PDA

View Full Version : Astros to the AL?


samurai_sox
09-08-2011, 09:52 PM
Confirmed that Bud has asked Jim Crane to move the Astros to the AL if he is approved owner.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/sports/mlb/110907-moving-astros-to-american-league-important-for-crane%27s-bid-to-buy-team

KRS1
09-08-2011, 10:19 PM
It makes too much sense NOT to do it for both parties.

voodoochile
09-08-2011, 10:27 PM
So year round interleague play?

Lip Man 1
09-08-2011, 10:35 PM
Works for me....apparently it wasn't in MLB's best interest for Arizona to make the move instead.

Lip

amsteel
09-08-2011, 11:23 PM
So year round interleague play?

As long as it's balanced, party on!

FielderJones
09-08-2011, 11:24 PM
So year round interleague play?

Has to be.

And I have no problem with that. Frankly, it gives us more warm weather cities to play in next April (or whenever this gets done).

central44
09-08-2011, 11:28 PM
It would be cool to have a rematch of the 2005 World Series every year :D:

DumpJerry
09-09-2011, 12:03 AM
Time to introduce the DH to the NL.

TheOldRoman
09-09-2011, 09:13 AM
It makes too much sense NOT to do it for both parties.It makes no sense for anybody. There is no compelling reason whatsoever which demands the leagues have an equal number of teams. The Rangers are the only team that has been hurt with their travel schedule, and they aren't even the reason Bud has suddenly demanded equal leagues. Throw the Royals into the west to give them a few more 7:00 p.m. starts, leave that ALC at four teams and be done with it. Moving the Astros to the AL after 50 years doesn't really benefit anyone.

Railsplitter
09-09-2011, 09:23 AM
So year round interleague play?
Or move KC to the NL central. It will give them a three cross-state road trips each each year, plus one or two trips to Denver each year

Hitmen77
09-09-2011, 10:40 AM
It makes too much sense NOT to do it for both parties.

I don't see who gains from this other than Texas since they'll no longer be in a division with only west coast teams. But it's not like the Texas franchise is exactly struggling right now. They're becoming a powerhouse in the A.L., draw big crowds, and have a huge local TV deal. The current divisional alignment isn't exactly killing them.

How does this benefit Houston? They do add Texas as a division rival, but then they add a bunch of west coast games to their slate.

What I'd wish MLB would do is get rid of their current "unbalanced" schedule. 18 or 19 games vs. each division rival each year is too much and it's at the expense of facing other teams across the league. It's hard to judge W-L records these days since teams in weak divisions can rack up tons of wins against weaker opponents.

So year round interleague play?

Yes, this would mean at least 1 interleague series throughout the season.

Some of this could be offset by ending the practice of having a bunch of interleague games all at once. But in the end, it would mean more interleague games overall. I have no problem with this as long as they move to a balanced interleague schedule and end this silliness of us playing teams like the Dodgers year after year but almost never play teams like the Cardinals or Brewers.

Hitmen77
09-09-2011, 10:49 AM
It makes no sense for anybody. There is no compelling reason whatsoever which demands the leagues have an equal number of teams. The Rangers are the only team that has been hurt with their travel schedule, and they aren't even the reason Bud has suddenly demanded equal leagues. Throw the Royals into the west to give them a few more 7:00 p.m. starts, leave that ALC at four teams and be done with it. Moving the Astros to the AL after 50 years doesn't really benefit anyone.

There is no compelling reason, but I believe that Selig really wants both leagues to have an equal number of teams. ....actually, his real wish might be to get rid of the AL and NL altogether in favor of regional conferences (:puking:)

Or move KC to the NL central. It will give them a three cross-state road trips each each year, plus one or two trips to Denver each year

Too bad KC didn't accept the offer in the first place to move to the NL in 1998. If I understand correctly, they were given the first chance to switch leagues and turned it down. Milwaukee was the 2nd team to get the offer and they accepted.

ComiskeyBrewer
09-09-2011, 11:14 AM
Too bad KC didn't accept the offer in the first place to move to the NL in 1998. If I understand correctly, they were given the first chance to switch leagues and turned it down. Milwaukee was the 2nd team to get the offer and they accepted.

Yep, that was what happened.

Works for me....apparently it wasn't in MLB's best interest for Arizona to make the move instead.

IIRC, Arizona's ownership had a big hissy fit over it. Personally, i think they would thrive in the AL.

Zakath
09-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Yes, this would mean at least 1 interleague series throughout the season.

Some of this could be offset by ending the practice of having a bunch of interleague games all at once. But in the end, it would mean more interleague games overall. I have no problem with this as long as they move to a balanced interleague schedule and end this silliness of us playing teams like the Dodgers year after year but almost never play teams like the Cardinals or Brewers.

A little simplistic math approach but it would work. 162 / 3 = 54, so if we said that all series were 3 games, there would be 54 sets of 3-game series that make up the season. If each team plays 6 interleague series like all AL teams currently do, that would be 90 interleague series that need to be played, with at least one in each of the 54 sets of games, meaning you would have to schedule the other 36 such that there are always an odd number of interleague series going on at the same time. If you only make each team play 4 interleague series, then it's only 60 series, which means 6 would have to be played at the same time as others.

If you do 6 interleague, then you have 144 left to play your own league. If you do 4 interleague, you have 150 left. You'd have 4 teams to play in your own division, and 10 outside. If they keep the 18 games vs. your own division thing, then you'd have either 72 or 78 left to play the rest of the league. Drop down to 12 games vs. your own division, and you have 96 or 102 left. 14, and it's 88 or 94. 16, and it's 80 or 86.

You'd still end up with an uneven number of games vs. teams in the league outside your division, but the interleague schedule wouldn't be a problem.

Zakath
09-09-2011, 11:20 AM
IIRC, Arizona's ownership had a big hissy fit over it. Personally, i think they would thrive in the AL.

Geographically, the NL fits them better.

ernie14
09-09-2011, 11:31 AM
Poor Cub fans.

They want the Astros in their division.

downstairs
09-09-2011, 11:52 AM
Poor Cub fans.

They want the Astros in their division.

The Astros aren't perennially bad, and were the dominant force in the NL Central for many years not too long ago. The Pirates on the other hand...

doublem23
09-09-2011, 11:56 AM
There is no compelling reason, but I believe that Selig really wants both leagues to have an equal number of teams. ....actually, his real wish might be to get rid of the AL and NL altogether in favor of regional conferences (:puking:)

Really, if they're going to have 15 teams in each league, they should just scrap the leagues and go by conference geographically. What's the point of having two independent leagues when you're playing games between them every stretch of the season?

Eastern
Northeast - Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Phillies, A's (moved to NYC)
Southeast - Orioles, Nationals, Braves, Marlins, Rays
Mid-East - Blue Jays, Tigers, Indians, Reds, Pirates

Western
Mid-West - White Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers, Twins
Southwest - Rangers, Astros, Royals, Rockies, Diamondbacks
Pacific Coast - Mariners, Padres, Giants, Dodgers, Angels

Smokey Burg
09-09-2011, 12:02 PM
Cubs need the Astros. Send St. Louis instead.

ernie14
09-09-2011, 02:09 PM
The Astros aren't perennially bad, and were the dominant force in the NL Central for many years not too long ago. The Pirates on the other hand...


True. The Astros can turn things around next year but they're on their way to 100 losses this year. Worst record in baseball.
My friends who are Cub fans say, "Thank God the Astros are in my division."

Poor Pirates. I was hoping they would do well all year.

KMcMahon817
09-09-2011, 03:23 PM
Time to introduce the DH to the NL.

No. Keep it the way it is. Play every team in the other league for 1 three game series each year. Rotate home and away each season. Same rules as interleague as far as DH at AL parks and no DH at NL parks.

KRS1
09-09-2011, 05:02 PM
It makes no sense for anybody. There is no compelling reason whatsoever which demands the leagues have an equal number of teams. The Rangers are the only team that has been hurt with their travel schedule, and they aren't even the reason Bud has suddenly demanded equal leagues. Throw the Royals into the west to give them a few more 7:00 p.m. starts, leave that ALC at four teams and be done with it. Moving the Astros to the AL after 50 years doesn't really benefit anyone.

MLB wants to balance leagues and a fresh start for a franchise with zero WS wins and tenuous divisional rivalries swapped for one big in-state rivalry? Makes sense to me.

Tragg
09-09-2011, 05:07 PM
That makes the most sense of all of the proposed inter-league transfers. Astros have no real rivals, it helps the problem of the Rangers being a lone ranger in the West (moving Arizona would make that problem worse) and it will probably provide them with an attendance boost. They may agree to give them 2 Yank and Bosox home series as a prize.

TheOldRoman
09-09-2011, 07:13 PM
MLB wants to balance leagues and a fresh start for a franchise with zero WS wins and tenuous divisional rivalries swapped for one big in-state rivalry? Makes sense to me.Once again, there is no compelling reason to balance the leagues. It provides nothing other than ensuring year-round interleague play (which I don't think is a good thing). Also, the Astros haven't won a title, but they have lots of history in the NL from the '70s and '80s to their really good run from the late '90s to 2005. As for the tenuous division rivals, I'm not really sure what that means. The Astros have big rivalries with the Cubs and Cardinals, and everyone else in the division has been mostly bad to the point that the Astros fans wouldn't have to worry about them.

grenda12
09-09-2011, 07:59 PM
I'd rather have AZ.

sox1970
09-09-2011, 08:00 PM
The whole rivalry thing is so over played. There are three rivalries in baseball--Cubs/Cardinals, Yankees/Red Sox, and Dodgers/Giants. The rest are 18-game nuisances, with the occasional bad blood between teams, like the Sox and A's were 20 years ago.

I'd much rather see a balanced schedule, and if they add a playoff team, no divisions at all. Two leagues of 15 teams, tee it up, and the top-5 have a chance at the championship.

russ99
09-09-2011, 08:00 PM
That makes the most sense of all of the proposed inter-league transfers. Astros have no real rivals, it helps the problem of the Rangers being a lone ranger in the West (moving Arizona would make that problem worse) and it will probably provide them with an attendance boost. They may agree to give them 2 Yank and Bosox home series as a prize.

First of all, they have "real rivals". 1) Cardinals (who's farm team was in Houston for decades) 2) Reds 3) Cubs, all three of which that they've had since they came into the league in 1962.

Secondly, the fans and the incoming owner don't want this. Bud has some grand idiotic plan, and seemingly has found a patsy to spring it on.

Screw home series with the Yankees and Red Sox. That's no real rivalry, and all it does is fill the stands with fans of those teams. Too much of Bud's plan is accomodating those teams, there are 28 others.

So let's see, would you prefer:

Home games and and most road games at or before 7pm, the chance to play your actual rivals for a division title, 6 games with the fake rival Rangers, to stay in the National League which is how their team (and ballparks) have been constructed; or

Most road games after 9PM, the worst travel schedule in the majors, adding the DH, removing all rivalries except the one time in 6 years you get to play them, helping out Texas at the expense of Houston, games with absolutely zero interest vs. the Angels, A's and Mariners along with a decreased gate to those "division" games, and your park being invaded by idiot Red Sox and Yankees fans every year?

I know what I'd pick.

The fact Bud is directly involved and the Brewers are off the table for changing leagues is borderline collusion anyway. If MLB pushes this, it may end up in court.

A. Cavatica
09-09-2011, 08:01 PM
Really, if they're going to have 15 teams in each league, they should just scrap the leagues and go by conference geographically.

We need the NL so Ozzie will have a place to leave for.

Zakath
09-09-2011, 08:03 PM
That makes the most sense of all of the proposed inter-league transfers. Astros have no real rivals, it helps the problem of the Rangers being a lone ranger in the West (moving Arizona would make that problem worse) and it will probably provide them with an attendance boost. They may agree to give them 2 Yank and Bosox home series as a prize.

Right now the Astros have 5 other teams in their division that they have to make 3 trips to, the closest of which is St. Louis. They would go to 4 teams with at least one in their home state. If it weren't for Seattle, they could actually have lower travel costs than they do now.

TheVulture
09-12-2011, 01:11 AM
Once again, there is no compelling reason to balance the leagues.

You can't have a legitimate playoff system where some teams only have to beat three teams while others have to beat five teams to win a division. Determining a wild card with unbalanced schedules is a joke as well.

downstairs
09-12-2011, 02:59 PM
The whole rivalry thing is so over played. There are three rivalries in baseball--Cubs/Cardinals, Yankees/Red Sox, and Dodgers/Giants.

Exactly. Any other "rivalry" is merely temporary when two teams are fighting for a playoff spot. We have a rivalry with Minnesota when we're both near the top of the AL Central. Other years, no one cares.

I care almost zero about any Minnesota/White Sox games at this point.

However, if you're a Yankees fan and both your team and the Red Sox are out of the playoff hunt- you're still going to get geared up for Yanks/Sawx games.

KMcMahon817
09-12-2011, 06:09 PM
Exactly. Any other "rivalry" is merely temporary when two teams are fighting for a playoff spot. We have a rivalry with Minnesota when we're both near the top of the AL Central. Other years, no one cares.

I care almost zero about any Minnesota/White Sox games at this point.

However, if you're a Yankees fan and both your team and the Red Sox are out of the playoff hunt- you're still going to get geared up for Yanks/Sawx games.

When is the last time both of those teams were absent from the a pennant chase? Part of the reason that rivalry has been so tense the past 15 years is because both of the are always right there. Prior to 15 years ago, I can't truly comment.

ChicagoG19
09-12-2011, 06:12 PM
Exactly. Any other "rivalry" is merely temporary when two teams are fighting for a playoff spot. We have a rivalry with Minnesota when we're both near the top of the AL Central. Other years, no one cares.

I care almost zero about any Minnesota/White Sox games at this point.

However, if you're a Yankees fan and both your team and the Red Sox are out of the playoff hunt- you're still going to get geared up for Yanks/Sawx games.

I think the Sox/Twins rivalry has a chance to become a permanent rivalry. I truly hate the Twins and enjoy every win against them more than other teams.

NLaloosh
09-12-2011, 06:30 PM
What's the big deal? Stick them in the A.L. West.

Bud only wants to do this so they can get the 2 wild card thing going. That will be next. It's all about the money.

Zakath
09-12-2011, 06:44 PM
When is the last time both of those teams were absent from the a pennant chase? Part of the reason that rivalry has been so tense the past 15 years is because both of the are always right there. Prior to 15 years ago, I can't truly comment.

Which would correlate to the time that the Red Sox started joining the Yankees in spending money like it was water...

sox1970
09-12-2011, 06:55 PM
What's the big deal? Stick them in the A.L. West.

Bud only wants to do this so they can get the 2 wild card thing going. That will be next. It's all about the money.

Well, it is a business after all.

I like the 5 of 15 format. Top 1/3 of the league gets an opportunity. But I would much rather see divisions eliminated, and a balanced schedule.

Too many problems come up if they just add a wildcard and keep divisions:

---two wild cards making it by vastly diffferent schedules
---potential for the 2nd best overall team having to play a 1-game play-in (sorry, not fair)
---2nd best wildcard clinching before the eventual top wildcard, saving their best pitcher for a one-game playoff. Just something wrong with a high-90's win team facing an 85-win team, while two weaker division winners get the bye.

I'd like the top-3 to get the bye, and the 4th and 5th best teams play to get in. Best-of-3 is better, but a 1-game would be ok if it's the 4th and 5th best teams. 2nd vs 5th in a 1-game is just so wrong.

palehozenychicty
09-12-2011, 11:09 PM
The whole rivalry thing is so over played. There are three rivalries in baseball--Cubs/Cardinals, Yankees/Red Sox, and Dodgers/Giants. The rest are 18-game nuisances, with the occasional bad blood between teams, like the Sox and A's were 20 years ago.

I'd much rather see a balanced schedule, and if they add a playoff team, no divisions at all. Two leagues of 15 teams, tee it up, and the top-5 have a chance at the championship.


Those three have a lot of tradition, but Reds-Cards is the most intense by far these days.

NLaloosh
09-13-2011, 12:00 AM
Well, it is a business after all.

I like the 5 of 15 format. Top 1/3 of the league gets an opportunity. But I would much rather see divisions eliminated, and a balanced schedule.

Too many problems come up if they just add a wildcard and keep divisions:

---two wild cards making it by vastly diffferent schedules
---potential for the 2nd best overall team having to play a 1-game play-in (sorry, not fair)
---2nd best wildcard clinching before the eventual top wildcard, saving their best pitcher for a one-game playoff. Just something wrong with a high-90's win team facing an 85-win team, while two weaker division winners get the bye.

I'd like the top-3 to get the bye, and the 4th and 5th best teams play to get in. Best-of-3 is better, but a 1-game would be ok if it's the 4th and 5th best teams. 2nd vs 5th in a 1-game is just so wrong.


I say get the player with the wife with best ass on the top 3 team in each division. THEN, the skinniest ass has to go and you hve the two teams!
\\

hi im skot
09-13-2011, 12:03 AM
I say get the player with the wife with best ass on the top 3 team in each division. THEN, the skinniest ass has to go and you hve the two teams!
\\

Swing and a miss.

DumpJerry
09-13-2011, 03:02 AM
I say get the player with the wife with best ass on the top 3 team in each division. THEN, the skinniest ass has to go and you hve the two teams!
\\
I say you get a week to think about this post.

mjmcend
09-13-2011, 08:54 AM
I think the Sox/Twins rivalry has a chance to become a permanent rivalry. I truly hate the Twins and enjoy every win against them more than other teams.

Yeah, but I believe that is because of all the close races we have had with them (and lost to them) over the last decade. The 90s were all about hating Cleveland, but that has certainly fell off as they were not a large factor in the 2000s and the players we most hated all left. If the Twins fall back into a KC-level barrel of suck, the intense hatred will fade for most over a couple of years.

bridgeportcopper
09-13-2011, 09:23 AM
Yeah, but I believe that is because of all the close races we have had with them (and lost to them) over the last decade. The 90s were all about hating Cleveland, but that has certainly fell off as they were not a large factor in the 2000s and the players we most hated all left. If the Twins fall back into a KC-level barrel of suck, the intense hatred will fade for most over a couple of years.


Not to mention eventually ended up playing for us...off the top of my head Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Sandy Alomar, Robbie Alomar, Omar Vizquel. Unfortunately most were well past their prime.

Lip Man 1
09-13-2011, 10:23 AM
There are very few real rivalries left anymore in sports. Rivalries are now created.

Given enough time any two teams can become rivals so I'm not sold on using that as a reason to not make this move.

Some balance is need in this sport. Starting with 15 teams in each league, three five-team divisions is a good way to start.

Lip

Nellie_Fox
09-13-2011, 11:14 AM
I say you get a week to think about this post.How the hell did I miss that idiocy last night?

DumpJerry
09-13-2011, 11:59 AM
How the hell did I miss that idiocy last night?
Get some stronger coffee.

Fenway
09-22-2011, 12:52 AM
ZING as only Tank McNamara can do

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/1ab36ee0c042012e2f8f00163e41dd5b

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/191619f0c042012e2f8f00163e41dd5b

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/19a663b0c042012e2f8f00163e41dd5b

KMcMahon817
10-12-2011, 03:13 PM
The sale of the Astros to Jim Crane is expected to be finalized in mid-November. This arrangement would move the Astros to the AL West, and therefore even the leagues.

I think this is great. I am excited to be able to see the SOX actually play every team in the majors for one series each year.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/astros-expected-to-complete-sale-move-to-al.html

Lip Man 1
10-12-2011, 03:16 PM
I'm assuming this won't take place until 2013 since the schedules are already set for next year.

Good to see things more balanced anyway.

Lip

sox1970
10-12-2011, 03:29 PM
The sale of the Astros to Jim Crane is expected to be finalized in mid-November. This arrangement would move the Astros to the AL West, and therefore even the leagues.

I think this is great. I am excited to be able to see the SOX actually play every team in the majors for one series each year.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/astros-expected-to-complete-sale-move-to-al.html

Did I miss this somewhere? Who the hell would want to see 45 interleague games a year?

They should do this if they keep divisions:

16 games x 4 in division
8 games x 10 out of division
18 interleague (full division vs full division, plus 3 vs local rival--Sox would play Cubs 6 games every third year)

KMcMahon817
10-12-2011, 04:17 PM
Did I miss this somewhere? Who the hell would want to see 45 interleague games a year?

They should do this if they keep divisions:

16 games x 4 in division
8 games x 10 out of division
18 interleague (full division vs full division, plus 3 vs local rival--Sox would play Cubs 6 games every third year)

I don't believe that anything even semi-official has been announced in regard to how they would structure the games. Unlike you, I think a 45 game inter-league schedule would be awesome, but it probably wont happen.

It will likely be closer to the scenario you suggested, although that would decrease my excitement in the whole idea pretty significantly.

Nellie_Fox
10-12-2011, 04:36 PM
I don't believe that anything even semi-official has been announced in regard to how they would structure the games. Unlike you, I think a 45 game inter-league schedule would be awesome, but it probably wont happen. If they go to that much inter-league play, they absolutely have to have uniform rules regarding the DH.

russ99
10-12-2011, 05:27 PM
What a lovely 50th anniversary gift by Bud...

KMcMahon817
10-12-2011, 10:03 PM
If they go to that much inter-league play, they absolutely have to have uniform rules regarding the DH.

I see what you are saying, but it would only be 22/23 games that you're playing in an NL park if you are an AL team. The pitchers in the NL as a whole may be a little better due to more experience, but really that is a virtual wash (edit: was referring to offensively).

NL teams don't have a full-time DH, but I think they could find a way to use other guys depending on the LH/RH match-up. I don't really see an NL team having that big of a disadvantage playing at an AL park.

MLB could make it work with the DH rule staying intact as is. Although, it would probably anger some people.

Lip Man 1
10-12-2011, 10:30 PM
I'm surprised they are moving Houston to the West. Kansas City is actually farther West and would make for a shorter flight...I assume it's because they are going to try to build up a 'rivalry' between the Astros and Rangers.

Lip

Fenway
10-12-2011, 11:48 PM
I'm surprised they are moving Houston to the West. Kansas City is actually farther West and would make for a shorter flight...I assume it's because they are going to try to build up a 'rivalry' between the Astros and Rangers.

Lip

Only possible reason

They seem to want to have each team play a home and home with one division in the other league which would end the annual same market series. ( In other words Cubs-Sox would play every 3 years )

Nellie_Fox
10-13-2011, 12:15 AM
I see what you are saying, but it would only be 22/23 games that you're playing in an NL park if you are an AL team. The pitchers in the NL as a whole may be a little better due to more experience, but really that is a virtual wash (edit: was referring to offensively).

NL teams don't have a full-time DH, but I think they could find a way to use other guys depending on the LH/RH match-up. I don't really see an NL team having that big of a disadvantage playing at an AL park.

MLB could make it work with the DH rule staying intact as is. Although, it would probably anger some people.No, AL teams are often built with the DH being a major part of their offense. Having to either sit him, or find a place on defense for him, changes things greatly. A few times a year, okay. A major chunk of your schedule, no. Get the DH situation settled or don't expand inter-league play.

Imagine if the NFC and AFC were still using different footballs from the old AFL days, and every time an NFC team went to an AFC stadium they suddenly had to use the AFC ball; imagine the adjustment for QB's. Or the place kickers only had to use the "kicking ball" in NFC stadiums and at AFC stadiums they used the game ball. If you're going to essentially make the AL and NL "divisions" rather than leagues, then you have to play by one set of rules.

KMcMahon817
10-13-2011, 12:47 PM
No, AL teams are often built with the DH being a major part of their offense. Having to either sit him, or find a place on defense for him, changes things greatly. A few times a year, okay. A major chunk of your schedule, no. Get the DH situation settled or don't expand inter-league play.


I respectfully disagree. The DH isn't what it used to be. If they didn't solve the DH issue, it would definitely make DH-only players a little less valuable, but we are still only talk about roughly 13.5% of all games in a season. The good DHs in the league in 2011 (Victor Martinez, Michael Young/Napoli (both played a lot in the field), Willingham, Billy Butler, Damon, Abreu, Matsui, and Vlad) can all play the field if need be. Therefore, they won't need to sit every game played in an NL park.

As I said, if they kept the DH and went to 45 game inter-league schedule it would anger some people. No matter what way they do it, some people are going to be pissed.

russ99
10-14-2011, 09:15 AM
Sad that the prospective owner of the Astros has to sell out the fans by accepting a bad move they don't want just to get his shady business practices ignored by the other owners to get the ownership approval.

Sucks that Nolan Ryan and his group didn't get to buy the team when they wanted to, but at that point McLane wasn't interested in selling. Ryan sure wouldn't have caved like this...

All Astros fans can hope for now is if the sale falls through.

doublem23
10-14-2011, 10:53 AM
No, AL teams are often built with the DH being a major part of their offense. Having to either sit him, or find a place on defense for him, changes things greatly. A few times a year, okay. A major chunk of your schedule, no. Get the DH situation settled or don't expand inter-league play.

Imagine if the NFC and AFC were still using different footballs from the old AFL days, and every time an NFC team went to an AFC stadium they suddenly had to use the AFC ball; imagine the adjustment for QB's. Or the place kickers only had to use the "kicking ball" in NFC stadiums and at AFC stadiums they used the game ball. If you're going to essentially make the AL and NL "divisions" rather than leagues, then you have to play by one set of rules.

Agreed, I prefer the DH but if they're going to do this then they need to even it out either way.

Or compromise and have the DH and pitcher hit. That'll work, right?

Zakath
10-14-2011, 08:18 PM
I'm surprised they are moving Houston to the West. Kansas City is actually farther West and would make for a shorter flight...I assume it's because they are going to try to build up a 'rivalry' between the Astros and Rangers.

Lip

They can also tie in the trips to cut down on some of the travel time for the West Coast teams, in that they'll probably play at one and then the other, instead of putting Texas either at the beginning of a long road trip or at the end.

For the West Coast teams, KC vs. Houston isn't that big of a deal mileswise, but it's a big difference for the Central teams.

Sockinchisox
11-14-2011, 03:33 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/astros-likely-to-join-american-league-in-2013-.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

guillensdisciple
11-14-2011, 03:36 PM
Classy, the Sox get 6 extra wins a year. I think that means we will be in the playoffs much sooner than expected. Thanks commish, you the man.

DumpJerry
11-14-2011, 03:39 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/astros-likely-to-join-american-league-in-2013-.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
:searchfirst:
You left out the word "likely" in your post. It's not a definite.

PaleHoser
11-14-2011, 04:05 PM
I'm surprised they are moving Houston to the West. Kansas City is actually farther West and would make for a shorter flight...I assume it's because they are going to try to build up a 'rivalry' between the Astros and Rangers.

Lip

Rangers are already in the AL West. Putting the Astros in the same division makes perfect sense.

Besides, MLB has a history of failed geography. Don't forget that they put Atlanta and Cincinnati in the NL West for 25 years (I know we have the Cubs and WGN to blame for that), but it's still a fact.

I'm not a fan of evening out the leagues. Interleague play works as a novelty, but playing 25% of your schedule outside of your league is a mistake.

If they go forward with balancing the leagues with an odd number of teams, they need a standard rule on the DH. I'm not a fan (I'd rather watch a pitcher hit than Adam Dunn), but the Player's Association would never let it happen.

I suppose an alternative would be to add or contract a team from each to allow an even number of teams again. An American League expansion team in Connecticut would look might good to me (which will never happen either).

russ99
11-14-2011, 04:34 PM
Rangers are already in the AL West. Putting the Astros in the same division makes perfect sense.

Makes no sense at all. There's no rivalry between the teams for a forced 6 game interleague series, so why would there be one for 18 games in the division?

Not to mention the loss of their real rivals. Plus, there's all the west coast night games, and the additional travel.

Sad to see a potentially decent owner end up a huge villain of the fanbase by caving to Bud in order to have questions about his businesses swept under the rug.

I've heard that some Houston fans are giving up on the team, or as life-long NL fans, even jumping ship cheering for the Cardinals over this. There's a good chance this could sink the franchise.

What's good for Bud surely doesn't equal what's good for the fans or good for baseball.

DumpJerry
11-14-2011, 04:54 PM
Rangers are already in the AL West. Putting the Astros in the same division makes perfect sense.

Besides, MLB has a history of failed geography. Don't forget that they put Atlanta and Cincinnati in the NL West for 25 years (I know we have the Cubs and WGN to blame for that), but it's still a fact.

I'm not a fan of evening out the leagues. Interleague play works as a novelty, but playing 25% of your schedule outside of your league is a mistake.

If they go forward with balancing the leagues with an odd number of teams, they need a standard rule on the DH. I'm not a fan (I'd rather watch a pitcher hit than Adam Dunn), but the Player's Association would never let it happen.

I suppose an alternative would be to add or contract a team from each to allow an even number of teams again. An American League expansion team in Connecticut would look might good to me (which will never happen either).
I'm sure it's been mentioned before in this thread (it's an old thread), but the DH would have to be uniform for all 30 teams because NL are built without it in mind and AL teams are built with it in mind (this has an impact on the number of pitchers a team carries).

MarySwiss
11-14-2011, 04:55 PM
No!! For obviously selfish reasons, I want the D'Backs in the AL West. :D:

Daver
11-14-2011, 05:15 PM
No!! For obviously selfish reasons, I want the D'Backs in the AL West. :D:

The Diamondbacks have it clearly written in their franchise charter that they will always be an NL team.

ChicagoG19
11-14-2011, 06:14 PM
The Diamondbacks have it clearly written in their franchise charter that they will always be an NL team.

I thought the Dbacks' owners said they would be willing to switch leagues.

TDog
11-14-2011, 06:27 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned before in this thread (it's an old thread), but the DH would have to be uniform for all 30 teams because NL are built without it in mind and AL teams are built with it in mind (this has an impact on the number of pitchers a team carries).

You are right, but I am guessing there won't be any changes. The owners, particularly the NL owners, don't favor it because of its expense, and the union, even though most of its members currently play in the non-DH league, won't let the DH go without a fight. Any change would alienate a large segment of fans.

Houston pretty much would have to go into the AL West because it would be silly to have two Texas teams in the same league in different divisions. But divisions aren't solely about geography. The original NL West had two teams in the Eastern Time Zone and one in the Central, while the NL East had two teams in the Central Time Zone.

Zakath
11-14-2011, 07:34 PM
Houston pretty much would have to go into the AL West because it would be silly to have two Texas teams in the same league in different divisions. But divisions aren't solely about geography. The original NL West had two teams in the Eastern Time Zone and one in the Central, while the NL East had two teams in the Central Time Zone.

Apparently the MLB people and the NFL people went to the same high school with the same crappy geography teacher, who taught them that St. Louis was somehow east of Atlanta...

Daver
11-14-2011, 07:46 PM
I thought the Dbacks' owners said they would be willing to switch leagues.

At what percentage of the price they paid for a franchise in the first place?

TDog
11-14-2011, 07:57 PM
Apparently the MLB people and the NFL people went to the same high school with the same crappy geography teacher, who taught them that St. Louis was somehow east of Atlanta...

I don't know how they line up the divisions in the NFL, but baseball divisions have been more about rivalries than geography. They may have almost nothing to do with geography other than the fact that geography contributes to rivalries.

In the end, there are always things that don't make sense. White Sox management was upset about being stuck in the original AL West, with two 1969 expansion teams, a 1961 expansion team and two relocated franchises among the six members. When the Senators, the other 1961 expansion team, moved to Texas, and staying in the East seemed unreasonable, the best rival the best geographic rival the White Sox had fought with the Sox over which team would be granted the privilege of joining the AL East.

Tragg
11-14-2011, 09:56 PM
Makes no sense at all. There's no rivalry between the teams for a forced 6 game interleague series, so why would there be one for 18 games in the division?

Not to mention the loss of their real rivals. Plus, there's all the west coast night games, and the additional travel..

What real rivals do the Astros have?
I agree that the Rangers likely won't be much of a rivalry. But the Astros have none anyway so they aren't losing any. They'll play c. 10 more west coast games than they do now. Move makes sense for both leagues. Switching the D'Backs would have put 2 teams in on an island and exacerbated that problem (because the Astros would move to the NL west). This way, you have 2 teams on partial islands.

russ99
11-15-2011, 08:16 AM
What real rivals do the Astros have?
I agree that the Rangers likely won't be much of a rivalry. But the Astros have none anyway so they aren't losing any. They'll play c. 10 more west coast games than they do now. Move makes sense for both leagues. Switching the D'Backs would have put 2 teams in on an island and exacerbated that problem (because the Astros would move to the NL west). This way, you have 2 teams on partial islands.

The Cards are their rivals, especially considering that Houston was their AAA city for over 40 years before the Astros existed. To a lesser extent, they have a rivalry with the Reds, Cubs and Braves.

Moving them into the NL west would make much more sense, since the Dodgers and Padres are minor rivals, and they'd still keep their NL Central rivals on the schedule.

While a forced rivalry with the Rangers may end up being interesting, there is zero interest in the Angels, A's and Mariners.

Considering the Dbacks have much less NL history, I don't see why they shouldn't go to the AL. I guess the Astros' 50 years of NL baseball and being one of the top proponents of NL style speed, defense and pitching doesn't count for anything.

SoxThunder
11-15-2011, 01:46 PM
I don't see the urgency to move a team out of the NL Central. Having 6 teams there instead of 5 means it's harder for the Cubs to win their division...

Over By There
11-15-2011, 02:32 PM
I don't know how I missed this the first time around. Since Houston is the nearest MLB city to me, I wholeheartedly approve of this since I can very easily justify a few more Sox games a year.

But it seems like a financial bum deal for the Astros if they move to the AL West. The Cubs are a draw at the gate, and I'd imagine St. Louis travels well, too. Replace those teams with the A's and Mariners and you're probably losing revenue. I don't see the Rangers "rivalry" as offsetting all the dates with the Cubs and Cards. Then again, I guess you add some dates with the Yankees and Red Sox...

eriqjaffe
11-15-2011, 02:38 PM
But it seems like a financial bum deal for the Astros if they move to the AL West. The Cubs are a draw at the gate, and I'd imagine St. Louis travels well, too.Last year, at least, the Astros averaged 25519 at home. The average attendance when the Cubs were in town was 22102 and St. Louis averaged 23997.

Over By There
11-15-2011, 03:26 PM
Last year, at least, the Astros averaged 25519 at home. The average attendance when the Cubs were in town was 22102 and St. Louis averaged 23997.

Hmm, interesting. I guess it's not an issue. Maybe by adding the Yankees and Red Sox they'd actually do better.

russ99
11-15-2011, 03:47 PM
Hmm, interesting. I guess it's not an issue. Maybe by adding the Yankees and Red Sox they'd actually do better.

We all know what that entails - your home stadium flooded by annoying hanger-on fans of those two teams.

Again, it may help the gate, but alienate the fans even more.

Frankly it's a shock that the Astros have drawn that much considering the hatchet job that Ed Wade has done to the roster the last few years.

Over By There
11-15-2011, 04:37 PM
We all know what that entails - your home stadium flooded by annoying hanger-on fans of those two teams.

Again, it may help the gate, but alienate the fans even more. .

Don't disagree, but seems to me the owners don't care much, as long as the tickets are sold.

thomas35forever
11-16-2011, 02:43 PM
So does this mean one interleague match-up each time?

Hitmen77
11-16-2011, 07:01 PM
So does this mean one interleague match-up each time?

Do you mean (at least) one interleague match up each series throughout the year? Yes.

That will mean more I.L. games, but I'm sure they'll do away with having all the I.L. games clustered in the same few weeks in May/June.

thomas35forever
11-17-2011, 12:06 PM
It's official.
(http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7246443/houston-astros-sale-approved-mlb)

TheOldRoman
11-17-2011, 12:22 PM
Shame on baseball. A big **** you to the Astros after playing in the National League for 50 season. It is a realignment which had no reason whatsoever for happening other than the Rangers being mildly inconvinienced by playing divisional road games which ended at midnight. This will bring year-round interleague play, which will reportedly increase to 30 games per season. The extra wild card, or the Red Sox rule as it should be called, is equally ridiculous.

TommyGavinFloyd
11-17-2011, 12:55 PM
I think it's a great move. There's no reason for one division to have 6 teams while another division has 4. I love interleague play and now I will get it year round. It will also lead to a more balanced schedule for all teams in a division.

As for the 2 wild cards, it'd be another chance for the Sox to get into the playoffs. I can't hate that.

TDog
11-17-2011, 01:14 PM
Do you mean (at least) one interleague match up each series throughout the year? Yes.

That will mean more I.L. games, but I'm sure they'll do away with having all the I.L. games clustered in the same few weeks in May/June.

Of course, and I'm sure you have thought it out. If you have 30 teams in baseball with 15 teams in each league, you can only have 7 intraleague games played on at any given time. One team would not be able to play. Generally, every team is scheduled to play every Friday, Saturday and Sunday as well as every Tuesday and Wednesday.

This alone would present a challenge to schedule makers, but it could get more complicated. The two teams left out of the intraleague competition would have to play interleague games or have the day (days, as you are talking about three games) off. You would have to have one interleague series going on at any time. That would require Major League Baseball to have two interleague series each week. Some American League team would open the season against a National League team. Some National League team would close the season against an American League team.

The alternative would be to have one team from each league not playing every day that games are scheduled. If you wanted to build in time off for teams during the season, each league would have two such breaks a week. Over 15 weeks, each team in the league would have two breaks. To make this uniform across both leagues, you would have to extend the season to 30 weeks, giving each team four three-day breaks, five including the All-Star break.

The breaks could be used to make up postponements, but only if two teams both have time off. If the Red Sox and Indians are rained out, the Indians, one team would have to give up what they call a travel day between two series during one of the other team's breaks. Because baseball is built around the concept of the weekend and midweek series, the flexibility of ridding the majors of all those travel days would be limited.

You might be able to combine the two scheduling concepts, giving each team one or two three-day breaks in exchange for periods of exclusive intraleague play, but you wouldn't want one team opening the season late or ending it early. You especially wouldn't want a contender ending early. The baseball season is about teams sharing a common grind.

Or you could eliminate six teams, go back to two leagues with two six-team divisions, league championship series for the first-place teams and the World Series for the winners.

Fenway
11-17-2011, 01:16 PM
Apparently Anaheim, Oakland and Seattle will adjust some game times for the Astros for TV reasons.

With interleague now daily you can expect to see some same market Opening Day games on a rotation basis.

The wild card play-in game will be the hardest to adjust to.

TheOldRoman
11-17-2011, 01:30 PM
Apparently Anaheim, Oakland and Seattle will adjust some game times for the Astros for TV reasons.

With interleague now daily you can expect to see some same market Opening Day games on a rotation basis.

The wild card play-in game will be the hardest to adjust to.That's why it will only last 10 years tops before they are saying "it's not fair that they work the whole season and it comes down to 1 game, we should make it a best of five." History shows that timeline will be sped up if Minnesota happens to lose a play in game, particularly on the road. Then a few years down the road, teams will complain about having to wait around a week not playing, and the playoffs will add six more teams.

Fairness will be the guise, but it will be all about the owners adding games to increase revenue because they will lose revenue as playoff ratings continue to plummet. They will continue to hype up the Yankees and Red Sox for the entire year, as the new format was made to assure they both get into the playoffs every year. Baseball will then scratch their heads when fans don't want to watch the Rangers play the Diamondbacks in the World Series after being told all season those teams existed solely to be fodder for NYY and Boston.

DirtySox
11-17-2011, 01:33 PM
I really hope the Astros take this opportunity to rebrand a bit. The logo, colors, and uniforms are very uninspiring. They can't do worse than the Marlins right?

Lip Man 1
11-17-2011, 01:43 PM
Fox and ESPN will be very happy...the Yankees and Red Sox will now lock up 40% of the available A.L. playoff spots in perpetuity.

Lip

cub killer
11-17-2011, 01:46 PM
R.I.P. Bob Costas

russ99
11-17-2011, 01:52 PM
I really hope the Astros take this opportunity to rebrand a bit. The logo, colors, and uniforms are very uninspiring. They can't do worse than the Marlins right?

That's supposedly already on the table, as Crane has alluded to them going back to a navy/orange color scheme. I was hoping that would be put in effect for the 50th anniversary in 2012, but MLB requires all uniform changes be approved the summer before the season it would take effect, so the sale delay probably put that on hold.

Also, the long awaited kicking of GM Ed Wade to the curb. If Crane wants to get back in the fans' good graces after caving to Bud, that would be done ASAP.

Fenway
11-17-2011, 01:54 PM
There is no real soultion.

For ESPN (non Sunday) and TBS games they are blacked out in the home markets of the teams playing. Red Sox and NYY DO attract eyeballs in neutral markets and other teams do not. Many ESPN games attract lower numbers than poker - that is a fact.

The White Sox are a mystery to TV execs. They should have developed a national following being on WGN but they have not. The conventional wisdom is Hawk drives neutral fans away.

The Phillies have now reached the level of Boston and NYY.



That's why it will only last 10 years tops before they are saying "it's not fair that they work the whole season and it comes down to 1 game, we should make it a best of five." History shows that timeline will be sped up if Minnesota happens to lose a play in game, particularly on the road. Then a few years down the road, teams will complain about having to wait around a week not playing, and the playoffs will add six more teams.

Fairness will be the guise, but it will be all about the owners adding games to increase revenue because they will lose revenue as playoff ratings continue to plummet. They will continue to hype up the Yankees and Red Sox for the entire year, as the new format was made to assure they both get into the playoffs every year. Baseball will then scratch their heads when fans don't want to watch the Rangers play the Diamondbacks in the World Series after being told all season those teams existed solely to be fodder for NYY and Boston.

sox1970
11-17-2011, 01:55 PM
I really hope the Astros take this opportunity to rebrand a bit. The logo, colors, and uniforms are very uninspiring. They can't do worse than the Marlins right?

How about a team name change too? Blow it up.

PKalltheway
11-17-2011, 01:58 PM
The White Sox are a mystery to TV execs. They should have developed a national following being on WGN but they have not. The conventional wisdom is Hawk drives neutral fans away.


I'd say it has more to do with them being on WGN only 30 times a year. Hard to build something when they aren't on that much. Also, when they are on, it's usually on a Saturday night, when not that many people are at home anyway.

You put them on WGN for 81+ games, then we'll see more of a "national following," as you say.

TheOldRoman
11-17-2011, 01:59 PM
There is no real soultion.

For ESPN (non Sunday) and TBS games they are blacked out in the home markets of the teams playing. Red Sox and NYY DO attract eyeballs in neutral markets and other teams do not. Many ESPN games attract lower numbers than poker - that is a fact.

The White Sox are a mystery to TV execs. They should have developed a national following being on WGN but they have not. The conventional wisdom is Hawk drives neutral fans away.

The Phillies have now reached the level of Boston and NYY.They should do what the NFL does. They market all of their teams, not just huge market teams (otherwise the Packers wouldn't exist). Baseball could force the networks to air certain teams or greatly limit how many times they can air the Yankees and Red Sox. Just look at the horse **** Monday Night Football schedule ESPN has put out the last few years. The NFL has a hand in which teams are featured.

Tragg
11-17-2011, 04:29 PM
The Cards are their rivals, especially considering that Houston was their AAA city for over 40 years before the Astros existed. To a lesser extent, they have a rivalry with the Reds, Cubs and Braves.

Moving them into the NL west would make much more sense, since the Dodgers and Padres are minor rivals, and they'd still keep their NL Central rivals on the schedule.

While a forced rivalry with the Rangers may end up being interesting, there is zero interest in the Angels, A's and Mariners.

Considering the Dbacks have much less NL history, I don't see why they shouldn't go to the AL. I guess the Astros' 50 years of NL baseball and being one of the top proponents of NL style speed, defense and pitching doesn't count for anything.
Because shifting the Diamondbacks wouldn't have solved the problem of having one central time team isolated with a bunch of west coach teams...it would have made it worse.

Zakath
11-17-2011, 07:44 PM
Do you mean (at least) one interleague match up each series throughout the year? Yes.

That will mean more I.L. games, but I'm sure they'll do away with having all the I.L. games clustered in the same few weeks in May/June.

Right now, there are 252 interleague games a year (each AL team plays 18). If they keep it at 18 for each team, it goes up to 270.

If each series is 3 games, that's 90 series that have to be played. The season is roughly 50 sets of series (mostly 3-game series, but 4's here and there), so sometime during the season you might see a weekend or three with all interleague games.

Nellie_Fox
11-18-2011, 12:07 AM
How about a team name change too? Blow it up.How about the Houston Colt .45's?

http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/images/nl_1964_houston.gif

thomas35forever
11-18-2011, 01:04 AM
How about the Houston Colt .45's?

http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/images/nl_1964_houston.gif
The PC crowd would never allow a pistol on an MLB uniform.

cub killer
11-18-2011, 01:26 AM
Yeah, the Washington Bullets changed to the Wizards because of the PC crowd. "Bullets" apparently is a bad word :rolleyes:

And now they're making a stink over the London Rippers :rolleyes::rolleyes:

BleacherBandit
11-18-2011, 01:27 AM
The PC crowd would never allow a pistol on an MLB uniform.

Yeah, but you could keep the name. My favorite in sports history, being a firearm enthusiast. :redneck

BleacherBandit
11-18-2011, 01:29 AM
Yeah, the Washington Bullets changed to the Wizards because of the PC crowd. "Bullets" apparently is a bad word :rolleyes:

And now they're making a stink over the London Rippers :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I thought the contention over the Bullets was due to the high crime-rate in D.C.

You don't want a sports team that somehow reminds the nation of one of your city's faults. Then again (speaking of irony), what explains the Atlanta Flames? Or the Chicago Fire?

Fenway
11-18-2011, 01:43 AM
They should do what the NFL does. They market all of their teams, not just huge market teams (otherwise the Packers wouldn't exist). Baseball could force the networks to air certain teams or greatly limit how many times they can air the Yankees and Red Sox. Just look at the horse **** Monday Night Football schedule ESPN has put out the last few years. The NFL has a hand in which teams are featured.

Keep in mind the NFL has only 10% of a schedule inventory compared to MLB.

What is forgotten is that since ESPN has to send a backup game to the markets where a home team in is involved - a viewer in Chicago may see Red Sox, NY or Philly more often. Conversely I might have a Cubs or White Sox game being fed into New England.

The biggest hurdle teams in the Central Time Zone face is the slotting for TV.
ESPN is geared for 7 and 10 PM starts in the east -the teams in the CDT zones get screwed.

cub killer
11-18-2011, 01:57 AM
I thought the contention over the Bullets was due to the high crime-rate in D.C.

You don't want a sports team that somehow reminds the nation of one of your city's faults. Then again (speaking of irony), what explains the Atlanta Flames? Or the Chicago Fire?

Ironic indeed. It just shows that PC is BS.

The Bullets' owners should've just said that they represent bullets used in self defense or wildlife population control. Or collectors' bullets that will never be used. Bullets do not have to symbolize crime. At all.

Oh well, and now they've been stuck with that cheesy "wizards" monicker. It sucks, IMO.

Zakath
11-18-2011, 03:52 AM
Yeah, the Washington Bullets changed to the Wizards because of the PC crowd. "Bullets" apparently is a bad word :rolleyes:


The joke at the time was that the name Washington Bullets was so offensive, that they were going to clean it up and just call them The Bullets. :redneck

Hitmen77
11-18-2011, 07:44 AM
The PC crowd would never allow a pistol on an MLB uniform.

Maybe they can name the team after Colt 45 malt liquor.:tongue:

I thought of the original problem with the Colt .45 name was a copyright issue with the gun manufacturer.

russ99
11-18-2011, 08:44 AM
Maybe they can name the team after Colt 45 malt liquor.:tongue:

I thought of the original problem with the Colt .45 name was a copyright issue with the gun manufacturer.

As far as I can find, they changed the name to the Astros when the Astrodome was opened, and not due to any copyright issues.

And yes, I have a .45's hat. :tongue: They became more visible when Billy Bob Thornton wore one everywhere back in the 90s.

TommyJohn
11-18-2011, 08:59 AM
Yeah, the Washington Bullets changed to the Wizards because of the PC crowd. "Bullets" apparently is a bad word :rolleyes:

And now they're making a stink over the London Rippers :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well, I can see having a problem over the London Rippers. I mean, that's like a team naming itself the Los Angeles Mansons or the Chicago Specks.

TheOldRoman
11-18-2011, 09:18 AM
Yeah, the Washington Bullets changed to the Wizards because of the PC crowd. "Bullets" apparently is a bad word :rolleyes:

And now they're making a stink over the London Rippers :rolleyes::rolleyes:Not true. There might have been an outcry from certain groups to remove the name, but the owner Abe Polin decided it on his own. He was close friends with Isreali Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and he decided to drop the name after Rabin was assassinated. The current owner of the Wizards preferred the Bullets name and considered changing it back when they rebranded this offseason, but he decided to keep the name out of respect for Polin.

But about the Rippers, it is silly because tragedies lose their impact over time. If a team was given a name that made fun of Hurricane Katrina, people would be outraged because it was so recent and we saw the pictures on TV. If someone were to call a team the Black Plague, nobody would give a crap, even though that killed many more people. As gruesome as Jack the Ripper's acts were, London is almost whimsical about them. 200 years from now, someone on a sitcom could probably make a joke about 9/11 without getting any backlash.

asindc
11-18-2011, 09:44 AM
Yeah, the Washington Bullets changed to the Wizards because of the PC crowd. "Bullets" apparently is a bad word :rolleyes:

And now they're making a stink over the London Rippers :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Not true. There might have been an outcry from certain groups to remove the name, but the owner Abe Polin decided it on his own. He was close friends with Isreali Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and he decided to drop the name after Rabin was assassinated. The current owner of the Wizards preferred the Bullets name and considered changing it back when they rebranded this offseason, but he decided to keep the name out of respect for Polin.

But about the Rippers, it is silly because tragedies lose their impact over time. If a team was given a name that made fun of Hurricane Katrina, people would be outraged because it was so recent and we saw the pictures on TV. If someone were to call a team the Black Plague, nobody would give a crap, even though that killed many more people. As gruesome as Jack the Ripper's acts were, London is almost whimsical about them. 200 years from now, someone on a sitcom could probably make a joke about 9/11 without getting any backlash.

Definitely not true. In fact, there was no outcry from anyone. More to the point, most people were bewildered that Pollin felt so strongly about it. The name "Wizards" was never popular here from the start, and if they went back to the name Bullets, I can't see anyone around here objecting, except out of deference to Mr. Pollin.

asindc
11-18-2011, 09:45 AM
Well, I can see having a problem over the London Rippers. I mean, that's like a team naming itself the Los Angeles Mansons or the Chicago Specks.

How about the Chicago Gacys?

TommyJohn
11-18-2011, 10:10 AM
How about the Chicago Gacys?

They would have a rivalry with the Chicago Specks.

g0g0
11-18-2011, 10:26 AM
Like the Astro's move to the AL (well, someone had to go to even things up and I think the Brewers are happy in the NL after switching), but don't like the 1-game playoff. I think TheOldRoman is right that it will come down to money and eventually turn into another series ala the NBA's first round expanding. The hard part is to get people to buy into the extra game, but once that's done, then they can expand it a lot easier.

cub killer
11-19-2011, 01:45 AM
Well, I can see having a problem over the London Rippers. I mean, that's like a team naming itself the Los Angeles Mansons or the Chicago Specks.


But about the Rippers, it is silly because tragedies lose their impact over time. If a team was given a name that made fun of Hurricane Katrina, people would be outraged because it was so recent and we saw the pictures on TV. If someone were to call a team the Black Plague, nobody would give a crap, even though that killed many more people. As gruesome as Jack the Ripper's acts were, London is almost whimsical about them. 200 years from now, someone on a sitcom could probably make a joke about 9/11 without getting any backlash.
Well, there's your answer. Manson and Speck happened too recently. So those examples are not comparable. I doubt there's anyone in London, ON who's been directly affected by Jack the Ripper.

I like it when minor league teams get whimsical like that. Like Ted Williams popsicle night. Or names like Louisville Bats or Nashville Sounds or Joliet Slammers. Maybe if it were a MLB team, then it'd be controversial. But for a MiLB team? Why not, it's all good.

ComiskeyBrewer
11-19-2011, 01:49 AM
They would have a rivalry with the Chicago Specks.

The Milwaukee Dahmers would eat them both alive.

WSox597
11-19-2011, 07:20 AM
The PC crowd would never allow a pistol on an MLB uniform.

Yep, the sheep get scared even at pictures of guns. How sad is that, being frightened of a picture?

I'm also a firearms enthusiast, so that would be a cool uniform for me, too.

TommyJohn
11-19-2011, 09:33 AM
The Milwaukee Dahmers would eat them both alive.

Don't count out the Boston Stranglers.