the al west needs 5 teams
by notah8er on Sep 28, 2007 1:44 PM PDT
Email
Printtime to face facts, kids, the out-of-whack league setup isn't working. it exacerbates the quirkiness that comes with the crosstown interleague 6 games, which seriously warped the schedule already.
the experiment known as 5-6-5-5-5-4 has come to a logical end.
this wasn't a serious problem for the division until the a's began this new era of suckage - but now, we have 3 mediocre-to-bad teams and one team with a few good starters and vlad guerrero (which, of course, is enough to roll the division rivals 2/3 times for the next few years).
basically, only the angels are spending big money, and only the angels have a good position in a big tv market.
we need some new blood. the AL in general is boooo-ring.
the only question is who do we poach from the nl?
and/or who do we move out of the nlc into the nlw (or e) in making such a move?
could we even (gasp) do a triple move, from nlc to nlw plus nlw to alc than alc to alw?
or is this an opportunity for a new western franchise, and should the nlc not be messed with?
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Baseball to Portland
The people here really want it. For me personally I could see the A's twice as much. Their road trips to Seattle and here in Portland.
by Hawk on Sep 28, 2007 1:34 PM PDT reply actions
Portlanding
That'd be a pretty short jaunt for the green & gold, too!
by PositionPlayerProd on Sep 28, 2007 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
The Portland A's
by sf drift king on Sep 28, 2007 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd go for Portland
Lived there for three years but the lack of MLB was just about as annoying as the winter weather. Easier/cheaper place to live than the Bay. Also lived near Sacramento, but don't see it a major league city, there are basically no corporations up there.
Doesn't 15 teams/league fark up scheduling?
Somebody would always hafta be playing interleague, or more doubleheaders, or a nine-month regular season, n'est ce pas?
Why not just expand to 32?
Put one team in Portland and one in Memphis. Then realign to 4 divisions:
AL West: Oakland, LA, Seattle, Portland
AL South: Texas, Memphis, Tampa, KC
AL North: Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Minnesota
AL East: Boston, NY, Toronto, Baltimore
NL West: SF, LA, Arizona, San Diego
NL North: Colorado, Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis
NL South: Atlanta, Florida, Houston, Washington
NL East: Pittsburgh, Philly, NY, Cincinnati
Add a second wild card slot, then give the top 2 finishers in each league a first-round playoff bye. The other 8 teams play three-game series (to ensure that they have to use their aces and thus will not have them available to pitch twice in the LDS).
Like the idea
but (and I know there isn't another viable one) it would be nice to see two west coast or near west coast teams added. The league is far to east heavy as it is.
It's a lot less east-heavy than the NFL or NHL
and only marginally more so than the NBA, largely because the NBA can make franchises work in smaller metro areas than the other major sports. Remember, 50% of the population lives in the eastern time zone.
paul...
are you running for commish any time soon? seriously, that's a good-looking league right there. The only thing that "kinda" worries me about the bye (because I really think top teams deserve it) is the possibly of teams losing their edge, like the A's of '88 and '90. Not that I'm making excuses...
If they did this...
they'd have to start the first (wild card) round the day after the final day of the season, no day offs in the series and the 2nd round starts the day after the scheduled game 3. It puts a greater impact on being the best team in the league while increasing the odds that the two best teams in the marathon get a chance at the final sprint. 3 days off for the best teams works well for giving players rest and setting up your rotation without creating too much of a layover. It's a far greater advantage the some cheap "gimic" of do I play today or tomorrow BS they just gave the AL team. In addition to this you can add a rule in regular season scheduling a required day off between the last or second to last series of the season (similar to what the A's got this year) so that at most a team plays 11/12 games in row including the post season.
I do think it's a good looking league
It's actually possible to maintain all of the "classic" rivalries (Cubs/Cards, Giants/Dodgers, A's/Angels, Sox/Yanks, Tigers/Indians/Sox, etc.) even in a league with 4 team divisions. Although it would admittedly put a crimp in the spellbinding D-Rays/Orioles rivalry.
Well, since I've taken this exercise this far, how would scheduling work out?
58 games in division
80 games in league (8 games against each team from one division, 6 against each other in-league team)
24 interleague games (home and home with each team from one opposing division)
That should be fine. And it gets rid of this ridiculous "natural rivalry" business whereby some teams have to play way harder interleague opponents every season.
I do think it's necessary to have a travel/playoff day after the regular season, though. So we have Tue/Wed/Thu/Fri for wild-card round games, Sat-Fri for LDS, Sat-next Mon for LCS, then start the WS on Wednesday and run it through the following Thursday. This will end the playoffs on the same day as they do now but with 4 extra game days interspersed. I'd actually prefer to shave some games from the regular season, but that's not real likely.
Fewer interleague games
I'd like to see fewer inter league games instead of more. Especially with their being two wild card teams.
I would propose having 12 interleague games (I think this is what they have now if you exclude the "ridiculous natural rivalry series".) The 12 games could be replaced with an extra three game series against each team in another division within your league. This would mean, as with your setup, that divisional rivals play the same schedule but it would add far greater validity to the wild card winners. Of course, you just know that one NL team that plays the AL east will lose the wild card spot by 1 game to some team that plays the AL south.
Well...
I see a couple reasons why you wouldn't have the travel day for the start of the wild card round.
- In theory I agree it would be nice, but part of the reason for not having it was/is to remove the layover the top teams would have. It's one thing to have a 3 day break, I find anything more than that to be too much (and 3 probably borderline as it is). You don't want to be too rested and 4 or more days off would could potentially put those teams at a disadvantage.
- The other reason to do this is simply to make certain that the top two teams in the league have as great advantage as possible. If the 2006 Cards are going to win the World Series, they're going to have to earn it the hard way. A quick three game series where they have next to zero time to set up their rotation for the play-offs. They're nearly forced to win with all 5 of their starters (if they go to the third game) heading into the 2nd round. In addition, you'd have potentially 2 travel days without a day off (happens in the regular season too) while playing for your life.
- Currently, in case of ties, the one game play is done without a travel day.
The whole purpose of this system is to give a heavy weight on the top finishers side in the playoffs. What's the purpose of playing the whole marathon, busting your ass to be to put back on a level playing field against a potentially .500 ball club in the playoffs. The playoffs are a crapshoot. Let's turn it into blackjack where the house (top finishers) have the advantage.
But I wouldn't be opposed to having the three game series be division winner home only i.e. all three games at one place both to award the division winner and reduce the travel time. Nor would I be opposed to a rule in place that reduces the amount of distance a team can travel at this point. So a west coast team wouldn't play a team on the east or vice versa (even if it means the wild card teams playing each other and the division winners playing each other in the rare event that would happen) and as long as it does conflict with that, if a wild card team is in the same division as a low winner they'd play each other in order to reduce travel distance.
Plus, if it's rest you're worried about, I also earlier proposed that there be a mandatory day offs within the last 6/7 games of the season (some within 3/4, the other 6/7 on some sort of rotational basis). This gives teams rest before the stretch.
A travel day is essential ...
see your own point #3 ... ties will still exist.
Looks pretty good
I'd probably switch the Reds and Nationals though. Washington has more of a connection to New York and Philly than Cincinnati does.
I'm sure Texas would love this. Two perennial doormats and an expansion team to compete with.
Cincy has the connection to Pitt ...
and DC has the benefit of being on the border to the south, if not actually in it.
Why not just expand to 32
Great idea but Nashville would be a better fit over Memphis. The city would welcome a MLB team to go along with the Titans, Predators, and a SEC winning baseball team at Vanderbilt.
by vandy on Sep 28, 2007 3:37 PM PDT reply actions
Fewer
Actually, I'd rather have fewer teams. Let's lose TB and Florida for example and have two 7 team divisions within each league.
AL west Oak, LA, Sea, Tex, KC, Chi, Min
AL east Bos, NY, Tot, Bal, Det, Clev, Mil
NL west SD, LA, SF, Ari, Col, Hou, Cin
NL east NY, Phi, Pit, Was, Atl, Chi, Stl
(You could put Hou & Cin in the east and Chi & Stl in the west as well).
Man, that would suck ...
for Cleveland and Detroit ...
2 WC teams
With two wild card teams both Clev and Det still have just as much of a shot at the play-offs as they do now. What sucks is the predicament that the Blue Jays are in now.
That's true ...
I was thinking 1-2, 1-2.
And Milwaukee, Baltimore and Tot.
Kansas City to the AL west...
then we could have Midwest AN days several times a year! This year the A's were in KC only once (May) and I miss the AN tailgate crew. Learning to tie your shoe in front of a moving car is an art form!
Sorry
but I don't want to see the Royals play.
by sf drift king on Sep 28, 2007 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't worry.
They wont.
No
Rockies to AL West, and Houston goes to NL West. That way you get the Rangers/Stro's matchups during interleague. 5-5-5, 5-5-5
(Not to mention regular A's trips to Colorado =)
NL central has 6 teams
one solution might be to transfer one of those teams to the NL west (Houston, the other Texas team?), then one of the other NL west teams to the AL (hey, Bud Selig transferred the Brewers to the NL, right?)
Houston would never move
They balk at that one and throw up road blocks at just the thought of it. It's bad for their tv money since too many of their games are played in 2 time zones away (a complaint Texas has already). And none of the NL west team would allow themselves to be moved. Selig owned the Brewers and wanted them in the NL anyways.
I've scribbled out realignments
for all the divisions on many a spare envelope and napkin. The moving of one team out of a six team division and then getting another team into the division with only four teams, would balance all the divisions without further diluting the MLB talent through expansion.
But of course, balance is not uppermost in MLB owners' minds, nor in the commissioner's office.
If they really cared about balance
they'd push another team into the NY & Boston area. Right now neither of those teams is likely to miss the play-offs based on the money they can throw around and the player management they've done. Let's see them look brilliant and win big all the time when they have less revenue because their income source gets diluted.
Boston's market isn't that big ...
I mean, it's big, don't get me wrong, but it's not outlandishly so. They're currently in the second largest of the one team metros (Philly being first).
Also, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. Sox fans are the most committed to the idea of loyalty in all of sports.
Adding a team to the New York market would be great for that team, but it wouldn't hurt the Yanks much. Since the team would most likely be located in northern Jersey, it would actually probably hurt the Phils the most.
They would also have so much catching up to do, by the time they were more than a drop in the bucket, the YES network will likely have made Yankee attendance figures virtually meaningless.
It would be awesome if they put a team in Brooklyn and were able to name it the Dodgers. That team would be able to put up a fight for its market share.
:)
Which makes it ironic that both the Yankees and Mets would be so adamantly against it. The loyalty of those team's fans is more than enough to survive and potentially even thrive by adding another team. Meanwhile, the new team would be able to survive as well as any mid to upper lower tiered team from the start and likely only grow from there. If for no other reason than having 15 games against another NY team including a bunch of home games against Boston (if they're in the AL). You're absolutely right that no other team is going to steal away their fans and they hardly need the peripheral fan base the way other teams do.
But have you tried making-out a 162-game ...
... schedule with an odd number of teams/league? That's the problem with moving over an NL team. 2009 would start before 2008 was over.
by The Dogfather on Sep 30, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I think that'd be necessary -- one interleague
game all the time, instead of everyone playing interleague occasionally.
by The Dogfather on Sep 30, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Put the Brewers back in the AL...
...where they belong, in the AL Central, move the Royals to the AL West... have inter-league play spread throughout the year instead of "special" times. Wham... six 5-team divisions.
Easy. Simple. Makes sense. Which, of course, is why it'll never happen.
Japan
scheadualing would be a bitch but it would be good for MLB
by Anarch on Sep 29, 2007 12:08 AM PDT reply actions
It would only even be remotely possible ...
if they had a full division of teams here (I happen to be in Japan at the moment) to consolidate travel as much as possible. The problem with that is that only one of Japan's current teams (the Giants) receives the kind of support necessary to make something like this happen.
The only way the current alignment changes
is if 2 teams are added to the American League. They cannot have an odd number of teams in either league because it would necessitate season long interleague play or for at least one team to be off every day (including the weekends) ...
While Paul's 8x4 system is elegant, neither Portland, nor Memphis, nor any other city that does not presently have a team has the market to support a new franchise at a competetive level.
The best options for expansion would be in the New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, but it's obviously not going to happen.
Disagree
Portland could definitely support a pro club.
by Hawk on Sep 29, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
That is a compelling argument ...
but do you realize that Portland metro is smaller than Tampa metro? That only Kansas City, Milwaukee and Cincinati have smaller metro areas? That their minor league team only draws 5k and change per game?
A Portland team likely would not be the worst supported team in the league -- but you'd assuredly be adding a team to baseball's permanent underclass.
"the AL in general is boooo-ring."
WTF?? the NL is like AAAA. the four best teams in baseball (indians, angels, red sox, yankees) are all in the AL.
I think notah8er was referring
to the Red Sox/Yankees issue. You're pretty much guaranteed that one and likely both will be in the playoffs every year in the current system. Outside of that, you're lucky to get 2 and if you're really lucky 3 other not quite random teams thrown in there. The talent level has nothing to do with why it's boring, it's the predictability factor. The fact is, over the next 5/10 years, odds are you're going to see twice as many different teams make the playoffs in the NL as you are in the AL. AAAA is they are, they won't be nearly as predictable. Unless you're thinking the Orioles, Blue Jays or Devil Rays are actually going to make the playoffs in the next century.
Devil Rays in '09
Mark it down.
And if Toronto keeps this team intact (Burnett being the guy that may need to be retained, if he decides to opt out), they'll be in the thick of it next year.
Yankees' impending loss of A-Rod will be huge, don't forget.
Huh?
"basically, only the angels are spending big money, and only the angels have a good position in a big tv market."
This is completely false. The Mariners are an amazingly profitable team with a massive budget - they're at around $106M this year.
They just don't spend it wisely.
by Graham MacAree on Sep 29, 2007 12:19 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
