What if they made you Commissioner?

[jjgott]

If they made me Commissioner I would:

 

1.) Realign the divisions:

NL:

 

Division 2: Brewers, Indians, Royals, Pirates, and Twins

 

I see what you did there.

[Nottso]

San Diego (average precipitation April - September is <1.2 inches) would beg to differ with that complete waste of money. The Angels, Dodgers, Giants, and A's too.

 

Can't play favorites. The overall savings that would be had by making this universal would eclipse those savings. Players would benefit... no more turf injuries, rain-outs or rain delays, all of which could culminate in possibly extending careers. Fans would benefit by being far more comfortable and by knowing a game will be played when they buy tickets. Owners would benefit in higher attendance because people would be more likely to buy tickets knowing the game will be played and played on time. Win/win/win.

 

 

I'd like to see your math on that. Because, it makes absolutely no sense to put a roof on stadiums that don't have rain problems to begin with.

 

Let me turn it around, why are you playing favorites and punishing teams economically by forcing them to build roofs on stadiums that don't require them? Roofs cost hundreds of millions of dollars and should only be built where they're a benefit. And it's not a benefit to build a roof in California.

 

And there's a cost to a roof. Let's say the A's, which is the only team in the next 30 years likely to be affected by this "rule", find a great spot in San Jose with a great view. A view that makes the stadium as aesthetically pleasing as the Giants stadium. San Jose averages less than 3 inches of rain a year during the baseball season.Why should they be forced to obstruct that view and damage the experience of fans for 80 games a year as opposed to perhaps one game a year where a roof would benefit? It doesn't take much of a cost benefit analysis to think that's a drain on revenue which impacts the profit of the team and the salary of the players.

 

You make a rule, you make a rule that holds up to common sense and is an economic benefit. There's no economic benefit to put a roof on a stadium to keep out rain when you're in a climate that averages less than, say, six inches of rain during the baseball season. Otherwise, you're throwing away money for no gain.

 

And, honestly, it's much too late to enact such a rule. The A's are the only team likely to build a new stadium in the next 20 years where a roof probably won't be built. The time to institute a rule to have any effect, would have been before the stadium building boom of the 90s and 00s, not now when it won't make a difference.

 

What's more, since stadiums are almost always a private / public partnership, it's probably an unenforceable rule. I'd love to see MLB's reasoning for telling California what they can or can't build.

 

Robert

 

I don't need to do any math. If you can't see what a huge plus the roof at Miller Park has been and continues to be, and extrapolate from there the advantages of adding a roof to other stadiums, there's nothing I can do to change that.

 

And MLB has been telling California what they can and cannot build for many, many years now. They're called Universal Ground Rules and they apply to baseball clubs in California as well as they apply to baseball clubs in every other state. Hence, the "Universal" designation. California just isn't that special, no matter how much you seem to want it to be.

 

If you get to be commissioner, fine, no roofs in California. If I get to be commissioner, they'll have roofs in California or they'll have no MLB. Period. That's why the thread is entitled "What if they made you Commissioner?" as opposed to "What if they made you Commissioner, but gave RobertR final approval over all of your decisions?"

[crossface21]

San Diego (average precipitation April - September is <1.2 inches) would beg to differ with that complete waste of money. The Angels, Dodgers, Giants, and A's too.

 

Can't play favorites. The overall savings that would be had by making this universal would eclipse those savings. Players would benefit... no more turf injuries, rain-outs or rain delays, all of which could culminate in possibly extending careers. Fans would benefit by being far more comfortable and by knowing a game will be played when they buy tickets. Owners would benefit in higher attendance because people would be more likely to buy tickets knowing the game will be played and played on time. Win/win/win.

 

 

I'd like to see your math on that. Because, it makes absolutely no sense to put a roof on stadiums that don't have rain problems to begin with.

 

Let me turn it around, why are you playing favorites and punishing teams economically by forcing them to build roofs on stadiums that don't require them? Roofs cost hundreds of millions of dollars and should only be built where they're a benefit. And it's not a benefit to build a roof in California.

 

And there's a cost to a roof. Let's say the A's, which is the only team in the next 30 years likely to be affected by this "rule", find a great spot in San Jose with a great view. A view that makes the stadium as aesthetically pleasing as the Giants stadium. San Jose averages less than 3 inches of rain a year during the baseball season.Why should they be forced to obstruct that view and damage the experience of fans for 80 games a year as opposed to perhaps one game a year where a roof would benefit? It doesn't take much of a cost benefit analysis to think that's a drain on revenue which impacts the profit of the team and the salary of the players.

 

You make a rule, you make a rule that holds up to common sense and is an economic benefit. There's no economic benefit to put a roof on a stadium to keep out rain when you're in a climate that averages less than, say, six inches of rain during the baseball season. Otherwise, you're throwing away money for no gain.

 

And, honestly, it's much too late to enact such a rule. The A's are the only team likely to build a new stadium in the next 20 years where a roof probably won't be built. The time to institute a rule to have any effect, would have been before the stadium building boom of the 90s and 00s, not now when it won't make a difference.

 

What's more, since stadiums are almost always a private / public partnership, it's probably an unenforceable rule. I'd love to see MLB's reasoning for telling California what they can or can't build.

 

Robert

 

I don't need to do any math. If you can't see what a huge plus the roof at Miller Park has been and continues to be, and extrapolate from there the advantages of adding a roof to other stadiums, there's nothing I can do to change that.

 

And MLB has been telling California what they can and cannot build for many, many years now. They're called Universal Ground Rules and they apply to baseball clubs in California as well as they apply to baseball clubs in every other state. Hence, the "Universal" designation. California just isn't that special, no matter how much you seem to want it to be.

 

If you get to be commissioner, fine, no roofs in California. If I get to be commissioner, they'll have roofs in California or they'll have no MLB. Period. That's why the thread is entitled "What if they made you Commissioner?" as opposed to "What if they made you Commissioner, but gave RobertR final approval over all of your decisions?"

 

Comparing Milwaukee weather to California weather? Really? There's a reason Milwaukee NEEDS to have a roof. There's NO reason the parks in California need roofs. Wasn't there a span of about 5 years that the Dodgers had ONE rainout? The cost doesn't make sense. So then you won't have MLB in California if they don't have a roof on their stadium? You'd be commissioner for about an hour. I understand the thread is "What would YOU do if you were commissioner?" But come on, really?

[Nottso]

I would much rather see a half-dozen teams that may not have a dire need for roofs have roofs, than to see a dozen or dozen-and-a-half teams that could really use roofs not have roofs. And to get even all of the teams outside of California to add roofs would require a change to the Universal Ground Rules.

 

According tohttp://baseballticketsnow.org/how-many-games-are-rained-out-during-the-average-mlb-baseball-season%20 MLB averages 42 rainouts per year since 1960 and God only knows how many delays. Over a 20 year span, that's 840 rainouts. If given the chance to end them all, I would end them all. Absolutely and without question. And just to reiterate once again the point that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle, to do so would require a change to the Universal Ground Rules.

 

This would have to be pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition. You can end them all, via a change to those pesky Universal Ground Rules, or you can stay with the status quo. Again, I would end them all, and I suspect that the revenues generated by not having those 840 rainouts and countless rain delays over a 20 year span would pay for those half-dozen roofs in California many times over.

[Ulice Payne]

Fun topic to think about.

 

1. Realign based on geography.

 

AL West-Mariners, Giants, A's, Rockies, Dodgers.

NL West-Rangers, Diamondbacks, Astros, Angels, Padres.

 

AL Central-White Sox, Tigers, Reds, Pirates, Indians.

NL Central-Cubs, Cardinals, Twins, Brewers, Royals

 

AL East-Nationals, Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, Orioles

NL East-Phillies, Braves, Rays, Mets, Marlins

 

2. Keep the current playoff format with the extra Wild Card.

 

3. DH in both leagues, Roster size changed to 26. Once you pull the starting pitcher, DH gets pulled as well.

 

4. All local broadcast revenue shared equally.

 

5. Keep Rose out.

 

6. Expand interleague so that every team plays all the teams in the other league every season. Schedule so that a given team hosts every other ML team at least once every two years.

 

7. MLB to locate or construct a neutral site stadium (Las Vegas? Mexico City? Dominican Republic?). The six or so teams with the lowest attendance to shift some of their home games to the neutral site.

 

8. First game of the World Series to be held at a prearranged, neutral site each year. Make a big deal about it like the Super Bowl.

 

9. White Elephant contract exchange. Each off season, teams may place a player they no longer want into the pool. Then each team that contributed a player must, in a lottery-assigned order, select a player back from the pool & become responsible for whatever contract that player has.

 

10. The last week of the schedule is left open for home & home series between the first & second place teams in each division. Third & fourth place play each other also; last place teams all play each other.

 

11. Internet broadcasts to be available in home markets.

[xisxisxis]

I would much rather see a half-dozen teams that may not have a dire need for roofs have roofs, than to see a dozen or dozen-and-a-half teams that could really use roofs not have roofs.

 

The days of commissioner as dictator for life are over. Commissioners now rule by the will of the owners. While I can imagine you would have no problem getting this into the books when you are commissioner, I would also imagine that you wouldn't sleep too easily once you did. Like a naughty pope, I would expect you to be smothered by a pillow in your sleep and the next commissioner would reverse your roof edict.

[owbc]

I would simply insist on a change from using money as a metric for determining the health of the sport. Right now, several sports are making mistakes by signing deals for the most money instead of what is best for the fans and the game. Many of the other ideas in this thread are very good, but they would never be accepted without a change to the ownership culture. Many of these poor decisions are related to broadcasting. Specific changes would be:

 

-An end to MLB.tv blackout restrictions. In-market viewers simply would be able to watch their local team for free online or on mobile devices by logging in with their cable or satellite TV information.

-Get playoff games on ESPN instead of TBS. We are at the point now where it would be appropriate to move the World Series to ESPN, with a simulcast on ABC in local markets.

-I would definitely pressure ownership groups to invest more money in their respective teams. Loria would be removed and the A's stadium deal would be approved.

-Any team receiving revenue sharing from the luxury tax would be required to disclose a summary of its financial figures and prove that the money isn't being pocketed. Revenue sharing needs to have strings attached.

-A huge increase in funding for little league and inner city baseball programs in both major and minor league cities. Local clubs would be responsible for assisting existing organizations in overseeing and promoting these programs.

 

In terms of overall game play, I would like to see a more sincere attempt to speed up the pace of the game, primarily by restricting how often the time out can be called and when the batter can step out of the box. The way to do this is to have especially restrictive rules when no runners are on base. The catcher should also only be allowed to visit the mound between batters.

[WV Brew]

I would have a hard trade deadline at the All-Star break. I hate it where teams have a whole new roster from other teams come September.

[RobertR]

I would much rather see a half-dozen teams that may not have a dire need for roofs have roofs, than to see a dozen or dozen-and-a-half teams that could really use roofs not have roofs. And to get even all of the teams outside of California to add roofs would require a change to the Universal Ground Rules.

 

According tohttp://baseballticketsnow.org/how-many-games-are-rained-out-during-the-average-mlb-baseball-season%20 MLB averages 42 rainouts per year since 1960 and God only knows how many delays. Over a 20 year span, that's 840 rainouts. If given the chance to end them all, I would end them all. Absolutely and without question. And just to reiterate once again the point that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle, to do so would require a change to the Universal Ground Rules.

 

This would have to be pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition. You can end them all, via a change to those pesky Universal Ground Rules, or you can stay with the status quo. Again, I would end them all, and I suspect that the revenues generated by not having those 840 rainouts and countless rain delays over a 20 year span would pay for those half-dozen roofs in California many times over.

 

You fail economics then.

 

It's not that the teams in California don't have a dire need for roofs, it's a fact that teams in California have NO need for roofs. So, you'd blow a billion or so dollars pointlessly.

 

Guess what, you're fired as soon as you try to bring that up. With cause. Right around the same time Congress takes up legislation to strip MLB of its anti-trust exemption, introduced by California politicians who don't want to blow money on white elephants that serve no purpose.

 

You want to encourage the next generation of stadiums, which should roll around in 2030 or so, to have roofs in climates where rain delays are an issue, go ahead. My guess is that you have much better things to do in the next 20 years than penalize the A's for no reason.

 

When Minneapolis decided to put a stadium up without a roof, you pretty much guaranteed that any team of this generation can do what they want with their stadiums. Which is probably how it should be, since the individual owner and local community is putting up the money.

[Nottso]

Okay, Robert, I'm sorry. The next time someone asks me what I would do in a given situation I'll be sure and check with you first to be sure that my answers meet with your approval. Yeah, right.

[clancyphile]

1. Add the DH to the NL. Time for the Senior Circuit to get with the times.

 

2. Order a review of Gaylord Perry's enshrinement in the Hall of Fame - sorry, but a pitcher whose autobiography was "Me and the Spitter" may not belong in the Hall of Fame, either.

 

3. I would add two more teams from the following list of cities: Las Vegas; Portland, Oregon; New Orleans; Memphis; Charlotte

 

4. I would make the following re-alignment:

AL North: NY Yankees, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Tigers

AL East: Rays, Astros, Orioles, Indians

AL Central: Rangers, Royals, Twins, White Sox

AL West: Angels, A's, Mariners, Las Vegas

 

NL North: Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Reds

NL East: Nationals, Braves, Marlins, Charlotte

NL Central: Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals, Rockies

NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Diamondbacks

 

5. Bring back the old compensation system (pre-2012) for free agents.

 

6. Bring back the DFE process in the draft.

 

7. Allow the trading of draft picks.

 

8. Free agency changes: Teams may designate a pending free agent as a "franchise player" - and he will be paid an average of the top ten players at his position for one year, or an average of the top eight players at his position for two years, with an option year at the average of the top five players at his position.

 

9. Minor-league player changes: Team gets exclusive control for four years, then four option years. Teams may also sign minor-league free agents to contracts of up to three years in length, provided the minor-league free agent gets at least half the major-league minimum.

[Patrick425]

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised no one mentioned getting rid off or relaxing some of the crazy telecast blackout restrictions that are currently in place.

 

Also, really...all field dimensions be the same in every stadium? You mean like the ugly cookie cutter stadiums from the 60's and 70's? Maybe you don't need hills and flagpoles on the field, but I think having different field dimensions is unique to baseball and one of the things that separates it from basketball or football.

[brewtank34]

If they made me Commissioner I would:

 

1.) Realign the divisions:

 

AL:

Division 1: Yankees, Red Sox, Nationals, Mets and Phillies

Division 2: Cubs, Tigers, Cardinals, White Sox, and Reds

Division 3: Angels, Dodgers, Giants, Rangers, and Mariners

 

NL:

Division 1: Orioles, Rays, Braves, Marlins, and Blue Jays

Division 2: Brewers, Indians, Royals, Pirates, and Twins

Division 3: Rockies, Astros, Diamondbacks, Padres, and A's

 

.

 

Out of all the recent posts of division re-allignment, I like this one the best. However, I would make one minor change. I would swap the Blue Jays and Nationals in your list. Toronto having to travel down to ATL and FL multiple times per year doesn't make sense, plus you'd keep the National's/Orioles in proximity and create a good rivalry. Otherwise, stellar division re-allignment!

[Funketown]

Oh, and I'd also relocate the Marlins to Durham or Greensboro. There isn't a baseball team within five hours of Raleigh-Durham, or within 3 hours of Charlotte. After March Madness ends, there isn't much competition in this area: the Bobcats are a joke and the Hurricanes don't pique the interest of much of the population here; nor are the Panthers as big of a deal as most other NFL franchises.

 

Edit: I'm going to assume that were I made commissioner, it would be on benevolent dictator terms.

[3and2Fastball]

If they made me Commissioner the first thing I'd do is ban Bud Selig for life, for all the hypocrisy he showed during the Barry Bonds/Sammy Sosa steroid years. (so they'd never make me Commissioner)

 

The 2nd thing I'd do is put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame

 

The 3rd thing I'd do is get rid of the Designated Hitter

[EdgarDiazRocks]

My first decree would be giving the "MLB Fan Cave" a quick and quiet dispatch from this world.

[Patrick425]

If they made me Commissioner the first thing I'd do is ban Bud Selig for life, for all the hypocrisy he showed during the Barry Bonds/Sammy Sosa steroid years. (so they'd never make me Commissioner)

 

I understand some of the dislike of Selig expressed my many. However, don't forget, without Selig there is likely no current MLB team in Milwaukee, and obviously no Miller Park or Brewerfan.net

[TooLiveBrew]

My first decree would be giving the "MLB Fan Cave" a quick and quiet dispatch from this world.

Please tell me "Intentional Talk" would be going, too

[3and2Fastball]

I understand some of the dislike of Selig expressed by many. However, don't forget, without Selig there is likely no current MLB team in Milwaukee, and obviously no Miller Park or Brewerfan.net

 

Good point. OK, banned for life is excessive.

 

I would also, as commissioner, do away with the Wild-Card play-in game and do away with the All-Star game deciding Home Field in the World Series

[EdgarDiazRocks]

Why would you ban Selig BEFORE Jeff Loria?

[EdgarDiazRocks]

My first decree would be giving the "MLB Fan Cave" a quick and quiet dispatch from this world.

Please tell me "Intentional Talk" would be going, too

 

There are people who Intentional Talk is for. We just aren't those people.

 

Fan Cave on the other hand is useless. When your ONLY moment is Bronson Arroyo and a guitar, you have problems.

 

 

It reminds me of what they did to Safeco a few years back. They gave GenY a couple polls and decided to turn the awesome BBQ/beer garden area into a "nightclub" in the ballpark, you knows for those who like to drink a lot NEAR a baseball game but not have to actually watch a baseball game

 

https://foursquare.com/v/caught-looking-lounge/4e359eae8877beb5e9adb182

[TooLiveBrew]

Well, to be fair, who would want beer & BBQ at a baseball game? I mean... come on.

[joepepsi]

Why would you ban Selig BEFORE Jeff Loria?

Um...because Selig is responsible for Jeff Loria. He bailed out the Expos after Loria purposefully ran them into the ground, then allowed him to buy another franchise so John Henry could could dump the Marlins and buy the Red Sox. I appreciate the love for bud since he brought MLB back to Milwaukee, but he has been a pawn to big money owners who treat him like crap and walk over him as Commissioner. Brewerfan.net is the only intelligent baseball source that sees Bud through rose colored glasses as some kind of savior of baseball. He is responsible the steroids embarrassment, the strike of '94 that ruined competitive imbalance, the unfair media revenues that cripple small markets, and propping up bad owners who don't even try to compete. He's a puppet of the rich, but this forum is so indebted to him bringing baseball to Milwaukee that posters refuse to judge his actions with balance. Don't forget, he left the franchise to his daughter and son in law who ran it into the ground and stole a fortune from the fans. The scale tips negative.

 

I don't get the love for Pete Rose either. He was always a bastard, and while I realize history has given us plenty of bastards who made it to the hall of fame, why not refuse to join the hyperbole and fight for a player who truly "played the game the right way" and has been unfairly excluded from the hall of fame like Ted Simmons, Allan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Tim Raines, Ken Boyer, and so many others. Rose knew the rules, and thumbed his nose at them. He doesn't regret what he did; he regrets being caught. I'm guessing Charles Manson does too.

 

I love the DH. The double switch is not rocket science, and as Ender hints, after the 6th inning both leagues essentially use the DH anyway as the pitcher doesn't hit. I'd rather watch a game where the hitters hit and pitchers pitch. Isn't the NL the only organized baseball league without a DH? It's time to stop it. I'd love to see Khris Dave get 450 ABs this year to see what he can do. Pitchers are one dimensional, but dominating, players, just like offensive players in football. Is Aaron Rodgers an incomplete player because he doesn't play defense?

[RobertR]

Okay, Robert, I'm sorry. The next time someone asks me what I would do in a given situation I'll be sure and check with you first to be sure that my answers meet with your approval. Yeah, right.

 

If you don't want give and take and criticism, then why did you post it publicly?

 

Silly me, for pointing out that

 

a) Your plan doesn't put much of a dent in rainouts/delays in the short term and won't for at least 20 to 30 years (perhaps 50 years) since it comes after the current wave of building.

b) Not every stadium without a roof has issues with rain delays.

c) Roofs are expensive and not always aesthetically pleasing which can damage a team's bottom line.

d) It's likely to penalize the A's which is the only team likely to build a stadium without a roof in the near future and they don't need a roof. Why single them out? Why not wait until after they build a stadium to implement changes?

e) Since public money is always involved in these projects, it may make it more difficult to get these projects built and result in legislative pushback.

 

I think that the idea of doing more to eliminate rainouts/delays is a good one, but, at best, I think your plan is premature by decades, and inefficient by not taking into account differing climates, needs, cost, etc. You want to rethink that plan or do you want to shoot the messenger?

 

If I came off as too forceful in my criticism, I apologize as that wasn't my intention. But, I think those criticisms above are real problems with your proposal and why I think it needs to go back to the drawing board for revision.

 

Heck, I'd suggest bringing a meteorologist on board in preparing teams schedules might accomplish more in the short term at a fraction of the cost.

[brettac1]

My first decree would be giving the "MLB Fan Cave" a quick and quiet dispatch from this world.

Please tell me "Intentional Talk" would be going, too

Got heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem!

 

I'd get rid of steroid testing. I miss runs.