The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[rams80]

The twice migrated Braves do not have more history than the Reds. Try it again.

[C's]

Reds have been part of the NL since 1890

Braves have been part of the NL since 1876 and have the most seasons played of any team in the majors

Feel free to back up your logic. MOD EDIT

Edited September 10, 2013 by Brian in Boston
There's absolutely no need for the antagonistically combative attitude.

[rams80]

Cincinnati has been an NL city since 1890. Atlanta has only been one since 1966. The Reds franchise has 5 World Series titles. The Braves franchise in their existence 3. Also, Cincy would also likely date back to 1876 if not for the original organization being kicked out of the league because the quest for respectability among the other owners prompted them to ban beer sales at their stadiums and the NL's Cincinnati organization refused to comply.

[LAWeaver]

I also don't understand the trimming from 30 teams to 24. I think, if anything, a perfect number for a league is 32. Then, you can have half the teams (16) in a tournament style playoff. The only leagues yhat do that are the NHL and NBA, but their 7th-8th seeds are usually below 500. Not every year, but most years.

I would also like to see the NHL go from the point system to the regular W-L system. I know they have W-L-OTL, but when you think about it, some of those teams fighting for that last spot in the playoffs have more losses overall than wins.

[Brian in Boston]

Feel free to back up your logic.

With regard to backing up one's logic: The Red Sox - a franchise that has called the City of Boston home for 113 seasons and has long since established itself as a civic institution - couldn't get local political leaders to sign-off on allowing team ownership to build a new ballpark in the Fenway neighborhood that the "Olde Towne Team" has been ensconced in since 1912, let alone construct such a facility on the municipality's extremely valuable waterfront property. That being the case, what logically indicates to you that a relocated Miami Marlins club would succeed in convincing city fathers where the much-beloved Red Sox failed?

[C's]

Cincinnati has been an NL city since 1890. Atlanta has only been one since 1966. The Reds franchise has 5 World Series titles. The Braves franchise in their existence 3. Also, Cincy would also likely date back to 1876 if not for the original organization being kicked out of the league because the quest for respectability among the other owners prompted them to ban beer sales at their stadiums and the NL's Cincinnati organization refused to comply.

The Braves franchise has been an NL franchise since 1876. It has the most seasons played of any team in the sport. Series titles measures success, not history.

I don't care about the reasons Cincy doesn't date back to 1876. The fact is, the Braves have more history than the Reds. You lose.

I also don't understand the trimming from 30 teams to 24. I think, if anything, a perfect number for a league is 32. Then, you can have half the teams (16) in a tournament style playoff. The only leagues yhat do that are the NHL and NBA, but their 7th-8th seeds are usually below 500. Not every year, but most years.

What can I say, I'm a bit of an elitist when it comes to this stuff.

In NBA and MLB I think the talent's spread a little thin, especially in the NBA. A few teams could be trimmed from each sport. I think the NFL's fine as is. I don't follow hockey so I can't comment on that.

Feel free to back up your logic.

With regard to backing up one's logic: The Red Sox - a franchise that has called the City of Boston home for 113 seasons and has long since established itself as a civic institution - couldn't get local political leaders to sign-off on allowing team ownership to build a new ballpark in the Fenway neighborhood that the "Olde Towne Team" has been ensconced in since 1912, let alone construct such a facility on the municipality's extremely valuable waterfront property. That being the case, what logically indicates to you that a relocated Miami Marlins club would succeed in convincing city fathers where the much-beloved Red Sox failed?

Because it's my make-believe realignment and I said so?

[rams80]

The Braves franchise may have more history, but Atlanta has far less history as an NL city than either Pittsburgh or Cincinnati. Atlanta's an expansion market with an old franchise. They go.

Of course neither Philly nor Boston can support two teams and I suspect the AL would prefer a West Coast presence of some form, so that could also change as well.

[McCall]

Cincinnati has been an NL city since 1890. Atlanta has only been one since 1966. The Reds franchise has 5 World Series titles. The Braves franchise in their existence 3. Also, Cincy would also likely date back to 1876 if not for the original organization being kicked out of the league because the quest for respectability among the other owners prompted them to ban beer sales at their stadiums and the NL's Cincinnati organization refused to comply.

The Braves franchise has been an NL franchise since 1876. It has the most seasons played of any team in the sport. Series titles measures success, not history.

I don't care about the reasons Cincy doesn't date back to 1876. The fact is, the Braves have more history than the Reds. You lose.

I also don't understand the trimming from 30 teams to 24. I think, if anything, a perfect number for a league is 32. Then, you can have half the teams (16) in a tournament style playoff. The only leagues yhat do that are the NHL and NBA, but their 7th-8th seeds are usually below 500. Not every year, but most years.

What can I say, I'm a bit of an elitist when it comes to this stuff.

In NBA and MLB I think the talent's spread a little thin, especially in the NBA. A few teams could be trimmed from each sport. I think the NFL's fine as is. I don't follow hockey so I can't comment on that.

Feel free to back up your logic.

With regard to backing up one's logic: The Red Sox - a franchise that has called the City of Boston home for 113 seasons and has long since established itself as a civic institution - couldn't get local political leaders to sign-off on allowing team ownership to build a new ballpark in the Fenway neighborhood that the "Olde Towne Team" has been ensconced in since 1912, let alone construct such a facility on the municipality's extremely valuable waterfront property. That being the case, what logically indicates to you that a relocated Miami Marlins club would succeed in convincing city fathers where the much-beloved Red Sox failed?

Because it's my make-believe realignment and I said so?

Then keep it to yourself and don't post it here. When you do that, you're opening it up to criticism. You can't post it and say "it's mine and you can't say anything about it."

[C's]

You can say whatever you want about it. Don't let me stop you. But going back and forth about street level logistics in a make-believe realignment that will never, ever happen is rather petty. At least the Braves/Reds debate is legit.

What exactly is the purpose of this thread? Is every realignment idea posted here forwarded to the appropriate commissioner's office at the end of each business day? If so, sorry to waste their time and sully the website's name with my not 100% feasible make-believe layout. Tell me where your confessional is so I can repent.

MOD EDIT

The Braves franchise may have more history, but Atlanta has far less history as an NL city than either Pittsburgh or Cincinnati. Atlanta's an expansion market with an old franchise. They go.

So what? The Braves, as an NL franchise, have over ten more years of history than the Reds. If you're going to take history into account when deciding which NL team should switch leagues, then the Braves are the last franchise you give the boot to.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Brian in Boston
Again, there's no need for the level of combativeness you're displaying in your posts.

[The_Admiral]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

The purpose is not to derail other threads with realignment proposals, so you post them here and then someone explains to you why it doesn't work. Isn't that clear by now?

[Evil G]

Better yet, put the Mariners and Angels back in the AL.

[wdm1219inpenna]

I did a recent post about expanding to 32 teams, bringing back the Montreal Expos as team 31, and the Portland Grays as team 32. Portland could also be the Meadowlarks, or Larks, since the meadowlark is the state bird in Oregon. Montreal in NL, Portland in AL, move Milwaukee back to AL, move Houston back to NL. For further details, you can look at the post I did a couple of weeks back on here.

If contracting to 24 teams, contract the 6 newest franchises, swap Milwaukee & Houston and have this:

AL East:

Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Milwaukee Brewers, New York Yankees

AL West:

Chicago White Sox, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Anaheim (changing it back to that) Angels, Texas Rangers, San Jose A's (relocated from Oakland)

NL East:

Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, St. Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs, Washington Nationals, New York Mets

NL West:

Los Angeles Dodgers, Cincinnati Reds, Houston Astros, San Francisco Giants, San Diego Padres, Atlanta Braves

While geographically, it should be Cincy & Atlanta in the East and St. Louis & the Cubs in the west, the Cubs put up a big stink in 1969 and again in 1993 about being moved into the Western Division.

Ditch interleague play, 18 games vs. your other 5 division opponents (90 games), 12 games vs. each of the other 6 teams in the opposite division (72 games). Division champs only in the playoffs, best 4 out of 7, advance to the World Series, best 4 out of 7. Home field advantage in the World Series would alternate every year, as it did for decades.

Miami has a new stadium, little fan turnout, terrible ownership. Tampa seems to not draw very well either. Arizona had to be bailed out by MLB. Colorado draws many fans at least. Toronto has been more or less irrelevant in the AL East since winning it all in 1993. They are one of just 3 teams to not make the post-season since the 3 division format started in 1994, with Pittsburgh & Kansas City being the other 2. Both of these teams are in the hunt at least this year. Seattle hasn't won the division, or been in the playoffs since 2001, and were very close in 1995 to losing their franchise altogether. So of the 6 newest teams, the only one that would be wrong to contract in my humble opinion would be the Rockies.

[McCall]

Records have nothing to do with contraction. It's all about finances; current and future stability/instability within the market. Plus no one would contract the Marlins after just moving into a brand spanking new ballpark. It'd be a waste of money. Same can actually be said for any of your contractions. On Oakland and Tampa Bay are in stadium troubles. All the others are either too new or old and well-kept or at least house long storied team that is in no way a candidate for contraction.

[Evil G]

I wouldn't contract the D-Backs or the Marlins. Why would you contract teams with WS?

[Russian Penguin]

Poor franchises will merge or relocate before they get contracted.

I can think of two franchises in the MLB NHL NFL NBA and MLS that have been contracted:

Tampa Bay Mutiny

Miami Fusion

*If these teams existed today, they would be managed by the league.

Why were MIA & TB contracted & not relocated/merged?

[McCall]

Merging is essentially contraction. You're a still reducing the number of teams in the league, you're still removing a team from a market without relocating it to a new one.

Baseball is actually a lot closer on the scale to expansion than contraction, though they're still not to that point just yet either. The only two franchises in question at all would be Oakland and Tampa Bay. Stadium issues are the main thing plaguing them (well fan turnout for TB as well). Every other team is either in too new of a stadium (such as Miami) or in an old stadium, but too financially well off and not actually even looking for a new stadium, just renovating (Cubs, Dodgers, etc.).

The basic point is, contraction is not likely to happen in baseball anytime soon unless things just take an unprecedented turn for the worse in the near future, which doesn't seem likely.

And again, just to stress the point, on-field play/records is not a reason for contraction. Or even non-contraction (the aforementioned question of Miami and Arizona when they've won a World Series title). Contraction is based solely on a financial basis.

[Russian Penguin]

Fremont Rays.

[Russian Penguin]

I've read that the next 3 of 4 MLS expansion teams are "locks." One being Atlanta, to play in the new Falcons Stadium.

-New York City, lock

-Atlanta, lock

-Orlando, very probable ("could start play by 2015")

-San Antonio, probable (from another article, can expand stadium capacity like Orlando)

-Miami, not sure, considering the Orlando news is from today

Garber wants 22 by 2020.

[buzzcut]

If the NBA were to foolishly dump ESPN for Fox, there could be a dramatic realignment.

ESPN Super League(All NBA defectors but one):

Eastern Conference:

Boston Celtics

Chicago Bulls

Miami Heat

New York Knicks

Washington Wizards

Western Conference:

Dallas Mavericks

Houston Rockets

Los Angeles Lakers

Phoenix Suns

Seattle Supersonics(expansion)

Super League playoffs(based on the McIntire system of giving top teams double chances of playing for the title):

Division Champions play in 2nd semifinal series(Winner to the Super Final)

Next 2 teams play in 1st semifinal series

Winner of 1st semifinal plays loser of 2nd semifinal in Preliminary final series

Winner of Preliminary Final series goes to the Super Final Series to face 2nd semifinal series

All series are best of 7.

NBA

Atlantic Division:

Atlanta Hawks

Charlotte Hornets

New York Nets(renamed from Brooklyn)

Orlando Magic

Philadelphia 76ers

Toronto Raptors

Central Division

Chicago Zephyrs(expansion)

Cleveland Cavaliers

Detroit Pistons

Indiana Pacers

Milwaukee Bucks

Minnesota Timberwolves

Midwest Division

Denver Nuggets

Kansas City Griffins(expansion)

Memphis Grizzlies

New Orleans Pelicans

Oklahoma City Thunder

San Antonio Spurs

Pacific Division

Anaheim Clippers

Portland Trail Blazers

Sacramento Kings

San Francisco Warriors

Utah Jazz

Vancouver Titans(expansion)

NBA playoffs(returns to format used from 1984-2004).

Edited September 29, 2013 by buzzcut

[LAWeaver]

Some people have some weird ideas for realignments and get too serious. Why can't it be like the first dozen or so pages? I'd go through and 'like' most of them, but it would be weird up-voting stuff that's three years old. I read them for laughter's sake