MLB Realignment

[tBBP]

Point being, if MLB wants to look at making improvements to it's game, stop looking at the NHL and NBA for advice...look at the NFL. Have they expanded the playoff field to 14 or 16, has some media members and players wanted? No, that would water down the product. It still means something to make the playoffs, and even the Seahawks proved that beyond their record, they could take down the defending champions. So their existence in the playoffs wasn't a complete fluke.

I get where you're going with this, and you made a very good point about the Seahawks. But um uhh...that is also the same league that's actively looking to push an 18-game regular season. Wanna talk about watering something down? There you go. Sometimes stretching the regular season out too long causes loss of interest as well.

Speaking of, I ain't the smartest guy when it comes to baseball, so can someone educate Buc The Ignorant on just how in the heck the regular came to be, and why is it now, 162 games long? Would the league or any of its fans be in favor of chopping say, maybe twelve games if not more off that? I don't know, but to me, it seems having a season that long is just a little, well, odd.

Back to the point of this thread, I personally think two single-table leagues is a great idea. Several members here have been clamoring for some major American pro sports league to go single-table...now we may be about to have it, in the one sport that holds onto its traditions tighter than any other (from this vantage point, anyway).

[DustDevil61]

Another thing I meant to add...I'm also in favor of expanded playoffs, provided that the number of total games in a season is cut down. Something from 162 to about 140 or so.

[pmoehrin]

I think the 6 team playoff is eventually going to happen its only a matter of time, so fighting it is pointless. There's just too much money not to do it. If they go to 8 teams though, then I'll get pissed. Bad enough we have two sports where the regular season doesen't matter. (NBA and NHL) I don't want to see a third.

The only thing I would want to do with realignment would be to go to an East West format. If tradition is the only reason for keeping the AL/NL format in place then it should go, and that's the only reason I can really come up with. We do it because its always been how its done simply isn't good enough for me. I need something more to go on.

What to do The DH would be a problem. I used to be very against it, but as time has gone on, I don't care as much. I don't think its a bad idea for the MLB, or AAA but any level below it I would be against it. I don't like the good idea to start training people at a young age to only be hitters or only be pitchers.

I would love to see a promotion/demotion league, but only if they got rid of territory rights and there's no way that's going to happpen. There's always going to be more cities wanting teams then there are teams, and that's just the way the four major sports like it. A good monopoly never completely satisfies demand.

[Bronxmet]

While I'm in favor of a baseball realignment, the prospect of torpedoing the divisions altogether might be opposed by TV networks who broadcast baseball, especially Fox, TBS, and ESPN, who might fear that those who make the playoffs might come from only one or two regions of the United States, which could hurt nationwide ratings for the networks (an example being the AL playoffs featuring no team from the West Coast).

On the other hand, however, I do prefer moving a team, preferably Colorado or Arizona, to the AL West, enabling the Astros to switch to the NL West.

As for increased interleague play, I'm for it so that every team could visit every ballpark at least 1-2 games a year.

This would be my type of schedule:

You play every team in your division 8 times (8x4=32 games)

You play every team in your league that's outside the division 7 times (10x7=70 games)

You play every team in the opposite league 4 times (15x4=60 games)

32+70=102 games, 102+60=162 games

As for the playoffs, I'd leave them with 8 teams, but with the new rule that the four teams in each league must be seeded by record. This would encourage division champions with poor records (I'm looking at you 2005 Padres) to win more ballgames in order to gain a better chance of homefield advantage in Round 1. After each round, seeds would be re-seeded to discourage upset teams from having homefield advantage in the LCS round.

[FiddySicks]

Bowden's idea is a bad one. But as long as we're discussing radical realignment scenarios, let's take it to a logical extreme and touch the third rail of American professional sports: promotion and relegation.

Want a 15-team American League and a 15-team National League? Cool. Want the top 5 teams in each to qualify for playoffs? I'm okay with that. Align the teams in each league any way you like. But let's add another wrinkle - the last place team in each of the leagues every year moves down to AAA, while the champions of the IL and PCL move up...and not only get to keep whatever players from their roster they won the title with (thereby taking them away from their MLB 'parent' club) but also get to cherry pick from the Major League roster of the team they are replacing.

While it'd be blasphemy to purists, it would essentially force teams into spending for player talent, as the risks inherent in being 'sent down to AAA' (particularly, loss of TV and gate revenue) would be so devastating that they'd have no choice but to do whatever they could to avoid finishing dead last.

I love ya Mac, but this is beyond absurd. For one thing, you'd have teams playing in minor league facilities competing in the major leagues. For another thing, how on earh could a parent club be beneath it's affiliate (so if the Royals got relegated, would the minor league front office have final say over call ups and options etc.?) For a third thing, the minor league team would "cherry pick" the entire major league roster... because, well, if the minor-league players were major-league ready, they'd have been on said roster.

The only way a relegation thing would work (and really, it wouldn't no matter what) would be for there to be a "minor" major league, where the teams were still "parent" clubs with their own affiliate system.

I agree, it's a fantastic idea in terms of competition, but it has no feasibility whatsoever. Look at the A's for example. The River Cats are perennial contenders in the PCL and have won the AAA title twice in the last ten years. The A's on the other hand, have spent a decent amount of time in the basement. If I'm the parent club and my AAA team is on the verge of winning the PCL title, I not only cherry pick the best players during expanded rosters at the end of the year (which happens anyway), I do what I can to make sure that the talent for them to get there in the first place just isn't there. Not only would I fear being regulated below my AAA club, but I'd as well fear losing some of my top prospects for the next season if another team was to be replaced by my AAA club. And as BBTV pointed out, many stadiums, such as Raley Field in Sacramento just don't yet have the room to accommodate a big league club's needs. The reason it works in European soccer is because the size of the stadiums and the general fan bases between the top leagues and the secondary leagues is fairly consistent. All AAA stadiums would have to be expanded into major league size, and the fan bases would have to match in order for it to work. I mean can you imagine Moosic, PA, Fort Mill, SC, or Papillon, NE having a Major League team?

Again, I personally love the idea from a thinking standpoint, Mac. But it just wouldn't work.

[OMMF]

Bowden's idea is a bad one. But as long as we're discussing radical realignment scenarios, let's take it to a logical extreme and touch the third rail of American professional sports: promotion and relegation.

Want a 15-team American League and a 15-team National League? Cool. Want the top 5 teams in each to qualify for playoffs? I'm okay with that. Align the teams in each league any way you like. But let's add another wrinkle - the last place team in each of the leagues every year moves down to AAA, while the champions of the IL and PCL move up...and not only get to keep whatever players from their roster they won the title with (thereby taking them away from their MLB 'parent' club) but also get to cherry pick from the Major League roster of the team they are replacing.

While it'd be blasphemy to purists, it would essentially force teams into spending for player talent, as the risks inherent in being 'sent down to AAA' (particularly, loss of TV and gate revenue) would be so devastating that they'd have no choice but to do whatever they could to avoid finishing dead last.

I love ya Mac, but this is beyond absurd. For one thing, you'd have teams playing in minor league facilities competing in the major leagues. For another thing, how on earh could a parent club be beneath it's affiliate (so if the Royals got relegated, would the minor league front office have final say over call ups and options etc.?) For a third thing, the minor league team would "cherry pick" the entire major league roster... because, well, if the minor-league players were major-league ready, they'd have been on said roster.

The only way a relegation thing would work (and really, it wouldn't no matter what) would be for there to be a "minor" major league, where the teams were still "parent" clubs with their own affiliate system.

I agree, it's a fantastic idea in terms of competition, but it has no feasibility whatsoever. Look at the A's for example. The River Cats are perennial contenders in the PCL and have won the AAA title twice in the last ten years. The A's on the other hand, have spent a decent amount of time in the basement. If I'm the parent club and my AAA team is on the verge of winning the PCL title, I not only cherry pick the best players during expanded rosters at the end of the year (which happens anyway), I do what I can to make sure that the talent for them to get there in the first place just isn't there. Not only would I fear being regulated below my AAA club, but I'd as well fear losing some of my top prospects for the next season if another team was to be replaced by my AAA club. And as BBTV pointed out, many stadiums, such as Raley Field in Sacramento just don't yet have the room to accommodate a big league club's needs. The reason it works in European soccer is because the size of the stadiums and the general fan bases between the top leagues and the secondary leagues is fairly consistent. All AAA stadiums would have to be expanded into major league size, and the fan bases would have to match in order for it to work. I mean can you imagine Moosic, PA, Fort Mill, SC, or Papillon, NE having a Major League team?

Again, I personally love the idea from a thinking standpoint, Mac. But it just wouldn't work.

But we're assuming that the payrolls of the minor league team stay minor league with the promotion, right? Then the stadiums wouldn't have to match. The teams were good enough to get to where they were with the payroll they had so the team would only have to keep doing what it was doing (sell out a minor league stadium) to stay competitive. Now, if that team wanted to stay up for more than one season or if they had a lot of contracts expiring, then it's a different story.

[pmoehrin]

A promotion/regulation system is just simply never going to happen here, nor would the four major sports ever take it seriously.

You want a promtion/regulation system that means you would also need a open market system. That means bye bye salary caps, publically financed stadiums, territory rights and revenue sharing. Forget getting the whole league to agree to it, there is no way any team in the four major sports world agree to all four of those terms. Most would only agree to one or two. The Yankees would probably love it if there was no salary cap or revenue sharing, just as the Pirates would love it if there were no territory rights.

I love the fact that teams over in Europe have to be self-sufficent but its just not true here. They don't have to worry about undesireable local competition. They get subsidized through those publically financed stadiums. They're ensured they'll have the money to compete and that no other team will spend so much so that it will greatly affect them. There's no way somebody can just step in off the streets and expect that match that unless they're a billionaire in which case its just much cheaper for them to buy into the system rather then trying to fight it.

[Drakonius26]

Point being, if MLB wants to look at making improvements to it's game, stop looking at the NHL and NBA for advice...look at the NFL. Have they expanded the playoff field to 14 or 16, has some media members and players wanted? No, that would water down the product. It still means something to make the playoffs, and even the Seahawks proved that beyond their record, they could take down the defending champions. So their existence in the playoffs wasn't a complete fluke.

I get where you're going with this, and you made a very good point about the Seahawks. But um uhh...that is also the same league that's actively looking to push an 18-game regular season. Wanna talk about watering something down? There you go. Sometimes stretching the regular season out too long causes loss of interest as well.

Well, I figured someone would bring the 18-game schedule up, even though we're not sure if that's a done deal yet, and besides, when the season went from 14 to 16 games in 1978, most football fans complained then but it worked out fine in the end.

All I'm saying is don't make this hard. Start by moving Milwaukee back to the AL. Then you could move Kansas City to the AL West, allowing 10 teams to conduct interleague play, while the other 20 matchup against divisional rivals or intraconference opponents. Then, keep the playoff field intact with three divisional champions and one wild-card team, as well as make every series a best-of-seven.

[BBTV]

It doesn't seem right to take MIL out of the AL, break whatever tradition and rivalries they had, then, right as the adults at the time are settled in and accepting of MIL as an NL team with rivalries vs. the Cubs and... well, whoever else they're rivals of, do the exact same thing and break up all of that. They messed with the parents 17 years ago (holy F - it's been that long?) and now mess with the children? A franchise shouldn't be jerked around like that - not when there are plenty of ones out there with either a much smaller affected fan base or who really need a change of pace.

[The_Admiral]

The footprint of the American League is simply such that three divisions don't really work. Putting Minnesota, Chicago, and Kansas City in the West would take a lot of strain off the Rangers.

[Drakonius26]

It doesn't seem right to take MIL out of the AL, break whatever tradition and rivalries they had, then, right as the adults at the time are settled in and accepting of MIL as an NL team with rivalries vs. the Cubs and... well, whoever else they're rivals of, do the exact same thing and break up all of that. They messed with the parents 17 years ago (holy F - it's been that long?) and now mess with the children? A franchise shouldn't be jerked around like that - not when there are plenty of ones out there with either a much smaller affected fan base or who really need a change of pace.

The Seattle Seahawks have switched conferences twice and it didn't seem to hurt their fanbase or rivalries. Plus, Milwaukee is much more of an AL team than Houston, and has history there too, unlike the Astros. When you factor in possibly an increased amount of interleague games with this realignment, the Brewers are perfect for the AL. Just like Seattle having historical rivalries with the AFC West and now NFC West, Milwaukee would have historical rivalries with the NL Central, and once again with the AL Central.

Plus, if three divisions are too much, what about one division of seven and eight teams respectively in both leagues, and two divisional winners and two wild-card teams qualify for the playoffs?

[illwauk]

The Brewers rivalry with the Cubs and even the comparitively more friendly one they share with St. Louis are much more intense than anything they had in the AL. Their biggest rival in the junior circuit was the Twins and that was driven almost entirely by Packers fans and Vikings fans or UW and UM alums all needing something to do between football seasons. It makes far more sense to move a Colorado, Arizona or possibly even Miami... all of whom are relatively recent expansion clubs which have no true rivals in the NL.

[JQK]

I'm very much in favor of the single-table idea for both leagues. Now that there are multiple playoff positions to be had, i think it makes more sense to go back to that kind of set-up...

[Gary]

Reading an article from USAToday.com, they have both the Astros and the Diamondbacks as the 2 teams that could move to the AL West. I do agree though that it should be the Milwaukee Brewers that move to the AL, and if we do go to a divisional format move the Brewers back to the AL Central and the Royals to the AL West.

[AJM]

Aside from realigning the entire league, if the idea is only to move a single team, the I vote the Astros. Houston in the AL West makes the most sense IMO...moving a team from a 6 team division to a 4 team division so that the NL & AL have 3 divisions of 5 each. Houston would also have a geographic rival with the Rangers.

[Still MIGHTY]

Aside from realigning the entire league, if the idea is only to move a single team, the I vote the Astros. Houston in the AL West makes the most sense IMO...moving a team from a 6 team division to a 4 team division so that the NL & AL have 3 divisions of 5 each. Houston would also have a geographic rival with the Rangers.

No matter who moves, you're still going to have 3 divisions of 5 in each league.

If Arizona moves to the AL West, Houston probably moves to the NL West.

If Houston moves to the AL West, then we're good for the other divisions.

If Milwaukee moves to the AL Central, then you move the Royals to the AL West.

And the geographic rivals argument is a thin one.

Angels/Dodgers? Only in interleague. Angels/Padres? Only every 3 years in interleague. Rays/Marlins? Only in interleague. White Sox/Cubs? Yankees/Mets? Cardinals/Royals? Indians/Reds? A's/Giants? Again only interleague. The only non-interleague intra-area/intrastate "rivalries" like that are Phillies/Pirates, Phillies/Mets, Giants/Dodgers, Dodgers/Padres, Angels/A's.

If geographic rivalries were something that MLB actually wanted to instill and promote, then we'd scrap the AL/NL all together and go West/East.

[McCall]

Moving Colorado or Arizona makes the most sense. Why add KC or Houston to the already too expansive AL West? Try and cut down on some of that space between. And as mentioned, the Brewers fit much better into the NL than they did in the AL. They now have true rivalries, and when you take into account the Milwaukee Braves, Milwaukee's always been more of an NL city. D-Backs or Rockies to the AL West (if divisions are maintained) to help bridge the gap.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

As much as I like geographical rivalries, it seems they are just looking at doing this to be less different than the other major sports. MLB is different, leave it that way. Put Houston in the AL West. Done.

[Bronxmet]

Moving Colorado or Arizona makes the most sense. Why add KC or Houston to the already too expansive AL West? Try and cut down on some of that space between. And as mentioned, the Brewers fit much better into the NL than they did in the AL. They now have true rivalries, and when you take into account the Milwaukee Braves, Milwaukee's always been more of an NL city. D-Backs or Rockies to the AL West (if divisions are maintained) to help bridge the gap.

I agree with you. The D'Backs or Rockies make a perfect fit for the AL West. This way, each league has a team in the Mountain Time Zone. In addition, having Houston in the NL West would match better since their AL rivals, the Rangers, are in the AL West and creates a rivalry with the Dodgers.

[HedleyLamarr]

If they realign, there won't be an AL West for Houston to move to. At least, that's my understanding.

Moving Houston to the American League won't help Texas all that much, depending on how the schedule gets created. All Texas gains is maybe 3 games played in nearby Houston. They already play the Astros 6 times a season. At most, there'd be around 12 games played between intraleague opponents.