mlb discussing reallignment (2 15 team leagues)

[patrickgpe]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6651634

 

most likely scenario is houston to the AL West for a natural rivalry with Texas. As a brewer fan I like it. Its not fair that the brewers have to beat out 5 other teams to win the division while the Rangers only have to take out 3. As a baseball fan I don't. This would mean that interleague baseball would have to be played all season. It really takes away the specialness of the couple interleague series teams play during the season. It probably would mean the end of the unbalanced schedule, which is a move that Bud made that really worked out.

[PrinceEatMeat]

Not a big fan of having interleague play all season long, but it does make sense if they go to 5 playoff teams per league. 15 teams in each league makes it a lot more fair as far as playoff chances go. I think this is what they have to do if they decide to change the playoff format. If they don't change the playoff format, I'd prefer just sticking with what they have now.

[Bombers]

Thanks for the post. I am all for this and it would be a great move for Baseball. With MLB adding another team to the playoffs the AL gets 5 of 14 teams in (36% chance to make playoffs) and the NL gets 5 of 16 teams (31% chance for a team to make the playoffs). I can't see the NL owners being to satisfied with that. Making the post season = making money.

[DHonks]

Why would the Rangers-Astros rivalry make sense when all other states with 2 major somewhat local teams are located in different leagues?

 

Of course, I long ago advocated a much more radical shift based on geography, but it messes with the AL/NL thing and most of us like having one league with a DH and one with the P:

1) NY, NY, BOS, PHIL

2) FLA, TB, ATL, Nashville??

3) Pitt, Balt, Tor, Wash

4 and 5 (tough to arrange) Chic, Chic, Clev, Cinc, Mil, Minn, St. Louis

6) AZ, SD, LA, Ana

7) Oak, Sea, SF, Portland/Las Vegas/Salt Lake City/Calgary/Vancouver

8) Tex, Hou, Col, KC

 

The Blue Ribbon panel from years ago actually promoted expansion, but they said the top 3 markets primed for new teams are: 1) new york, 2) new york, and 3) LA. Cities that might be able to support MLB based on other pro sports franchises or simply their size include: Nashville, Memphis, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Portland, Indianapolis, Boston, New York, and the Canadian Cities (thanks to a stronger Canadian dollar and them having perhaps the best performing economy right now...As we all see, Canadians are buying up tons of available land and homes in the US, at least where I go in Arizona and Montana)

[jjgott]

Why would the Rangers-Astros rivalry make sense when all other states with 2 major somewhat local teams are located in different leagues?

Pirates/Phillies but they aren't really "local" but then again neither is Houston and Dallas.

[NeedMoreFans]

I don't like the argument against interleague late in the season. They count just as much in June as they would in September, but no one puts spotlights on series' in June. Every other league has inter-conference games at all points in the season, I don't see why baseball can't. If they would have season-long interleague, they would probably (and finally) have to have all DH or no DH. Move Houston to the AL West, and everything is good to go.

[logan82]

Probably because games at the end of the year have more perceived importance than games in April.

[jeffy]

one consideration that has been raised in ownership committee meetings is eliminating the divisions altogether, so that 15 AL and 15 NL teams would vie for five playoff spots within each league.

 

Don't like that idea.

 

As for teams in same local area being in different leagues, the two Texas teams are 250 miles apart...this is similar to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (who for a long time were in the same division).

[Funketown]

Would it be really bad to have sort of "bye weeks" for MLB teams? 7 teams could play each other at a time, while the other one could have a few days off. Obviously not ideal, but the players might like it and it would solve the whole interleague problem.

[jeffy]

If they would have season-long interleague, they would probably (and finally) have to have all DH

 

Yippee

 

or no DH.

 

Noooooo!

[monty57]

I couldn't see the player's union going for no DH, as that would mean high priced vets might retire instead of making millions. If they go all DH or no DH, I think it would be all DH.

[Warning Track Power]

Realignment is an idea in the making since the last realignment in 1998. It really is a simple fix when you are dealing with the following realities:

1. Interleague play is going nowhere
2. There won't be any dramatic upheaval in the makeup of the National/American League i.e. Yankees in the NL or Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Mets in one division
3. Playoff expansion to 5 teams. Its inevitable.

With that in mind, the only way to give equitable balance, as mentioned before, is to have 15 teams in each league. The obvious candidate is Houston but does any other team make sense to move? In my mind, if there are no divisions i.e. 15 team League, one 15 team Division, why does the team have to be from a specific area to create a natural rivalry if divisons don't matter? Houston is the obvious choice only if the divisional format currently in place is kept and the Astros move to the west with the Rangers, Angels, Athletics and Mariners. Other than that, any team would be a candidate to move from the NL to the AL because divisons don't matter anymore.

My proposal all along was to keep all teams in the current AL-NL and simply eliminate the Central and go with East-West divisions (8 team divisions in the NL and 7 team divisions in the AL). Now, assuming Houston does switch to the AL, 15 team leagues and interleague series all year long, I don't think I would go to an East-West format. I like the new proposed format because a 15 team divison is the ONLY way of ensuring you allow for the 5 best teams to make the playoffs. No more 83 win division winners when a 89 win team finishes 3rd in a more competitive division. I will get behind the current format as well, but that doesn't ensure the best teams always make the playoffs.

I'm excited for this and hope realignment happens one way or another.

[logan82]

Colorado would be a good candidate as well with Houston moving to the West.

[NievesNoNO]

I don't like it. Seems like change just for the sake of change. I don't really understand why removing divisions is necessary. If they want to do it to make it easier to add teams to the play-offs then I'd say lose the NL and AL all together. Realign everyone. I guess I understand wanting to add playoff teams but they're seriously going to have to consider shortening the season to fit in additional teams.

 

Actually, after the realignment I prefer to have the two best teams chosen by a computer system and a panel of MLB writers and have them play in the World Series.

[Vgmastr]

I love that they are considering going to 15 in each league, it's long overdue. However, I don't see the need to eliminate the divisions, it will hurt the rivalries if we're playing Arizona and Washington as many times as we play the Cubs and Cards. Three division winners plus two wild cards playing a one-game playoff to advance to the LDS. Play six series with each team in the division, a home and home with each team in your league outside of your division, and a home and home with each team in one division in the opposite league, alternating division each year. If you assume each one is a three game series, that's 18 x 4 = 72, 6 x 10 = 60, 6 x 5 = 30, which is 162. Schedule two and four game series within the division as needed to fit the calendar, but each team's schedule is completely balanced. I don't see MLB eliminating the Mets/Yankees and Cubs/White Sox series two out of every three years, however.

[endaround]

I don't see owners giving up the unbalanced schedule. And I see ESPN and Fox throwing fits when you eliminate some Yankee-Red Sox games.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I don't see owners giving up the unbalanced schedule. And I see ESPN and Fox throwing fits when you eliminate some Yankee-Red Sox games.

And along with than, anyone not affiliated with ESPN, Fox, the Yankees or Red Sox would absolutely love it.

 

[MNBrew]

I absolutely hate this idea. I'd much rather see MLB - and I think they'd be far better off -- adding 2 more teams.

 

This 10-playoff-team idea makes no sense, and all the more so if it involves any sort of bye because too many teams stand to lose their groove if they go that long without playing.

[owbc]

I'm fine with the inevitable balanced leagues, but removing the divisions seems like a terrible idea. So much progress has been made emphasizing rivalries and this one move could wipe all that away. The schedule still will not be balanced because of interleague play, unless you are going to expand interleague play to 15 series/ year, which defeats the point in even having two separate leagues. If they are going to go that far, they may as well throw out the AL and NL altogether and create an "Eastern" and a "Western" League which would make much more sense. All local rivalries are preserved, travel costs are reduced, and teams would still get one series/year against everyone in the opposite league--a fully fair and balanced schedule:

 

Eastern League: Toronto, NY (Mets and Yankees), Boston, TB, Baltimore, Miami, Atlanta, Philly, Washington, Cincinnati, Detroit, Houston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland

 

Western League: Seattle, SF, Oakland, LA (Dodgers and Angels), San Diego, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, KC, Minnesota, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Chicago (Cubs and White Sox)

[paul253]

Why not just add two teams and switch to four divisions in each league? It seems like such a simple solution and it doesn't involve all sorts of changes. Interleague would be more fair because you could just match up one division in each league with one from the other league and not have to have instances like Milwaukee playing Boston and the Yankees and St Louis playing Baltimore and Toronto. I'm sure you could find two cities that would want and could support a Major League Baseball team.

 

This would be my ideal scenario:

 

AL East

NYY, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore

AL Southeast

TB, Florida, Atlanta, Charlotte

AL North

ChWS, Detroit, Minnesota, Cleveland

AL West

Seattle, Oakland, LAA, Portland

 

NL East:

Philly, NYM, Washington, Pittsburgh

NL Southwest

Texas, Colorado, KC, Houston

NL North

St Louis, Milwaukee, ChC, Cincinnati

NL West

SD, SF, LAD, Arizona

[PrinceEatMeat]

I think the MLB is closer to subtracting teams than adding them. I don't see that as an option at all. 15 teams in each league is the best option with a 5 team per league playoff format.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

No way should they add new teams. There are some cities that don't adequately support the teams they have. It's too bad they didn't contract a couple teams when they tried. More teams...less chances for a title. It's going to be hard enough for a small market team to win it as it is.

 

I'd be fine with two 15 team leagues...anything to get an extra team out of our division. It won't be perfect, but it's probably an improvement.

[Marc Newfield of Dreams]

I was thinking about this, and came up with an idea for scheduling it.

 

Play a 3 game set against everyone in interleague play. So 3x15= 45 interleague games.

Play 3 games home and away against the other divisions. 6x10= 60 non-divisional games

Play 14 games total against the divisional opponents. 14x4= 56 divisional games.

 

Comes out to 161 games. Losing one game isn't a huge loss for the owners, and would make the schedule more equitable, especially with interleague play.

 

Like I said, just a thought.

[paul253]

It's going to be hard enough for a small market team to win it as it is.

 

So long as there is no cap on how much a team can spend on its payroll that will always be an issue. However they are ways around this. Fixing the draft is the biggest way. If you can consistently get the best amateur and international players to the worst teams without forcing those teams to spend an arm and a leg to sign them, you'd go a long way towards evening things out. The Brewers will never be able to outbid the Yankees unless there are really dramatic changes, changes that will never happen in MLB, but just making it so the best players don't fall to the better teams in the draft will be a big step in evening things out and keeping small market teams relevant. It's how the Brewers did it. The Royals are in the midst of doing it. Teams are starting to realize how important prospects are, not only to step into your lineup, but also to trade to get those free agents you'd never be able to afford. The 2011 Brewers are an ideal example. Most of their regulars are homegrown and they use other prospects to trade for top of the line pitching.

[PKBadger]

I was thinking about this, and came up with an idea for scheduling it.

 

Play a 3 game set against everyone in interleague play. So 3x15= 45 interleague games.

Play 3 games home and away against the other divisions. 6x10= 60 non-divisional games

Play 14 games total against the divisional opponents. 14x4= 56 divisional games.

 

Comes out to 161 games. Losing one game isn't a huge loss for the owners, and would make the schedule more equitable, especially with interleague play.

 

Like I said, just a thought.

 

I really like this idea (a variation of it has been posted here before). I'm a big fan of playing every team in the other league at least once, simply because I think it enhances the marketability of the sport. If you're a kid living in Milwaukee and you like the NBA, you can count on being able to watch your team play against Kobe Bryant, Blake Griffin, etc. every season. Meanwhile, in MLB, you can go 3-4 years between playing an opponent from the AL, depending on the whims of the schedule.