen the home field advantage a bit. The rules should switch, (DH in the NL parks & pitcher hits in the AL) I have never seen a pitcher bat live. I don't think that will change your mind, but it does even out the home field edge a little bit.

With 19 games between divisional foes, you already have 9 home, 10 road or vice versa so someone has an advantage. Although being in the NL central with 6 teams I am not sure of the balance in your brand of unbalance in regard to the Astros.

One thing I would not like to see is home and home with the interleague games, unless you can figure out how to not increase the # of total interleague games played.

As to my boohoo moment about never seeing a pitcher bat live. I plan on attending a Tiger game at Wrigley Field this year. So I won't be saying that much longer.

[geezer]

My realignment will be as follows, If I was Commisioner, my realignment will be the following:

American League North:

Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Minnesota Twins

American League South:

Kansas City Royals
Louisville Colonels (Expansion)
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Texas Rangers

American League East:

Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Toronto Blue Jays

American League West:

Las Vegas Blackjacks (Expansion)
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Oakland Athletics
Seattle Mariners

National League North:

Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Milwaukee Brewers
St. Louis Cardinals

National League South:

Atlanta Braves
Colorado Rockies
Florida Marlins
Houston Astros

National League East:

New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
Washington Nationals

National League West:

Arizona Diamondbacks
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants

The regular season will consist of a 162-game schedule, distributed by the following:

14 games against divisional teams: 14 x 3= 42
10 games against non-divisional teams: 10 x 12= 120

No interleague games, no wild cards, just the 4 divisional champions will advance, and in case of a division final tie, a one game divisional tiebreaker decided on the best record against each other, or in case of that is also a tie, a accumulates divisional record, in case of tie too, run average.

The First Round of Playoff is the League Division Series, it will consist of a best of 7 format instead of the usual best of 5.

And the World Series will be decided on best record, not All-Star Game result.