MLB Realignment

[McCall]

You can't have 15 teams in each division.

There would be no divisions, and just two leagues. The way it was.

The more i think about it, a single table for each league makes more and more sense...

Just from what I read now divisions would be kept. I think the no-division format was just talk that lost steam.

[McCall]

I'd still have divisions but they would only be used for scheduling purposes to make the travel a little easier.

Interleague daily doesn't bother me. It's not a novelty anymore.

Move AZ to AL West and HOU to NL West

play 4 teams in division 12x=48 (3 game series)

play 10 others in league 10x=100 (5 teams 4 at home and 6 on the road and 5 teams 6 at home and 4 on the road)

interleague "rival"=4

other interleague=2 3-game series and 1 4-game series (one team from each division each year, so you play your rival two series once every five years)

Top four make playoffs (I mean "postseason"). Best of 7 all playoff rounds.

Having some four game series makes scheduling easier. Two game series are too quick. It's not perfectly balanced, but a lot closer than what we have now.

If you make the playoffs, you can hang a postseason banner. If you win a league another. World series, another. No banners for winning a playoff round (ahem, Mets)! And no champagne for winning the division round.

And no more home-field advantage from all-star game. I have heard somewhere that they like to know home-field advantage in advance. If that's so important, I'd give it to the league who has the team with the best overall record. Then the best regular season team will be guaranteed home-field if they make the World Series.

Wow you just overly complicated this even more.

Colorado makes more sense to the AL West. Geographically they help with the gap between Texas and the rest of the division cuz they're more centrally between them as well as Seattle cuz they're also more north. Plus the exta hitter in that park would cause some excitement.

Divisionally 12 games against each (4) opponent. The other 10 teams you can go 9 games apiece. That would leave 24 interleague games total (which I'd like to reduce actually). This is pretty balanced and not overly complicated. You can have all 3 games series (54 total) but it would add probably a week and a half to either the start or end if the season. So probably 2 divisional opponents would probably go 4 series, 2 home and away and 4 home an away, that way you could have 2 weeks where you have 3 series, 2 2-games and 1 3-game. I don't like the 2-gamers but they may be necessary at a minimum. And except for those 2 weeks, every team would have a day off each week.

[raysox]

With the win in Milwaukee, the Rays are now better than 4 of 6 division leaders. I'm sure if your team was the 3rd best team in the league, but gets snuffed from the playoffs, you'd be upset too. I just don't understand why everyone is so hesitant? It's just the old fashion baseball fans. The Rays play 18 games against NL opponents, that's 6 series, 5 teams. So in reality, that's a 1/3 chance that a team plays a team in the World Series that they played earlier.

Plus, the NFL NBA and NHL do it throughout the season.

[Mac the Knife]

I'd say Raleigh and Charlotte are more akin to Milwaukee and Green Bay, especially when supporting each others' sports teams. Phily and Pittsburgh don't even do that. Phily is definitely an east coast city where Pittsburgh is a Midwestern city that just happens to be a little further east than most of its contemporaries.

You could say that, but for the most part you'd be wrong. While Raleigh allegedly is Panthers country there's a generational divide: if you're over 30, odds are you're still a Redskins fan here (if you're native to the area), with the Panthers as a "second team." The Bobcats? They might as well not exist to Raleigh. The Hurricanes? They might as well not exist to Charlotte.

There is, however, no true dislike among them in that regard, unlike Eagles/Steelers or Flyers/Penguins. Those fans just flat out don't like one another. If Raleigh and Charlotte did have teams in the same major league, I think they'd have a similar type of rivalry; there's just no overlap for there to be one.

The Eagles/Steelers / Flyers/Penguins thing really only exists in Western PA, where as you know, there's always been a "hate the big brother" kind of thing. If not for all the transplanted pittsburgers who had to move east to get a job, the Pittsburgh teams wouldn't even be noticed here (other than the Pens, just because they are a division rival, not because of where they're from.). Philly's big brother rivalry is New York. Pittsburgh is a total afterthought.

You're way way off, first no one in Pittsburgh sees the Eagles as a rival, they aren't even on the radar, it goes Baltimore, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, with teams like New England, Dallas and Oakland in the next category.

You're right - which is exactly just how little of a rivalry exists with Raleigh and Charlotte. I lived in the Pittsburgh area for nearly 14 years, so I knew what comparison I was making.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I don't see how any plan that gives the Red Sox and Yankees an even better chance to make the playoffs makes sense for baseball. Sorry.

I kind of like the three 10-team league concepts, though.

[HedleyLamarr]

I don't see how any plan that gives the Red Sox and Yankees an even better chance to make the playoffs makes sense for baseball. Sorry.

Money.

TV ratings.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I don't see how any plan that gives the Red Sox and Yankees an even better chance to make the playoffs makes sense for baseball. Sorry.

Money.

TV ratings.

Well then, just give them a free pass each year. My point was that the "competitive balance" spin on this no-division format is "to give teams like the Orioles and Blue Jays a chance," just like last year when they were floating the idea of letting "teams that don't plan to compete" move to the AL East and "teams that do" move to the AL Central "for a better chance."

Many of these pitches revolve around the Yankees-Red Sox "problem" without addressing it head-on. Realignment won't solve competitive balance. It might make it worse.

[Lights Out]

If the MLB had a freaking salary cap like every other major American sport, the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't be a problem at all. Plus, they would finally have to feel the effects of a bad signing or albatross contract, leading to much comedy when their spoiled fanbases freak out.

[The Six]

If the MLB had a freaking salary cap like every other major American sport, the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't be a problem at all.

Yeah, they wouldn't be a problem. The massive unfairness of the cap would be.

[BBTV]

If the MLB had a freaking salary cap like every other major American sport, the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't be a problem at all.

Yeah, they wouldn't be a problem. The massive unfairness of the cap would be.

Now that's a topic that could be it's own 17-page thread. There are a lot of good arguments on either side of it.

[Lights Out]

How is a salary cap "unfair"? A cap hasn't stopped big-market teams from winning titles in the other three sports, but it has given small-market teams more of a chance to compete, make impact signings, and become relevant.

[BBTV]

How is a salary cap "unfair"? A cap hasn't stopped big-market teams from winning titles in the other three sports, but it has given small-market teams more of a chance to compete, make impact signings, and become relevant.

How would you feel if a team in New York had the money and was willing to pay you $10M / year, but due to the cap, you could only sign either in New York for $3M, or somewhere like Kansas City for $5? Stop being a fan.

Now I could easily counter what I just typed above, but that's one example of why it's reasonable to argue that it's not fair.

[Lights Out]

Sucks to be that player, then. As soon as you let players start calling all the shots, it becomes a slippery slope of only destination cities winning and we're back to the current situation of markets with empty stadiums every night, which is bad for the league as a whole.

[TBGKon]

How is a salary cap "unfair"? A cap hasn't stopped big-market teams from winning titles in the other three sports, but it has given small-market teams more of a chance to compete, make impact signings, and become relevant.

A salary cap would also mean a salary floor. Odds are the salary floor would be much higher than some of the lower payroll teams choose to spend.

[JQK]

If the MLB had a freaking salary cap like every other major American sport, the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't be a problem at all. Plus, they would finally have to feel the effects of a bad signing or albatross contract, leading to much comedy when their spoiled fanbases freak out.

So you want a salary cap just to make fun of other fanbases?

[Lights Out]

Uh, no. I was kidding, but I guess that didn't translate.

[The Six]

If your rationalization is "sucks to be you," that's about as close as you can get to admitting something is unfair.

Destination cities are so for a reason: they deserve it. Artificially limiting their budget isn't right. That's like saying a city can't erect any more monuments because they'd be attracting more tourists than that poorer city to the south.

[The_Admiral]

What if a player's salary, not team payroll, was capped?

Also, what hurts teams more than the lack of a salary cap is the draft. You find you guy and then he says "no thanks" until the Red Sox draft him. You shouldn't have to have your draft board compromised by "signability."

[BBTV]

Sucks to be that player, then. As soon as you let players start calling all the shots, it becomes a slippery slope of only destination cities winning and we're back to the current situation of markets with empty stadiums every night, which is bad for the league as a whole.

Again, stop being a fan. Think about the worker. I don't know what you do, but say you feel that you're worth $90k / year at your accounting job or whatever, and AccountCo is willing to give you that or more, but then they say "sorry, the Accounting Firm's Collusion Union says that we're close to our cap, so we can only give you $60k, or you could sit out a year and maybe next year we can give you what you're worth."

Is there any other industry where what a person can earn is "capped"? You're selfishly thinking about this from a SPORTS!!! fan's perspective, and not a human perspective.

Of course if MLB was one big company with "offices" in 30 cities that shared revenue (like Target branches), then it could be argued that the league gives each team it's budget for the year, and that's what they use to sign players. Or the league just signs players and "transfers" them to the Kansas City branch, or the New York branch, or whatever. Only in a league with shared revenue streams does the idea of a global budget (cap) make any sense.

[JayJaxon]

What if a player's salary, not team payroll, was capped?

Also, what hurts teams more than the lack of a salary cap is the draft. You find you guy and then he says "no thanks" until the Red Sox draft him. You shouldn't have to have your draft board compromised by "signability."

I agree with you here 100%. The draft is a big issue in MLB.