Jump to content

aci

Members
  • Posts

    2,045
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by aci

  1. http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/01/add-another-city-to-the-coyotes-relocation-rumormill-portland-oregon/

    Apparently the guy who owns the Portland Winter Hawks of the WHL may be interested in the Coyotes. Gotta say, Portland would make a whole lot more sense than Phoenix, and possibly more than Seattle, too. In Seattle, the NHL would definitely be #4, maybe even #5 behind MLS. In Portland, the worst they could be is #3, and the market is still a decent size.

  2. so it seems like all-star games embody all of the ideas the original north american league creators had envisioned for their leagues...

    the harlem globetrotters should be in the nba.

    balance is the name of the game, but Spain will never play Barcelona.

    You are aware that the Harlem Globetrotters are essentially theatrical performers, right?

  3. Got it.

    7,898. How far are you going to go without having written about "realignment," justifying this thread's "non-pointlessness?" 8,000?

    Go. Away.

    Read the first 50ish pages of this thread, and compare it to the babble you have written. The 'pointlessness' of this thread is that the moderators got tired of people posting realignments in every other sports-related thread, so they created one thread for all of them. You're more than welcome to post your realignment proposals here, but if you have nothing to contribute, please stop posting. You seem to have a very weak grasp of English and you are annoying many people by posting things that don't belong here. You're also probably going to end up in trouble yourself if you're reporting people who haven't done anything that's actually frowned upon.

  4. Thinking about the Kings/Seattle situation made me think of a scenario like this...

    If Maloofs won't sell to Sacramento buyer...

    -sell Kings to Hansen, move franchise to Seattle and become Sonics (leave history behind)

    -immediately give expansion team to Sacramento, inheriting Kings history

    -Thunder only claim Thunder history as their own

    -Make team 32 Vancouver Dragons

    -No name swaps other than Seattle takes Sonics name again and Charlotte takes Hornets name again.

    Divisions:

    Pacific: LAL, LAC, GSW, SEA, VAN, POR, SAC, PHX

    Southwestern: DEN, UTA, OKC, MEM, NOLA, HOU, DAL, SA

    Central: MIN, MIL, CHI, IND, DET, CLE, TOR, ATL

    Atlantic: NYK, BRK, BOS, PHI, WAS, CHA, ORL, MIA

    Play your division 4x, other division 3x, other conference 2x=84 games

    To compensate for two extra games, cut preseason from 8 to 4 games.

    Playoffs: Just like now, except division winners and two next best teams ranked 1-4.

    32 seems to be a really good number for sports realignment

    Atlanta kinda kills that one, but there isn't much you can do without going to 8 divisions of 4 instead of 4 divisions of 8.

  5. I suppose what I can say is that it'd be interesting to see some carryover into the Texas League or why Texas is such a bare-spot for Triple-A.

    I imagine it has a lot to do with two MLB teams and four double-A teams. So it's still got 7 of the top 90 baseball clubs in Canada and the US.

  6. I just have to post a link to this blog because it's so stupid. I almost laughed over it until I realized how many people believe everything they read is the gospel truth.

    http://www.hockeybuz...chise/131/47230

    Just a sample:

    "Getting back to the Phoenix situation, the NHL could take a serious look at killing the franchise as a way to send a message to the NHLPA. Keep in mind there is no CBA, and the league absolutely can end franchises without input from the players. What would this actually mean?

    1. A dispersal draft would take place. The 29 other teams in the NHL would have a draft to divide up 29 assets from the Coyotes organization. The draft order would likely be in reverse order of how teams finished last season. Worded another way, Columbus would draft Oliver Ekman Larsson 1st overall, and the Oilers would get to pick between defenseman Keith Yandle, Center Martin Hanzus, or star defensive prospect Brandon Gormley. I'm a gambler, so I'd likely look at Gormley. He'd also fit with the timeline existing in Edmonton.

    2. Teams could be allowed to "exchange" a contract during this process. Remember all my talk about an "Amnesty" clause in the new CBA? Try this on for size: Every team can have only so many contracts, right? So say hello to Keith Yandle on the Oilers, and goodbye to Shawn Horcoff. I'm serious, friends. Every team could use this situation as a way to dump off one ugly, ugly contract. How happy would Montreal be to trade Scott Gomez for Gormley?

    I don't see how any rules are being broken here. Keep in mind there's no CBA, teams can deal contracts, and the PA cannot block the folding of a team. How much would it scare the hell out of the NHLPA if 29 teams could dump off 29 oversized contracts, and the team would fold, killing those contracts, just for laughs?"

    Umm, pretty sure that's the most painfully obvious case of collusion any court has ever seen...

    If that happened, where would their 2012 Pacific Division Champions banner hang?

    This reminds me of the 'If a tree fell in the forest' question. Will anyone see it even if they hang it at Jobing.com Arena?

  7. I just have to post a link to this blog because it's so stupid. I almost laughed over it until I realized how many people believe everything they read is the gospel truth.

    http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Richard-Cloutier/NHL-Lockout-Could-Kill-Coyotes-Franchise/131/47230

    Just a sample:

    "Getting back to the Phoenix situation, the NHL could take a serious look at killing the franchise as a way to send a message to the NHLPA. Keep in mind there is no CBA, and the league absolutely can end franchises without input from the players. What would this actually mean?

    1. A dispersal draft would take place. The 29 other teams in the NHL would have a draft to divide up 29 assets from the Coyotes organization. The draft order would likely be in reverse order of how teams finished last season. Worded another way, Columbus would draft Oliver Ekman Larsson 1st overall, and the Oilers would get to pick between defenseman Keith Yandle, Center Martin Hanzus, or star defensive prospect Brandon Gormley. I'm a gambler, so I'd likely look at Gormley. He'd also fit with the timeline existing in Edmonton.

    2. Teams could be allowed to "exchange" a contract during this process. Remember all my talk about an "Amnesty" clause in the new CBA? Try this on for size: Every team can have only so many contracts, right? So say hello to Keith Yandle on the Oilers, and goodbye to Shawn Horcoff. I'm serious, friends. Every team could use this situation as a way to dump off one ugly, ugly contract. How happy would Montreal be to trade Scott Gomez for Gormley?

    I don't see how any rules are being broken here. Keep in mind there's no CBA, teams can deal contracts, and the PA cannot block the folding of a team. How much would it scare the hell out of the NHLPA if 29 teams could dump off 29 oversized contracts, and the team would fold, killing those contracts, just for laughs?"

    Umm, pretty sure that's the most painfully obvious case of collusion any court has ever seen...

  8. I have never liked that the Soo Greyhounds are in a different division than the Sudbury Wolves, so...

    myohl.png

    Teams will play an unbalanced schedule, with a home-and-away against the 15 non-divisional teams (30), and ten games each against divisional rivals(40), for a 70-game schedule, two more than the current 68-game one. This geographic arrangement should (in theory) cut down on travel costs, although Sudbury and the Soo will likely have the most travel whatever division they get placed in.The top 4 teams in each division would make the playoffs.

    I also worked out the breakdown of the season and playoff schedules, which can be seen here. I didn't really fit in an OHL All-Star Game, but I think it could be fit in one of the off-weeks I put into the schedule, or the time between the end of the OHL Final and Memorial Cup.

    It feels like Brampton is out of place now, separated from the other GTA teams, but I suppose there isn't much you could do about it.

    In the actual alignment of the OHL, Owen Sound is also definitely in the wrong division. There is no reason whatsoever that they should be in the Midwest while Niagara is in the Central.

  9. I could really see Bettman using the contraction of Phoenix as a bargaining chip against the NHLPA, saying "If you don't back down on this and this, we will have no choice but to contract the Coyotes because we can't find an owner for them under these financial circumstances."

    From there, the NHLPA will call Bettman's bluff, knowing full well that the NHL will not be able to run a league with 29 teams for very long, and will likely end up expanding to 32 after the contraction.

    Bettman ends up folowing through, contracting the Coyotes, and due to them becoming defunct, Glendale will have an empty arena with no leaseholder for the foreseeable future.

    If 3-4 years, the NHL will announce expansion, and give one of those teams back to Phoenix, who are now forced to accept a lowball offer on a new lease deal from the team's owner simply because they desperately need the money. The NHL gets to keep their 'large media market'.

    ^^ Just my predictions.

    Stop reading hfboards.

    I can honestly say I've never intentionally ventured onto hfboards. Been there a couple times after a google search, but that's it. Did someone say something similar there?

  10. I could really see Bettman using the contraction of Phoenix as a bargaining chip against the NHLPA, saying "If you don't back down on this and this, we will have no choice but to contract the Coyotes because we can't find an owner for them under these financial circumstances."

    From there, the NHLPA will call Bettman's bluff, knowing full well that the NHL will not be able to run a league with 29 teams for very long, and will likely end up expanding to 32 after the contraction.

    Bettman ends up folowing through, contracting the Coyotes, and due to them becoming defunct, Glendale will have an empty arena with no leaseholder for the foreseeable future.

    If 3-4 years, the NHL will announce expansion, and give one of those teams back to Phoenix, who are now forced to accept a lowball offer on a new lease deal from the team's owner simply because they desperately need the money. The NHL gets to keep their 'large media market'.

    ^^ Just my predictions.

  11. FWIW the Avalanche will host the Rangers in Kansas City on October 6th in the "we're going to gauge interest on a team here but it really means nothing and nothing will come of it" annual pre-season game there.

    And, as is the tradition, the fans of Kansas City will manage to make the fans of Phoenix look spectacular by comparison. I pity any team that would actually move there.

  12. Yeah, that would be a bad situation, but preferable to what we have now, since I doubt they would've gone into receivership and stayed there for three or maybe four years. Hamilton would've failed anyway. Without even getting into Balsillie losing his fortune, the team would be dead as a doornail the second the Leafs are good again.

    It would have been potentially bad, but he would have funded his purchase of the Coyotes by selling RIM stock, right? So he would have run out of excess money, but as long as the Coyotes themselves turned a profit, I don't think he'd have gone broke. He would have just become the CEO of the Hamilton Coyotes instead of wearing two hats and being an actual businessman as well.

    And the Leafs sell out all their games even when they suck... unless they can pack in 20,000 more fans into the ACC with standing-room-only tickets, the Hamilton team would be fine. Toronto would always be by far the more popular team, but Southern Ontario already supports two NHL teams, and one isn't even in our country. And most of us hate them. Even playing in Copps, I would be shocked if a Hamilton NHL team didn't sell out every single home game.

  13. The Jets said they're not receiving revenue sharing this year. Doesn't that mean they made money? If you're citing 2011 figures, wouldn't that be Atlanta? Also, Phoenix lost more than $24 million, because the $25 million subsidy was paid in full, unless that means they lost $49 million, in which case sweet Jesus.

    Yeah, those would be 2010-11 figures... should have clarified that. Forbes wouldn't have the 2011-12 figures yet, I'd imagine.

    I'm not certain about the deal with Phoenix, but if they lost $24.4 million after that subsidy, then Glendale should seriously consider burning down Jobing.com Arena and collecting an insurance settlement on it.

  14. Except Anaheim, Carolina, Tampa Bay and now Nashville are doing well financially, I believe. I'd say move Phoenix to Quebec and just contract the other 2, if anything. Phoenix is relocated because they have history (before Phoenix) and the other two are simply expansion teams within the last 20 years. 28 team's still allows 4 equal divisions of 7.

    I was curious about this after reading it, so I looked it up. It's not official NHL info, but it's Forbes, and Forbes knows money so I am inclined to trust their valuations.

    Anaheim: Worth $184 million, lost $8.4 million in 2011

    Carolina: Worth $169 million, lost $4.4 million in 2011

    Tampa Bay: Worth $174 million, lost $8.5 million in 2011

    Nashville: Worth $163 million, lost $7.5 million in 2011

    Florida: Worth $162 million, lost $7 million in 2011

    Phoenix: Worth $134 million, lost $24.4 million in 2011

    Columbus: Worth $152 million, lost $13.7 million in 2011

    The Islanders, Sabres, Devils, Sharks, Wild, Capitals and Jets also lost significant money, though I think it could be argued that the Caps, Wild, Sharks, Sabres and Jets are all on stable ground due to strong ownership and/or fan support. The Devils, despite having a solid team for most of the last 20 years AND a new arena still fail to draw decent crowds and the Islanders are stuck in the arena that time forgot, and both are overshadowed by the Rangers. If the Devils and their arena teleported to where Nassau Coliseum currently stands, they'd have a solid franchise. But that's not going to happen, so both franchises will remain stuck in a rut.

  15. Baseball's playoff expansion, while a good idea to me, still doesn't give the Jays a fair shot at the playoffs because there are 3 teams almost guaranteed to be in front of them in their division.

    So I say, move Tampa to the NL East, since they have so little history. Then move a team that's been similarily mediocre of late into the AL East, to balance things out. I'll take the Mets, since they have "only" had 50 seasons of play, much like the already scheduled to move Astros.

    New AL East: Toronto, Boston, Yankees, (playoff contenders) Mets, Baltimore (also-ran)

    New NL East: Philadelphia, Atlanta, Tampa, (playoff contenders) Washington, Miami (also-ran)

    They're not gonna put both NY teams in one league.

    Why wouldn't they? It's RE-alignment. This isn't something you are coming up with, it's something someone else is coming up with.

    Yes, and when you post it in here, it's up for discussion and other people's opinions. And I'm stating, as both opinion and to a degree nearly fact, that, unless you're completely splitting the league into an East-West format, having both NY teams in the same league does not make any sense. In baseball, with the two different types of play between the two leagues, when you have two teams in one market, you split them up so as to appeal to fans of both leagues. THAT'S why they brought in the Mets to replace the Dodgers and Giants in the first place, to get another NL team back in New York.

    It's not as big of a deal as you're making it, though. The Phillies and Pirates are in the same league, and soon, the Astros and Rangers will be in the same division. Yes, I realize that those are same-state teams and not same-city teams, but if MLB were that hellbent on keeping same-city teams in different leagues, then they'd do the same with same-state teams. Apparently they don't care as much as you think they do. Having same-city teams in the same league isn't that far out of the realm of possibility.

    It's because TV deals are sometimes split along league lines (just like in the NFL where its split by conference). If the Yankees and Mets were in the same league, NYC would end up with no local coverage of the National League. Now, a New Yorker can tune into two different channels and see an NL game or an AL game.

    Not to mention the biggest issue with the Mets moving over in exchange for the Rays is that over time, that division is going to be even more brutal for the Jays. The Mets might suck now, but they're still in a HUGE market and will be able to afford a lot of good players once their asshat ownership situation is sorted out. The Rays, on the other hand, will always be dirtpoor... the overacheiving will probably end eventually.

  16. Yeah, but if you click on some of the alternate translations, you can also get "people occupying the Coliseum would have to order a "cleaning" in their offices." Which sounds more like the "pack your crap" I read it as.

    Now that you mention it that way, yep, that's exactly what it looks like.

    My French is by no means perfect, but I'm reading it as 'housekeeping' as a euphemism for 'packing your crap' as well. A good sign for Quebec hockey fans and anyone who doesn't like Patrick Roy.

  17. Until such time as the MLB inevitably expands, I think the best course of action is to do away with the divisions entirely. By moving to an East/West ?conference? alignment, which I?ll refer to as the National and American Leagues, respectively, and with baseball playing multi-game series throughout the year, divisions really aren?t needed to save on travel costs.

    Instead, I?d divide the teams as follows:

    National League- Seattle Mariners, Oakland Athletics, Houston Astros, Anaheim Angels, Texas Rangers, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies, San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks, St Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs and Milwaukee Brewers

    American League- New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, Toronto Blue Jays, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Baltimore Orioles, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Miami Marlins, Tampa Bay Rays, Atlanta Braves, Cincinnati Reds, Washington Nationals and Pittsburgh Pirates

    Each team would play each other team in its league 9 times, with either two home series and one away series, or vice versa. It would switch each year for each team, so if the Yankees play 6 games in Boston in 2012, the Red Sox would have to play 6 games in the Bronx in 2013. This accounts for the vast majority of the schedule, and 126 games in total.

    The other 36 games each year would be comprised of twelve 3-game series against opponents from the other league. As such, in any given year, each team would play against 26 of the 29 other MLB teams, and by rotating between home series, away series and no series, each city would be visited by each team at least twice in any given five-year period.

    As an example, say the Toronto Blue Jays were to play in San Francisco in 2012, then the Giants played in Toronto in 2013, then the Jays played in SF again in 2014, then the teams didn?t play each other in 2015, and then the Giants came back to Toronto in 2016. Which teams do and don?t play would just rotate through until each team has played twice in a given city, had that team visit their city twice, and had one year with no series in every five-year span.

    The simplest way to do this to save on travel would be to divide the inter-league games into packages of 9 games for each team. As an example, you could have the Yankees head out West in May and August in two separate road trips, where they'd play 3 games against three teams each time. By doing this, it limits the amount of cross-continental travel, but still creates some variety in the schedule for the fans, who would get to see a lot of different teams.

    By doing this, I think there would be a strong balance between travel distances, interleague play and fair competition, and each team would be given a fair and equal opportunity to make or miss the playoffs, with much less emphasis being put on strength of schedule or being in a particularly strong division.

    History has suggested that with more divisions comes more unfairness in regards to which teams make the playoffs. For the past 15 years or so, this has occured in the AL East, and at time, it has affected each of the NL divisions. For a very long time, too, the AL Central was terrible from top to bottom, and perhaps none of the teams deserved to qualify for the postseason some years. It certainly appears that over the next 5 years, very good teams could miss the playoffs in the NL East and AL West, too, simply because all the strongest teams are packed into one division.

    By returning to single-table leagues, this problem is erased. Blue Jay fans won?t be able to complain that they didn?t get a fair shake against the Rays, Yankees and Red Sox, and a terrible team won?t qualify for the playoffs by winning a division when they?d amass a losing record in a stronger division. Instead, the 8 best teams would qualify for the postseason.

    My proposal would include an eight-team playoff, where the top four teams from each league qualify. The playoffs would work just like they did up until and including the 2011 MLB season, with a 5-game Division Series (or League Semifinal now), a 7-game League Championship Series, and a 7-game World Series to decide the champion.

    As a side note, it is difficult to divide up the Midwest teams, but I did the best I could. I had to choose between the White Sox and Brewers to be the odd team out, and I went with the White Sox. I felt that, despite being in the same city as the Cubs, they weren?t currently in the same league as the Brewers/Cardinals/Cubs anyways, so they wouldn?t be losing their chief rivals in the realignment.

    Also, there is the issue of the Designated Hitter Rule. With a lot of teams crossing 'leagues', but obviously there being a constant divide between NL and AL baseball minds when it comes to the value of the DH, I think the best solution would be to just let each team decide at the time of the realignment whether they want to adopt the DH rule at their home park, and are locked into whichever decision they make.

    A. Other than Bud Selig, East-West seperation of MLB doesn't really fly with most fans. It's basically taking the tradition of the NL and AL and chucking it into an old, burning trash can and then putting the flames out by pissing on it.

    B.The DH rule you've suggested makes absolutely no sense and would never work. You can't leave it up to individual teams. You may end up with like 21 non-DH and only 9 with the DH or vice versa. It has to be one way or the other for each league or for both, not based on each team's preference.

    I don't think the DH rule would cause any trouble as long as teams couldn't change year-to-year. Odds are, it'd stay mostly as old NL teams with no DH, and mostly AL teams with the DH. In a perfect world, the designated hitter wouldn't exist, but I think the MLBPA would flip their lids if anyone suggested the DH be abandoned.

    As far as the AL/NL separation goies, we're already travelling down that slippery slope... first with interleague, plus two teams switching leagues, and then starting in 2013 interleague games being played every day of the year. The sanctity is gone, the names are relics, and the leagues are already merged anyways. Swapping half a dozen more teams to create a more geographically logical layout hardly seems out of the realm of possibility.

    You're going from "some changes" to "blow the whole damn thing up" in 60 seconds. None of the changes you've mentioned are anywhere near the the apocalypse of the sanctity of the game. Interleague everyday doesn't mean half the league is playing interleague games. Just one series at a time (maybe 3 here and there to meet the minium). In actuallity, interleague every series would reduce the total number of interleague games. However the league decided to maintain the total as it has been. And no, leaving teams to decide their own DH rules will not go as smoothly as you think. It's a rule that can drastically alter the make-up of each individual game and not something that can just be "however you want it ("you" meaning each team). It has to be a leaguewide rule. Either stays as is or both leaguse with or without. No individual teams.

    What would you say if the season structure was used with the 2013 leagues (same as 2012 except with Houston in the AL), and no divisions?

  18. Until such time as the MLB inevitably expands, I think the best course of action is to do away with the divisions entirely. By moving to an East/West ?conference? alignment, which I?ll refer to as the National and American Leagues, respectively, and with baseball playing multi-game series throughout the year, divisions really aren?t needed to save on travel costs.

    Instead, I?d divide the teams as follows:

    National League- Seattle Mariners, Oakland Athletics, Houston Astros, Anaheim Angels, Texas Rangers, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies, San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks, St Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs and Milwaukee Brewers

    American League- New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, Toronto Blue Jays, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Baltimore Orioles, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Miami Marlins, Tampa Bay Rays, Atlanta Braves, Cincinnati Reds, Washington Nationals and Pittsburgh Pirates

    Each team would play each other team in its league 9 times, with either two home series and one away series, or vice versa. It would switch each year for each team, so if the Yankees play 6 games in Boston in 2012, the Red Sox would have to play 6 games in the Bronx in 2013. This accounts for the vast majority of the schedule, and 126 games in total.

    The other 36 games each year would be comprised of twelve 3-game series against opponents from the other league. As such, in any given year, each team would play against 26 of the 29 other MLB teams, and by rotating between home series, away series and no series, each city would be visited by each team at least twice in any given five-year period.

    As an example, say the Toronto Blue Jays were to play in San Francisco in 2012, then the Giants played in Toronto in 2013, then the Jays played in SF again in 2014, then the teams didn?t play each other in 2015, and then the Giants came back to Toronto in 2016. Which teams do and don?t play would just rotate through until each team has played twice in a given city, had that team visit their city twice, and had one year with no series in every five-year span.

    The simplest way to do this to save on travel would be to divide the inter-league games into packages of 9 games for each team. As an example, you could have the Yankees head out West in May and August in two separate road trips, where they'd play 3 games against three teams each time. By doing this, it limits the amount of cross-continental travel, but still creates some variety in the schedule for the fans, who would get to see a lot of different teams.

    By doing this, I think there would be a strong balance between travel distances, interleague play and fair competition, and each team would be given a fair and equal opportunity to make or miss the playoffs, with much less emphasis being put on strength of schedule or being in a particularly strong division.

    History has suggested that with more divisions comes more unfairness in regards to which teams make the playoffs. For the past 15 years or so, this has occured in the AL East, and at time, it has affected each of the NL divisions. For a very long time, too, the AL Central was terrible from top to bottom, and perhaps none of the teams deserved to qualify for the postseason some years. It certainly appears that over the next 5 years, very good teams could miss the playoffs in the NL East and AL West, too, simply because all the strongest teams are packed into one division.

    By returning to single-table leagues, this problem is erased. Blue Jay fans won?t be able to complain that they didn?t get a fair shake against the Rays, Yankees and Red Sox, and a terrible team won?t qualify for the playoffs by winning a division when they?d amass a losing record in a stronger division. Instead, the 8 best teams would qualify for the postseason.

    My proposal would include an eight-team playoff, where the top four teams from each league qualify. The playoffs would work just like they did up until and including the 2011 MLB season, with a 5-game Division Series (or League Semifinal now), a 7-game League Championship Series, and a 7-game World Series to decide the champion.

    As a side note, it is difficult to divide up the Midwest teams, but I did the best I could. I had to choose between the White Sox and Brewers to be the odd team out, and I went with the White Sox. I felt that, despite being in the same city as the Cubs, they weren?t currently in the same league as the Brewers/Cardinals/Cubs anyways, so they wouldn?t be losing their chief rivals in the realignment.

    Also, there is the issue of the Designated Hitter Rule. With a lot of teams crossing 'leagues', but obviously there being a constant divide between NL and AL baseball minds when it comes to the value of the DH, I think the best solution would be to just let each team decide at the time of the realignment whether they want to adopt the DH rule at their home park, and are locked into whichever decision they make.

    A. Other than Bud Selig, East-West seperation of MLB doesn't really fly with most fans. It's basically taking the tradition of the NL and AL and chucking it into an old, burning trash can and then putting the flames out by pissing on it.

    B.The DH rule you've suggested makes absolutely no sense and would never work. You can't leave it up to individual teams. You may end up with like 21 non-DH and only 9 with the DH or vice versa. It has to be one way or the other for each league or for both, not based on each team's preference.

    I don't think the DH rule would cause any trouble as long as teams couldn't change year-to-year. Odds are, it'd stay mostly as old NL teams with no DH, and mostly AL teams with the DH. In a perfect world, the designated hitter wouldn't exist, but I think the MLBPA would flip their lids if anyone suggested the DH be abandoned.

    As far as the AL/NL separation goies, we're already travelling down that slippery slope... first with interleague, plus two teams switching leagues, and then starting in 2013 interleague games being played every day of the year. The sanctity is gone, the names are relics, and the leagues are already merged anyways. Swapping half a dozen more teams to create a more geographically logical layout hardly seems out of the realm of possibility.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.