Las Vegas or Charlotte MLB uni challenge

[thegame4219]

Changes: move a team from the NL to AL so it is now equal, work toward the next CBA in the way that $50 million would be the Minimum amout a teams payroll can be (because the the D-Rays made a big profit the last few years and the get part of the Luxury Tax. No new teams, if teams want to relocate they can with owners vote. Hate to say this (i love montreal all i have family up there) but no team will Montreal for a long long time.

Here are the teams under my proposed $50 million Minimum:

23 Washington Nationals $48,581,500- 1st place in division

24 Colorado Rockies $48,155,000- last place in division

25 Toronto Blue Jays $45,719,500- 4th place in division

26 Cleveland Indians $41,502,500- 3rd place in division

27 Milwaukee Brewers $39,934,833- 3rd place in division

28 Pittsburgh Pirates $38,133,000- 4th place in division

29 Kansas City Royals $36,881,000- last place in division

30 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $29,363,067- last place in division

If owners would stop pocketing the money and put it back into teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets would do then we would have every team over $50 million payrolls.

[cyandlux]

Heres an actual concept for this thing....jerseys soon, C&C appreciated

The Chaparral (Roadrunner) is standing on a baseball poker chip, the font I used is Chaparral Pro

[Blackjack76]

I have a headache reading this thread. Here's my solution, and I'm borrowing an idea from the freaking soccer leagues in Europe...RELEGATION!!!

The Wild Card has added great games at the end of the season the past few years. It has even produced multiple World Series Champs (Marlins twice, Angels, Red Sox). So why not add more excitement and a reason for teams like Tampa Bay and Kansas City to not sell the farm...RELEGATION!!!

The two worst teams in each league are RELEGATED to AAA, with the top two teams from the Pacific Coast League and top two from the International League promoted. PROMOTION!!!

This obviously would destroy geographical divisions. The National League would just be a 16-team winner-take all with three wild card teams. Same goes for the American League. Certain rivalries would continue as long as each team is not relegated (Cardinals-Cubs, Red Sox-Yankees, Dodgers-Giants).

Under this system, if the season were to end today, here's what would happen:

NATIONAL LEAGUE (aligned with the Pacific Coast League):

St. Louis - regular season champs

Washington - wild card

Atlanta - wild card

San Diego - wild card

Florida

Philadelphia

New York Mets

Chicago Cubs

Houston

Arizona

Milwaukee

Los Angeles Dodgers

Pittsburgh

San Francisco

Cincinnati - RELEGATED!!!

Colorado - RELEGATED!!!

Sacramento - PROMOTED!!!

Tacoma - PROMOTED!!!

AMERICAN LEAGUE (aligned with the International League):

Chicago White Sox - regular season champs

Los Angeles Angels - wild card

Boston - wild card

Minnesota - wild card

Cleveland

Baltimore

New York Yankees

Texas

Toronto

Oakland

Detroit

Seattle

Kansas City - RELEGATED!!!

Tampa Bay - RELEGATED!!!

Toledo - PROMOTED!!!

Buffalo - PROMOTED!!!

This would make the owners of Kansas City and Tampa Bay move to action to save their franchises. Also makes for great games the last weeks of the season for Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco and other teams on the bubble.

Obviously this will never happen (logistics, that whole minor league affiliate thing, smaller ballparks, etc.), but damn, it would be great if it did.

[EJ_Barlik]

Actually, going to 32 teams in MLB makes a lot of sense if you want to "fix" the problems of the uneven scheduling. The basic solution I have is kinda radical, but I think it could work if planned properly.

First, align into 8 4-team divisions.

Then, cut back to 160 games from 162 (it will be obvious why in a moment).

Fix the schedule to be 10x what the NFL schedule is like except split all series evenly between home/away.

Thus, you play your division 20 times each (10 home, 10 away) = 60 games.

Then, you play 1 entire other division in your conference on a rotating basis (each division every 3 years) home/away 10 times each = 40 games.

Then, you play 1 entire division in the opposite coference (each division every 4 years) home/away 10 times each = 40 games.

Then, you play the 2 other teams who finished in your place (4th or 3rd or whatever) 10 times each home/away = 20 games.

60 + 40 + 40 interleague + 20 = 160 games.

To do this, you need to go to the 5 game series (instead of 3 or 4 or 2 or whatever). This gives fans a chance to see you pitch your entire staff once a homestand/awaystand.

It keeps the inter-leage aspect and evens out the number of times you play home/away, unlike to goofy schedule they have now.

Playoffs go to a similar schedule to what NFL uses: 4 division winners plus 2 wild cards. best 2 division winners in each league get a bye in round 1 of the playoffs (all best of 5). Round 2 + conference championship series is best of 7. Go to a best of 9 format for the World Series.

Radical ideas, but this just might could work.

Each round of the playoffs except the world series features a double-header to begin each series, so it gets done a little quicker. This also provides for more baseball TV viewing times & more chances to see all the teams on a given day.

ideas?

[bigwalk]

Well, if you were to relegate, you would have to dissolve AAA affiliations to Major League ballclubs, because if you didn't you would have instances where you might have two sets of players from the same organization playing at the same level (in some instances) against each other. Furthermore, because of the varying styles of play in the PCL and IL, it would make more sense for the IL to be aligned with the NL and the PCL with the AL, given that the IL is more of a pitching/defense/smallball league, and the PCL emphasizes power hitting.

[omnivore]

I think that you make a great point related to aligning the AAA leagues with the leagues as "relegation partners" if you will.

It'd be great for baseball, especially in 2nd tier cities and the owners would reinvigorate interest in the sport.

All those AA franchise values will rise as a result, as will the AAA ones. It would be really complicated, but then..MLB is the same league that orchestrated the first three team ownership trade in history (Florida/Boston/Montreal) so anything is possible in the corrupt MLB Selig regime.

[NDwas]

i'm really not getting you guys...

all the talk about diluted players is bs? WHAT? NO. what is the point of even having a triple-a ballclub if they're all gonna play in the majors? and are you saying that mlb is going to improve because of younger and less-experienced ballplayers? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

uneven scheduling is a result of interleague play, and they should really stop both. the dh rule should go as well.

and yes

AT THIS POINT, THE CITIES OF CHARLOTTE (too close to atlanta - and don't even mention nats/os...mr. turner is A LOT smarter than angelosuckthis), COLORADO (hitters paradise, pitchers nightmare, and baseballs "best show on earth" is in desperate need of a closure), LAS VEGAS (people come for gambling, not for a ball game - let's see: a's/royals or blackjack? hmm...), MONTREAL (new stadium would be too little too late), OAKLAND (see montreal), PORTLAND (attendance issues await a team's arrival), AND TAMPA BAY (fresh squeezed failure at the trop) DO NOT DESERVE A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL FRANCHISE.

and i'm not abandoning my statement about kc, pittsburgh, arlington, and toronto - you win, no one shows up...you lose, no one shows up. there's only one solution to this. wait...did i just hear something? did someone just say: "WASHINGTON NATIONALS"?

[B-Rich]

How about this, to answer you first question. The Las Vegas Posse.

Umm, that's a great job of taking the name AND logos of a former CFL franchise and putting them on a baseball uniform, partner....

[luisart47]

Not a bad idea Edge, as far as scheduling is concerned it is the best idea so far.

[B-Rich]

But New Orleans, which barely supports one of its teams (Saints), and isn't killing them at the box office in its 2nd go-round as an NBA city (Jazz made out better in UTAH than in N.O., and the Hornets don't break the bank), and has 1 or 2 Fortune 500 companies to buy up the luxury boxes and finance the stadiums, is worthy.

Okay, more than anyone else on the board I'd admit that there is no way that New Orleans deserves an MLB team (and certainly not one named the BAYOU-- yeah, let's name a baseball team after a sluggishly moving body of water). Nor that New Orleans has any INTEREST in acquiring an MLB team. Nada. None.

But to justify it with some of these points is just plain wrong.

-- First of all, saying that the city "barely supports" the Saints is entirely incorrect. On what do you base this assumption? Up until last season, we had a streak of consecutive sell-outs going back many years. We're no Washington, Denver, or Green Bay in terms of season ticket waiting lists, but we're no Arizona, Cincinnati, Miami or Jacksonville in terms of non-bought tickets. Heck, up until the Vick years the Saints generally had better fan support than the Falcons. Especially given the history of ineptitude displayed by the franchise, I think our support is amazing.

-- Saying the Jazz made out better in UTAH than in New Orleans also isn't completely true. They made out better in Utah only once they became WINNERS. (Many here still are p'oed about a Mormon owner essentially pulling an early version of an Irsay and leaving town for a more Mormon-friendly locale, and having the gall to keep the name 'Jazz'). The Jazz were only in New Orleans for 5 seasons, Once they moved into the Superdome (after their first year), in seasons 2 and 4 New Orleans averaged well over 12,500 per game (5th best and 6th best in the NBA, respectively) and in year three the Jazz averaged almost 11,000 per game (12th in the NBA). True, in the last season that fell to an average of 8,883. But this was for a team that at one point had a 4-37 record. More notably, even that 5th year's (1979-80) meager attendance average was better than any for the relocated "Utah Jazz" up until the 1983-84 season ? the first year the Jazz won the Midwest and the first year they went to the playoffs. Even though the New Orleans Jazz never finished above .500, the Utah Jazz did not begin matching the attendance levels of their best years in New Orleans until they became consistent winners. And STILL they weren't faring well. Owner Sam Battistone continued his shenanigans up there for years in Utah? unloading draft picks and players for quick cash, playing ?home? games in Las Vegas; there were rumors that the team would move to Minnesota or Miami or merge with Denver, etc. It wasn't until current owner Larry Miller took over the team in 1986-87 that they got on sound footing.

-- The Hornets were more or less tied with ATLANTA for last place in attendance in the NBA this year. They also only had 18 wins, only a couple more than Atlanta. The two previosu years, when we were 4 seeds in the playoffs, we did quite nicely in terms of attendance-- not league-leading, but certainly a respectable middel of the pack. Besides, the average attendance numbers are actually pretty close in the NBA-- quite a few are between 14,000 and 16,000. A few hundred people a night in the cheap seats doesn't matter much in the scheme of things....

-- And you're right, we don't have quite as many Fortune 500 company headquarters as other places. Big whoop. That's not a great indicator?Buffalo, with 2 pro sports teams, has none, while Birmingham, AL --which has no pro sports teams and few prospects to get any-- has six. And the state of Delaware, with no pro sports teams, has more than anyone?so what?

Like I said, I have no guff with saying we don't deserve a team-- I agree, and we don't want one. But don't throw around journalistic hoo-ha without the straight facts and impugn other things while you're at it....

Thanks.....

[VitaminD]

and yes AT THIS POINT, THE CITIES OF CHARLOTTE (too close to atlanta - and don't even mention nats/os...mr. turner is A LOT smarter than angelosuckthis),

dorf: Kindly tell me how Charlotte is "too close" to Atlanta? Charlotte to Atlanta is over 4 1/2 hours by car. About as far as Philadelphia to Boston.

Distance within divisions doesn't seem to be a problem for the NBA (Northwest), NHL (Pacific & Northwest), and NFL (AFC West & NFC West for 1/2 the season) which all have teams in three different time zones.

DC: But the NFL plays one game a week. I'm surprised the NBA and NHL don't have more problems, since they only play 1 game in a visiting city but could be in 6 cities in 10 days, which has to take its toll. Distance becomes an issue in MLB because you're combining the distances seen in the NBA and NHL AND playing 3 times as many games. Six games a week, 2 weeks or more at a time, all those miles add up.

I'd move Tampa Bay to New Jersey to put a 3rd team in the NY Metro area, outside of the Yanks territory.

Bronson: The Yankees' territory is larger than the NY Metro area that includes northern New Jersey. The New Jersey that exists outside of Yankees' territory is suburban Philadelphia. And thus, New Jersey already has a 3rd team outside of Yankees territory. They're called the Phillies.

B-Rich: You're right about some of your points. I went and looked, and the Saints are at the bottom of the top half of teams in terms of attendance. And no, fans should not be expected to support crappy teams. The point about Fortune 500 companies is still valid, IMO, because it speaks to the economic infrastructure of a city. It's harder to support luxuries like major league sports without companies providing jobs and putting money back into the local economy. New Orleans derives a significant part of its income for tourism and conventions, which do bring money to the city but don't necessarily get people to stay and spend for years at a time. That was my point.

And most of Delaware is within an hour or two of Philadelphia or Baltimore. Favorable banking and tax laws are the reason companies flock there. They don't need major league sports.

[JH42XCC]

Alright you clones, here's my plans for MLB Realignment (if MLB ever expands to 32 Teams):

American League

East

Boston Red Sox

Cleveland Indians

New York Yankees

Toronto Blue Jays

North

Chicago White Sox

Detroit Tigers

Kansas City Royals

Minnesota Twins

South

Baltimore Orioles

Charlotte SkyHawks

Tampa Bay Devil Rays

Texas Rangers

West

Las Vegas Diablos

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (if that name remains)

Oakland (or San Jose) Athletics

Seattle Mariners

National League

East

New York Mets

Philadelphia Phillies

Pittsburgh Pirates

Washington Nationals

North

Chicago Cubs

Colorado Rockies

Milwaukee Brewers

St. Louis Cardinals

South

Atlanta Braves

Cincinnati Reds (considering Cincinnati, OH, is on the Ohio-Kentucky border)

Florida Marlins

Houston Astros

West

Arizona Diamondbacks

Los Angeles Dodgers

San Diego Padres

San Francisco Giants

This could work!

[redsfan39]

South

Baltimore Orioles

i cant see baltimore in the south

[IceCap]

toronto - you win, no one shows up...you lose, no one shows up. there's only one solution to this. wait...did i just hear something? did someone just say: "WASHINGTON NATIONALS:flagcanada:

have you ever been to toronto? really, do your homework. the jays draw when they play well, just like most teams. yes the jays have had low attendence this year, but come on. even if they win a few games they cant catch the red sox, so why bother going to the games? if they win x number of games, the red sox (and) yankees if they can get their game together) will win x+ games. there's no way, the other teams have way to much money for the jays to overcome. the soloution is to swap the tigers and blue jays. the jays are pitted agaisnt even level teams, and the al east becomes a "heratage" division with the yankees, red sox, o's, and tigers. the youngest team is 50+ years old. its a perfect soloution.

toronto is a great baseball town, and just because YOU cant see it dosnt take away from that.

[redsfan39]

there were always crowds when ive been to jays games

[BallWonk]

the jays draw when they play well, just like most teams. yes the jays have had low attendence this year, but come on. even if they win a few games they cant catch the red sox, so why bother going to the games? if they win x number of games, the red sox (and) yankees if they can get their game together) will win x+ games.

That description would make Toronto a mediocre baseball town at best. In a great baseball town, nobody asks "why bother going to the games?" when their team doesn't have much of a chance to win that year's pennant. In a great baseball town, "because it's a major-league baseball game" is reason enough to go to a game. Look at truly great baseball cities like St. Louis or Chicago or Boston: they might not sell out every September game in years without a pennant race, but average attendance stays among the league leaders year in and year out.

"Great baseball town" status isn't about selling out the ballpark when the team is winning. Any city can do that. Except maybe Atlanta. A great baseball town is one in which a sufficient number of baseball fans love the game enough to come to the ballpark even when the home team isn't in a pennant race. I'd always thought Toronto was closer to this kind of city than you describe; if your description of the tepid nature of Toronto fans is true, then it really isn't much of a baseball town. Perhaps my opinion of Toronto is an outdated remnant of an impression formed in the early 1990s, when the Blue Jays were a great team, and therefore easy for folks there to get behind.

[TwoRsAndTwoLs]

Just wanna say that I am against having any "bye" round in the baseball playoffs.

[IceCap]

the jays draw when they play well, just like most teams. yes the jays have had low attendence this year, but come on. even if they win a few games they cant catch the red sox, so why bother going to the games? if they win x number of games, the red sox (and) yankees if they can get their game together) will win x+ games.

That description would make Toronto a mediocre baseball town at best. In a great baseball town, nobody asks "why bother going to the games?" when their team doesn't have much of a chance to win that year's pennant. In a great baseball town, "because it's a major-league baseball game" is reason enough to go to a game. Look at truly great baseball cities like St. Louis or Chicago or Boston: they might not sell out every September game in years without a pennant race, but average attendance stays among the league leaders year in and year out.

"Great baseball town" status isn't about selling out the ballpark when the team is winning. Any city can do that. Except maybe Atlanta. A great baseball town is one in which a sufficient number of baseball fans love the game enough to come to the ballpark even when the home team isn't in a pennant race. I'd always thought Toronto was closer to this kind of city than you describe; if your description of the tepid nature of Toronto fans is true, then it really isn't much of a baseball town. Perhaps my opinion of Toronto is an outdated remnant of an impression formed in the early 1990s, when the Blue Jays were a great team, and therefore easy for folks there to get behind.

the teams you described have history behind them. the cards, yankees, and red sox are like the canadians, maple leafs, and bruins of baseball. they're going to get fans in seats no matter what, just becaue of the team's histiory and tradition. the blue jays are like the, or lets say the buffalo sabers of baseball. is buffalo a great hockey town? yes. do the sabers sell out no matter what? no, not yet, but give it 20 more years, and they'll have the following of the canadians and leafs.

same thing can be said for the jays. toronto is a great baseball town, and all though they dont get great attendence every game, in 20 years they will have the following of the yankees and red sox. it takes A LOT of time for a team to build the fan base resembelling the yankees, sox, cubs or cards, even in a great baseball town. ironically traditionalsits dont seem to grasp this concept.

you want to move or contract the jays? go ahead. take away a team that was a huge part of not only my childhood, but the childhoods of many other southern ontarians. in fact the first team i ever rooted for were the jays, even before the maple leafs or rangers (kitchener,ohl). i may have only been 5/6 when the jays won their two world championships, but i remember both of them like it was yesterday. so take the jays away, but be prepared for an outrage on the level of the browns leaving baltimore (well mabey not that bad, but it would still be pretty bad )

[Bernd]

I think cities that blindly support their baseball team, no matter how well the team does year after year, is, frankly, stupid.

If an owner (like the Tribune Company) cannot put a winning team on the field every year, with the market size and fan support they have, they deseve to be punished at the turnstyle. Ballpark attendance is a way for fans to vote for how their team is doing. Why should the Tribune Co. care about fielding a good team if the idiot fans don't care themselves?

[iccomics]

A COUPLE THINGS, EARLIER IN THIS POST, SOMEONE SAID EARLIER IN THIS POST THAT SEATTLE ISNT DESERVING OF A TEAM. ONCE SEATTLE HAD THE BEST SEASON IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL'S 100+ YEAR HISTORY SAFECO SOLD OUT EVERY GAME FOR ABOUT 2 YEARS. THEY HAD THE HIGHEST ATTENDANCE BY FAR. I THINK BREMERTON, WA (HICK TOWN IN THE WOODS 20 MILES W OF SEATTLE, HOME OF THE BLUEJACKETS OF THE WCCBL) COULD BE A BASEBALL TOWN IF WE HAD A WORLD SERIES QUALITY TEAM YEAR AFTER YEAR. IT'S THE PLAYERS, THE TEAM, NOT THE CITY.

ALSO, I HATE THE IDEA ABOUT THE DEMOTED MAJOR LEAGUE TEAMS BEING REPLACED BY 2 MINOR TEAMS IN EACH LEAGUE. I GO TO PLENTY TACOMA RAINIERS GAMES AND THAT STADIUM IS JUST TOO SMALL FOR MLB PLAY. IT HOLDS MAYBE 4K. ALSO THE TAMPA BAY DEVIL RAYS COULD ANAILATE THE RAINIERS 99/100 GAMES. SO THE DEMOTED MLB TEAM WOULD DOMINATE THE MINORS, AND THE MILB TEAM WILL BE BULLIED IN THE MAJORS. WHO WANTS TO WATCH THEIR SMALL TOWN BALLCLUB GET SMASHED BY THE RAYS ANYWAY?