PDA

View Full Version : Why are the Brewers in the NL?


35th&Shields
06-04-2009, 05:59 PM
I tried to find other threads on this issue and couldn't find one, even though I'm sure it has come up before. So if this is a repeat, my apologies.

Question: Why did the Brewers move the NL? It makes a lot more sense for the AL Central to have been aligned with the NFC Central with a team from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Chicago, and Detroit. We would have kept Cleveland in the AL Central and moved KC to the NL where they could be Missouri rivals with St. Louis.

Why didn't this happen? Did it make too much sense? My guess is Selig had something to do with it. If anyone could fill me in, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again.

Big D
06-04-2009, 06:01 PM
Bud Selig wanted them to be in the same division with the Cubs, so they could get Cubs fans coming up to Milwaukee 8-9 times a year. This was at a time when the Brewers weren't drawing many fans.

dickallen15
06-04-2009, 06:02 PM
Bud Selig wanted them to be in the same division with the Cubs, so they could get Cubs fans coming up to Milwaukee 8-9 times a year. This was at a time when the Brewers weren't drawing many fans.

False. They wanted KC to move to the NL and play in the NL West. They said no so Milwaukee moved to the Central which now has 6 teams.

johnnyg83
06-04-2009, 06:03 PM
The Royals had first option and turned down the NL.

johnnyg83
06-04-2009, 06:06 PM
False. They wanted KC to move to the NL and play in the NL West. They said no so Milwaukee moved to the Central which now has 6 teams.

I think the plan was for KC to stay in the NL Central as they're in the Central time zone and have a natural in-state rival in St. Louis.

Big D
06-04-2009, 06:10 PM
False. They wanted KC to move to the NL and play in the NL West. They said no so Milwaukee moved to the Central which now has 6 teams.

You're right, I completely forgot about that. Why did the Royals turn it down?

johnnyg83
06-04-2009, 06:20 PM
I think they were thinking about their AL history more than anything.

But they write about it here everytime the Cubs or Cardinals come to town because the stadium is sold out ... which is rarity.

chisoxfanatic
06-04-2009, 06:35 PM
You're right, I completely forgot about that. Why did the Royals turn it down?
I'd like to know why too. They would've had more success in the NL.

PKalltheway
06-05-2009, 02:40 AM
I'd like to know why too. They would've had more success in the NL.
I know the AL has been better than the NL in recent years, but let's get real here. You're talking about a team that has had only one winning season since 1995. I highly, highly doubt that the Royals would have been that much better in the NL. Especially during that wonderful stretch between 2002 and 2006 when they lost 100 or more games four times.

Chez
06-05-2009, 08:41 AM
When MLB expanded to 30 teams in 1998 by adding Tampa Bay and Arizona, one team had to switch leagues -- you couldn't have an odd number of teams in each league. Milwaukee volunteered to switch for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the city had a National League history (the Milwaukee Braves were in the NL before they relocated to Atlanta in the 1960's).

LITTLE NELL
06-05-2009, 09:33 AM
You have stated the facts correctly.

SOXPHILE
06-05-2009, 09:35 AM
I think Who's Your' Bud Selig was a fan of having Milwaukee be an NL team too, because of the Braves being there in his youth.

Railsplitter
06-05-2009, 10:35 AM
All reasons for the Brewers being in the NL are valid, though the Royals being in the NL would make more sense. It's also the big league city closest to Denver, which would mean the Royals and Rockies could meet more than twice a year even if not in the same division.

Hitmen77
06-05-2009, 10:37 AM
I miss the Brewers being in the AL. Like 35th said, a Chicago/Detroit/Minn/Milw/Cleveland division would have been a great regional setup.

MLB messed up a chance for a Sox-Brewers (or Twins-Brewers) rivalry to develop when they put the Sox and Twins in the AL West and the Brewers in the AL East (beginning in '72). They finally were put in the same division in 1994, but only lasted a few years before the Brewers switched to the NL.

Interesting that KC got first shot at going to the NL. I can see why they would want to stay given the city's history in the AL (going back to 1955 with the A's).

No surprise that Bud jumped at the chance to move to the NL where his beloved Milw. Braves played. I seem to remember him saying at the time that he wanted a rivalry with the Cubs and said something to the effect that playing the White Sox never helped the Brewers at the gate. At the time, I thought was unfair since I had been to several Sox-Brewers games at County Stadium back in the early 1990s and those games were always packed (compared to the sparse crowds the Brewers usually got the rest of the year). But, you can't argue with the Cubs being a bigger draw.....except that now the Brewers are complaining about all the ass-clown Cub fans who invade their stadium every year and obnoxiously act like they own the place. Hey, Brewers, you got your wish!

scarsofthumper
06-05-2009, 02:07 PM
Had Milwaukee declined, Minnesota would have been the next team offered an NL spot.

dickallen15
06-05-2009, 02:50 PM
You're right, I completely forgot about that. Why did the Royals turn it down?

They would have been in the western division, so a huge portion of their games would start real late local KC time, plus they liked their AL history, but I think the time zones were the big reason. Think of how much it would suck if the Sox had to play in Seattle, Anaheim and Oakland 3 times a year from a Sox fan point of view.

johnnyg83
06-05-2009, 06:06 PM
They would have been in the western division, so a huge portion of their games would start real late local KC time.

@DA15: That's interesting, I've never heard that they would have been put in the NL West. Is that confirmed? Because it would have made them the only NL team to have to jump two time zones for intra-division games.

KC is further East than Houston (though slightly) and they have a natural in-state rivalry with St. Louis. And Houston was in the NL West prior to the three division split.

If anything, Pittsburgh fits more naturallly in the NL East. If you have to go with one division of six anyway why force a team so regulalry out of its time zone?

WhiteSoxFTW
06-05-2009, 06:10 PM
For some reason it's always bothered me that the NL Central has 6 teams and the AL West has 4. It seems to me the best way to fix it would be to move the KC Royals to the AL West, and move the Brewers to the AL Central, putting 5 teams in every division. I thought about moving the Astro's do the AL West, but they typically keep teams in different states out of the same division (all except LAA and OAK).

dickallen15
06-05-2009, 06:19 PM
@DA15: That's interesting, I've never heard that they would have been put in the NL West. Is that confirmed? Because it would have made them the only NL team to have to jump two time zones for intra-division games.

KC is further East than Houston (though slightly) and they have a natural in-state rivalry with St. Louis. And Houston was in the NL West prior to the three division split.

If anything, Pittsburgh fits more naturallly in the NL East. If you have to go with one division of six anyway why force a team so regulalry out of its time zone?
I guess I was wrong. They could have played in the NL Central but for some reason declined.

mjmcend
06-05-2009, 07:18 PM
For some reason it's always bothered me that the NL Central has 6 teams and the AL West has 4. It seems to me the best way to fix it would be to move the KC Royals to the AL West, and move the Brewers to the AL Central, putting 5 teams in every division. I thought about moving the Astro's do the AL West, but they typically keep teams in different states out of the same division (all except LAA and OAK).

You can't have an odd number of teams in the same league otherwise you end up with either one team without an opponent or interleague play year round.

BigP50
06-05-2009, 07:45 PM
since the NL Central has 6 teams and the AL West the Astros should move to the West

scarsofthumper
06-06-2009, 12:16 AM
since the NL Central has 6 teams and the AL West the Astros should move to the West
You mean move the Astros to the NL West?

Daver
06-06-2009, 11:26 AM
When MLB added the Devil Dogs and the Diamondbacks, and charged the highest franchise fees ever charged by any sport to pay the MLBPA for the collusion settlement, the plan was for both teams to be in the AL. The ownership group, mostly Peter Coangelo, of the Diamondbacks absolutely refused to be an AL team, and MLB had little choice but to grant their wish, as they were desperate for the cash.

Hitmen77
06-06-2009, 12:23 PM
When MLB added the Devil Dogs and the Diamondbacks, and charged the highest franchise fees ever charged by any sport to pay the MLBPA for the collusion settlement, the plan was for both teams to be in the AL. The ownership group, mostly Peter Coangelo, of the Diamondbacks absolutely refused to be an AL team, and MLB had little choice but to grant their wish, as they were desperate for the cash.

That's what I was wondering....why both '98 expansion teams weren't just added to the same league? That way, you wouldn't have to yank any AL teams out of the league.

If they both went to the NL, then you'd have an instant division rivalry between Florida and Tampa Bay. Maybe Tampa would fare better not always having to get past the Yankee$ and the Red $ox for a shot at the post season.

I thought I remembered hearing that MLB actually retained the right to unilaterally move the D-Backs to the AL up until 2002. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true, then why would Coangelo refuse an initial AL entry but allow MLB to move them to the AL within 5 years?

BigP50
06-06-2009, 12:58 PM
You mean move the Astros to the NL West?



No the AL, they only have 4 teams

C-Dawg
06-06-2009, 01:06 PM
Bud Selig wanted them to be in the same division with the Cubs, so they could get Cubs fans coming up to Milwaukee 8-9 times a year. This was at a time when the Brewers weren't drawing many fans.

I've heard this theory mentioned many times, from Cub fans. They must truly believe their fandom is what keeps the Brewers afloat.

:?:

NDSox12
06-06-2009, 01:06 PM
No the AL, they only have 4 teams

As previously stated, that would not work because you can't have an odd number of teams in each league unless you want to play interleague games all season long. I suppose that could work, but might get a bit messy for the schedule makers.

Daver
06-06-2009, 04:59 PM
That's what I was wondering....why both '98 expansion teams weren't just added to the same league? That way, you wouldn't have to yank any AL teams out of the league.

If they both went to the NL, then you'd have an instant division rivalry between Florida and Tampa Bay. Maybe Tampa would fare better not always having to get past the Yankee$ and the Red $ox for a shot at the post season.

I thought I remembered hearing that MLB actually retained the right to unilaterally move the D-Backs to the AL up until 2002. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true, then why would Coangelo refuse an initial AL entry but allow MLB to move them to the AL within 5 years?

I find it difficult to believe that Peter Coangelo would agree to that, the only significant part of the expansion agreement that had an expiration date was 2003, when the expansion teams would be allowed to recieve shared revenue from MLB, for the first 5 years they recieved no revenue sharing money at all.

Gavin
06-06-2009, 05:03 PM
If you ever want to stave off a Monday morning meeting, spend some time re-aligning the MLB teams on your notepad based on user-defined parameters.

dickallen15
06-06-2009, 05:50 PM
If they added a team to each league, there would have to be interleague games played all season long.

Frater Perdurabo
06-06-2009, 06:01 PM
If they added a team to each league, there would have to be interleague games played all season long.

That would be just fine with me. It's become a "regular" part of the season. No reason to segregate it to one "special" time of the year.

ChiSoxFan81
06-06-2009, 06:07 PM
That would be just fine with me. It's become a "regular" part of the season. No reason to segregate it to one "special" time of the year.

There'd have to be an agreement on the DH rule for that to ever happen.

Frater Perdurabo
06-06-2009, 06:22 PM
There'd have to be an agreement on the DH rule for that to ever happen.

Go "all in" with the DH. The leagues don't exist as separate entities in any meaningful way anymore.

ChiSoxFan81
06-06-2009, 06:27 PM
Go "all in" with the DH. The leagues don't exist as separate entities in any meaningful way anymore.

Oh, I agree. Just try getting the "purists" to accept that. Not to mention all the NL fans and those scaredy-cat NL pitchers.

captainclutch24
06-07-2009, 12:59 AM
Oh, I agree. Just try getting the "purists" to accept that. Not to mention all the NL fans and those scaredy-cat NL pitchers.


I am sure that NL pitchers are scared of the American League and their hitters. No DH is a better way to play

FloridaTigers
06-07-2009, 03:27 AM
Go "all in" with the DH. The leagues don't exist as separate entities in any meaningful way anymore.

Which is a shame. Interleague has really lessened the All-Star game, and to a lesser extent, the World Series.

Daver
06-07-2009, 03:29 PM
No DH is a better way to play

Then why is the National League the only proffesional baseball league in the country that does not use the DH.

Brian26
06-07-2009, 03:36 PM
Which is a shame. Interleague has really lessened the All-Star game, and to a lesser extent, the World Series.

I think what has lessened the importance of the All-Star Game is the cable television market, satellite, MLB Extra Innings, the internet, etc. It's not quite as special as it used to be because you can see out-of-market players every night instead of only a few times a year.

ComiskeyBrewer
06-07-2009, 11:35 PM
Oh, I agree. Just try getting the "purists" to accept that. Not to mention all the NL fans and those scaredy-cat NL pitchers.

Having watched my favorite team play in both the NL and the AL, i can honestly say i prefer the NL style of play. I know it's not a major difference in strategy, but there is a difference all the same, and it's always fun to see how different managers react to different situations throughout the game.

As for NL pitchers being scared, i think that's a myth. Any athlete that is good enough to make it to the majors isn't intimidated simply because a team plays in a certain league.

ChiSoxFan81
06-08-2009, 10:32 AM
Having watched my favorite team play in both the NL and the AL, i can honestly say i prefer the NL style of play. I know it's not a major difference in strategy, but there is a difference all the same, and it's always fun to see how different managers react to different situations throughout the game.

As for NL pitchers being scared, i think that's a myth. Any athlete that is good enough to make it to the majors isn't intimidated simply because a team plays in a certain league.

And that's why there probably never will be a uniform rule on the DH. Personally, I'd rather let the players play and not reduce the game to a chess match between managers. But to each his own. As for guys not wanting to pitch in the AL, it's not so much the league they're in as it is the rules of the league. When you don't get an easy out (or usually 2) every time around the order, it makes your life more difficult. Not to mention your numbers higher, which affects your contract negaotiations.

Eddo144
06-08-2009, 11:47 AM
If anything, Pittsburgh fits more naturallly in the NL East. If you have to go with one division of six anyway why force a team so regulalry out of its time zone?
If Pittsburgh moved to the NL East, that would leave Cincinnati as the only NL Central team in the Eastern time zone.

ode to veeck
06-09-2009, 01:53 AM
Then why is the National League the only proffesional baseball league in the country that does not use the DH.

and besides that, the NL sucks too