PDA

View Full Version : Is the end of the AL and NL coming???


Fenway
02-26-2011, 08:43 PM
Gammons mentioned in passing that contracting Oakland and Tampa will finally allow Selig to go the final thing he wants to do before he retires....realignment

Bill Madden in the NY Daily News now has written a similar story.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/02/27/cte_madden_chart.jpg

Remember - Madden is a known leaker of Selig and is on the money most of the time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2011/02/26/2011-02-26_realignment_may_be_coming_to_major_league_baseb all_and_heres_how_it_could_look.html

Gammons added one piece to the puzzle. Selig tried to do this a decade ago and the Tribune said NO WAY are we in the same division with the White Sox. JR is in favor of it because it gives the Sox more games with the Flubs that will sell out. Ricketts is NOT opposed to it.

The AL and NL really no longer exist except for a schedule.

JermaineDye05
02-26-2011, 08:47 PM
Poor Mets, Nats, and O's

What would this mean for the DH then?

Shoeless_Jeff
02-26-2011, 08:50 PM
Please, no.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
02-26-2011, 09:06 PM
This idea sucks.

It's already bad enough he's trying to disrupt the playoff system, now Selig wants to destroy the AL/NL.

Please, Bud, you've done enough to this sport. Just go away.

gogosox675
02-26-2011, 09:07 PM
Do the divisions really need to be named the MacPhail division, Spalding division, etc? Why is naming the divisions geographically a bad thing now?

HaroMaster87
02-26-2011, 09:10 PM
This idea sucks.

It's already bad enough he's trying to disrupt the playoff system, now Selig wants to destroy the AL/NL.

Please, Bud, you've done enough to this sport. Just go away.

/thread end

LongLiveFisk
02-26-2011, 09:14 PM
I don't see what real purpose this would serve.

SephClone89
02-26-2011, 09:18 PM
This would alienate so many people.

Fenway
02-26-2011, 09:18 PM
Breaking up the Cards and Cubs would anger people - but St Louis would get KC ( which would be good for the Royals as well )

I do think we are headed this way....

JermaineDye05
02-26-2011, 09:20 PM
To be honest I really don't care, as long as I can still watch baseball.

DumpJerry
02-26-2011, 09:20 PM
Do the divisions really need to be named the MacPhail division, Spalding division, etc? Why is naming the divisions geographically a bad thing now?
Temporary names. The real names will be Reebok, Nike, Under Armour, and Wilson

Frater Perdurabo
02-26-2011, 09:23 PM
If you read the article, the point of realigning into four divisions of seven teams is to allow each team to play every other team six times each season; 27x6=162, resulting in a truly balanced schedule. If so, the Sox wouldn't play the Cubs any more than they do now. And I cannot imagine FOX or ESPN liking this, because it means there would only be six Red Sox-Yankees games.

Whitesox029
02-26-2011, 09:33 PM
Poor Mets, Nats, and O's

What would this mean for the DH then?

I couldn't care less what happens with the DH. What would this mean for the World Series and playoffs? At the very least, it would mean there would never be a White Sox-Cubs World Series, right? This is stupid on so many levels. It wouldn't even change the number of games played against the Cubs if it were a 6x27.

sox1970
02-26-2011, 09:39 PM
If they add another playoff team, which they will, I hope they just eliminate divisions, play a balanced schedule (or close to balanced), and seed the teams in the right order.

This idea of playing everyone 6 games is ridiculous. You get one rainout on a getaway day, these teams will be flying all over the place to make up one game all season.

Daver
02-26-2011, 10:08 PM
Bud Selig laid the groundwork for this years ago when he abolished the league presidents and moved that decision making authority to his office.

PKalltheway
02-26-2011, 10:28 PM
Really, I would have no problem with this whatsoever. Just add the DH to the former NL teams and be done with it. I'll still watch baseball.

However, I wonder what a massive realignment would do for the All-Star Game though? Also, would we go back to having just one Cy Young Award winner? Would there be only one MVP, Rookie of the Year, etc. However, it would be strange seeing a World Series matchup featuring the Reds and Giants.:scratch: I suppose something like that would take some getting used to.

There's no real difference between the leagues anymore except for the DH. I don't care one way or another really.

Huisj
02-26-2011, 10:56 PM
Do the divisions really need to be named the MacPhail division, Spalding division, etc? Why is naming the divisions geographically a bad thing now?

They're just trying to follow the glowing reception the Big Ten has gotten with Legends and Leaders.

DSpivack
02-27-2011, 12:46 AM
What, Selig is attempting a Bettman impersonation?

Absolutely terrible idea.

Lip Man 1
02-27-2011, 01:04 AM
This realignment makes good sense to me.

Lip

guillensdisciple
02-27-2011, 01:55 AM
How would playoff positioning work?

Does it increase my future son's chances of playing in the bigs?

ComiskeyBrewer
02-27-2011, 02:23 AM
Bud Selig laid the groundwork for this years ago when he abolished the league presidents and moved that decision making authority to his office.

Bingo. The leagues as separate entities has been dead for a long time. Honestly, this move doesn't really bother me that much.

ComiskeyBrewer
02-27-2011, 02:27 AM
Really, I would have no problem with this whatsoever. Just add the DH to the former NL teams and be done with it. I'll still watch baseball.


The article has it going the other way.


Using a consensus of the half-dozen managers and executives surveyed for this exercise, here's how baseball could evolve over the next 10 years:
Geographically realigned divisions: Seven teams, four divisions
Designated hitter: Grandfathered for three years under the new four-division format, then goes away.
Rosters: Expanded to 27 with a limit to three September call-ups and the stipulation that only 27 players, to be designated by the manager before each game, can be active.

Foulke You
02-27-2011, 02:36 AM
I couldn't care less what happens with the DH. What would this mean for the World Series and playoffs? At the very least, it would mean there would never be a White Sox-Cubs World Series, right? This is stupid on so many levels. It wouldn't even change the number of games played against the Cubs if it were a 6x27.
This was Buck Showalter's opinion only. One of the many reasons for realignment is for teams to really cut down on travel time and travel costs. If the Sox played the Cubs and Brewers a total of 20-24 games a year, imagine the cost savings in travel alone, not to mention the increased attendance at these games.

Foulke You
02-27-2011, 02:46 AM
I do think we are headed this way....
As much as the traditionalist in me would hate to see the end of the American and National League, it makes a lot of sense to do it. The shortened travel and the new geographic rivalries would likely generate a lot of extra money for the league. I have a feeling that if they did a realignment like this, it would take some getting used to but in 10 years, nobody will even mention it much. Just like most people accepted the Wild Card format, it will be absorbed into baseball culture. I'm not a huge Selig fan but this could end up being better for the league in the long run if it ends up happening.

LITTLE NELL
02-27-2011, 07:20 AM
I don't mind the re-alignment but I'd rather see more games with opponents within the division.
If you are going to play all 27 opponents 6 times each, why even bother with divisions? Just have one big league like they do in European soccer and the top 8 make the playoffs.

Scottiehaswheels
02-27-2011, 07:31 AM
I don't see how the Sox couldn't dominate that alignment for years; especially if they keep it 8 teams in the postseason instead of just 1st place in each "division".

sox1970
02-27-2011, 10:00 AM
I don't mind the re-alignment but I'd rather see more games with opponents within the division.
If you are going to play all 27 opponents 6 times each, why even bother with divisions? Just have one big league like they do in European soccer and the top 8 make the playoffs.

Yes, obviously. If they play every other team 6 games, then it's a true balanced schedule, and there would be no reason for divisions. It would just be awarding a division champion based on geography---which already happened in the AL from 1979-1993. The Twins won the World Series in 1987 with the 5th best record in the league.

Now, if they said each team would play only the teams within their division 27 games each, I would find that boring...but it would make a whole lot more sense.

I hope they just keep the leagues the way they are, but eliminate divisions, and go to a close to balanced schedule. If they move a team to the AL, they could make interleague year round---it can be done. Then just send the top 5 out of 15 to the playoffs. 4 and 5 play each other best of 3, and then the winner plays the 1-seed.

Common sense, if you ask me.

g0g0
02-27-2011, 10:14 AM
Really, I would have no problem with this whatsoever. Just add the DH to the former NL teams and be done with it. I'll still watch baseball.

I would rather have it the other way - make the DH actually field (or another way, make the pitchers hit). Whichever you prefer. Maybe this would actually help baseball weed out the old guys and keep the league fresh as no one could DH until they were 45.

As for the realignment rumor, I think there is too much history to go this radical. I'm actually okay with it except for what others have said about the divisions becoming worthless. If you are going to have them, then you have to make them actually mean something. It would at least hopefully get rid of the stupid Crosstown Cup.

soxfan2504
02-27-2011, 10:24 AM
This would alienate so many people.

Agreed. And that's the reason I'd be against it, even though if baseball was just marketing to me, I'd have little problem at all.

The problem I have, though, is the elimination of the Athletics franchise. 9 World Series titles (4 in Oakland, 5 in Philly) in 110 years, and you're gonna throw all that history away? One Series victory every 12 years is a damn good success rate if you ask me. I wish Bud would act unilaterally, let them move to San José, abolish this whole territorial rights nonsense in the Bay Area, and be done with it.

I say keep all 30 teams, move the Rays to Montréal (provided they won't be in the Big O), give them the Expos name. A's in the West, the new 'Spos in the NE, on top of what's already planned.

Breaking up the Cards and Cubs would anger people - but St Louis would get KC ( which would be good for the Royals as well )

I do think we are headed this way....

Solution to the Cubs-Cards problem that makes geographic sense:

- Move the Pirates to the NE division
- Move the Nationals to the Southern division
- Opening up a place for the Cards in the Midwestern division

All divisions remain balanced with 7 teams each (or the same number, if you include my A's/Expos idea), and no major rivalries are broken up.

I don't mind the re-alignment but I'd rather see more games with opponents within the division.
If you are going to play all 27 opponents 6 times each, why even bother with divisions? Just have one big league like they do in European soccer and the top 8 make the playoffs.

Ditto. What's the point of having divisions if you don't play your divisional opponents more often than not? I, personally, though, would want the unbalanced schedule; unbalanced I think it hurts the historic rivalries. Getting rid of the NL and AL is not a big deal to me, but to hurt historic rivalries, well, I'd have a huge problem with that.

Brian26
02-27-2011, 11:00 AM
Yes, obviously. If they play every other team 6 games, then it's a true balanced schedule, and there would be no reason for divisions. It would just be awarding a division champion based on geography---which already happened in the AL from 1979-1993.

Actually it started in 1969, and it is still the case today.

Now, if they said each team would play only the teams within their division 27 games each, I would find that boring...but it would make a whole lot more sense.I'd rather play every other team six times than see the Sox play the Tigers and Twins 17-20 times a year.

sox1970
02-27-2011, 11:13 AM
Actually it started in 1969, and it is still the case today.

I'd rather play every other team six times than see the Sox play the Tigers and Twins 17-20 times a year.


I was referring to when the AL played a balanced schedule (real close)--Sox played 12 vs East teams, and 13 vs West teams. That was the case from 1979-1993. When the Mariners and Blue Jays were added in 1977, they played 10 or 11 vs the East, and 15 vs the West, which made more sense. I'm not sure why they abandoned that.

As far as 6 games against 27 teams vs Tigers and Twins 18 games, how about the compromise I already mentioned? Leagues stay the same, eliminate divisions, close-to-balanced schedule, and send the top 5 in each league to the playoffs.

AL plays 10-11 vs each team, plus 18 interleague games
NL plays 9-10 vs each team, plus 15 or 18 interleague games

It's similar to the individual divisions they have now, but includes all of the teams from each league.

Red Barchetta
02-27-2011, 01:20 PM
I couldn't care less what happens with the DH. What would this mean for the World Series and playoffs? At the very least, it would mean there would never be a White Sox-Cubs World Series, right? This is stupid on so many levels. It wouldn't even change the number of games played against the Cubs if it were a 6x27.

Not necessarily. If they have four division winners and two wild card teams, they would seed them like the NFL so that the divisional opponents would not face each other until the final round.

That way, the SOX/Cubs, Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/Angels, Orioles/Nationals, Rangers/Astros dream series could still occur.

I would just hate to see the A's go. I would much rather contract The Rays and Blue Jays and fight for the A's in San Jose.

Soxfest
02-27-2011, 01:31 PM
Union will fight contraction tooth and nail!

jdm2662
02-27-2011, 01:35 PM
Not necessarily. If they have four division winners and two wild card teams, they would seed them like the NFL so that the divisional opponents would not face each other until the final round.

That way, the SOX/Cubs, Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/Angels, Orioles/Nationals, Rangers/Astros dream series could still occur.

I would just hate to see the A's go. I would much rather contract The Rays and Blue Jays and fight for the A's in San Jose.

The NFL does not do this. If that was the case, BALT-Pitt and NE-NYJ would've not faced each other in the divisional playoffs. The Bears didn't play the Packers until the conference championship because the Packers were the second wild card team, which would've made them the 6th seed. Since the Bears were the two seed, they drew Seattle, and the Packers drew Atlanta, since they were one.

TDog
02-27-2011, 01:46 PM
... Gammons added one piece to the puzzle. Selig tried to do this a decade ago and the Tribune said NO WAY are we in the same division with the White Sox. JR is in favor of it because it gives the Sox more games with the Flubs that will sell out. Ricketts is NOT opposed to it.

The AL and NL really no longer exist except for a schedule.

First of all, The AL and NL remain distinct, not only because of the schedule, but because they play by different rules. The league presidents no longer exist, but they play distinctly different baseball. That has always been true to some degree, but it was institutionalized in the 1973 winter meetings when the NL rejected the DH and the AL adoted it while he NL voted against interleague play. The leagues being on the same page almost 30 years ago (when this alignment was being discussed by some and opposed by Wrigley) divided the leagues although as the current commissioner has consolidated their operations.

The new Cubs ownership will come around to the old way of thinking because the Cubs were marketing tradition before marketing tradition was successful. The tradition is part of what the group purchased.

The big stumbling block, though, isn't the owners, but the DH. It would be in the best financial interests of the owners to do away with the DH, and, frankly, I have come to dislike the DH, although I have always been a White Sox fan, because I don't like how it has changed the game. The union isn't going to let the DH go, even though a majority of major league players play in the non-DH league, and a majority of the owners will be opposed to it.

The leagues have distinct traditions. Abolishing the leagues for geography would abolish tradition. Many people new to baseball don't care about tradition, but baseball's goal is not just to bring in younger fans, but to keep the older fans while doing so. Realigning would

Realistically, this realignment couldn't happen without the DH either being adopted by the NL or dropped by the AL. The former would be opposed by many owners and fans, and the latter would anger many fans. However. the problems would be less than if the leagues realigned and fans of NL teams were forced to accept an AL takeover with the imposition of the DH. Likewise, fans of AL teams would resent having their DHs taken away.

I don't see contraction happening anyway (as much as I would like to see the Twins and any one of several other teams wiped from the face of the earth), so the point is probably moot.

TommyJohn
02-27-2011, 02:24 PM
It would be incredibly brainless of baseball to re-align this way, only to play a balanced schedule. The point of having the Cubs and White Sox in the same division is so they can play each other 18-19 times a year, thus increasing the rivalry and give a chance for the obnoxious dicks on both sides to be more obnoxious and more dicky. What sense would it make to completely re-align baseball, only to have everyone play each other six times a year? The purpose is to encourage and strengthen geographic rivalries.

I am going to say something at great risk, because what I will say won't be popular, and it will be like chum in the water to the sneerers, but I absolutely loathe this idea. Baseball is in the best shape it has ever been in terms of attendance and money. Sure, the World Series doesn't draw the audience of the Super Bowl. It never has and it never will. Radical realignment won't change that. I think this is an absolutely terrible idea.

Of course, the mockers and sneerers will mock and sneer that every great idea was hated and opposed, but eventually accepted; it's change that must happen, get with the times, be hip like us, and blah, blah, blah. They can do what they do best. Me, I do not like this idea.

Red Barchetta
02-27-2011, 02:33 PM
The NFL does not do this. If that was the case, BALT-Pitt and NE-NYJ would've not faced each other in the divisional playoffs. The Bears didn't play the Packers until the conference championship because the Packers were the second wild card team, which would've made them the 6th seed. Since the Bears were the two seed, they drew Seattle, and the Packers drew Atlanta, since they were one.

I said "like" the NFL since they still have the AFC and the NFC Championships. The proposed MLB realignment would get rid of the NL and AL altogether, thus getting rid of the NL and AL Championships prior to the World Series.

The Bears and Packers would not have played each other any earlier than they did (NFC Championship) last season regardless of the Wild Card and Divisional Winner seed or regardless of what the other NFC teams did in the playoffs. The proposed MLB system would take the NFL system one step further by not allowing divisional opponents to meet up in the playoffs until the final game/series. Basically conference or league championships would go away.

LITTLE NELL
02-27-2011, 02:34 PM
Union will fight contraction tooth and nail!

If the A's and Rays just plain went out of business I don't think the union could do a whole lot about it. A business losing money year after year cannot stay in business for long. Of course we will never really know the real finances of MLB or any of the other sports.

thomas35forever
02-27-2011, 03:12 PM
The divisions (and leagues) are fine the way they are. I see no reason to switch it up.

sox1970
02-27-2011, 03:13 PM
The divisions (and leagues) are fine the way they are. I see no reason to switch it up.

Tell the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays that.

thomas35forever
02-27-2011, 03:14 PM
Tell the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays that.
There can't be two teams in one division. The Yankees and Red Sox gotta play somebody on a regular basis.

sox1970
02-27-2011, 03:15 PM
There can't be two teams in one division. The Yankees and Red Sox gotta play somebody on a regular basis.

Read my previous posts in this thread. I've been pretty clear about what they should do.

FielderJones
02-27-2011, 03:26 PM
The article has it going the other way.

Designated hitter: Grandfathered for three years under the new four-division format, then goes away.


I would rather have it the other way - make the DH actually field (or another way, make the pitchers hit).

Can someone explain the excitement of watching career .150 batters hit in a game? Or the excitement of $10 million pitchers turning an ankle while running the bases? What does this add to the game of baseball? 1968 was a great year, if you don't like to see runs scored.

This is a really, really stupid idea to get rid of the DH.

sox1970
02-27-2011, 03:30 PM
Can someone explain the excitement of watching career .150 batters hit in a game? Or the excitement of $10 million pitchers turning an ankle while running the bases? What does this add to the game of baseball? 1968 was a great year, if you don't like to see runs scored.

This is a really, really stupid idea to get rid of the DH.

I agree. The purist in me understands why the DH is bad--either be a complete baseball player, or don't play.

But the DH has been around for almost 30 years, and pitchers are specialized players with huge contracts. If they're going one way or the other, I hope the DH goes to the NL too.

Daver
02-27-2011, 03:40 PM
If the A's and Rays just plain went out of business I don't think the union could do a whole lot about it. A business losing money year after year cannot stay in business for long. Of course we will never really know the real finances of MLB or any of the other sports.

MLB will not allow this to ever happen.

Fenway
02-27-2011, 03:48 PM
I agree. The purist in me understands why the DH is bad--either be a complete baseball player, or don't play.

But the DH has been around for almost 30 years, and pitchers are specialized players with huge contracts. If they're going one way or the other, I hope the DH goes to the NL too.

I wish it was 30....

First DH game

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1973/B04060BOS1973.htm

TDog
02-27-2011, 04:06 PM
I agree. The purist in me understands why the DH is bad--either be a complete baseball player, or don't play.

But the DH has been around for almost 30 years, and pitchers are specialized players with huge contracts. If they're going one way or the other, I hope the DH goes to the NL too.

The huge contracts for DHs is one of the reasons to do away with the DH from an economic standpoint. It also is a reason the union will fight its removal. It isn't like the NL lags in attendance because it doesn't use the DH.

It isn't a matter of it being more exciting to see a designated hitter hit than a full-time pitcher hit. If the White Sox are playing the Yankees, I would love to see their starting pitcher in the lineup. Baseball is a better game without a DH.

More than half of the major league teams play more than 150 games without a DH. The number of big-money pitchers who go down is not appreciably higher in the league where big-money pitchers have to hit.

sox1970
02-27-2011, 04:12 PM
The huge contracts for DHs is one of the reasons to do away with the DH from an economic standpoint. It also is a reason the union will fight its removal. It isn't like the NL lags in attendance because it doesn't use the DH.

It isn't a matter of it being more exciting to see a designated hitter hit than a full-time pitcher hit. If the White Sox are playing the Yankees, I would love to see their starting pitcher in the lineup. Baseball is a better game without a DH.

More than half of the major league teams play more than 150 games without a DH. The number of big-money pitchers who go down is not appreciably higher in the league where big-money pitchers have to hit.

I can't argue with that. It's a preference. I like to see pitchers pitch, and hitters hit. It doesn't bother me that the leagues have two different sets of rules. If they changed it either way, or kept it the same, it wouldn't bother me like it would if they changed the leagues around and played everyone 6 games each. That would be beyond stupid. It's so stupid that I think they'll come to their senses and not even consider it.

Daver
02-27-2011, 04:42 PM
The huge contracts for DHs is one of the reasons to do away with the DH from an economic standpoint. It also is a reason the union will fight its removal. It isn't like the NL lags in attendance because it doesn't use the DH.

It isn't a matter of it being more exciting to see a designated hitter hit than a full-time pitcher hit. If the White Sox are playing the Yankees, I would love to see their starting pitcher in the lineup. Baseball is a better game without a DH.

More than half of the major league teams play more than 150 games without a DH. The number of big-money pitchers who go down is not appreciably higher in the league where big-money pitchers have to hit.


The NL is the only MLB affiliated baseball league that does NOT use the DH.

FreeBuck12
02-27-2011, 05:31 PM
theres no chance this would happen.. the players association would throw the biggest bitch fit ....

this is just another example of why bed selig is one of the biggest idiots alive. All he wants to do is go down in history as a commissioner who made some big influence. he is NOT bigger than the game...

Frater Perdurabo
02-27-2011, 05:33 PM
Keep the DH, but allow the DH "position" to be rotated among hitters/fielders within the game, effectively permitting the "double-switch" that NL purists like so much.

TDog
02-27-2011, 06:00 PM
I can't argue with that. It's a preference. I like to see pitchers pitch, and hitters hit. It doesn't bother me that the leagues have two different sets of rules. If they changed it either way, or kept it the same, it wouldn't bother me like it would if they changed the leagues around and played everyone 6 games each. That would be beyond stupid. It's so stupid that I think they'll come to their senses and not even consider it.

I don't mind there being two sets of rules for the American and National Leagues because the leagues are separate. Interleague play, though, makes me nostalgic for when the White Sox didn't have a DH.

Baseball isn't a platoon sport. There aren't DHs for slick-fielding shortstops who can't hit. If you go to the minor leagues, teams affiliated with NL teams don't play under DH rules at their home games. Pitchers who come up with NL teams get to hit in the minors, maybe not half the time, but maybe more than half the time depending on their league.

In college baseball, your DHs are sometimes also starting pitchers. On days they aren't pitching, they are DHing. When they are starting, they are also DHing. NCAA rules specifically allow them to stay in the game as DHs if they are removed from the game defensively. There actually are some pretty good college pitchers who are pretty good hitters. Sometimes they come up to the majors and never hit again. Bobby Thigpen was an All-American at Mississippi State. His All-American position was DH. He only had one plate appearance in the majors.

SOXSINCE'70
02-27-2011, 07:05 PM
Temporary names. The real names will be Reebok, Nike, Under Armour, and Wilson

How about Sprint,T-Mobile,U.S.Cellular and A T & T?:roflmao::puking:

MrT27
02-27-2011, 08:27 PM
I guess I'm one of the only ones who likes this idea. I understand the tradition of AL and NL but but I think by doing away with it that it won't diminish the product at all, baseball is still baseball.

Iron Dragon2
02-27-2011, 10:59 PM
If you go to the minor leagues, teams affiliated with NL teams don't play under DH rules at their home games. Pitchers who come up with NL teams get to hit in the minors, maybe not half the time, but maybe more than half the time depending on their league.

Had to look this one up, but I knew this was not completely correct. I attend some Fort Wayne Tincap (Padres), and they do use the DH rule at home. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_hitter

My opinion though: Pitchers pitch. Hitters hit.

ComiskeyBrewer
02-27-2011, 11:22 PM
I can't argue with that. It's a preference. I like to see pitchers pitch, and hitters hit. It doesn't bother me that the leagues have two different sets of rules. If they changed it either way, or kept it the same, it wouldn't bother me like it would if they changed the leagues around and played everyone 6 games each. That would be beyond stupid. It's so stupid that I think they'll come to their senses and not even consider it.

We are on the exact same page, just on different sides of the fence. I like seeing a little more strategy in baseball(even if it's only a sliver more), and forcing the manager to actually manage the game. It's just my preference, if the NL adopted the DH, i wouldn't cry over it, just adapt and move on.

My opinion though: Pitchers pitch. Hitters hit.

Why not change it to fielders field and hitters hit, and have a set of offensive players hit, and a group of defensive players/pitchers in the field? I would think it would allow you to have the hitters concentrate on hitting, and the fielders concentrate on fielding. Not trying to start an argument, i've just always been curious as to why nobody has ever taken it to that logical next step.

Lip Man 1
02-27-2011, 11:40 PM
I was under the assumption that the only professional league in the world that doesn't use the DH is the NL.

Lip

doublem23
02-27-2011, 11:55 PM
Baseball isn't a platoon sport. There aren't DHs for slick-fielding shortstops who can't hit. If you go to the minor leagues, teams affiliated with NL teams don't play under DH rules at their home games. Pitchers who come up with NL teams get to hit in the minors, maybe not half the time, but maybe more than half the time depending on their league.

I don't think that's true. Peoria is home of the Class A affiliate of the Cubs (formerly the Cardinals) and they always used the DH.

I believe Daver is right. Pitchers only hit in 1 league now, the NL. Time to get with the times. It doesn't add anything to the game watching a .085 hitter helplessly flail at 3 straight pitches.

Nellie_Fox
02-28-2011, 12:29 AM
Union will fight contraction tooth and nail!They'd fight elimination of the DH, too. DH's are highly-paid positions.

TDog
02-28-2011, 12:34 AM
Had to look this one up, but I knew this was not completely correct. I attend some Fort Wayne Tincap (Padres), and they do use the DH rule at home. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_hitter

My opinion though: Pitchers pitch. Hitters hit.

I don't link to Wikipedia. I have been told that Wikipedia linked to me for documentation, at least at one time. It may still, but the links are dead. But if memory serves, the first NL team to require its minor league affiliate pitchers to hit was the Cincinnati Reds, leading to the Nashville Sounds ending their agreement with the Reds at the end of the 1970s.

Madison Bumgarner had to hit in some of his starts for Fresno last season before coming up with the Giants where he had to hit. Hitting in the minors didn't hurt him. In fact, it probably made him a better pitcher. Giants affiliates are not the only minor league teams that have their pitchers hit.

But that isn't the point. The NL isn't going to adopt the DH. A majority of NL-team fans don't want the NL to adopt the DH. (This can't be documented, but anectodally, I have talked with many fans of NL teams and have never found one who wants to see the NL adopt the DH.) The AL isn't going to abolish the DH. It couldn't if it wanted to, even if a majority of AL-team fans advocated the abashment of the DH, which they don't. The union wouldn't allow it. (If free agency had been flowering in 1972, the American League wouldn't have adopted the DH.

The point is that radical re-alignment would alienate many fans. If re-alignment means forcing your team to play by rules fans don't like, it would alienate many more fans. Every time you alienate a fan, there is a chance you may lose that fan forever. If baseball doesn't see that already, it will see it after doing foundational market research.

Radical re-alignment isn't going to happen. But if it were to happen, the AL and NL would have to play a few seasons with common rules applying to the pitcher's spot in the batting order.

russ99
02-28-2011, 12:34 AM
Actually, that's the first realignment proposal that makes some sense, both on a rivalry and travel basis.

But it will never fly.

Too many teams and almost all fans will absolutely hate it, much less absolutely never get MLBPA approval to contract two teams.

IMO, DH in the AL and no DH in the NL is one of those little things that make baseball great. Both have their place, they shouldn't change it in either league.

g0g0
02-28-2011, 08:42 AM
Can someone explain the excitement of watching career .150 batters hit in a game? Or the excitement of $10 million pitchers turning an ankle while running the bases? What does this add to the game of baseball? 1968 was a great year, if you don't like to see runs scored.

This is a really, really stupid idea to get rid of the DH.

Why do they have to hit .150? Is there some unknown force preventing them that I don't know about? There are pitchers who can hit, and they've been around as long as the game has been played. For pitchers active right now, Mike Hampton and Zambrano are good hitters. As for running the bases, well if they can't learn to run around a few bags...

asindc
02-28-2011, 09:32 AM
Temporary names. The real names will be Reebok, Nike, Under Armour, and Wilson

Don't know if you are kidding or not, but if you are, don't laugh too soon (and don't give them any ideas, for that matter:smile:).

doublem23
02-28-2011, 09:41 AM
Why do they have to hit .150? Is there some unknown force preventing them that I don't know about? There are pitchers who can hit, and they've been around as long as the game has been played. For pitchers active right now, Mike Hampton and Zambrano are good hitters. As for running the bases, well if they can't learn to run around a few bags...

They bat .150 because their full-time position is to pitch. They don't have time to work in BP every day or spend hours in the cage honing their swing. The demands of being a pitcher are far, far greater than any defensive demands you might need from any other position.

NL Averages last year, by position

1B - .268
SS - .266
LF - .266
2B - .265
3B - .265
RF - .264
CF - .260
NL Ave - .255
C - .253
P - .142

Red Barchetta
02-28-2011, 10:32 AM
Actually, that's the first realignment proposal that makes some sense, both on a rivalry and travel basis.

But it will never fly.

Too many teams and almost all fans will absolutely hate it, much less absolutely never get MLBPA approval to contract two teams.

IMO, DH in the AL and no DH in the NL is one of those little things that make baseball great. Both have their place, they shouldn't change it in either league.

I don't see how the regional and time zones come into effect. It looks nice on paper, however if they do play a completely balanced schedule (6 games, 3 at home and 3 on the road) against each team, time zones don't matter. Unless they work out some kind of schedule where the majority of the divisional/regional/time zone games are bunched together to help reduce travel.

If they want the regional time zones to come into effect, they need to go with an unbalanced schedule perhaps playing each team in their division 12 times and then split the remaining 90 games playing teams from other divisions.

ewokpelts
02-28-2011, 11:15 AM
Gammons mentioned in passing that contracting Oakland and Tampa will finally allow Selig to go the final thing he wants to do before he retires....realignment

Bill Madden in the NY Daily News now has written a similar story.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/02/27/cte_madden_chart.jpg

Remember - Madden is a known leaker of Selig and is on the money most of the time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2011/02/26/2011-02-26_realignment_may_be_coming_to_major_league_baseb all_and_heres_how_it_could_look.html

Gammons added one piece to the puzzle. Selig tried to do this a decade ago and the Tribune said NO WAY are we in the same division with the White Sox. JR is in favor of it because it gives the Sox more games with the Flubs that will sell out. Ricketts is NOT opposed to it.

The AL and NL really no longer exist except for a schedule.

how soon you forget the DH.

Lip Man 1
02-28-2011, 12:10 PM
For what it's worth Steve Stone has a book coming out in April. I was given some advanced information on it by one of the beat writers and they said that in the book Stone talks about the same thing based on comments from Selig.

Apparently Bud is planting the seed through various media members / outlets.

Lip

g0g0
02-28-2011, 12:19 PM
They bat .150 because their full-time position is to pitch. They don't have time to work in BP every day or spend hours in the cage honing their swing. The demands of being a pitcher are far, far greater than any defensive demands you might need from any other position.

NL Averages last year, by position

1B - .268
SS - .266
LF - .266
2B - .265
3B - .265
RF - .264
CF - .260
NL Ave - .255
C - .253
P - .142

I know what you and Fielder are saying, but it doesn't have to be like that. Depends on if you want to work on it at all or not. There's been some good hitting pitchers:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Highest_Batting_Average_by_Pitcher_in_DH_Era

Jim Shorts
02-28-2011, 12:20 PM
So, basically, it would simply guarantee that the Midwestern and Western Divisions would get zero attention from the national media?

Chris Berman is loving this

khan
02-28-2011, 12:27 PM
It isn't a matter of it being more exciting to see a designated hitter hit than a full-time pitcher hit. If the White Sox are playing the Yankees, I would love to see their starting pitcher in the lineup. Baseball is a better game without a DH.

Aside from your affinity for "tradition," why do you believe this to be the case?

If your argument is compelling, perhaps you can convince others that dislike seeing 3 or 4 free outs a game for the opposing pitching staff.

The NL is the only MLB affiliated baseball league that does NOT use the DH.
Actually, it's much more than "just" the NL.

Across ALL professional baseball leagues worldwide, only the NL and one of the Japanese leagues refuse to use the DH.

sox1970
02-28-2011, 12:30 PM
This is what MLB should do:

1. Eliminate Divisions–2 Leagues of 15 teams
2. Move Colorado to the AL–both leagues equal by time zones-7 east, 4 central, 4 mountain/pacific
3. Play the four teams in your former division 11 games = 44 games (Colorado is considered AL West, Houston NL West)
4. Play the other 10 teams in your league 10 games = 100 games
(either 4 home/6 away or 6 home/4 away. Alternates year-to-year)
5. All teams play 18 interleague games. At least one series going all season. Either one or three series going at all times.
6. Shorten the season by a week and play 6 day/night doubleheaders (one per month)

Top 5 teams in each league make the playoffs. 4-seed hosts 5-seed in best-of-3. Winner plays the 1-seed. With a 25-week regular season, they would be able to play the rest of postseason best-of-7 and finish before November 1.

ewokpelts
02-28-2011, 01:16 PM
The counter the contraction of two teams by adding 2 players to the mlb roster. the 27 man roster replaces the 50 lost jobs, and ADDS 6.

I say screw it, and go 30 man roster if you end up contracting two teams.

FielderJones
02-28-2011, 02:35 PM
For pitchers active right now, Mike Hampton and Zambrano are good hitters.

I know what you and Fielder are saying, but it doesn't have to be like that. Depends on if you want to work on it at all or not.

Hampton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hamptmi01.shtml): .246, and he didn't even have an AB on an NL club last year
Zambrano (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/z/zambrca01.shtml): .236

Those averages don't really meet the criterion of "good hitter".

It's not a matter of want, it's a matter of what a team needs. Teams need their pitchers to concentrate on pitching first. A pitcher with a 5.50 ERA isn't going help his team much by batting .280.

g0g0
02-28-2011, 04:03 PM
Hampton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hamptmi01.shtml): .246, and he didn't even have an AB on an NL club last year
Zambrano (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/z/zambrca01.shtml): .236

Those averages don't really meet the criterion of "good hitter".

It's not a matter of want, it's a matter of what a team needs. Teams need their pitchers to concentrate on pitching first. A pitcher with a 5.50 ERA isn't going help his team much by batting .280.

Like I said, I understand what you are saying, but just don't feel it's good enough to give them a pass on the batting. I guess that's the basic NL/AL difference of opinion. I also don't think all pitchers would suffer taking at-bats - especially veterans. They know what they have to do and have their mechanics down. As for averages, the WS and Cubs averaged .268 and .257 respectively last year. Hardly a huge difference.

Fenway
02-28-2011, 04:30 PM
For what it's worth Steve Stone has a book coming out in April. I was given some advanced information on it by one of the beat writers and they said that in the book Stone talks about the same thing based on comments from Selig.

Apparently Bud is planting the seed through various media members / outlets.

Lip

Bud has been plotting this since the last expansion in 1998 - John Harrington has 6 or 7 teams changing leagues back in 1999.

Gammons doesn't think contraction is really in play because the NoCal thing will work out somehow. Tampa is the problem.

From a cable TV angle Montreal and Charlotte offer the most available households to tap into. Portland would hurt Seattle's revenue but the Carolina's would hurt the O's and Braves ( and to a small extent the Nats ) a little bit but not nearly as much as the Mariners would be.

doublem23
02-28-2011, 04:31 PM
The counter the contraction of two teams by adding 2 players to the mlb roster. the 27 man roster replaces the 50 lost jobs, and ADDS 6.

I say screw it, and go 30 man roster if you end up contracting two teams.

I doubt the money would even out to take away 18 starting positions and add 24-108 bench positions.

Hitmen77
02-28-2011, 05:33 PM
Ugh! This is a terrible, terrible idea.

The one great thing about MLB (also with the NFL) is that there is a history of two rival leagues that allow for two conferences to exist that aren't just based generically on geography. I respectfully disagree that the AL and NL no longer really exist. Yes, Selig abolished the league offices more than 10 years ago, but being an AL or NL team really does mean something to the fans (assuming we still matter, that is).

Fans still take pride in their league's successes in the World Series, All-Star Game or the accomplishments of individual players. But, lets just flush that all down the toilet and go with an NBA-style or NHL-style Eastern/Western Conferences. Yayy!!!!!

Mark my words, if MLB ever did this and just lumped the Cubs and Sox into the same division, there will come a day when most people will no longer see a point for Chicago to have 2 baseball teams (and we'll be the odd ones out). Despite ups and downs in the White Sox franchise's fortunes over the years, there at least has always been a strong argument for maintaining an AL presence in Chicago. In Selig's brilliant vision of tomorrow, the Sox would merely be parroting the Cubs schedule. We will no longer have our own identity with our own set of rivals both within the division (Twins, Tigers) and out (Yankees, Red Sox). NYY and Bos coming to play the Sox every year will start to draw yawns as every fool in town will go gaga over their annual games vs. the Cubs.

Again, this is just an awful idea. I'm surprised Reinsdorf supposedly supports this since I believe he once made the argument that the Sox in the same league as the Cubs would beg the question of why there is a 2nd Chicago team.

This makes me wonder if Selig was being the introduction of New Coke.

Gammons mentioned in passing that contracting Oakland and Tampa will finally allow Selig to go the final thing he wants to do before he retires....realignment

Bill Madden in the NY Daily News now has written a similar story.

The AL and NL really no longer exist except for a schedule.

If Selig is dragging his feet on the A's-to-San Jose deal in hopes that it falls through and the Rays get their much-needed contraction partner... and that contraction will help fulfill his utopian dream of abolishing the century plus history of the AL and the NL, then I find that very disturbing.


The problem I have, though, is the elimination of the Athletics franchise. 9 World Series titles (4 in Oakland, 5 in Philly) in 110 years, and you're gonna throw all that history away? One Series victory every 12 years is a damn good success rate if you ask me. I wish Bud would act unilaterally, let them move to San José, abolish this whole territorial rights nonsense in the Bay Area, and be done with it.



This is exactly how I feel. Not only do they have a long, successful history, but they have also been one of the more successful franchises on the field in the last 40 years in terms of WS wins, pennants, division titles, ALCS appearances, and the amount of talent they've developed.

The worst thing is that a solution to the A's problem seems to be within reach. They apparently have a deal in place to build a privately-financed stadium with San Jose close to acquiring all the land necessary for this project to go forward. The Giants are wildly successful at the gate since they moved to instant-classic AT&T Park. Having the A's move within the same TV market from Oakland to San Jose isn't going to hurt them. The Bay Area has a huge population and a wealth of corporate presences. It should easily be able to support two teams - an AL and NL team.

.....of course if they just abolish the AL, then I guess there's less of a point for two SF-area teams to be located in the Pacific Division of Major League Baseball - a self-fulfilling dream.

Hitmen77
02-28-2011, 05:55 PM
I am going to say something at great risk, because what I will say won't be popular, and it will be like chum in the water to the sneerers, but I absolutely loathe this idea. Baseball is in the best shape it has ever been in terms of attendance and money. Sure, the World Series doesn't draw the audience of the Super Bowl. It never has and it never will. Radical realignment won't change that. I think this is an absolutely terrible idea.

Of course, the mockers and sneerers will mock and sneer that every great idea was hated and opposed, but eventually accepted; it's change that must happen, get with the times, be hip like us, and blah, blah, blah. They can do what they do best. Me, I do not like this idea.

Thank you!

The argument that baseball should do this to save on travel is completely ridiculous. Baseball is making more money than ever. The AL and NL have survived just fine for 50 years with teams traveling from coast to coast....but now that baseball is as rich as ever, suddenly we should just chuck the two leagues into the garbage because of concerns over travel costs? :screwloose:

Anyway, as it stands right now, teams already play a schedule that is heavily unbalanced toward regional games. The Sox only travel to AL East and West towns once a year for the most part. How much is going to regional divisions and leagues really going to save?:scratch:

As far as TV ratings for the WS go, I'll suggest that getting rid of the AL and NL will make the WS even less interesting to viewers. Part of the charm of the WS is the matchup of the AL pennant winner vs. the NL pennant winner. When we get to a point of having a WS between the Pacific pennant winner and the Southeast pennant winner, we'll really start to see interest in the games tank.:sleep:

Fenway
02-28-2011, 05:58 PM
OK - Everybody can agree on one thing. MLB has become way too Northeast centric. Philly has joined the elite ever since Citizens Bank Park opened.

ESPN is blamed but you don't see them going overboard with Northeast bias in their NBA, NFL coverage.

(Yes there was a lot of hype between the Jets and Patriots but there were both good teams - and Rex Ryan never met a microphone he didn't like)

New York is a baseball town 12 months of the year....and for better or for worse it is the media center of the US.

MLB Network has tried to be more balanced.....

Maybe we can blame Fay Vincent for all of this it was only when Steinbrenner was banished that NYY became powerful again.

Lip Man 1
02-28-2011, 06:18 PM
Last I looked the Knicks and Nets weren't exactly world-beaters, you can bet if they become good, the Eastern Sports Programming Network will be on them like white on rice.

Lip

MrT27
02-28-2011, 07:16 PM
I don't see how doing this may make people think Chicago should have only one team. If anything this will make attendance at both ballparks going up because Cubs fans will come to The Cell, Brewers fans taking a weekend in Chicago and vise versa.
I know I would attend more games because I can see the Sox in Milwaukee or Wrigley (more then the 3 games every year). I am also more likely to go to Milwaukee or Wrigley if they are playing a division rival rather then a random NL team.

I do agree with some of ya'll that I have a problem with contracting the A's who have a good history behind them. But I guess like any business if they are losing money no matter how long the business has been in existence, it will fold.

I'm on the fence about the DH. One one hand I like seeing it prolong some careers like Ken Griffey Jr., Vlad Guerrero, and Big Frank (to name a few) who are a joy to watch swing a bat. But I also love the strategy that NL mangers have to play with every game dealing with the pitcher.

TDog
02-28-2011, 07:21 PM
Aside from your affinity for "tradition," why do you believe this to be the case?

If your argument is compelling, perhaps you can convince others that dislike seeing 3 or 4 free outs a game for the opposing pitching staff. ...

This isn't the point, which remains that the DH is the chasm that separates the leagues and its continued existence in only the American League will prevent radical re-alignment. Still ....

It isn't a matter of tradition, although there is that. More offense does not necessarily make any game better. More offense does not make baseball a more enjoyable game. Some of the best baseball games I've ever seen have ended 1-0. Some of the worst baseball games I've ever seen have been high scoring. Most Americans, and many Brits, find cricket excessively boring, and in a cricket match you will typically see more than 100 runs scored in an inning.

When I watch the White Sox play, I am interested in seeing the other team not score. Baseball is as much about defense as it is about offense. Because baseball is not a platoon sport, everyone plays both ways. If you have a great defensive player who can't hit, you have to concede his lack of offense. If you have a hitter who can't field, you have to put him in a place where his defense won't hurt you.

Baseball has built-in checks and balances. Pitchers being part of the lineup are part of those checks and balances. The DH changes the dynamic of the game, and I think the game is better without such changes.

From what I've seen, there are mostly strong feelings of AL fans toward the DH, but the feelings against the DH by NL fans are stronger. Many tell me the NL plays real baseball, and as much as I love the White Sox, I go to Giants games, and it's hard to argue with them.

But I'm not advocating the AL do away with the DH, only arguing that its spread to the NL isn't forthcoming, which would be necessary for baseball to radically re-align.

A. Cavatica
02-28-2011, 08:31 PM
There can't be two teams in one division. The Yankees and Red Sox gotta play somebody on a regular basis.

They should play a three-game series with each other every weekend, on ESPN. They should also play three games against each of the other teams, for the other teams' benefit. And, of course, they should each be given automatic playoff berths, because of the extra hardship of playing each other so often.

mzh
02-28-2011, 08:54 PM
They should play a three-game series with each other every weekend, on ESPN. They should also play three games against each of the other teams, for the other teams' benefit. And, of course, they should each be given automatic playoff berths, because of the extra hardship of playing each other so often.
By hardship, you mean Boston having to face Brian Anderson once a week I assume? :cool:

Tragg
02-28-2011, 09:13 PM
If you're going to play a balanced schedule, you should NOT have divisions.
Or, divisions playing balanced schedules is insane and absolutely stupid...ruin the game

Fenway
02-28-2011, 09:18 PM
By hardship, you mean Boston having to face Brian Anderson once a week I assume? :cool:

We don't throw at .260 hitters...

http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/RED-SOX-vs-YANKEES-GAME-2__1226597119_9772.jpg&sa=X&ei=UVdsTcqDK8_qgQfq1viRBA&ved=0CAQQ8wc4Gw&usg=AFQjCNFC2lZzBCkFFRtyqRHcHPGkn9pWng

Fenway
02-28-2011, 09:25 PM
From last fall -

Just echos what many of us know - Tampa Bay is NOT a baseball market

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4741:kobritz-for-the-tampa-bay-rays-its-the-bad-market-stupid&catid=68:jordan-kobritz&Itemid=156

GoSox2K3
02-28-2011, 10:32 PM
OK - Everybody can agree on one thing. MLB has become way too Northeast centric. Philly has joined the elite ever since Citizens Bank Park opened.

ESPN is blamed but you don't see them going overboard with Northeast bias in their NBA, NFL coverage.

(Yes there was a lot of hype between the Jets and Patriots but there were both good teams - and Rex Ryan never met a microphone he didn't like)

New York is a baseball town 12 months of the year....and for better or for worse it is the media center of the US.

MLB Network has tried to be more balanced.....

Maybe we can blame Fay Vincent for all of this it was only when Steinbrenner was banished that NYY became powerful again.

I'm not sure what this has to do with eliminating the AL and NL, but in response to this post I'd say that you're mixing two issues here.

The issue of NY and Boston getting a lot of media attention (especially by ESPN) is nothing more than a nuisance. But it's not causing a competitive unbalance among franchises that has run amok in MLB.

What's really the issue with MLB is not the obsession with NE teams, it's the fact that certain teams can simply blow most other teams way in terms of revenue streams. It doesn't matter how many tickets teams like the Brewers, Cardinals and Twins sell, they will never ever come close to the money being raked in by the elite teams.

If you want to fix the obsession with a few teams in MLB, then you need to fix the system that allows them to be permanently in contention while up to about 10 teams are stuck in permanent "rebuild" mode.

Oblong
02-28-2011, 10:49 PM
The way you can fix baseball's problems isn't with a salary cap or cutting teams or realigning it. Somehow behind the scenes end the practice of letting teams like the Yankees and Red Sox generate so much local revenue that's hands off to the rest of the league. They are after all a franchise of MLB itself. Can MLB do it? I'm not a lawyer or anything like that but they do have an enti trust exemption. Yes (pun intended) the Yankees are selling themselves to NY and their brand but without MLB that brand has no purpose.

Perhaps it's not so much the amount of revenue generated by the teams but what monies they can spend. Something like 130% of total revenue for a 3 year period is your spending limit, not just for payroll but for all other team expenses. If the Yankees want YES!, then go ahead, but you can't use that money for the baseball team. That would also apply to owners just spending out of their own pocket. It's great that you made a fortune selling pizza, but you can't spend that money on the Tigers.

That's just me talking out loud. I have no idea if it is possible.

Lip Man 1
03-01-2011, 01:50 AM
Simple solution Ob, put a 3rd team in NYC and a 2nd one in Boston.

Period.

Immediately the value of the Yankees - Red Sox go down, their radio - TV and advertising deals are worth less and they simply could no longer afford 160 - 200 million dollar payrolls.

It's a perfect solution that makes sense...naturally MLB will never do it.

Lip

Fenway
03-01-2011, 08:27 AM
The way you can fix baseball's problems isn't with a salary cap or cutting teams or realigning it. Somehow behind the scenes end the practice of letting teams like the Yankees and Red Sox generate so much local revenue that's hands off to the rest of the league. They are after all a franchise of MLB itself. Can MLB do it? I'm not a lawyer or anything like that but they do have an enti trust exemption. Yes (pun intended) the Yankees are selling themselves to NY and their brand but without MLB that brand has no purpose.

Perhaps it's not so much the amount of revenue generated by the teams but what monies they can spend. Something like 130% of total revenue for a 3 year period is your spending limit, not just for payroll but for all other team expenses. If the Yankees want YES!, then go ahead, but you can't use that money for the baseball team. That would also apply to owners just spending out of their own pocket. It's great that you made a fortune selling pizza, but you can't spend that money on the Tigers.

That's just me talking out loud. I have no idea if it is possible.

On the other side of the spectrum you have teams like the Pirates pocketing the revenue sharing money while fielding a glorified AAA team. Any revenue sharing money has to go to payroll - period.

Red Barchetta
03-01-2011, 09:21 AM
From last fall -

Just echos what many of us know - Tampa Bay is NOT a baseball market

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4741:kobritz-for-the-tampa-bay-rays-its-the-bad-market-stupid&catid=68:jordan-kobritz&Itemid=156

MLB expanded into Florida and after both teams played in arguably two of the worst stadiums or "ballparks" lacking of a true baseball atmosphere in the league, people are now questioning the move almost seems hypocritcal. To watch Florida MLB, your choice was to bake in an open air football stadium with no roof facing the wrong direction or sit inside a concrete can with no windows and a ceiling engineering too low for baseball.

I guess we will know soon enough about whether the Marlins experiment in Miami will work when in 2012 they open "Miller Park South". I for one hope they do well.

When it comes to our local Rays, I think it's a success that they can draw upwards of 15,000 fans per game on a regular basis considering they are playing in the most out of date, ugly and non baseball friendly facility in all of professional sports.

I know the Rays have a big target on their organizational chest when it comes to either contraction or re-location, however I would hate to see the decision to eliminate the Rays be based on the poor decision from 20 years ago to play MLB in the hardest-to-reach area of all Tampa Bay and in a facility designed for tractor pulls.

To put this in a Chicago perspective, that would be like relocating the SOX to Joliet or Gary, having them play in a park similar to Tropicana and then wondering why no fans are willing to drive the distance, fight the traffic and support the team in order to validate an argument that Chicago can't support two major league teams.

I think Tampa's problem is overall fan apathy to local teams. Unlike the Miaimi area, it seems everyone around Tampa Bay is from somewhere else and hang onto their hometown loyalties (myself included). The Bucs had a winning season in 2010, however had the local games blacked out because they could not sell out Raymond James stadium on Sunday afternoons when it was 75 degrees and sunny. :rolleyes: I go to both Bucs and Rays games each season, just because I like watching the professional product from both the NFL and MLB. I attend 1-2 Bucs games per season (definitely any Bears game) and I attend on average 12-15 Rays games per season (definitely all 3 or 6 Sox games). Raymond James is a great football facility and Tropicana is horrible (as previously discussed).

After living here (Sarasota area) since 2005, regional fans support the teams in merchanidise and television revenues, however just don't seem too motivated to attend games in person both MLB and NFL. The state literally shuts down any Saturday the Gators play the Seminoles as SEC is king. NFL, not so much.

doublem23
03-01-2011, 09:34 AM
On the other side of the spectrum you have teams like the Pirates pocketing the revenue sharing money while fielding a glorified AAA team. Any revenue sharing money has to go to payroll - period.

What a total crock of ****. The Pirates "pocket" what, $25 M per year? If they invested all that money back into their payroll, they'd still be among the lowest payrolls in baseball. You think they're going to magically turn around a 59-win team with an influx of $20 million? The Pirates have to send out glorified AAA teams so they can snag top draft picks and hope to strike gold 2-3 times. That's the only chance they have to compete nowadays.

khan
03-01-2011, 12:34 PM
No offense, and I'm trying to stimulate a thoughtful discussion on this, but:

You failed to elucidate WHY you thought that baseball is a better game when a fan has to pay to watch utter and complete incompetence for 3-4 AB/game while pitchers try to hit.
It isn't a matter of tradition, although there is that. More offense does not necessarily make any game better.

To me, it isn't about "more offense." Professionalism is about going to appreciate EXCELLENCE. It's about seeing players do things that most fat slobs in the stands CAN'T do.

One doesn't go to a Broadway musical to see a guy who can't sing in tune. One doesn't go to a Michelin(sp)-starred restaurant to eat food that tastes like horse manure. One doesn't grab some bum off the street to play a solo for the CSO. One wouldn't pay to see ME try to play guitar instead of Slash in a concert.

Watching the overwhelming majority of MLB pitchers make a FAILED attempt at hitting is certainly NOT watching excellence, or hell, even competence at work.


When I watch the White Sox play, I am interested in seeing the other team not score. Baseball is as much about defense as it is about offense.
Agreed. So why have a pitcher waste time on something he can't do? Why risk a Mark Prior-style injury? Why hasten the call-up of an incompetent pitcher from AAA, because your star SP got hurt running the bases?

If you're a fan that likes pitching, why give these guys an easy time pitching to opposition that can't hit? Competition is central to the enjoyment of sport. No one would pay to watch Roy Halladay put 3 fastballs past a 70 year old grandpa. [Which is what most pitchers hit like.]

But people DO get excited to watch Roy Halladay try to get Albert Pujols out. [And to see Pujols try to deliver the goods v. Halladay.]


Because baseball is not a platoon sport, everyone plays both ways.
I disagree.

The idea of "the platoon" was INVENTED in baseball. Lefty/Righty splits, LOOGYs, hell, the entire bullpen is a type of "platoon."

Baseball has built-in checks and balances. Pitchers being part of the lineup are part of those checks and balances. The DH changes the dynamic of the game, and I think the game is better without such changes.
Indeed. And the world changes in time, too. Most people don't smoke 3-4 packs of Pall Malls a day any more, and we're all better for it. Ballplayers actually bother to work out, and they're better for it.

In life, in business, and in sport, "generalists" are a thing of the past. "Specialization" is now the order of the day, in baseball, as in everywhere in life.


From what I've seen, there are mostly strong feelings of AL fans toward the DH, but the feelings against the DH by NL fans are stronger.
This really isn't definable, nor is this defendable. This statement is rather without merit, honestly. How can you quantify this?


But I'm not advocating the AL do away with the DH, only arguing that its spread to the NL isn't forthcoming, which would be necessary for baseball to radically re-align.
This is a cogent point. I agree that baseball can't radically re-align without unity in terms of the DH rule.

I merely haven't seen a compelling argument AGAINST the DH. No one likes incompetence in favor of competence. In what I've seen and read, those who have argued against the DH attempt to argue for this very preference.

ewokpelts
03-01-2011, 01:00 PM
I doubt the money would even out to take away 18 starting positions and add 24-108 bench positions.well a 27 man roster for 28 teams is an additional 56 players. the union preserves 50 jobs and ADDS 6.

I can see a 30 man roster being ok'ed by the owners if the league minimum is capped or lowered.

ewokpelts
03-01-2011, 01:04 PM
If you're going to play a balanced schedule, you should NOT have divisions.
Or, divisions playing balanced schedules is insane and absolutely stupid...ruin the gameWorks for the NBA

doublem23
03-01-2011, 01:13 PM
well a 27 man roster for 28 teams is an additional 56 players. the union preserves 50 jobs and ADDS 6.

Right, but it adds those jobs at the back end of the bench at the cost of taking away 16 regular position players and 10 starting pitchers. I'd wager to say the MLBPA loses quite a bit in your scenario.

TheOldRoman
03-01-2011, 01:21 PM
Right, but it adds those jobs at the back end of the bench at the cost of taking away 16 regular position players and 10 starting pitchers. I'd wager to say the MLBPA loses quite a bit in your scenario.Yeah, it's like saying "You can't sign Adaum Dunn, but at least you can have Lillibridge, Milledge and DeAza!" Of course, those three guys combined will make less than $1.5 million this year, which is just about 10% of what Dunn will get paid.

ewokpelts
03-01-2011, 01:28 PM
Yeah, it's like saying "You can't sign Adaum Dunn, but at least you can have Lillibridge, Milledge and DeAza!" Of course, those three guys combined will make less than $1.5 million this year, which is just about 10% of what Dunn will get paid.how does this relate to the preservation of roster spots?

the starters on the a's and rays are underpaid compared to other teams(longoria aside). And some of those guys ar ebech players on any other team as it is.


the fallout would be minimal. after a season or two, the league would adjust.


not that i want this, but if they were going to go that route......

TheOldRoman
03-01-2011, 01:46 PM
how does this relate to the preservation of roster spots?

the starters on the a's and rays are underpaid compared to other teams(longoria aside). And some of those guys ar ebech players on any other team as it is.


the fallout would be minimal. after a season or two, the league would adjust.


not that i want this, but if they were going to go that route......Well, the Rays' payroll was $70 mil last year, but that was an outlier for them and will be down this year. Let's say they have a payroll of $50 million, which is what the A's were at last year. You are eliminating $100 million worth of payroll to create 56 jobs for minor leaguers who will make under $1 mil a year. At the most generous estimate, you are subbing $100 mil in payroll for $50 mil. Not going to happen without huge concessions elsewhere.

Gavin
03-01-2011, 02:22 PM
http://oi54.tinypic.com/2gt3x54.jpg

http://oi56.tinypic.com/2wfl7h3.jpg

TDog
03-01-2011, 02:37 PM
...

I merely haven't seen a compelling argument AGAINST the DH. No one likes incompetence in favor of competence. In what I've seen and read, those who have argued against the DH attempt to argue for this very preference.

It isn't a matter of competence over incompetence. If it were, baseball would be a platoon sport. (Platoon in the sense of football, where you have a separate offense and defense, not in the sense of who starts a game on a given day.) There are a lot of catchers who can't hit but play because they provide defense. (Chuck Brinkman wouldn't have had the opportunity to hit his only major league home run against Rudy May and Art Kusnyer may have had a long major league career.) This is especially true with teams that carry catchers whose sole purpose is to catch a knuckleball. If it were about competence over incompetence, baseball would be a platoon sport with DHs for every fielder but for a few playing both ways and most of those players eventually going one way or the other to protect them from injury. If it were about competence over incompetence, you would have designated runners for players Bengie Molina or Paul Konerko, an idea that was long ago purposed and rejected.

The designated hitter was about pinch-hitting for the pitcher every time he came to the plate and not removing him from the game. It was about marketing, not about competence. The American League needed marketing gimmicks more than the National League did, and such changes required a greater majority among National League owners than American League owners. The National League did not at the time nor does it now have the popularity problems the American League had in 1972.

At the time, you had the reserve clause keeping salaries under control. If the decision to come up today with free agency and arbitration awarding many players free-agent-like money, there would be no DH. A DH is going to command more money than a bench player. In 1972, the difference was less extreme. Currently, I've been told there are American League owners who would be good with doing away with the DH to save money, although such a thing is not on the table.

Of course, the DH changed the nature of the game, not just by transforming the American League into the weak-hitting league to the offensive league, sometimes stressing the differences between the haves and the have-nots. There were checks and balances to pitchers hitting. Pitchers used to know there would be consequences if they threw at batters, of course. But, also, many pitchers became less aware of what it was like to hit. John Danks, for example, never had to hit in the minors, coming up with American League teams that protected him from doing so. Madison Bumgarner came up in an organization that had him hit for himself often in the minors. I think Bumgarner became more aware more quickly of how to attack batters because he faced hitting himself, although I believe Danks has better stuff. Scouts have pointed this out to me, and I have to agree with them.

Pitchers hitting in National League games, as a whole, don't look as pathetic as American League pitchers hitting in National League parks. Yet American League fans consider pitchers more fragile. (In 1972, Chuck Tanner was using Terry Forster as a pinch hitter, with some success.) The injury risk to pitchers is greater on defense than on offense. Mark Prior has sustained more injuries on defense than on offense. Jake Peavy sustained a minor non-arm injury on offense, but he was on the mound when he sustained an injury that put his career into question.

You might deem indefensible the assertion that National League fans like not having the DH, but every survey I have ever seen reflects the same thing. And the Giants fans I talk to would be upset if they had the DH forced on them. Seeing their team play with a DH in American League parks a few times a year hasn't changed that.

Whether you think baseball is a better game with a DH is irrelevant to the discussion because many people disagree with you, and it is a matter of taste. As it is, baseball doesn't have to be one or the other because it's both.

The leagues are distinct. They play different baseball. Letting teams choose whether to use the DH at their home games under radical re-alignment would be chaos. If Bud Selig has a master plan to radically re-align, the expansion to 30 teams and the continued existence of the DH in the American League continue to stand in the way of his plans.

And I don't see either stumbling block soon eroding.

Hitmen77
03-02-2011, 12:05 PM
What a total crock of ****. The Pirates "pocket" what, $25 M per year? If they invested all that money back into their payroll, they'd still be among the lowest payrolls in baseball. You think they're going to magically turn around a 59-win team with an influx of $20 million? The Pirates have to send out glorified AAA teams so they can snag top draft picks and hope to strike gold 2-3 times. That's the only chance they have to compete nowadays.

I agree. People like to harp on the Pirates' profit, but it's sort of a red herring to the overall competitive balance problem in MLB. Even if they sunk that entire $25M back into payroll, that would only put them at a level between Florida's and Cleveland's payroll and up to a whopping 30% of the Yankees' payroll. Unless they start getting better at developing players, just sinking an extra $25M and going to a break-even operation probably just bumps them from 6th place to 4th or 5th.

I like the idea of requiring revenue money to be put right back into payroll, but is it practical to determine what money is going where? What if, instead of putting money into payroll, a team decides to sink money into their farm system. Does that count? How much of a profit is okay? Should owners have to demonstrate an operating loss before getting revenue sharing?

If there is a way to keep teams like Florida from making profits on revenue sharing while they slash payroll, then that should be part of the solution (maybe a salary floor to qualify for revenue sharing?) But, like you said, that would still leave the small market teams getting blown away by the big boys.

The basic problem with MLB today isn't that all the small market teams are tanking in the standings in order to make a profit. In the end, it's still about the top teams being able to outspend almost everyone else by 2 to 1 and able to outspend the small market teams by 3 or 4 to 1.

Hitmen77
03-02-2011, 12:27 PM
http://oi54.tinypic.com/2gt3x54.jpg

http://oi56.tinypic.com/2wfl7h3.jpg

Very interesting chart. Now remember though, when Arizona won the WS in 2001 they were ranked 8th (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2001/04/09/team_payrolls/) in the league (4th highest in the NL) in payroll. So, people shouldn't be using them as an example of a low payroll team winning the WS.

Wow, those are some stunning percentages in the Yankees multiplier. That doesn't even count the $25 million or so in luxury tax they're able to cough up to run up their payroll so far over the top compared to other teams.

I wonder how such a chart would look using a "Red Sox multiplier"? Even that would look out of whack. Once you get past the top 4 or 5 teams, the drop off in payroll is pretty dramatic. Thank goodness for big market team proponents that they can just use the Cubs and Mets and poster boys for why payroll imbalance is not an issue.

What I find surprising is that San Diego is so low on the list. Fenway explained not to long ago that SD is actually a rather small TV market, but come on! They have no excuse to be slashing payroll to such levels. So, yeah, there are poorly run teams out there. But the Cubs and Padres shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore what this chart is showing.

khan
03-02-2011, 02:34 PM
I like your passion about this issue. And, please don't take my queries as an insult or an attack on you, because they're NOT. I'd just like a smart, spirited discussion, and I'd like to hear a [somewhat] differing view from mine.

It isn't a matter of competence over incompetence. If it were, baseball would be a platoon sport. (Platoon in the sense of football, where you have a separate offense and defense, not in the sense of who starts a game on a given day.) There are a lot of catchers who can't hit but play because they provide defense. (Chuck Brinkman wouldn't have had the opportunity to hit his only major league home run against Rudy May and Art Kusnyer may have had a long major league career.) This is especially true with teams that carry catchers whose sole purpose is to catch a knuckleball.
Umm, this role is EXACTLY a platoon system with respect to the catchers in a team. The catchers who can't play defense on the days that a knuckleballer pitches are platooned with one that can. When the knuckleballer goes out of the game, in many cases, the better hitting C is inserted as well.

I understand what you're trying to state, but the platoon was INVENTED in baseball. And this example with the catchers is not a good one to support your view, IMO.

If it were about competence over incompetence, baseball would be a platoon sport with DHs for every fielder but for a few playing both ways and most of those players eventually going one way or the other to protect them from injury.
Actually, it is about competence vs. incompetence. Otherwise, incompetent hitters like Sergio Santos and Brian Anderson would still have jobs as position players.

The designated hitter was about pinch-hitting for the pitcher every time he came to the plate and not removing him from the game. It was about marketing, not about competence. The American League needed marketing gimmicks more than the National League did,
While I appreciate your view of history about the game, do you have any links to this, or is this your supposition? My reading of the history suggests something entirely different.

If the decision to come up today with free agency and arbitration awarding many players free-agent-like money, there would be no DH. A DH is going to command more money than a bench player.
Again, because they SHOULD. A DH is more competent at the game than a bench player. And this is EXACTLY the way the world is:

People who have ability make good money. People who DON'T are paid much less. A porsche costs more money than a yugo. An experienced attorney makes more money than a new paralegal who just got out of school. A famous architech(sp?) makes more money than the intern whose still in school.

And, guys who can hit make more money than guys who can't.


Pitchers hitting in National League games, as a whole, don't look as pathetic as American League pitchers hitting in National League parks.
The overarching majority of pitchers, REGARDLESS of league are still pathetic in the batters' box. I'm fairly confident that a fat slob who plays in a beer league could fail to hit at the same rate as a MLB pitcher.

Recall the following from doub's post # 64 in this thread:

NL Averages last year, by position

1B - .268
SS - .266
LF - .266
2B - .265
3B - .265
RF - .264
CF - .260
NL Ave - .255
C - .253
P - .142

A .142 batting average IS pathetic. It IS incompetent. And, IMO, it IS an insult to fans to watch that crap. So what if the AL pitchers bat ~.120 or .050?

I think we can agree that even the mighty .142 BA that NL pitchers put up is at best, a joke.

The injury risk to pitchers is greater on defense than on offense.
No one disagrees that there is a greater risk of injury on defense. But you fail to address the benefit of ADDED risk of having pitchers try to hit, with little-to-no opportunity for improved returns in terms of ability at the bat.

You might deem indefensible the assertion that National League fans like not having the DH, but every survey I have ever seen reflects the same thing. And the Giants fans I talk to would be upset if they had the DH forced on them. Seeing their team play with a DH in American League parks a few times a year hasn't changed that.

OK. So show us a link, or we'd have to conclude that this is merely a supposition on your part. [Again: I'm not impugning you or your opinion, I'd merely like to read what you state that you've read.]

Whether you think baseball is a better game with a DH is irrelevant to the discussion because many people disagree with you, and it is a matter of taste.
Actually, my query was for YOU to show why baseball is a better game without a DH. While I appreciate your passion for tradition, you haven't really made a compelling argument WHY. Again, I posed this question as per your statement earlier in the thread.

I'd like to think that open-minded enough to adjust my views. But there has to be a good reason in doing so. Convince us of this, if you can.

mmmmmbeeer
03-02-2011, 03:09 PM
This isn't the point, which remains that the DH is the chasm that separates the leagues and its continued existence in only the American League will prevent radical re-alignment. Still ....

It isn't a matter of tradition, although there is that. More offense does not necessarily make any game better. More offense does not make baseball a more enjoyable game. Some of the best baseball games I've ever seen have ended 1-0. Some of the worst baseball games I've ever seen have been high scoring. Most Americans, and many Brits, find cricket excessively boring, and in a cricket match you will typically see more than 100 runs scored in an inning.

When I watch the White Sox play, I am interested in seeing the other team not score. Baseball is as much about defense as it is about offense. Because baseball is not a platoon sport, everyone plays both ways. If you have a great defensive player who can't hit, you have to concede his lack of offense. If you have a hitter who can't field, you have to put him in a place where his defense won't hurt you.

Baseball has built-in checks and balances. Pitchers being part of the lineup are part of those checks and balances. The DH changes the dynamic of the game, and I think the game is better without such changes.

From what I've seen, there are mostly strong feelings of AL fans toward the DH, but the feelings against the DH by NL fans are stronger. Many tell me the NL plays real baseball, and as much as I love the White Sox, I go to Giants games, and it's hard to argue with them.

But I'm not advocating the AL do away with the DH, only arguing that its spread to the NL isn't forthcoming, which would be necessary for baseball to radically re-align.

I take it you're a fan of the WNBA as well....me, watching a player doing something professionally that they just aren't very good at isn't something I'm interested in paying for.

My father and I had the DH debate....much like you he believes it's "real" baseball or traditional baseball. Just because it's tradition doesn't make it right. I see the DH as having rectified a glaring mistake in what is an otherwise beautiful game.

Of course it's all opinion...I think NL fans would have a much easier time adjusting to the addition of the DH than vice versa.

Fenway
03-02-2011, 03:25 PM
What I really wish they would do is tweak the DH during interleague...

When a NL teams comes to an AL park - play without a DH, and when a AL teams goes to a NL park play with it. Let the fans of the other league get a taste of it.

sox1970
03-02-2011, 03:41 PM
What I really wish they would do is tweak the DH during interleague...

When a NL teams comes to an AL park - play without a DH, and when a AL teams goes to a NL park play with it. Let the fans of the other league get a taste of it.

I think the middle game of each series should be the opposite rule. That way, the DH doesn't sit for the whole series when they're playing in an NL park.