The award for dumbest realignment idea yet goes to......

[berniebrewer4life]

This smuck at ESPN.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com...09/news/story?id=4869912

 

Seriously, this is just more proof that ESPN feels there are only two real teams in baseball: Boston and NY.

[Dragonbait]

Wow... just WOW......

 

That is awful.

[Invader3K]

Ouch. Yeah, that made my brain hurt. A "lottery draft" to determine which teams end up where each season, while leaving certain teams in certain divisions? That's insane. I guess he gets points for being creative, but the overall idea is just stupid.

 

All of this is moot anyway until MLB expands to 32 teams or decides that interleague play all season won't upset the ghosts of baseball past. Having one four team division and one six team division is asinine no matter how you slice it.

[JET15]

His plan is nuts, but there is an aspect of it that I think is a good idea... although it is radically different from traditional alignment... I like the idea of annually re-seeding the teams. I think all sports should go in that direction. It's more of an Olympic model. That would add more balance to any sport.

I think soccer (FIFA) does something where the poorest performing team(s) goes down to a lower league and they bring up a team(s) from the lower league to replace them. I think that's real incentive on both ends. Imagine the excitement in a AAA city if they won and knew the next year they'd be playing in the majors. Or conversely if PIT was sent down... and couldn't fight it's way back up. That may be even more radical than the annual re-seeding.

[Invader3K]

Yeah, I remember someone on this board outlining a plan like that a while back. You'd probably have to expand the total of real "majors" teams to about 40 to make it work. I don't think you could use existing AAA teams realistically.

[JET15]

Yeah, I remember someone on this board outlining a plan like that a while back. You'd probably have to expand the total of real "majors" teams to about 40 to make it work. I don't think you could use existing AAA teams realistically.

Agreed, but MLB is a lot closer than other sports for the FIFA demotion/promotion thing.

 

And on the annual division seeding, teams would probably have to be within a certain number of miles. His scheme has too many parameters (like NYY and BOS always being together). I guess if there was annual re-seeding, I'd think uniform rules across the two leagues would be a prerequisite (resolve the DH debate) and you could reseed across leagues. That guy was staying within leagues

[strawbossisevil]

I don't think you'd have to add any teams.

 

Top 20 stay in MLB-Premier League - NL has two 5 team divisions (EAST/WEST), AL has two 5 team divisions (EAST/WEST). Playoffs would be top two teams from each division (8 teams total). NL East 1 vs NL West 2, NL East 2 vs NL West 1 etc.

 

The Bottom 10 form the MLB - League A, with two five team divisions (EAST/WEST). Top two teams from each division enter a playoffs, the winner of which goes to MLB-Premier League.

 

Some additional rules: I think the team that drops from the Premier League should be like Mexican Soccer, in that they look at winning percentage over a three year period (if a team has been in the Premier league that long). What that does is it prevents a series of injuries/a quick rebuild in one season to lead to a team's demotion. Doing it this way would drop the team that has been consistently the least competitive of the group.

 

Why it would be cool: Teams that quite often have nothing to play for by April (bottom 10 in the league) now have a reason to cheer as their team fights for ascension. Also adds a playoff atmosphere to four cities that may not normally get to experience the playoffs. A team from the NL could drop down and end up in the AL upon returning, bringing fans a different style of baseball.

 

Here is how the league would be set up this season, going off of last year's records:

 

MLB Premier League:

 

AL East: Yankees, Boston, Tampa, Detroit, Toronto

AL West: Minnesota, Chicago, LA, Texas, Seattle

 

NL East: Philly, Florida, Atlanta, St. Louis, Cincinnati

NL West: Milwaukee, Chicago, Colorado, LA, San Francisco

 

MLB - A League:

 

East: Mets, Baltimore, Washington, Pittsburgh, Cleveland

West: Kansas City, Houston, Oakland, San Diego, Arizona

[DHonks]

i always like new ideas. Personally, it's like the new WIAA football plan, which I can't endorse. I teach in Arizona where the idea of conferences doesn't exist. Yes, we have our "Region", but we are re-regioned every 2 years, creating few rivalries. Heck, my district has 5 high schools of over 2000 kids each, yet only 2 are in the same region. We should all be in the same conference to promote rivalries and district pride.

 

Basing sports on geography makes sense. It might not be fairest to the poorer pro teams or smaller schools, but it's a lot more fun to have geographical rivals than 3 hour busrides every week! Plus, every once in a while, a program has that magical year!

[Invader3K]

I like that idea, but it's probably too radical for MLB to ever accomplish. I think the worry would be that the MLB "A League" team attendance figures would plummet. There would be a stigma attached to those teams that most North American baseball fans probably could not get used to.

[CheezWizHed]

These ideas all miss the main point: there is an imbalance that gives a few teams a distinct advantage in winning the World Series. Check out the NFL. When team wins its division, you get a mild "yeah". When they go to the SB, a bigger "yeah" and winning a big "YES"!

 

What this ESPN guy proposes is that the AL Central be the way the poor teams get into the playoffs to be beat by the Yankees/Red Sox. So now, those teams whole goal is to be lucky enough for a ping-pong ball to let them play in the Central, away from the Evil Empires, so they can win the Central Division (big YEAH) and by some miracle, make it to the WS.

 

Rather than making it an even playing field. (BTW, someone should tell him that a "Cap" doesn't mean the lower teams have to spend that much...)

 

And FIFA model is interesting... It would give more teams something to play for at the end of the season (bottom of the Premier League, top of the A League). But it still doesn't address the inequality in how some teams can spend to get good players that other teams can't afford. The ESPN author's comment about MLB being on par with the NFL for competitive balance is a joke...

[joepepsi]

Move Houston to the AL West. Go to a 165 game schedule.

 

Every team plays a 3 game series against every team in the other league. 45 games

 

Every team plays 15 games against their 4 division rivals. 60 games

 

Every team plays 6 games against every other team in their league; one home series, one away series. 60 games

 

The season starts on April 1st and ends the first Sunday in October. In 2010 that would be 26 weeks. 165 games in 182 days. Take away 3 off days for the All Star break and you're left with 14 off days over 25 weeks.

 

This would give the Orioles and Rays 12 fewer games against the "tough" AL East. 6 fewer games total against the Yankees and Red Sox.

[MadScientist]

Just put the local tv revenue into a pool to split among all teams. If the Yankees don't like it, they can broadcast their games without showing any player from another team.

 

Some sort of salary floor would need to be added, so that the teams getting additional revenue actually spend it to make the teams competitive.

[monty57]

Start a new division called the AL "ESPN favorites" Division, which consists of the Yankees and Red Sox. They play each other every day and the team with more wins at the end of the year gets an automatic spot in the World Series. The rest of the teams could play out their season and playoffs, and the winner of the AL/NL Championship would get the honor of playing the Yankees/Sox. Then all would be right in ESPN's world, and New Yorkers and Bostonians can salivate that they can see the Yankees/Sox every day. No one in New York or Boston would believe that they have any advantage in winning the World Series.

 

Yes, I'm joking

[Tbadder]

I'm a huge football fan (Come on you Arsenal!) and one of the things I love about it is the whole promotion/demotion aspect. Every game means something sliding up or down. Getting near the relegation zone is reason to throw even more support your team's way. Promotion is a day filled with excitement and pride and hope in a way that static sports do not possess. I love the idea of a MLB Prime and MLB Secondary. Two sixteen to twenty team divisions, the bottom three demote/top three promote. This could also result in a much stronger AAA system where cities like Portland are given a chance to get into the MLB Secondary. These cities are large enough to support major league baseball and it will give them a chance to prove it. I'd go with a shorter schedule, say 120 games, April 1 to Sept. 1. Maybe even have a mid-season tournament to give a smaller, poorer team a chance to win a mythical championship (they're all mythical). Nice idea--fun.

[RockCoCougars]

Wow. This is really stupid. I hate it when people whine about certain divisions/leagues are 'unfair' due to the talent level. I hate it more when they try to come up with stupid ideas to counter the 'unfairness'. Frankly to me it just shows they haven't been following sports very long, because all such things are cyclical.

[Tedaldtada]

I like the 165 game thing, but I would love if MLB nutted up and went to a EPL style format. That would be so great. The only thing I would change is having the top two and bottom two change league (i.e premiere and A). That way there is a little more movement.

 

Building on that idea, I think the draft should be built around helping the A league teams. Something like:

 

10 A league teams get 10 top picks

10 bottom Premiere league get next 10 picks

10 A league get next 10 picks

10 top Premiere league get next 10

 

So that would be 40 pick rounds.

 

Does that seem reasonable? It would help (who knows how much) balance the bottom and top a little more.

[nate82]

I don't like the premiere and A league part but otherwise it is good. I just don't think it is a good idea to be demoting teams and it could be reworked where all of the big money teams play in the same division though the DH would have to be either eliminated or added to both leagues.

 

AL1: Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, and Cardinals

AL2: Rays, Marlins, Orioles, Nationals, and Blue Jays

AL3: Astros, A's, Diamondbacks, Padres, and Rockies

 

NL1: Phillies, Pirates, Reds, Braves, and Indians

NL2: Royals, Twins, White Sox, Brewers, and Tigers

NL3: Angels, Dodgers, Giants, Mariners, and Rangers

 

Not much in terms of travel problems for any of the teams. AL1 will be a killer and should keep that division very competitive NL1 is probably the weakest with the Phillies and the Braves being the two big spenders so that may have to be re-worked out probably dropping the Pirates and Indians and replacing them with the Orioles and the Blue Jays both who spend a lot of money also. Scheduling would be a nightmare but that is a small and insignificant problem if you are looking at the bigger problem which is competitive balance. I just don't believe a salary cap will ever be a possibility for MLB so the best option after that is realigning the divisions and stacking the big money spenders in a couple of the divisions. NL3 is also a high spending group with the Angels and Dodgers leading the way with the Rangers, Mariners, and Giants not to far behind them the Mariners are about equal in spending to the Angels and just behind the Dodgers.

 

Does this completely fix the competitive imbalance no and there is nothing that will cure that not even a salary cap.

[Invader3K]

Move Houston to the AL West. Go to a 165 game schedule.

 

Every team plays a 3 game series against every team in the other league. 45 games

Every team plays 15 games against their 4 division rivals. 60 games

Every team plays 6 games against every other team in their league; one home series, one away series. 60 games

The season starts on April 1st and ends the first Sunday in October. In 2010 that would be 26 weeks. 165 games in 182 days. Take away 3 off days for the All Star break and you're left with 14 off days over 25 weeks.

This would give the Orioles and Rays 12 fewer games against the "tough" AL East. 6 fewer games total against the Yankees and Red Sox.

I think I like this idea best. It balances things out without going for a total overhaul. Plus Houston could have a nice rivalry with the Rangers that could bring a lot of money to both teams eventually. It doesn't seem like the Astros have any real rivalry right now with any of the NL Central teams. They're just sort of "there," and don't have a real geographical connection to the other teams.

 

As far as the DH, I heard Drew Olson offer an interesting idea today. Have the DH in both leagues, but make it a rule where the DH could only bat a maximum number of times per game, and could be taken out and inserted back in. Say for example, he can bat a maximum of three times per game. Managers would have to decide whether to start the game with him in the lineup, or save him for later. You could have the strategy aspect, without having to always see lousy pitchers trying to hit. I think it would strike a good balance. Perhaps MLB could expand the rosters to 26 players to allow this to happen.

[joepepsi]

I'm glad some like my idea! I just thought it up reading this topic.

 

Invader is right; Houston has no business being in the NL Central. It's not really fair to Texas that all their division away games are two time zones away. This system would give them several more in the central time zone which should help with broadcast revenues.

 

I'd go for the DH for all 45 interleague games. Let teams expand to 26 or 27 players for these games.

 

The problem with a tiered system is it encourages teams to slash payroll and maximize profits. Who would want to be in the Yankees division? Why should the Red Sox try to keep up with Yankee payroll when they'd be better off slashing payroll by $30 million and being the best team in the 2nd best league?

 

In 1998 the Orioles had the highest payroll in MLB. Then Peter Angelos realized there was more profit in positioning the O's as a mid-small market team. A tiered system would encourage this behavior. The Players Union would never go for it.

[AJAY]

This is probably the worst article I have ever read. I can't believe ESPN has the author of this article on their payroll. Why should the Yankees and Red Sox have their own division? It seems silly that fan bases in those cities will automatically get a 50 percent chance of being the postseason. How about putting the Royals and Pirates in their own division so fans in those can have a 50 percent probability too? Why should the New Yorkers and Boston fans only get the odds stacked in their favor? I also don't care for "tiers" or "seeds" or any of that other nonsense.

 

The real solution is simple. Share all the revenue and have a salary cap just like the NFL does. We don't need stupid gimmicks and cheesy "out of the box" ideas that make a mockery of a game that clearly needs real reforms.

[joepepsi]

If all the media revenues were shared they probably wouldn't need a salary cap.

[monty57]

This is probably the worst article I have ever read. I can't believe ESPN has the author of this article on their payroll. Why should the Yankees and Red Sox have their own division? It seems silly that fan bases in those cities will automatically get a 50 percent chance of being the postseason. How about putting the Royals and Pirates in their own division so fans in those can have a 50 percent probability too? Why should the New Yorkers and Boston fans only get the odds stacked in their favor? I also don't care for "tiers" or "seeds" or any of that other nonsense.

 

The real solution is simple. Share all the revenue and have a salary cap just like the NFL does. We don't need stupid gimmicks and cheesy "out of the box" ideas that make a mockery of a game that clearly needs real reforms.

AJAY, the Yankee / Red Sox division thing was a joke on my part, not part of the article.

 

I do agree that revenue sharing (particularly local TV revenues) would be the best way to get rid of the salary disparity. Soon we'll get all of our TV through the internet, and in a shrewd move by Selig, all internet revenues are shared, so this problem could work itself out.

 

 

[kilgore37]

I'm a huge football fan (Come on you Arsenal!) and one of the things I love about it is the whole promotion/demotion aspect. Every game means something sliding up or down. Getting near the relegation zone is reason to throw even more support your team's way. Promotion is a day filled with excitement and pride and hope in a way that static sports do not possess. I love the idea of a MLB Prime and MLB Secondary. Two sixteen to twenty team divisions, the bottom three demote/top three promote. This could also result in a much stronger AAA system where cities like Portland are given a chance to get into the MLB Secondary. These cities are large enough to support major league baseball and it will give them a chance to prove it. I'd go with a shorter schedule, say 120 games, April 1 to Sept. 1. Maybe even have a mid-season tournament to give a smaller, poorer team a chance to win a mythical championship (they're all mythical). Nice idea--fun.

They are going down Sunday! CHELSEA! Anyways the battle to stay up is almost as fun as the battle for the top 4 spots at the end of the season. Anything to get the Pirates out of MLB

[pitchleague]

Invader is right; Houston has no business being in the NL Central. It's not really fair to Texas that all their division away games are two time zones away. This system would give them several more in the central time zone which should help with broadcast revenues.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Houston in the Central Time Zone? The only division games out of the Central Time Zone for Houston is Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, and that's only 1 time zone over, not two.

[bball123h]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Houston in the Central Time Zone? The only division games out of the Central Time Zone for Houston is Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, and that's only 1 time zone over, not two.

Houston is definitely in the central time zone.