PDA

View Full Version : Gammons: Tampa Bay wants to move to AL Central


Fenway
12-17-2005, 10:57 AM
On WEEI this morning Gammons was doing his usual blather but my ears perked up on this one.

The new ownership in Tampa Bay wants out of the AL East fearing they may never be able to compete with the big boys. Previous owner Vince Naimoli thought by being in the same division as Boston, New York and Baltimore the team would draw three million a year but of course that didn't happen.

Tampa Bay would like to move to the Central and Gammons cites that the west coast of Florida is home to many transplants from Ohio and Michigan but the problem is who to move to the East OR do you make the East a 4 team division and then move Kansas City to the west to make that a 5 team division.

Gammons was asked if anybody in the Central would want to move to the East and he said "possibly Chicago" as the White Sox are the only team that has a revenue stream to compete.

He said this issue came up a couple of years ago but Selig despised Naimoli and has worked very hard to force him out. Now with new owners Selig is willing to work on the problem. Tampa Bay is staying as they have an ironclad lease that has 22 more years to run.

Gammons "thinks" moving Kansas City to the west is more likely as then if the East is a 4 team division the other teams in the AL would pick up more home games with both New York and Boston.

nodiggity59
12-17-2005, 11:05 AM
I remember there was a big thread on this last year, based off something Gammons said IIRC....

I'd be for it. Being in the East would only increase revenue and, therefore, make us a stronger team. Division wins would certainly be harder to come by, but the bottom line is we'd have more resources to offset that problem. I like KW's chances.

akingamongstmen
12-17-2005, 11:20 AM
I'm pretty sure the folks in Kansas City would be opposed to that move, but I could be wrong.

Tampa needs to stop whining. If they don't have the revenue to spend with the big boys, then they have to learn to spend wisely and focus on scouting young players.

itsnotrequired
12-17-2005, 11:29 AM
I don't like the move (Sox to the AL East). The divisional creation in 1969 destroyed the rivalries with "local" teams Detroit and Cleveland. The re-alignment in 1994 brought those rivalries back. The rivalry would be blown up yet again and all to accomidate Tampa Bay? Pass.

It would be interesting to see the Baltimore/Boston/New York rivalries return but not at the expense of the "local" Detroit and Cleveland rivalries.

Tragg
12-17-2005, 11:30 AM
Moving someone to the west makes sense, however, to give Texas a travel zone partner. They are the ones who've really been screwed all these years.
Maybe even better than that would be to move either Arizona or Colorado to the AL, to even things out.

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of divisions and take the top 4 teams in each league.

TheOldRoman
12-17-2005, 12:13 PM
Moving someone to the west makes sense, however, to give Texas a travel zone partner. They are the ones who've really been screwed all these years.
Maybe even better than that would be to move either Arizona or Colorado to the AL, to even things out.

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of divisions and take the top 4 teams in each league.
Wow. I never thought about that, but Texas gets copletely screwed. Every one of their division rivals is two timezones away. I hate waiting for 9 to watch Sox games during our few series on the west coast, I can't imagine doing it 3 or 4 times as much. BTW, Texas is in the central timezone for anyone who didn't know.

As for the East, I still don't want to move there. Yes, we would have won the east last year, but it is still very very hard to win there. I don't want to have any 96 win seasons and finish in third place. Boston and NY are going to suck next year, but they have a lot more money than us and they will always compete. I would rather pound on the central all year, and beat the east in the playoffs.

Steelrod
12-17-2005, 12:33 PM
The only way this could work would be North, Central, and South. We would have New York, Boston, Detroit, and Minnesota. Works for me. You can't have us East, with Cleveland, and Detroit being central, and 250-400 miles east of us!

buehrle4cy05
12-17-2005, 12:52 PM
I would rather keep the divisions they way they are now than turn them into the old NFL divisions.:o:

samram
12-17-2005, 01:25 PM
MLB wouldn't want the Sox in the East either as that would guarantee that one of Boston, NY, or Chicago wouldn't make the playoffs. This year MLB got the four teams it probably wanted in the AL playoffs.

Fenway
12-17-2005, 01:34 PM
MLB wouldn't want the Sox in the East either as that would guarantee that one of Boston, NY, or Chicago wouldn't make the playoffs. This year MLB got the four teams it probably wanted in the AL playoffs.

I sure don't want the Sox in the East either :smile:

Daver
12-17-2005, 01:43 PM
Well, if you really want to take rivalries into consideration, the Yankees- White Sox was one of the best rivalries in the league through the fifties and early sixties.

itsnotrequired
12-17-2005, 01:52 PM
Well, if you really want to take rivalries into consideration, the Yankees- White Sox was one of the best rivalries in the league through the fifties and early sixties.

That's what I was getting at. Hell, even the sheer number of games the two teams have played is impressive. After the Twins (and Senators), Athletics, Indians and Tigers, the next team the Sox have faced the most is the Yankees with 1852 meetings. Boston is next with 1848 followed with Baltimore at 1836.

Interesting to note that the next closest team is the Angles with a mere 634 meetings, roughly three times less than Baltimore.

bigfoot
12-17-2005, 01:54 PM
On WEEI this morning Gammons was doing his usual blather but my ears perked up on this one.

The new ownership in Tampa Bay wants out of the AL East fearing they may never be able to compete with the big boys. Previous owner Vince Naimoli thought by being in the same division as Boston, New York and Baltimore the team would draw three million a year but of course that didn't happen.

Tampa Bay would like to move to the Central and Gammons cites that the west coast of Florida is home to many transplants from Ohio and Michigan but the problem is who to move to the East OR do you make the East a 4 team division and then move Kansas City to the west to make that a 5 team division.

Gammons was asked if anybody in the Central would want to move to the East and he said "possibly Chicago" as the White Sox are the only team that has a revenue stream to compete.

He said this issue came up a couple of years ago but Selig despised Naimoli and has worked very hard to force him out. Now with new owners Selig is willing to work on the problem. Tampa Bay is staying as they have an ironclad lease that has 22 more years to run.

Gammons "thinks" moving Kansas City to the west is more likely as then if the East is a 4 team division the other teams in the AL would pick up more home games with both New York and Boston.


Since when did the Sox command a revenue stream to compete with the Yanks/RedCubs?

Perhaps Gammons/Selig can come up with a formula
incorporating the various teams into a number of divisions based solely upon income streams.

The "Have Nots", "Have Some", "Have A Lots" and "Got It Alls" in AL and NL.

The playoff criteria would bring a tear to the eye. The ASG/WS home field advantage road apple would pale in comparison.

Put this in teal, but the tongue is sticking out, not in cheek.

Daver
12-17-2005, 02:02 PM
I think the 2005 White Sox proved you can win with a payroll under 200 million, the Sox would benefit from being in the east because you generate more revenue at the gate by playing the Yankees as opposed to playing the Royals 18 times a year.

HomeFish
12-17-2005, 02:06 PM
I think the 2005 White Sox proved you can win with a payroll under 200 million, the Sox would benefit from being in the east because you generate more revenue at the gate by playing the Yankees as opposed to playing the Royals 18 times a year.

That's exactly what Tampa Bay thought. Now they want out.

itsnotrequired
12-17-2005, 02:09 PM
That's exactly what Tampa Bay thought. Now they want out.

True but people actually want to watch the Sox. Goofy Tampa Bay has never even finished above .500.

bigfoot
12-17-2005, 02:12 PM
I think the 2005 White Sox proved you can win with a payroll under 200 million, the Sox would benefit from being in the east because you generate more revenue at the gate by playing the Yankees as opposed to playing the Royals 18 times a year.

Can't argue with that. It would make those road trips a bit more expensive, though. You have enough room fenway?:rolleyes:

Fenway
12-17-2005, 02:18 PM
Can't argue with that. It would make those road trips a bit more expensive, though. You have enough room fenway?:rolleyes:

oh sure and the Red Sox are being very creative to put in more seats




In recent months they've completed purchases of a taxi garage, a radio station headquarters, a McDonald's restaurant, and a nightclub.
One goal is to move offices out of cramped Fenway Park to allow for construction of additional seating. By next year, capacity will be near 40,000, up 10 percent since the current owners bought the team in 2002.


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/17/red_sox_making_deals____for_property_around_fenway _park/

dickallen15
12-17-2005, 02:23 PM
That's exactly what Tampa Bay thought. Now they want out.

What's TB going to draw for Detroit, KC, Cleveland, Minnesota and the White Sox? A ton less than they draw for the Yankees and Boston. They may win a few more games playing the Central, but there attendance would drop. I guarantee it. Besides, the scenerio moving KC to the west to make room for TB is stupid. KC would play too many games 2 time zones away from their home time zone. Why move TB out of a division with every team in the same time zone? How about MLB telling TB to quit complaining about their division and throw some money into their team, and actually try to compete? How can you complain when you have 18 or 19 home games a year against the Yankees and Red Sox? If you can't sell those tickets, you won't be able to sell the AL Central.

Fenway
12-17-2005, 02:31 PM
How can you complain when you have 18 or 19 home games a year against the Yankees and Red Sox? If you can't sell those tickets, you won't be able to sell the AL Central.

Interesting slogan but to rebuild means you had SOMETHING to begin with

http://tampabay.devilrays.mlb.com/images/masthead/tb_logobanner_primary.jpg

They have lowered ticket prices a little
http://tampabay.devilrays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tb/ballpark/seating_pricing.jsp

FloridaSox
12-17-2005, 02:38 PM
I think the 2005 White Sox proved you can win with a payroll under 200 million, the Sox would benefit from being in the east because you generate more revenue at the gate by playing the Yankees as opposed to playing the Royals 18 times a year.

We won the Central Division last year because we dominated the AL Central with a 52-22 record. We were 20-13 against the AL East and 15-22 against AL West. Do we want to leave the division that makes almost one-half of our schedule and which we dominate to slug it out with Boston, NY and an improving Toronto for 54-56 games a year? I don't.

JorgeFabregas
12-17-2005, 03:16 PM
As the divisions and Tampa are presently constituded, I don't think they'd do better in the Central. Their record was slightly better against the East last year than against the Central and the overall record of the Central vs. the East had something like a 89-83 advantage for the Central. They are pretty comparable divisions, despite the spending disparity. Besides, it would be bad for baseball to have two and a half of baseball's worst organizations (KC, Tampa, Detroit) in a single division. The only way it would be easier for Tampa is by making the AL Central worse by removing the White Sox.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-17-2005, 03:52 PM
I think the 2005 White Sox proved you can win with a payroll under 200 million, the Sox would benefit from being in the east because you generate more revenue at the gate by playing the Yankees as opposed to playing the Royals 18 times a year.

Ditto Boston replacing Detroit or Minnesota.

Contract Florida and Kansas City.

AL East
Baltimore
Boston
Cleveland
Detroit
New York
Tampa Bay
Toronto

AL West
Anaheim
Chicago
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Oakland
Seattle
Texas

NL East
Atlanta
Chicago
Cincinnati
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

NL West
Arizona
Colorado
Houston
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
St. Louis

If you have to have a silly (but profitable) wild card round either pit #1 vs. #2 in the division in a best of seven or #1 vs. the other division's #2. Scrap the interleague nonsense. Return the balanced schedule (13 games vs. your division and 12 vs. the other) and lets return to sanity.

The two major changes to this format:

A. Milwaukee - returns to the AL. What revenue they lose not playing the Cubs is made up for with games against Minnesota, White Sox, New York and Boston.

B. Splitting the Cubs and St. Louis. With the balanced schedule, they still face each other 12 times. They haven't finished 1-2 in a pennant / divisional race since World War II.


The White Sox were in the AL West longer than they played Cleveland / Detroit in the current format and it would be great to be able to travel up to Milwaukee again for some classice White Sox vs. Brewer tilts.

SOXSINCE'70
12-17-2005, 04:29 PM
If they don't have the revenue to spend with the big boys, then they have to learn to spend wisely and focus on scouting young players.

Exactly;if you can't stand the heat,get the hell out of the kitchen,
crap or get off the pot,or a million other cliches out there.:cool:

HotelWhiteSox
12-17-2005, 04:50 PM
I still like getting rid of divisions all together.

-Keep the 2 leagues separate/ No interleague.
-Play every one in the league twice, top 4 make it in the playoffs.

Selig doesn't understand that those who aren't fans of either Boston or NY don't care how many times they play each either, but he probably makes a nice dollar off of it.

getonbckthr
12-17-2005, 04:59 PM
Moving someone to the west makes sense, however, to give Texas a travel zone partner. They are the ones who've really been screwed all these years.
Maybe even better than that would be to move either Arizona or Colorado to the AL, to even things out.

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of divisions and take the top 4 teams in each league.
You can't even the league's out unless you have interleague play throughout the season. If you have two league's of 15 with the current interleague rules that would mean 1 AL and 1 NL team would have 3 days off in a row, you can't do that!

getonbckthr
12-17-2005, 05:03 PM
I still like getting rid of divisions all together.

-Keep the 2 leagues separate/ No interleague.
-Play every one in the league twice, top 4 make it in the playoffs.

Selig doesn't understand that those who aren't fans of either Boston or NY don't care how many times they play each either, but he probably makes a nice dollar off of it.
Cause of rivalries this would be a bad idea. I would rather play Cleveland Minnesota 19 times opposed to as many times as we would play Toronto and Tampa. We would lose meaning to rivalries like Bos/NYY, SF/LAD, SOX/MIN, CUBS/STL. These rivalries generate alot of money especially for teams like the Sox and Twins.

RKMeibalane
12-17-2005, 08:25 PM
That's exactly what Tampa Bay thought. Now they want out.

Tampa's organization is a joke. There's a reason why they can't compete with New York or Boston, and it's not money-related.

RKMeibalane
12-17-2005, 08:28 PM
True but people actually want to watch the Sox. Goofy Tampa Bay has never even finished above .500.

And they never will. I expect Tampa to be contracted by the time the 2010 season begins. Even as stupid as he is, I can't imagine that Selig is going to sit by and allow them to continue floundering in mediocrity for the next four seasons. Their management just doesn't care about winning.

TDog
12-17-2005, 09:40 PM
In 1969, the Sox were upset about going to the AL West because the division had two expansion teams and one of the two expansion teams from the beginning of the decade. The other teams in their division were the relocated Washington Senators and relocated Phil/KC A's. Sox management didn't care about the competition, but the fact that all the traditional rivals were in the other division and would only be coming in for six games a year. In those days it was a bigger issue because visiting teams got a cut of the road gate. The way they divide up the revenues now, road attendance isn't as important.

When the second Senators team moved to Texas a couple of years later, the league realigned and Milwaukee won the fight with the Sox to get into the eastern division. It still had nothing to do with competition, but the 1972 White Sox would had the AL's second best (MLB's third best) record and didn't go to the postseason. The story at the time was it was easier to schedule the Cubs and Sox to play at different times if they were in different divisions. I didn't understand that logic, just as I didn't understand why the Cubs and Cards were in the NL East while the Reds and Braves were in the NL West.

Let Tampa Bay whine about being in a tough division, but the Sox are staying in the Central. It is Detroit and Cleveland who were moved from the East to populate the Central. Detroit since even won a World Series out of the East since Steinbrenner has had the Yankees.

soxfanatlanta
12-17-2005, 09:47 PM
Ditto Boston replacing Detroit or Minnesota.

Contract Florida and Kansas City.

AL East
Baltimore
Boston
Cleveland
Detroit
New York
Tampa Bay
Toronto

AL West
Anaheim
Chicago
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Oakland
Seattle
Texas

NL East
Atlanta
Chicago
Cincinnati
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

NL West
Arizona
Colorado
Houston
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
St. Louis


Interesting idea, but I think you are missing something. Although putting bodies in seats is a good source of money, is it not TV revenue that really fills the coffers? Take away G.S.'s Yes network, and watch the Yankee's payroll drop faster than Contreras' forkball.

How many time have you looked at the TV schadule and wished you were part vampire, so you could watch the Sox play the Angels, or A's? As a 36 year old who has to get up a good-god-what-the-hell-am-I-doing o'clock in the morning, that is not an option. Being on the Eastern time zone, well...

What kind of revenue hit would JR take with that divisional alignment?

As for contracting KC, I disagree. Change the business side of baseball, and small market teams could not only do well, but win it all - just ask Green Bay. There are so many threads on this one, I will not get into it. Pie in the sky? Perhaps. But as long as baseball, the business continues with their model, most small teams will constantly be on the outside looking in.

But that's baseball.


Ok, enough. I'll get off this thingy.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:u9DSTr1R0ZoJ:images.amazon.com/images/P/B0006M5142.01-A3CDPEGSIQM61V._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

TommyJohn
12-17-2005, 10:58 PM
In 1969, the Sox were upset about going to the AL West because the division had two expansion teams and one of the two expansion teams from the beginning of the decade. The other teams in their division were the relocated Washington Senators and relocated Phil/KC A's. Sox management didn't care about the competition, but the fact that all the traditional rivals were in the other division and would only be coming in for six games a year. In those days it was a bigger issue because visiting teams got a cut of the road gate. The way they divide up the revenues now, road attendance isn't as important.

When the second Senators team moved to Texas a couple of years later, the league realigned and Milwaukee won the fight with the Sox to get into the eastern division. It still had nothing to do with competition, but the 1972 White Sox would had the AL's second best (MLB's third best) record and didn't go to the postseason. The story at the time was it was easier to schedule the Cubs and Sox to play at different times if they were in different divisions. I didn't understand that logic, just as I didn't understand why the Cubs and Cards were in the NL East while the Reds and Braves were in the NL West.

Let Tampa Bay whine about being in a tough division, but the Sox are staying in the Central. It is Detroit and Cleveland who were moved from the East to populate the Central. Detroit since even won a World Series out of the East since Steinbrenner has had the Yankees.


John Heylar in "Lords of the Realm" explains the Cubs-Cardinals in the NL
East thing. In 1969, the Cubs and Cards were going to go to the NL West,
and the Braves and Reds to the East. However, the Mets howled loud and
long over this arrangement. The Dodgers and Giants came to New York
9 times each, and still had huge followings in New York and were big draws.
With the 18-12 schedule imbalance in place for 1969, the Mets would lose
games and revenue because their two biggest draws would play fewer games
a year in NY. So the NL tossed them two other "traditional" rivals, the Cubs
and Cardinals, who I guess also drew well in New York, or least had that
potential. They shifted the Reds and Braves to the West, which made no
sense at all, especially in the case of the Braves.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-17-2005, 11:31 PM
What kind of revenue hit would JR take with that divisional alignment?

None - he may even increase ticket revenue. With the return of the balanced schedule we would remove the 18 games against the KCs, Detroit and the Twins. You play every team either 12 (other division) or 13 (intra division) times. For the loss of interleague (read 3 cub games) games you add a second series against the Yankees and Red Sox. You drop an extra Royals and Tigers homestand.

Not only is the balanced schedule better for business it is also better for competition. Currently teams play interleague games based on supposed rivalries. The Mets play New York, the Cubs the White Sox and St. Louis lucks out against the Royals. Teams fighting for the division or League playoffs should have the same schedule. The current set up is a joke and since this is MLB run by Bud Selig, I expect it to continue or even get worse down the road.

Changes from 2006 to new balanced schedule (home games)

Additions:

Milwaukee - 6/7 more home games
Yankees - 3 more home games
Boston - 3 more home games
Toronto - 3 more home games
Anaheim - 3 more home games
Oakland - 3 more home games
Baltimore - 2 more home games
Tampa - 3 more home games

Same schedule:
Seattle
Texas
(Oakland & Anaheim have the 2 home series vs. the White Sox this season - we currently alternate 2 home / 1 road & 2 road / 1 home vs. the 4 AL West teams)

Games / Teams dropped:
Cleveland - 4 less home games
Kansas City - 9 less home games (Contracted)
Minnesota - 2 or 3 less home games
Cubs - 3 less home games (Amen)
Detroit - 3 less home games
6 additional interleague home games - scrapped.

The White Sox would lose the 3 cub sellouts. Then again we would gain 6 games against New York and Boston which I think we would come out ahead. We also wouldn't have to fix Minnie Minoso's statute. We also lose an extra home series against Detroit, Cleveland and Minnesota and 3 series against KC. I like the balanced schedule if there are wild cards and the two divisional format is superior to the 3 division format where in some instances you have to only beat out two or three teams to make the playoffs (with the wild card). Maybe have a best of 3 series Monday (or Tuesday) through Thursday between the 2nd and 3rd place teams with the division winner getting a bye (giving the title added importantance). This way more teams are involved through September, baseball gets an additional playoff revenue round and the winner of the division gets an advantage. The White Sox were off 3 days between the ALDS and ALCS and 5 days off between the ALCS and World Series and they seemed to manage.

Wild Card round - Tuesday through Thursday / Friday (#2 vs. #3 in each division)

Division Series - Wild Card winner vs. Division winner starting Saturday.

League Championship series - Divisional winners.

I'd personally prefer just a League Championship series but sports always expand the playoffs vs. contracting playoffs for money. Since this is the case, I rather see the season take on additional importance and I think the division winner should get a bye / advantage. Currently they earn 1 possible additional home game in the first series. Big deal. Let the Wild Cards battle it out and use up their pitchers before facing the division winners who deserve an advantage. Now division races are cheapened - Boston and New York played for seeding the final weekend (and an additional home game). I would like a return to the time when we had division races which meant something. Being a wild card would be a disadvantage in this setup. Currently, they have equal footing with the division winners.

SoxSpeed22
12-18-2005, 12:45 AM
The one I came up with a year ago was adding 2 more teams. So there would be 8 divisions of 4. A north, south east and west, like so:
AL North
Chicago
Detroit
Cleveland
Minnesota

East
Toronto
Baltimore
Boston
New York

South
Tampa Bay
Texas
Kansas City
(Tennessee or Carolina)

West
LAA
Oakland
Seattle
Las Vegas/ Portland (wherever the Marlins end up)

NL North
St. Louis
Chicago
Milwaukee
Cincinnati

East
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
New York

South
Atlanta
Houston
Arizona
(Tennessee/ Carolina)

West
Colorado
San Diego
San Francisco
Los Angeles

The playoffs would be similar to the NFL, in order to make the regular-season games actually mean something.
The first round is best of 3, with 3-6 playing each other.
The divisions are best of 5, with 2 playing the highest seed and 1 playing the lowest.
The Championship Series is best of 7. To make sure that the playoffs don't have an NBA-like drag, the regular season gets reduced to 154 games. The first round is played Thursday-Sunday. The second round is Tuesday-Sunday and the CS is Tuesday-next Wednesday. The World Series goes from Saturday-next Sunday. Overall, the playoffs would start the last week of September and end the third week of October.

lostletters
12-18-2005, 02:48 AM
Ditto Boston replacing Detroit or Minnesota.

Contract Florida and Kansas City.

AL East
Baltimore
Boston
Cleveland
Detroit
New York
Tampa Bay
Toronto

AL West
Anaheim
Chicago
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Oakland
Seattle
Texas

NL East
Atlanta
Chicago
Cincinnati
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

NL West
Arizona
Colorado
Houston
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
St. Louis

If you have to have a silly (but profitable) wild card round either pit #1 vs. #2 in the division in a best of seven or #1 vs. the other division's #2. Scrap the interleague nonsense. Return the balanced schedule (13 games vs. your division and 12 vs. the other) and lets return to sanity.

The two major changes to this format:

A. Milwaukee - returns to the AL. What revenue they lose not playing the Cubs is made up for with games against Minnesota, White Sox, New York and Boston.

B. Splitting the Cubs and St. Louis. With the balanced schedule, they still face each other 12 times. They haven't finished 1-2 in a pennant / divisional race since World War II.


The White Sox were in the AL West longer than they played Cleveland / Detroit in the current format and it would be great to be able to travel up to Milwaukee again for some classice White Sox vs. Brewer tilts.

I have a problem with this. I do not think the Sox EVER belonged in the AL West. The Sox are geographically closer to the East Coast plain and simple. If it EVER went back to AL West/AL East, the Sox should be in the AL East. Geographically, it makes sense.

That is why I like the current system. It keeps the teams playing the most games in regions geographically close to them. My one problem is the fact the AL West NEEDS a fifth team. In fact if anything I propose moving the Marlins into the AL when they move. And re-alligning the NL. There is nothing wrong with three divisions and a wild card, I think it has worked very well so far. But I think each league needs parody in terms of the number of teams. I think the Portland Marlins (sorry, I do not think there will ever be a team in Las Vegas) in the AL West would probably fix this problem, and moving the Pirates into the NL East.

monkeypants
12-18-2005, 03:04 AM
I think the 2005 White Sox proved you can win with a payroll under 200 million, the Sox would benefit from being in the east because you generate more revenue at the gate by playing the Yankees as opposed to playing the Royals 18 times a year.

As an owner I'm certain that those are the numbers they are looking at.

As a fan, the only numbers I'm looking at are how many division, league and world championships the Sox have. By playing a large portion of our games in the AL East, I don't think we'd see the numbers that I'm concerned about being as high as if we continued to play in the Central. Count me in for staying where we are. But I'd still like to have the Brewers in our division.

MHOUSE
12-18-2005, 04:00 AM
I wouldn't mind having the 'Rays play in the AL Central. I think they would certainly be more competitive than the Royals have been and (as long as it wasn't at our expense) they might be able to compete for a division championship in the coming seasons. Having four teams in the East makes a lot more sense then only four in the west. It doesn't seem like anyone can break the Yankees-Red Sox hold on that division without breaking the bank. The Devil Rays never will anyhow.

Professor
12-18-2005, 09:25 AM
If/when the Marlins move out west, the simplest solution would be to put TB in the NL East. The *Marlins* or *One Armed Bandits* or whatever they will be called will force some realignment. But moving Chicago to the East is a bad idea. And though I find some of the ideas on this thread entertaining, they are like proposing trades for A-Rod and Randy Johnson for a bag of doughnuts; i.e., the division format is not going away. At some point MLB will need to allow tradition to settle in. There has been a lot of tinkering and the nostalgia for 'olden days' is largely a result of the fact that the league can't sit still. If they'd stop and let the rivalries ferment more, it will get even better.

VenturaSoxFan23
12-18-2005, 01:21 PM
I've read an interesting SI article many years ago that said with the way baseball is structured (the haves and have-nots), they should run divisions based on the previous year's standings; much like English soccer does their leagues. (Some of you who follow the sport may have a better grasp of it than I do, but it just made a lot of sense to me.)
You have your Division-I (this would be the top eight records in the AL), II (last seven in the AL), III (top eight in the NL) and IV (last seven in NL). The divisions would change constantly and would create a bit of fairness to every team.
Take those four division winners and give them a first-round bye. The teams finishing second and third in "X"-division would have a best-of-five playoff to see who plays the division winner (much like the old hockey format). And it goes from there.

Now the catch is: each year, you have an equal chance with teams of your own caliber. Just because you spend $200M to put a product on the field doesn't really mean you're good. Tampa Bay proved that by buying players well past their prime, which is why they don't spend money anymore. They bought a lot of crap. (McGriff, Canseco, & Castilla, to name a few. Wade Boggs just so they can say he got his 3,000th hit with them.)

Frankly, I could care less what Tampa Bay wants. If they cared about the team, they'd be working harder to improve the product. The stadium is garbage. The front office is a shambles. 75 wins in a season is cause for a champagne celebration.

They're like the St. Louis Browns without the storied history or the ingenius mind of Bill Veeck. Bill at least tried to do something with the Browns. The people in Tampa just don't seem to give a damn, even on the rare occassions when Bill's son Mike tried to get fans to come out. Those people in the area just wash their hands of the whole situation.

They need to sell the team, plain and simple. They need new blood down there or else the team will fold.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-18-2005, 01:36 PM
I have a problem with this. I do not think the Sox EVER belonged in the AL West. The Sox are geographically closer to the East Coast plain and simple. If it EVER went back to AL West/AL East, the Sox should be in the AL East. Geographically, it makes sense.

That is why I like the current system. It keeps the teams playing the most games in regions geographically close to them. My one problem is the fact the AL West NEEDS a fifth team. In fact if anything I propose moving the Marlins into the AL when they move. And re-alligning the NL. There is nothing wrong with three divisions and a wild card, I think it has worked very well so far. But I think each league needs parody in terms of the number of teams. I think the Portland Marlins (sorry, I do not think there will ever be a team in Las Vegas) in the AL West would probably fix this problem, and moving the Pirates into the NL East.

1. There will be contraction before there will be a team in Vegas / Portland.

2. You can't have 10 teams in an "Eastern" division and 4 in the West. The White Sox in the West makes more sense than Atlanta (or for years in the NFL Atlanta and New Orleans). With the balanced schedule you still have only a handful of West Coast games (18 total games - say 12 late night weeknight games with the rest weekend or weekday day games (on get away day). We were in the West for 25 seasons.

The reason why the current system blows is the fact you only need to beat out 3 - 4 teams to make the playoffs. If I was commissioner I would revert to the two division format and eliminate the Wild Card and interleague. Division races would mean more and revenue would still be very high. Interleague games take place in the prime June months which draw well regardless. Outside of a couple matchups there is no difference in attendance. Plus the competitive aspects of interleague scheduling is ridiculous.

The wild card makes the regular season division title meaningless. Baseball was the only sport where the regular season meant something. It is time to reverse the debacle known as the bud selig years and return baseball to its rightful place as our nation's pasttime.

Tragg
12-19-2005, 12:28 AM
You can't even the league's out unless you have interleague play throughout the season. If you have two league's of 15 with the current interleague rules that would mean 1 AL and 1 NL team would have 3 days off in a row, you can't do that!

So do a double switch to even things out. Send the Royals to the NL and the Diamondbacks or Rockies to the AL.

longshot7
12-19-2005, 04:18 PM
Divisions in general are just a stupid idea. Eliminate them and go back to the balanced schedule. The top 4 teams make the playoffs. Easy enough.

longshot7
12-19-2005, 04:20 PM
They need to sell the team, plain and simple. They need new blood down there or else the team will fold.

they DID sell the team - there is new ownership in Tampa.

Norberto7
12-19-2005, 04:45 PM
Divisions in general are just a stupid idea. Eliminate them and go back to the balanced schedule. The top 4 teams make the playoffs. Easy enough.

How would the players' union react to this? I imagine that the players enjoy the reduced travel load of the unbalanced divisional schedule.

Chicken Dinner
12-19-2005, 05:54 PM
I think Tampa doesn't need to move divisions..............they just need to move somewhere or contract them. If your not going to put a competitive team on the field, goodbye!!

Tragg
12-19-2005, 07:56 PM
How would the players' union react to this? I imagine that the players enjoy the reduced travel load of the unbalanced divisional schedule.

Of all the divisions, only the AL Central and the NL West have sensible travel out of it. It's probably better travel overall than the alternative, unless you're the Rangers.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-20-2005, 06:41 PM
...

Gammons "thinks" moving Kansas City to the west is more likely as then if the East is a 4 team division the other teams in the AL would pick up more home games with both New York and Boston.

Genius idea, Peter. If the AL East were a 4-team division, it would be Boston, Baltimore and Toronto gaining an even bigger revenue stream advantage over everybody else -- now including Tampa Bay, too!

If Selig were truly worried about revenue streams, he would at least institute a balanced schedule. And if he couldn't do that he could always stick New York and Boston in different divisions. Now THAT would be sharing the wealth! You know why it will never happen? Because Boston, Baltimore and Toronto would squeal like stuck pigs over losing that extra meal ticket money from the Yankees coming to town an extra 4-5 times each summer.

What a dope Gammons is...

SouthSoxFan
12-21-2005, 01:05 AM
MLB doesn't mind that Boston and NY have a patsy in their division. In fact, they probably prefer it this way.

Here's a realignment idea:

Add Portland and Las Vegas as expansion teams. Put them in the AL West. Move Texas to the AL Central. Let Florida move to Charlotte. 16 teams in each league.

Then, if moving Tampa is still an objective, offer Charlotte or Washington an AL/NL swap with Tampa.

ilsox7
12-21-2005, 01:11 AM
MLB doesn't mind that Boston and NY have a patsy in their division. In fact, they probably prefer it this way.

Here's a realignment idea:

Add Portland and Las Vegas as expansion teams. Put them in the AL West. Move Texas to the AL Central. Let Florida move to Charlotte. 16 teams in each league.

Then, if moving Tampa is still an objective, offer Charlotte or Washington an AL/NL swap with Tampa.

More expansion = Awful idea.