Expansion Or Contraction?

THEY'RE INSANE!  I think the kid is done because I don't believe he has any heart.  

Discuss.

Another possibility would be to move a team from the NL West (I'd vote for either Arizona or Colorado since they're the new kids) to the AL West.  Then shift the Astros to the NL West.

Personally, I don't favor expansion.  I think it's important to preserve good divisional rivalries and expanding the number of divisions would damage some rivalries.  Furthermore, I don't think eliminating the wildcard in favor of a fourth division winner (in each league) improves anything.  The wildcard is earned by having a superior record within the league.  Division titles are earned by having a superior record only within a small division.  For selecting playoff teams I think the current system is preferable.

I actually like Copter OBob's idea of putting the Astros in the AL West. I think that would work rather well.  I know that gives you an odd number of teams in each league, but here's my idea.

1st off, get rid of the DH (different discussion but it needs to be said)

here's how the games would break down

4 * 8 = 32 (divisional games)
10 * 7 = 70 (league games, with teams rotating each year on who gets the advantage in home/away
15*4 = 60 (interleague games, either rotate home/away each year or 2 and 2.

flame away.

New York is the most interesting to me, Brooklyn could easily be a site for a new team and the population split 3 ways would still be far greater than most other teams have.  I can't imagine the Wilpons or Steinbrenners ever going for it, just look at the fight Peter Angelos put up in Baltimore over the Nationals moving to DC, but it probably makes more sense putting a team in Portland before it's truly ready to compete on an economic scale.

Portland could and would support an MLB franchise, and would have a natural rivalries with the Mariners, A's, and Angels, which date back to the old PCL days, before the Dodgers and Giants moved west.  But there is no MLB ballpark; if there was, the Marlins would have moved years ago.  Charlotte also seems like a natural, although again no ballpark.

So, there's not going to be any expansion unless Selig and his cronies can get public financing of new ballparks. (Only the Giants privately financed their park, and Bud and his minions didn't like that at all.)  So far, they've been spectacularly unsuccessful in Miami.  Portland has a state financing scheme that would provide about half the money needed, but the city has balked at coming up with the rest.  Maybe they'd change their mind if they were actually offered a team, either the Marlins or an expansion team.

I don't favor an NFL-like 8 4-team divisions.  I'd actually prefer 4 8-team divisions.  MLB had 8-team divisions for nearly 70 years.  You'd get better teams in the post-season with 2 wild cards/league under that scenario than you would with 8 4-team leagues.  The latter could have division champions with little better than a .500 record.  Since 8-team divisions is probably a little too old-school, put Portland in the NL West and Charlotte in the AL East or Central.  I'd actually prefer the latter, despite the geography, since the AL East is so much a Yankee-Red Sox + basket-case teams show that putting another weak team there would just perpetuate the imbalance.

There's no way that Arizona or Colorado would move to the AL.  Arizona successfully fought off an earlier attempt.  Don't know about Houston, but the Rangers hate being in the AL West because all their away games within the division are 2 hours later, which hurts TV ratings and reduces advertising revenues.  Houston would probably feel the same way.  I don't see any NL team wanting to move to the junior circuit.  If you wanted 2 16-team leagues, you'd have to fill up the AL with expansion.  I don't think contraction is any more realistic today than it was when Bud tried it a half-decade ago.  Besides the Marlins, what team would you contract?  (It would be very expensive to contract Tampa, and maybe impossible, given its lease.)

Portland has legislation already passed to fund a stadium. All I have ever read from this group is the desire to move a team there. They really wanted the Expos. I've never heard anything about expansion.

Personally, I think we are a playoff crazed nation but ultimately it is bad for the game. I'd like to see it go back to a two-division format and 8 teams get in. Then let the top 2 play for the division championship.

Here's the info:
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2007/12/17/daily21.html

This plan looks more promising than anything that preceded it, so the Marlins could finally have their finances in order in a few years...

Overall, I am NOT in favor of expansion. IMO, just like in hockey, which I firmly believe has too many teams now, you depelete the pool of really outstanding players. Not to begin another steriod debate, but could this be one reasons steriods are such a problem in major league baseball? Just a thought.

BUT, I like the wildcard, and I don't mind three divisons. Why not just keep the same amount of teams and divisions, but reallign slightly so that there are 5 in all 6 divisions? Then go for some soft of balanced schedule if possible.

Pointed out the fact that we're at a disadvantage should we have to face one of the big three West teams in the Playoffs. They're all loaded.

The Travelling Teams rotate home fields for the season.  The Wanderers would play home games in Portland, Las Vegas, Honolulu and Salt Lake (for example) and the Migrants would play in Orlando, Raleigh-Durham, Buffalo and New Orleans (or Birmingham or Memphis)

Abolish interleague play during the regular season, and allow the top three teams from each of the three major leagues to compete in a round robin to determine the World Champs.

Of course there would be problems. Japanese baseball has some unique traditions, trades and player assignments might work some hardships, and initially the talent pool would be uneven, but these are all solveable problems. Ultimately, we need a Latin American major league, too.

Baseball is no longer an Americans only sport, just as it isn't a whites only sport. Traditions can change when progress dictates without destroying the unique pleasures baseball affords us. The existence of a major leage team in Seoul, Korea or Taipei, Taiwan or Yokohama, Japan, does nothing to detract from my enjoyment of the Cubs. I am not hurt by a Japanese fan's chance to see his team compete for the World Championship. If they win it, more power to them.

If you haven't read this at Cubs.com -

Sammy Fuld gets best of both worlds as they celebrate Hannukah AND Christmas in their household.

We kind of do the same thing to a degree as my ex-wife is Catholic, and I'm Jewish.

The kids like it all...

First, with the new profit sharing agreement expansion (at first) would take away more profits from smaller market teams who are already bitching about profits.  I don't see enough owners (including  Commissioner Skelator) willing to take the cut in profits to expand baseball.

Second, the current baseball model demands that cities/states build them stadiums and then give control to the teams.  Right now the average new stadium cost aware from 300-500 million.  Currently these cities are experiencing a housing recession: Orlando, Sacramento, Raleigh/Durham, Hartford, and Columbus, Ohio.  Politically it will be very hard to get a tax increase for a baseball stadium when your local economy is going into the toilet.

Both Portland, Oregon and Charlotte have tried in the past to get funding for baseball stadiums in the past but failed horribly and the only thing that has changed in those cities is the fact that the price of a new stadium has increased.

So that leaves Indianapolis and Nashville.  Indianapolis is a dying city where even the granddaddy of the city (the Indy 500) has not been selling out lately which would make it nearly impossible to find a crazy owner to take on the 21st century's version of the Montreal Expos.

Nashville might work, but look for all the Midwest teams (including the Cubs) to freak out about their market share being taken away.

So there is my two cents (actually worth more in Canada), but hey Al, great discussion piece.

AL Midwest
Minnesota
Cleveland
Chicago
Detroit

AL Mountain
Kansas City
Texas
Houston
Colorado

AL West
Portland
Oakland
Los Angeles of Anaheim
Seattle

NL Northeast
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

NL Southeast
Atlanta
Tampa Bay
Florida
Charlotte/Nashville/Jacksonville

NL Midwest
Chicago
St. Louis
Milwaukee
Cincinnati

NL West
San Diego
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Arizona

And really you could flip the NL Southeast or AL Mountain to AL Southeast or NL Mountain.  Another idea is move Colorado to the AL West and open an expansion team in Oklahoma City instead of Portland.  Anyway you shake it, it doesn't make sense to have Houston, Arlington, Denver, and Kansas City represent 1/3 of the country and then split them up.  I'm sure either team would make a jump in the league to invite more aggressive rivalries.  

Ideally putting teams in such close leagues would help at the box office because getting rid of uneven schedules where the Cubs-White Sox and Brewers-Twins happen six times and the NL/AL switch happens only three times.  We won the division by 2 games and went 5-1 against the White Sox while the Brewers went 3-3 against the Twins.  Granted the Twins were only 7 games better than the Sox by season's end, but you see where this is going and why a change should be made.

I think the best system would be to take the divisions and give them each a division rival.  For example, every year the NL Central teams and the AL Central teams would play six games against each other.  Like the Cubs would always have a home and away series against the Twins, Indians, Tigers, and White Sox.  I mean the Cubs and Sox is pretty huge, but the Cubs, Brewers, Twins, and Tigers all play in cities with big rivalries between each other from other sports.  You also have the Reds vs. Indians every year.  St. Louis loses out a bit, but they have recently played WS against the Tigers, twenty some years ago vs. the Twins, and already have a natural Chicago rival.  

The only place where this kind of misses out is Mountain vs. Southwest but they can just suck it up.  I have more thoughts, but eh, that's enough for now.

add two teams so you can balance out both leagues., move 1 or 2 others.. or more, depending on how it goes.

 then i'd rearrange the divisions to 8 four team divisions.

NL East : NY, Philly, Pitt and Washington. you could also make an argument for the Braves, to keep some of the rivalries going. i would not put DC and Baltimore in the same league, that's just suicidal for both teams.

NL Central : this one's easy, the Cubs, Cards and Reds all HAVE to stay. they've been rivals on some level for over a hundred years and you can't break that up. also the Brewers kinda' slide in there by geographical default, but they do have a nice little rivalry with the Cubs starting, don't they?

NL west. LA, Colorado, SD and SF. not much to change here, but you could argue replacing the Rox with the Snakes, or possibly even a new Las Vegas team. controversial subject, i know, but i can see some merits to a team there.

NL South : that leaves us with, Houston, Atlanta and Arizona. i would then say move the Rays to the NL. they have no 'rivals' anywhere close, and if they stay in the AL east, they're doomed I would personally be surprised if the Marlins are still in Florida at the decade. in that case we bring Las Vegas back into the mix, as well as the Rockies if need be.

AL East : Baltimore, Toronto, NY and Boston. the Yanks and Sox don't need any new cannon fodder and no new owner would ever go for it, so no change

AL Central : Twins, White Sox, Tigers and Indians all have their own rivalries and histories. it's a competitive division, so why screw it up?

AL West : Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA/Anahiem/whoever-else-want-a-peice-of-the-team.   works pretty well to me, they all play in the same time zone for fan convenience.

AL South that leaves us with the Rangers and a a bunch of new kids, don't it? so here's what i can see. Texas, Raleigh, KC and LV. maybe a little spread out, but you can't fit everything into a nice, tight package.

now, here's what I'd do for the new teams and why.

Portland : as has been covered, is a growing market with a successful minor league team. I don't know how well it would draw outside the city, but a lot of Giants fans outside SF jumped ship becuase of Bonds, and Oakland's obviously isn;t that large. should leave a lot of Northern CA and most of Oregon without previous loyalties.

Raleigh/Durham : Southerners love baseball, but they don't really love the Braves that much, otherwise TBS wouldn't be looking for better ratings with other teams. the Bulls are one of the most popular minor league teams, which speaks well of that region's available fan base. the Panthers also draw very well, which indicates that alot of people are willing to travel to see a game.

this is the most controversial, Las Vegas : one of the fastest growing cities in America. no other sports teams to draw from, and a huge tourist base. here's what i see as a formula for success there. you build a dome to deal with the heat, and build it out near the suburbs instead of on the strip. you play a lot of day games, so you don't interfere with the night attractions in the actual city. this way you can draw from the families of the employees who work the hotels and casinos and the tourists looking to kill an afternoon by going to watch their team play the Vegas squad.

that's three teams for 2 expansion slots, isn't it? well, I already intimated that I would relocate the Marlins. 12 years, 2 World Series Titles... and they still can't crack a 20k fan average. if it hasn't caught on yet, it never will. time to move on.

other candidates are the Devil, sorry, just Rays now. sure, they're a late night punchline now, but attendence went up last season, they have a new owner who seems willing spend, and as we all saw last season how some real talent to make waves both next season and for the near future as well. if you can get them out of that dump they play in now, who knows?

Pittsburg, sadly, might also find a place on this list. they have a long history in the city, but the fans just don't seem to care about anything but the Steelers. new stadium, new ownership... no butts in the seats. if it keeps up like this they'll either fold or move.

KC is on alot of people's lists, but i don't think they're totally doomed there. The Royals used to be one of the most popular teams in baseball in the 80's, but then that cheapskate owner took over. the stadiums beautiful, the fans were passionate.. force an ownership change and give them some hope and see what happens.

while we're at it, i would propose two new changes to the ownership structure.

first and foremost is a salary FLOOR. not cap, for all you Yankee haters. The Marlins took in about 30 million in revenue sharing and had a payroll of under 20.. and then DUMPED salary! this is just stupid, forcing other teams to pay to prop up failed teams. the Devil Rays under Niamoli also did this, and it made me sick. I would propose a salary minimum of whatever you take in in revenue sharing. it's free money anyway, and if you can't even make enough in attendence to pay your office staff, move the team. hopefully this will force out the cheapskate hobbyist owners and prevent new ones from buying teams.

second, I would also institute some policy that allows the other owners to force another one to sell a team for the good of the came as a whole. I know i keep coming back to the owners, but that's the root of the problem. Who wants to cough up 80 bucks a seat for the nosebleed section of some taxpayer funded stadium, just to watch a sucky team that's out of the pennant race on opening day? Hope fills seats, and some cities just don't have that anymore.

okay, done pontificating. thank you for your time.