New Major League Divisions for 2010
by SteelonIce on Jul 8, 2009 2:17 PM EDT
88 comments
What if MLB decided to break its 30 teams into 3 tiers (or classifications) much like the Premier League? The 10 teams per tier would be originally placed pased partly on salary and recent performance, and the top 4 teams per tier would make their respective playoffs. The winners would play for their championship (with Tier A's championship being the World Series). The winner of Tier B and C's championships would move up one tier for the following season. The last placed team in Tier A and B would be demoted to the next lowest tier. Teams (like the Pirates) would get the chance to compete against smaller market teams with similar payrolls. Not only would they compete for their tier's championship, but also a chance to move up and play the slightly bigger boys. Last year's Rays would be a perfect example of a team winning their tier and moving up - hence they have been placed in Tier B, not in Tier C where their salary would have placed them. Here is the breakdown:
Tier A
L.A. Dodgers
L.A. Angels
Tier B
S.F. Giants
Tier C
Arizona D-Backs
Cincy Reds
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
0 recs |
88 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
2009 Payroll
While both the Rangers and the O’s have spent money in the past and probably will in the future, their payrolls rank 22nd and 23rd, respectively. But I could see an argument for Tier B.
My Only Complaint About The Current Divisions
Is that they’re unevenly sized. There’s no reason to have four divisions of five teams each, one with four teams, and one with six teams. It’s unfair to the Pirates because for the Pirates to win their division, they have to be better than five other teams, when most teams have to be better than only four other teams, and some only three.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 3:02 PM EDT reply actions
I Agree But
the only argument that has ever made any sense to me about the disparity in divisional and league numbers is that if you split the whole MLB in half (15 and 15), you would always have teams who would be idle – given that you wouldn’t have interleague games going on all the time. You need an even number in each league so all teams can be playing. This leads me to another topic – playing an “interleague” schedule. I’m a huge fan of everybody playing everybody. Right now it’s like two leagues operating under one umbrella league. Can you imagine the Steelers not ever playing NFC teams? Let ’em play.
So Then
Combine the AL and the NL into one big league and be done with it.
Then you could have six divisions of five teams each, or even something weird like five divisions of six teams each.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Or
If the Marlins and the A’s get contracted, as some rumors say, then you can have two 14-team leagues. Problem solved.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont think...
They want the two teams in Texas to be in the same division. Move Atlanta to the Central and the Bucs back to the east where they should be!
From a selfish standpoint
I would much rather stay in the weak Central than the strongest division in the NL.
Plus, if the MLB doesn’t want the two Texas teams together, why would they want the two Pennsylvania teams together?
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jul 8, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
What MLB Wants?
On the one hand, they don’t want the two Texas teams in the same division. On the other hand, they want to promote “geographic rivalries.”
I don’t think MLB knows what MLB wants.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I think...
They want to promote geographic rivalries in New York, Chicago and LA. That makes them money and that’s why we have this stupid interleague garbage.
For right now that’s true, but the Cubs are high-spenders, and the Astros are willing to spend, too. Cards usually do pretty well. Especially if the Astros get it together, the NL Central could become a very tough division in a few years. Hopefully, the Pirates are a big reason why it becomes tougher!
Anyway, from an even more selfish standpoint, I’d like to see more interleague games just to get a chance to see more players in person. That said, I wouldn’t want to change how baseball is done because of tradition and the importance of divisions, in addition to liking competitive division races. The second half will be crazy in the AL East! That’s going to be a really exciting race, and if we have more interleague games that kind of thing is lost.
I guess it depends on whether you think that stuff outweighs the “freshness” of seeing players we don’t normally see. I think part of the problem is that none of the teams in the NL Central are really our rivals. A large part of that is due to the fact we’ve been terrible for so long. Like they say, to be a rivalry, the other team has to win a few.
I liked the NFL take on how playing divisional teams each year. I think that MLB should do that. So Pirates would play all the teams from the AL west (Boston, Toronto, Baltimore, NYY, Tampa Bay) in one season.
As far as those Chicago, NY, and LA interleague games…they should keep them..(it’s only 3 games) and add a set of rivalries for other teams. like I know Frank C. says we should play Cleveland every year or perhaps we should play Philly. But if the # of Teams were close to even, I’m sure we could find a rival for every team during the Same city Diff Team games. So Baseball plays 165 games instead of 162. except then the MLBPA comes into play because of 3 extra games.
Wow
I rarely like ideas about league restructuring but this is a solid idea. Of course the basis of it is soccer so the majority of America wouldn’t be interested. I think it’s unfair for teams like Baltimore or Toronto to have to compete all season against the mega spenders of Boston and New York. Teams do it occasionally (2008 Rays) but it is tough. How are the Pirates supposed to compete against the Cubs when they spend so much more?
This way is fair, small market teams play small market teams and if they become successful they can play against tougher teams and increase payroll. Right now teams that suck generally remain sucking at the bottom of the league because they can’t maintain a fan base with the record they churn out every year.
Right up a proposal and a power point and send it to Selig… Now!
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Won't do any good.
Bud can’t read.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 8, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I bet he'd listen in we inlisted those wacky folks at the AARP....
…make sure the presentation is after he has already had his nap or he might get cranky.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jul 8, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions
FWIW, Bud Is Not The Problem
He’s just a symptom. If Bud Selig fell out of a window and died today, the owners would just replace him with another yes man.
The problem is the structure and the incentives in place.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Brilliant
Just like the tiered system used in the Super Nintendo classic Bill Laimbeer’s Combat Basketball!
I’m all for it just because of this
As least the Buccos have the cheapest beer prices in professional sports, right?
The English League System isn’t based on payroll, it’s only based on performance, it just happens that the richest teams somehow win.
Anyways I think that some MLB teams have proven that payroll isn’t the only required when it comes to winning, the Rays and the Marlins come to mind.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Jul 8, 2009 4:33 PM EDT reply actions
Only the initial placement would be based partly on payroll. It would be performance based after that – you just need a decent way to place teams to start and make it fair. How was the English League System initially started? I don’t know.
But The Teams That Start Out Wealthy And Good, Will End Up Wealthy And Good
The cliche is “the rich get richer.”
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure why the initial placement should be based on payroll though. Haven’t the Rays (and other teams) proven they can compete with the elite? Eventually if those teams were forced to lose talent because of low payroll, they would presumably face relegation and then be able to rebuild in the lower leagues.
The English League System developed in the late 70s when the English FA changed how it defined professional and amateur leagues. It had existed before then but it evolved into what it is today after that. Before the early 1970s, it just existed over the top 4 leagues and teams had to be voted in and out of the league which was a rare occurrence. But then the redefining allowed for an expansion of the league to govern nearly all English football leagues. Feel free to correct any errors in this summation, I wasn’t alive in the 1970s and might be missing some of the more technical points.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Jul 9, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Expand by two cities
and have four, two-division leagues:
WEST
Division A: Padres, Angels, Dodgers, Dbacks
Division B: Mariners, A’s, Giants, Rockies
NORTHEAST
Division A: Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Jays
Division B: Phillies, Nationals, Pirates, Orioles
SOUTH
Division A: Rays, Marlins, Braves, (Charlotte or Norfolk or New Orleans)
Division B: Astros, Rangers, Royals, Cardinals
MIDWEST
Division A: Cubs, White Sox, Brewers, Twins
Division B: Indians, Reds, Tigers, (Nashville)
Teams play 22 games each against their own division (66), 18 each against teams in the other division (72) and three games each against teams in one of the other leagues (24), home-and-home in alternating years, rotating leagues every two years = 162
Solved.
Oh
and standardize the DH. We need all the hitters we can get.
DH?
AUUUUUUUUUGH!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 8, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
*STABS SELF IN EYE WITH PLASTIC FORK FROM ARBY'S*
AASDGLAPW G THE PAIN WALEGKNAWLUEOTWAET
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
It's Hard To Think Straight When People Advocate For The D.H.
First of all, the D.H. is for pussies. Second of all, it’s supposed to add more offense to the game and somehow make it more exciting, except there are more runs scored in the N.L. And thirdly and finally, the D.H. is for pussies.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Have you seen our bench
the DH spot would have to be occupied by someone that won’t hit. I’d prefer they eliminate it. If you’re going to play baseball, you have to field or pitch.
True Blue Jazz
Bucco Ball
I'm on Twitter
RIP Nick Adenhart. 4/9/09
I have.
Ryan Doumit and Garrett Jones would be good DHs. You wouldn’t have to break up the decent catching tandem, and you could play Moss in the OF for his glove.
99% of baseball uses a DH. There are 16 teams that don’t. It’s just pointless anymore to go on this way.
I draw the line at a courtesy runner, tho.
If you like bland 4 hour softball games...
Then a DH is definitely the way to go.
Last night's scores
NL: 5-0, 4-1, 10-4, 6-2, 7-0, 3-2, 5-4, 5-4
AL: 5-3, 3-1, 10-9, 5-4, 4-3, 5-1, 8-1
NL runs per game (team) this season: 4.41
AL runs per game (team) this season: 4.81
Yeah, I see what you mean … not.
Thats not necessarily what I meant
Although I am a bit surprised at those run totals. What I mean by “softball” was that there is really no need to move runners over to manufacture runs, less need for a running game and much more of an emphasis on waiting for the long ball.
On an average night an AL manager has to set his lineup, run out whatever starter is scheduled for that day and go to his late inning bull pen guys. The overall lack of strategy in the AL is not compelling to me.
The Lack Of Strategy Is Uncompelling To Me As Well
But what’s even more uncompelling is that Designated Hitters are pussies.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I love the way that just rolls off the tounge
The DH is for pussies!
I could say that all day.
Strategy?
Like when a .080 hitting pitcher’s at bat and there’s a runner on first and less than two outs? “Gee, I dunno, should we bunt?” Like when a pitcher’s turn at bat comes in the seventh inning and his team is two runs behind? “Gee, I dunno, should we pinch hit?”
That the kind of strategy you’re talking about?
How about when a pitcher’s throwing a great game but he’s behind 1-0 in the seventh, and maybe he’s running out of gas and maybe he’s not, should you take him out? In the AL, that’s a strategy move. In the NL, you ask, “Is he scheduled to bat this inning?” Then you make the automatic move.
FWIW, I looked it up, and the average NL team has 37 sacrifice hits this year, and the average AL team 20. That looks like less strategy but I’m going to make an educated guess that the difference is entirely pitchers bunting. Is that your idea of exciting strategy, watching pitchers with .080 averages bunt, automatically?
Is it your idea of excitement to watch old men with gimpy knees shuffle up to the plate three times a game to take big swipes at major league curve balls and then sulk back into the dugout feeling like half a player?
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
"Old men with gimpy knees"
Like Alex Rodriguez and Joe Mauer, who both DHed today?
Guys like
Jim Thome, Frank Thomas and Matt Stairs come to mind. Obviously Stairs isnt DHing any more and Thomas is out of the league. Griffey even. Not sure if Ordonez is DHing. Uhhh…Matsui, who incidentally would normally be the Yankees DH because hes old and gimpy and cant play the field. I’m sure I could go on if I felt like doing some research.
Also
I notice you jumped from “strategy” to disparaging the players because, I have to presume, I showed you are probably wrong about the strategy part. Now I could add that how a manager uses the DH is part of his strategy, isn’t it? If he chooses to play gimpy old men there, that’s a strategy. If he chooses to use it to break in a young hitter, that’s a strategy. If he wants to keep a player’s bat in the lineup but give him a day off from playing the field, that’s a strategy. DHs almost certainly bat anywhere from 1-9.
National League extreme strategy is Tony LaRussa batting the pitcher eighth, to get that automatic out out of the way sooner. Everybody else — EVERYBODY else — bats the pitcher ninth.
Strategy?
I'm Not The One Who Brought Up Strategy
I think the strategy position is a difficult one to defend.
My well-researched and superior point is that the D.H. is for pussies.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm Not Worried
I could outrun David Ortiz while carrying Terry Francona on my back.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
That Being Said
Batting the pitcher eight is smart.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont have any statistics on hand
But I have read in the past that batting your worst player 8th is statistically the way to go. Maybe someone has some information on this?
i would concur
because that makes your ninth hitter the table setter for one of your three best hitters at leadoff instead of your leadoff having to bat with 1 out guaranteed out in front of him. I’ve even seen some college teams bat two of their best hitter 8th and ninth to set the table for power guys at 1, 2, and 3
Oh Look, A Whiny Ass Titty Baby
“Our job is to pitch, to get hitters out, not to hit. I love to hit and swing the bat; I think all players do. But it tires you out to run the bases. In the late innings, if I’m pitching a good game, I don’t want to hit and have to run.” – Pitcher Jackie Brown, who pitched four years in the American League before going to Montreal, claiming that the DH rule made him a better pitcher
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
And Im not the one that brought up gimpy players
If a manager decides to DH a player (like your Joe Mauer scenario from today) because he needs a day off that is more of an advantage than it is a strategy. If a manager decides to bat a gimpy old man at DH it’s because he can’t play the field and is probably tied up in a large contract. Obviously you could make the argument that how a manager uses his DH spot is a strategy, but I don’t see how it’s any more rigorous than setting a lineup in the NL.
Maybe someone could just add a poll here or something? I’m not sure how, or if, you can, but I’m getting tired of arguing about the merits of a DH when we both are pretty set in our opinions.
I don't know that I'm set in an opinion
I don’t NOT go to NL games because they don’t use a DH or anything. When I’m watching a game it’s not an issue.
I’m just saying, I’d like to see an alignment that doesn’t bury the Pirates at the bottom of a six-team division while the for instance Angels only have to beat out three other teams. I made a suggestion way above for expansion and full re-alignment, but to do that they would have to settle the DH question. And I’m saying if it came to that, I’d be OK with everyone using the DH, and I’m also saying that some of the arguments against the DH don’t wash. I think you could argue that the DH INcreases strategy, and that it doesn’t have to be the Last Chance Saloon for slow, aging sluggers. It could be used creatively, whereas there’s absolutely no way to use your pitcher creatively (possible exception of Micah Owings).
The only thing I can’t argue with is that DHs are pussies.
I Know
That’s why it’s the best argument against it.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
And In Fact
If you try to argue against it, now you’re asserting that DHs are not pussies. And insisting that you’re not a pussy is the surest way to look like a pussy.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
And It Also Has The Benefit Of Being True
Because the DH is for pussies.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
Youre right, playing in a 6 team division sucks, and permanent realignment would not be possible until they settle the DL question. On that we would differ in the sense that I would not want permanent realignment if it involved everyone using a DH. Obviously, I would prefer to eliminate it which would also solve the problem.
It probably wasnt a good idea to bring this argument up in the first place because it almost always ends up at the same destination.
One other thing I have seen brought up
If they ever could come to some sort of a compromise we could finally do away with this (and maybe I’m about to open another can of worms, although I doubt it…) idiotic All Star Game system they have. I’m all for the fans voting, but not when it actually has (Josh Hamilton..really?) meaning.
“I screwed up the game of baseball. Baseball needed a jolt of offense for attendance, so they decided on the DH. I never thought it would last this long.” – Ron Blomberg [the first DH ever] in The Journal News (April 5, 2003)
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
"Here there be dragons"
“If man were meant to fly he’d have wings”
Blah blah blah.
I like seeing a pitcher surprise everybody with a hit once a month as much as the next guy. But if the DH were the only holdup for getting the teams realigned in a way that makes better sense, that promotes the game better, I’d go for the DH in a heartbeat. Don’t tell me about tradition, we’ve already screwed tradition into the ground. If we really respected tradition only white Americans would be playing MLB. On grass. In the daytime. And they’d travel to the park in horse-drawn carriages.
How about they get rid of the DH
It was supposed to be experimental when it was originally implemented anyway.
This Is The Strawman We Always Hear
Anti-D.H. people aren’t knee-jerk pro-tradition people. We don’t think that what’s old is necessarily what’s best. We just know that the D.H. is for pussies. I think you’ll find that a lot of the people who are against the D.H. are the same people who are for computerized umpires, for radical realignment, and for using statistics in unconventional ways.
People who hate the D.H. don’t love tradition. We just hate the D.H., because it is for pussies.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree
The DH is for pussies. The DH is where washed up old veterans end up at the end of their career. Because these players are usually former big time sluggers they are eating up a ton of salary so the players union cant advocate getting rid of it.
I think the best case scenario of AL baseball gone wrong would be the White Sox. I would rather watch the pirates lose for another 10 years than watch a minute of that crap.
Exactly
The point of baseball isn’t to try to make it easier on the poor pitchers. The point of baseball is to be awesome. The D.H. is not awesome.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
If I could rearrange the league, it would be 4 divisions of 7 or 8 teams each.
NL East: Pirates, Cubs, Mets, Braves, Phillies, Reds, Cardinals, Nationals
AL West: Astros, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Giants, Dodgers, Padres, Brewers, Marlins
The Marlins don’t really fit in the West, but I’d rather go with mostly classic teams in the same division with the newer clubs and West Coast teams in another. This way, we’d play the Braves and Phillies more than almost never as it is now.
That Would Still Be Unfair Though
The teams in the larger divisions would be harder, simply because there’s more teams you have to beat to win them.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
That would only be solved by adding or subtracting two teams (I’d obviously prefer adding two, because the Pirates with their current popularity would probably be candidates for removal).
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 8, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions
The Pirates are near the bottom, but not at the bottom. The teams I consistently hear rumored for contraction are the A’s and the Marlins, especially due to their lack of new stadiums.
I’m not sure what contraction or expansion would do to the level of competition. Is there enough talent not being used right now that expansion is reasonable? Would contraction increase parity a lot? I don’t know. But those are questions too. Probably questions that the people in charge don’t care at all about.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
That Said
I would strongly prefer either expansion or contraction to unfair divisions.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
And Speaking Of Expansion
It’s just one more thing that Bud Selig has screwed up. He expanded, which is neat, but not enough to make the leagues make sense.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 8, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Incidentally, about the soccer style setup
English cricket did that 10 years ago, to change from 18 teams in one tier to 2 tiers with 9 teams and promotion and relegation. The idea was to bundle the best players in Division One, but with the comparatively unprofessional structures that hasn’t happened. Many players of national teams play in Division Two.
weak-hitting corner outfielder in coffee league baseball
I guess my idea would be to bundle the best teams in Tier A. The best players would eventually follow via free agency or trades just like they do now. The Pirates are the only AAAA team in operation right now. They are a great farm team for the Yanks, BoSox, etc.
The question is whether free agency and trading would be tier to tier in this system or only within your assigned tier.
Cool Idea
I’m always open to realignment and new ideas. Just curious as to how much of this you thought out, like how would you handle the amatuer draft? Would you still have the order based on overall records? If so the poor teams in pool A and B will get higher draft picks than the middle teams in pool C, hence the teams in pool C will have trouble building their system, and ever do much to gain on the pool A and B teams, while the A and B teams continue to stockpile talent.
That’s a great question about the draft. Overall records would still have to come into play somehow, but I think it that depends a little on how scheduling would be done. Would teams only play teams in their tier or would you have some “intertier” games? If you only played teams in your tier, then wouldn’t a .500 record in Tier A weigh differently than a 10 games above .500 Tier C team?
One thought I had was to draft based on record, but start in Tier C regardless so the “lesser” teams have a shot at the best talent. Tier winners and Tier droppers would be slotted as if they were already in their new Tiers. All of Tier C’s teams (the winner is replaced by the Tier B dropper) would draft based on their records. Then Tier B (the winner is replaced by Tier A’s dropper and its dropper replaced by Tier C’s winner) would draft based on record. And then the same with Tier A (and Tier B’s winner).
Yea, IM sure the pirates wouldnt lose money if they only played shitty teams as opposed to good ones coming to town
RIP NATE. RIP TONY PLUSH.
"I'D BE A CHEF"
-TONY PLUSH
THe little teams some times go on a run and cause a stir but they rarely get past the middle of the pack when the move up a division. No chance this ever happens
RIP NATE. RIP TONY PLUSH.
"I'D BE A CHEF"
-TONY PLUSH
Yeah But
The way it is now, crappy teams rarely get past the middle of their division with exactly zero chance of winning anything. Teams (like our beloved Buccos) are eliminated by May – what’s the fun in that. So we can play Rent-a-Player? In this new system, the team that moved up may only make it to the middle of the next pack, but they would have won a Tier championship in the process – more than they would even sniff in the current set-up.
I guess it’s kind of like the classification system used in high school sports. With no salary cap, just like no enrollment cap or distribution, is it fair that a Single A Pirates squad (enrollment 300) play a Quad A Yankees club (enrollment 2000)? So the Pirates get a chance to win a Single A championship against like competition.
Like Competition
Nobody cares about like competition. People want to see the best. How many people pay money to see the Special Olympics? They have like competition there. And nobody cares except for the players and their families.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 9, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
They charge admission to the Special Olympics ?
"Baseball is better than football. Think about it, eighty degrees, a cold beer and a short-sleeve shirt is better than 30 degrees, a hip flask and six layers of clothes under a lap blanket. Take your pick: suntan or frostbite. " - Thomas Boswell
by Ketcham Bruce on Jul 9, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Have you seen the Pirates’ attendance in the past few years? It’s dropping faster than Derek Bell’s desire to play. You’re telling me that more people wouldn’t come out to the ballpark to watch the Buccos if they were 47-38 and not the reverse? This city would back the Buccos like no else. Everybody loves a winner. The Pens were awful a few years ago and you could get a student rush ticket on the ice. Now it’s one of the hottest tickets in town. We average more than a million fewer fans per year than the NL average. This would change if we were in the race for our tier’s playoffs and a chance to move up.
somehow I think
that fans of 26 or so other teams don’t think about crap like this. What really needs to happen is they buckle down and finally institute a salary cap. Though I do like the idea of expanding to 32 teams. Why not?
I would imagine that 32 teams is a much more likely possibility
But I’m not sure where they expand to. New Orleans, Carolina or Tennessee I guess…Also, if they do just go the expansion route and don’t settle the DH thing then we are still left with this ridiculous All Star format. That being said, I suppose that is a worthy compromise. Assuming of course they would have 4 divisions in each league and no wild card…
The All-Star Game Format Is Like The Smallest Possible Problem
If they can straighten out the divisions, that would be a giant accomplishment. I don’t think there are even any rumors to the effect that they’re thinking about it though.
But as for places that could hold new major league teams, there’s San Jose, Indianapolis, Columbus, Memphis, Louisville, Nashville, Oklahoma City, and of course New York City.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 10, 2009 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions
I've heard
rumors that the A’s might get moved to Charlotte if they don’t get a new stadium. Not sure how reliable the rumors are but I’ve heard it multiple times
Don't think
that would happen anytime soon. I don’t believe Charlotte has a stadium large enough and nothing on the drawing board. I think the days are pretty much long over when a city will build a stadium first and then try to lure a team to fill it.
Changes I'd LIke to See
All this discussion is great and I am for getting the Leagues and Divisions the same size. I’d also like both Leagues to have the same rules – either both have the DH or neither has it. If the fans are going to vote for the starting 8 for the All-Star game then the game should be returned to what it is supposed to be – an EXHIBITION. As for changing any of this, MLB will probably never implement anything that is remotely fair because the teams that are listed in Tier ‘A’ at the top of this Post don’t want any changes.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
