68 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Danny Knobler / CBS Sports said last year (http://www.cbssports...ealignment-idea) that if realignment were to happen, it would likely have the following components:

1) 162-game schedule remains, divided like this: 18 games against each of the other four teams in the division (72 games), six games against each team from the other divisions in the same league (60 games), three games against 10 of the 15 teams in the other league (30 games).

2) Each year, every team plays inter-league games against the corresponding division in the other league (West vs. West, Central vs. Central, East vs. East). The other division match-ups would switch from year to year (AL West vs. NL Central the first year, AL West vs. NL East the second year, etc.).

3) In the first and last part of the season (April, September), teams would stay within the region. The regions (West, Central, East) would in effect work as 10-team blocks, and April and September would be used for in-block games, with games against other blocks (regions) pushed to the middle of the season. You mostly stay within division down the stretch, but when you don’t, you at least don’t travel outside the region.

4) The playoff setup remains as is, except that a second wild-card team is added (as it almost certainly will be whether realignment happens or not). Preferably, the two wild-card winners have a one-game play-in, but that’s negotiable.

As we know now, Houston will be joining the American League for '13. We also know that the 2nd Wild Card is now appearing more likely for 2012.

I agree with most of what Knobler outlined. There have been those which have advocated the removal of divisions and just going back to two 15 team leagues. I don’t think that is realistic, because it would kill the teams that finished in the lower 1/3 of the league. More importantly, neither MLB nor FOX/ESPN would be happy with a drastic reduction of games between rivals such as NY & Boston.

I think my Dad's plan (poster tpjs1) is slightly better:

A) 12 games against all of your division rivals for 48 games.

B) One 3 game series vs. every team in the other league, plus one additional series vs. each team’s designated rival. For the Orioles, that would be the Nationals. This provides for another 48 games.

C) That leaves 66 games to play against the other 10 teams in your league. You play six of those teams 7 times, and the other four teams 6 times. Those teams can be rotated year to year.

D) Preferably the Wild Card winners play a best of 3 series which makes a Wild Card team use their best starters to advance, and gives the Division winners a further advantage.

While not a completely balanced schedule, it is more balanced than the current schedule. While is a reduction in divisional games, it should still be an amount which would satisfy the TV Networks.

[Can_of_corn]

I have always thought that 18 games is overkill.

One game play in is the only way I would approve of an additional WC. Nice to see they will be rewarding divisional winners.

[Greg Pappas]

This is a favorite topic of mine... realignment.

Regarding playing every team in the opposite league at least one series per year, I agree with both you and your father. I like the thought behind a rival team, but it doesn't truly work for every team in MLB. Some teams simply don't have that natural rival opposite them. Regardless, it's a decent concept certainly. I want -sometime in my lifetime- to see baseball go to a "one league/same rules" setup... no more DH or all DH. Also, I'd like to see a salary cap and floor, as well as a actual realignment of the leagues... for me preferably via contraction. Yes, the Rays and A's. I've felt that way before and had been convinced to alter my view, but I've come back around to my original idea, and that is that it's best to see baseball with four seven-team divisions.

O's
Yanks
Mets
Red Sox
Phillies
Nats
Blue Jays

This article lays it out exactly as I have had it. http://www.nydailyne...0#ixzz1IeR7Iob0.

Likely? No.

[Oriole85]

I was against the wild card back in 1994, but I'm OK with it now. However, I don't like adding another team. Most major sports are already super diluted, look at the NBA/NHL where half the teams get in. Even the NFL, the Giants had a slightly above average regular season. I like that the regular season has meaning and it still will in the new system. However, the more teams you have you lessen the stakes. What I don't necessarily like about this new system is the amount of importance put on this one game. Let's say Team A has 95 wins and Team B has 85 wins, and Team B wins it would be odd.

I've always looked at this like how some teachers explain why they don't give extra credit. If you did everything you were supposed to do you wouldn't be complaining about more teams should be included.

[BSLChrisStoner]

This article lays it out exactly as I have had it. http://www.nydailyne...0#ixzz1IeR7Iob0.

Interesting read, thanks for the link Greg!

[BSLChrisStoner]

2nd WC will happen, announcement tomorrow according to Rosenthal / Fox Sports.

[Adam Wolff]

2nd WC will happen, announcement tomorrow according to Rosenthal / Fox Sports.

I get people saying that this is so the Yankees/Sox will always be guaranteed to be in the playoffs, and maybe that does have an impact, but as an Orioles fan, I'm thrilled. One more playoff spot just increases our odds, baby! Sure, those odds are still low, but increased nonetheless.

I also get that it could sort of screw over a much better team, i.e. the 1st WC team has 95 wins, 2nd has 85, the 2nd could easily win the 1 game playoff and bounce the better team, but I think it's awesome how much importance will be on that one game. Think of the atmosphere! Plus, it makes winning your division the most important thing, meaning you won't have teams "laying down" for others in the final week, unless they have a ridiculously large division lead.

All in all, good move in my book.

[BSLChrisStoner]

From an interview last May:

Baltimore Sports and Life: “Tampa has proven over the past three seasons that a well run franchise can reach the post-season, even with far less resources than the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. That said, if a second wild card team is added to each league, are the three largest beneficiaries Tampa, Toronto, and Baltimore?”

Jayson Stark: “Absolutely. I wrote about this earlier in the year. Under the current system, the Red Sox or Yankees have won the wild card in 12 of the last 15 seasons. And the only way to outwin both of them was to win at least 95 games a year. But with two wild cards, the magic number drops to 89, which is a big difference from 95. I took a look back at the last 15 seasons, and the second wild card would have averaged 89 wins. And teams that won 89 games or more would have missed the playoffs only four times in 15 years. So it dramatically impacts how the other AL East clubs could build their team.”

[BSLChrisStoner]

FCP Baseball Report: Expanded Playoffs A Good Idea for Baseball
http://fcpbaseballre...a-for-baseball/

[Oriole85]

I have always thought that 18 games is overkill.

Totally agree with this, but I don't think teams like the Orioles would be in favor of a change. After all, their only "prime" games excluding Opening Day are the Red Sox and Yankees, so having 12 of them instead of 18 would be a drastic change.

I actually think it would make the Yankees-Red Sox more interesting since it's somewhat watered down with all those games already.

[Oriole85]

This is a favorite topic of mine... realignment.

Regarding playing every team in the opposite league at least one series per year, I agree with both you and your father. I like the thought behind a rival team, but it doesn't truly work for every team in MLB. Some teams simply don't have that natural rival opposite them. Regardless, it's a decent concept certainly. I want -sometime in my lifetime- to see baseball go to a "one league/same rules" setup... no more DH/No DH. Also, I'd like to see a salary cap and floor, as well as a actual realignment of the leagues... for me preferably via contraction. Yes, the Rays and A's.

Yeah I don't find this too realistic either.

I would like them to go to one set of rule, one way or another. I know I'm probably in the minority here coming from an AL city, but I actually like pitchers batting so no DH. I don't see this happening anytime soon since the Union would be against losing career DH's like Edgar Martinez and players like Vlad who were able to extend their career as a DH. Plus I've seen it suggested by Jon Shepard(Camden Depot) that even adding Houston to the AL makes the DH less valuable to those players so add 14 more and it becomes much less.

I'm for a salary cap, not so much a floor. I think the luxury tax being somewhat lower than it's current level might be a bigger deterrent. Here's the problem with a salary floor as Keith Law pointed out, you would force rebuilding teams like the Orioles and A's to spend money. So instead of stacking the roster with younger players like Tampa does to control costs, you would be forced to sign players like Bruce Chen or Jamey Carroll. I know MLBPA some years back pressured the Marlins to increase their payrolls. Bottom line if you can field a competitive team at basement bargain, it's not an issue. Nobody faulted the Rays for being I believe 29th in spending when they went to the World Series.

In terms of realignment, I just don't see that happening pretty much ever. They already tried that once when Montreal&Minnesota(at the time) were much more viable candidates than the A's/Rays currently are. It's just something the union will never go for because of a loss of jobs. Not to mention, you deal with the stadium leases, broadcasting contracts, player developmental contracts, it's very hard to do. Lots of litigation at the threat of it in Minnesota. It's a good piece of leverage and might lead to the A's/Rays getting new stadium deal or less likely relocation(A's to SJ doesn't count).

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'm for a salary cap, not so much a floor. I think the luxury tax being somewhat lower than it's current level might be a bigger deterrent. Here's the problem with a salary floor as Keith Law pointed out, you would force rebuilding teams like the Orioles and A's to spend money. So instead of stacking the roster with younger players like Tampa does to control costs, you would be forced to sign players like Bruce Chen or Jamey Carroll. I know MLBPA some years back pressured the Marlins to increase their payrolls. Bottom line if you can field a competitive team at basement bargain, it's not an issue. Nobody faulted the Rays for being I believe 29th in spending when they went to the World Series.

Salary cap probably never happens, but it will never be approved by the Union unless a salary floor is also implemented.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Not bumping this because the O's are leading the East, and that Toronto and NY would currently square off in the 1 game WC playoff; bumping this to discuss the 1 game playoff.

Do you like that by itself? Selig said recently his preference was a 3 game series. To me that makes the most sense. It would force both WC teams to use their both of their Top 2 starters, giving a real advantage to the Division winners.

Selig said he was surprised, when his recommendation committee came back to him, strongly preferring 1 game only.

[Oriole85]

Salary cap probably never happens, but it will never be approved by the Union unless a salary floor is also implemented.

As I stated earlier with what a bad idea a salary floor is, the only way I could see it is if they raised MLB minimum salaries significantly. That's thing about the NBA, all veteran players are making dough. MLB minimum salaries are very low relatively speaking for professional sports at under $500k for the first three years. Basically you aren't exactly set for life if you can't make it to arbitration excluding big (and I mean really big) bonus guys.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The thread on the O's board about Olney's tweet (Baltimore played 103 games against teams over .500 last year, Detroit played 51), again illustrates why realignment and changes to the schedule overall are needed.

[DJ MC]

Not bumping this because the O's are leading the East, and that Toronto and NY would currently square off in the 1 game WC playoff; bumping this to discuss the 1 game playoff.

Do you like that by itself? Selig said recently his preference was a 3 game series. To me that makes the most sense. It would force both WC teams to use their both of their Top 2 starters, giving a real advantage to the Division winners.

Selig said he was surprised, when his recommendation committee came back to him, strongly preferring 1 game only.

I trust anything out of Selig's mouth like I trust the words of a politician: as far as I can throw them, with a desire to test the theory on top of a skyscraper.

I'd much rather see a completely revamped division and playoff system than tack either one or three games on to the present bracket.

[DJ MC]

As I stated earlier with what a bad idea a salary floor is, the only way I could see it is if they raised MLB minimum salaries significantly. That's thing about the NBA, all veteran players are making dough. MLB minimum salaries are very low relatively speaking for professional sports at under $500k for the first three years. Basically you aren't exactly set for life if you can't make it to arbitration excluding big (and I mean really big) bonus guys.

The key to either a cap or a floor would be to make them an average over a series of years, not simply an annual hard number. That way a team can plan ahead if they want to bottom out and rebuild with youth, expecting to pay those players more in the future, or go after an expensive veteran or two for a playoff run, expecting to let players go when necessary.

[Chris B]

If the decision is between how the wild card teams face off, then I'd much prefer a 3 game series over a 1 game series. Like Chris said, it gives the division winner in the next round a bigger advantage (which they should have).

Also let's say one WC team finished the season with 95 wins while the other finished with 85. (I know, unlikely, but still.) I would hate to see the better team have to only play one game in the playoffs (and lose) versus a far weaker team.

[Oriole85]

If the decision is between how the wild card teams face off, then I'd much prefer a 3 game series over a 1 game series. Like Chris said, it gives the division winner in the next round a bigger advantage (which they should have).

Also let's say one WC team finished the season with 95 wins while the other finished with 85. (I know, unlikely, but still.) I would hate to see the better team have to only play one game in the playoffs (and lose) versus a far weaker team.

If you had a best of 3 and both series went the max and I'd assume you have to have travel days, maybe a rainout? Also, you are already running against mother nature at the beginning and end of every season, would be tough in places like Colorado, Cleveland, and Minnesota should they be in the World Series. That means teams might be off for 5 or so days to accommodate this one series. Also, the one game gives more of an incentive to be the A team than the B team, with a clear home field advantage, only one game after all. Last thing we need is an NHL/NBA style playoffs where the regular season is watered down, even in the NFL this year, were the Giants the best team?

Your scenario, actually might happen more than you think. And that's why I am fundamentally opposed to the layering of the playoffs.

[Nuclear Dish]

C) That leaves 66 games to play against the other 10 teams in your league. You play six of those teams 7 times, and the other four teams 6 times. Those teams can be rotated year to year.

Why not just make it 6 games against each of the 10 teams, and go to a 156-game schedule. That would allow you the time to make the Wild Card play-in best-of-three without having to extend the season regularly into November.

The season is slightly too long anyway at 162 games. Going to 156 would be a bit of lost income, but it could be recouped in the longer Wild Card round.

As for realigning, I can't see it ever happening. Bud Selig has made more radical changes to the game than any commissioner before him, and if he hasn't done it, no one will. And contraction will never fly with the players' union.