Your MLB Realignment

[hogan873]

After reading some stuff on the ideas being floated on MLB realignment, I wondered what everyone here on ST thinks. What would be your ideas in realigning the teams? Have fun with it.

 

My plan would take three years to implement. For the first year, the Twins are moved to the AL West, and the Brewers are moved to the AL Central. Now each league has 30 teams. For the second year, the Rays are moved from Tampa to another city (in my future it's Las Vegas). They move to the AL West. The third year is the radical realignment. Both leagues adopt the DH since several teams would be switching leagues. In the end, it looks like this:

 

AL North - Twins, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Tigers, Mariners

AL Atlantic - Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Orioles, Nationals

AL Pacific - Padres, Giants, A's, Dodgers, Angels

 

NL Central - Pirates, Cardinals, Royals, Las Vegas (Rays), Rockies

NL South - Astros, Rangers, D-Backs, Braves, Marlins

NL Great Lakes - White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Indians, Reds

[flavum]

After reading some stuff on the ideas being floated on MLB realignment, I wondered what everyone here on ST thinks. What would be your ideas in realigning the teams? Have fun with it.

 

My plan would take three years to implement. For the first year, the Twins are moved to the AL West, and the Brewers are moved to the AL Central. Now each league has 30 teams. For the second year, the Rays are moved from Tampa to another city (in my future it's Las Vegas). They move to the AL West. The third year is the radical realignment. Both leagues adopt the DH since several teams would be switching leagues. In the end, it looks like this:

 

AL North - Twins, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Tigers, Mariners

AL Atlantic - Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Orioles, Nationals

AL Pacific - Padres, Giants, A's, Dodgers, Angels

 

NL Central - Pirates, Cardinals, Royals, Las Vegas (Rays), Rockies

NL South - Astros, Rangers, D-Backs, Braves, Marlins

NL Great Lakes - White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Indians, Reds

 

Red Sox and Mariners in the same division. Have fun trying to sell that one.

[LittleHurt05]

After reading some stuff on the ideas being floated on MLB realignment, I wondered what everyone here on ST thinks. What would be your ideas in realigning the teams? Have fun with it.

 

My plan would take three years to implement. For the first year, the Twins are moved to the AL West, and the Brewers are moved to the AL Central. Now each league has 30 teams. For the second year, the Rays are moved from Tampa to another city (in my future it's Las Vegas). They move to the AL West. The third year is the radical realignment. Both leagues adopt the DH since several teams would be switching leagues. In the end, it looks like this:

 

AL North - Twins, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Tigers, Mariners

AL Atlantic - Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Orioles, Nationals

AL Pacific - Padres, Giants, A's, Dodgers, Angels

 

NL Central - Pirates, Cardinals, Royals, Las Vegas (Rays), Rockies

NL South - Astros, Rangers, D-Backs, Braves, Marlins

NL Great Lakes - White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Indians, Reds

 

I don't think the Cubs/Sox & Yankees/Mets being the same division will make many people happy.

 

I honestly don't see much of a need for realignment right now, I think the divisions are set up fine now. If you were willing to play at least one interleague series at all times of the season, you can throw the Astros into the AL West and even out the leagues at 15.

[G&T]

After reading some stuff on the ideas being floated on MLB realignment, I wondered what everyone here on ST thinks. What would be your ideas in realigning the teams? Have fun with it.

 

My plan would take three years to implement. For the first year, the Twins are moved to the AL West, and the Brewers are moved to the AL Central. Now each league has 30 teams. For the second year, the Rays are moved from Tampa to another city (in my future it's Las Vegas). They move to the AL West. The third year is the radical realignment. Both leagues adopt the DH since several teams would be switching leagues. In the end, it looks like this:

 

AL North - Twins, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Tigers, Mariners

AL Atlantic - Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Orioles, Nationals

AL Pacific - Padres, Giants, A's, Dodgers, Angels

 

NL Central - Pirates, Cardinals, Royals, Las Vegas (Rays), Rockies

NL South - Astros, Rangers, D-Backs, Braves, Marlins

NL Great Lakes - White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Indians, Reds

 

So the teams in the AL Pacific would never leave California while Seattle and Boston would constantly have 5 hour flights?

[flavum]

If they were going to do radical realignment, I would probably do 5 divisions of six teams:

 

Pacific- LA, LAA, SF, Oak, SD, Sea

Southwest- Arz, Col, KC, Stl, Hou, Tex

Central- Chi, Chi, Mil, Min, Cle, Det

Southeast- Fla, TB, Atl, Cin, Pit, Tor

Northeast- NY, NY, Bos, Phi, Was, Bal

 

I would probably have some type of plan where you rotate out the Southeast teams in the Northeast division so Washington and Baltimore wouldn't always be in the same division with the New York teams and Boston.

 

Play the teams in the division 18 games=90

Play 12 teams outside your divison x 6 games=72

 

5 division winners seeded 1-5 by record. 3 wildcard teams (top 3 second place teams) seeded 6-8 by record.

 

1 vs 8; 2 vs 7; 3 vs 6; 4 vs 5 in the first round. Not a straight bracket. The best seed remaining plays the lowest seed remaining in the semi-finals. All rounds best-of-seven.

 

If you do this, any matchup can happen in any round. It would be possible the Sox and Cubs could play in the first round or the World Series in any given year.

 

 

 

[knightni]

There's no way that the NL and AL get merged like that.

 

I'd say that it might be good like this:

 

NYY

BOS

TBR

BAL

CHARLOTTE

 

CWS

KCR

MIN

DET

CLE

TOR

 

TEX

LAA

SEA

OAK

LAS VEGAS

 

NYM

PHI

FLO

WAS

ATL

 

STL

CHC

MIL

PIT

CIN

HOU

 

SFG

SDP

LAD

COL

ARI

[hogan873]

Has there been talk of expansion? I wouldn't be surprised...and I wouldn't be surprised if the Rays are moved eventually.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Has there been talk of expansion? I wouldn't be surprised...and I wouldn't be surprised if the Rays are moved eventually.

I think it's only a matter of time. they have a crazy lease. So, it'll take a strong pull to get them out.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am working on my alignment idea, but I need to know how much KC and St. Louis consider themselves "rivals". I want to put them in the same division, but it messes with the rest of my idea.

 

So far, my break down has The 6 team divisions, a 5 team, a 3 team, and a 4 team. So, I need to do some shifting.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

I honestly don't see much of a need for realignment right now, I think the divisions are set up fine now. If you were willing to play at least one interleague series at all times of the season, you can throw the Astros into the AL West and even out the leagues at 15.

I agree, for the most part, the divisions are logical (regional).

 

If teams move like Detroit, KC, or Tampa move, then i can see some minor adjustments (shifts within the league). For example, if the Rays moved to Vegas, then I could see them moving into the West and leave it as that, or move Texas to the Central and Cleveland to the East.

 

The only way a "radical" realignment happens is if the DH is either abolished by the AL or adopted by the NL. Then you can do some major whole sale changes to create "hyper-regional" match ups (an Idea I love by the way). In a situation like that, you clump teams like the Brewers, Cubs, Sox, Twins, Royals, and Twins in one division.

 

So, for the sake of some fun, here is my "Hyper-Regional" Realignment (it still has some flaws I need to work out)-

D1 - Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Mets, Washington

D2 - Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Toronto

D3 - Minnesota, Sox, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cubs, Milwaukee

D4 - Tampa Bay, Florida, Atlanta

D5 - Texas, Houston, Arizona, Colorado

D6 - Angels, Seattle, Oakland, Dodgers, San Francisco, San Diego

 

Note, i did NOT give the divisions names or leagues. In a massive realignment scenario, there would be a LOT of politics as to what divisions go in what league.

[knightni]

You could also have relegation:

 

NYY

BOS

TBR

CWS

MIN

DET

LAA

TEX

SEA

OAK

 

 

TOR

BAL

CLE

KCR

 

 

 

PHI

ATL

FLO

STL

CHC

MIL

COL

LAD

ARI

SFG

 

 

NYM

WAS

HOU

CIN

PIT

SDP

 

 

10 teams each league in elite, 10 combined for relegation.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I don't want realignment, but I do want to overhaul the scheduling and interleague play systems.

 

Here's how it should be done IMO:

-Move the Pirates to the AL Central. Move the Royals to the AL West. Each division in baseball now has 5 teams.

-In order to make the 15 AL vs. 15 NL system work, interleague starts on opening day and ends on the last day of the season, so at any time in baseball there's at least 1 interleague series going on. This way all teams have an opponent.

 

Breakdown of the 162 games:

-Each AL team is given an NL rival team. Each AL team plays each non-rival NL team once per season in a 3-game set, with home/road alternating each year. So, the Sox for example would play 7 NL teams at home and 7 NL teams on the road. 3 games X 14 teams = 42 games total, with 21 on the road and 21 at home.

-Each AL and NL team plays their same-league, non-divisional opponents twice per year (1 home/1 road) in a 3-game set. 60 games total: 30 road, 30 home.

-Each team plays it's divisional rival 14 times per season: 1 4-game set at home, 1 4-game set on the road, 1 3-game set at home, 1 3-game set on th road. 56 games total.

-Total so far is 158, leaving 4 games left. Right before the All-Star break have an AL/NL "rival" series where each team plays their MLB-dictated rival 2 times at home and 2 times on the road. Grand total is 81 games at home and 81 games on the road.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[knightni]

Move Milwaukee back to the AL then.

 

 

[hogan873]

I don't want realignment, but I do want to overhaul the scheduling and interleague play systems.

 

Here's how it should be done IMO:

-Move the Pirates to the AL Central. Move the Royals to the AL West. Each division in baseball now has 5 teams.

-In order to make the 15 AL vs. 15 NL system work, interleague starts on opening day and ends on the last day of the season, so at any time in baseball there's at least 1 interleague series going on. This way all teams have an opponent.

I like that so the Sox would have a team to beat on...but they'd end up playing tough against the Sox just like the Royals do.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I like that so the Sox would have a team to beat on...but they'd end up playing tough against the Sox just like the Royals do.

Making a move like that could really help an organization like the Pirates IMO because it would give them a bit of a new identity with the DH. Plus it would give the fans a bunch of new teams to see each year, and if coincided with a slew of up-and-coming young players it could generate some interest. But something needs to be done with that team.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Move Milwaukee back to the AL then.

That would be fun, but I kind of like being able to go to Miller Park and cheer the Brewers, and if they played the Sox all the time I wouldn't be able to do that anymore.

[balfanman]

If they were going to do radical realignment, I would probably do 5 divisions of six teams:

 

Pacific- LA, LAA, SF, Oak, SD, Sea

Southwest- Arz, Col, KC, Stl, Hou, Tex

Central- Chi, Chi, Mil, Min, Cle, Det

Southeast- Fla, TB, Atl, Cin, Pit, Tor

Northeast- NY, NY, Bos, Phi, Was, Bal

 

I would probably have some type of plan where you rotate out the Southeast teams in the Northeast division so Washington and Baltimore wouldn't always be in the same division with the New York teams and Boston.

 

Play the teams in the division 18 games=90

Play 12 teams outside your divison x 6 games=72

 

5 division winners seeded 1-5 by record. 3 wildcard teams (top 3 second place teams) seeded 6-8 by record.

 

1 vs 8; 2 vs 7; 3 vs 6; 4 vs 5 in the first round. Not a straight bracket. The best seed remaining plays the lowest seed remaining in the semi-finals. All rounds best-of-seven.

 

If you do this, any matchup can happen in any round. It would be possible the Sox and Cubs could play in the first round or the World Series in any given year.

 

I actually kind of like this idea for some reason. Instead of having Washington and Baltimore rotating divisions though, you could do something like have team opponents based on the previous seasons records. That way teams like Boston and New York would consistanly have to play a tougher schedule.

 

[WilliamTell]

I used to mess around with this sort of thing when I was extremely bored in school. What I always wanted to do was make 2 more teams to get to 32 total an make 6 playoff spots for each league. When I got down to the end I added a franchise to Memphis and Portland while bringing Milwaukee back to the American League.

 

AL East

 

Boston, Cleveland, New York, Toronto

 

AL North

 

Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Minnesota

 

AL South

 

Baltimore, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas

 

AL West

 

Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, Seattle

 

NL East

 

New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

 

NL North

 

Chicago, Cincinnati, Colorado, St. Louis

 

NL South

 

Atlanta, Florida, Houston, Memphis

 

NL West

 

Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco

 

[MattZakrowski]

No more divisions, every team plays every other team 5-6 times.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I just had a great idea:

a radical form of ‘floating’ realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

 

Oh wait, Bud Selig already took that idea:

When baseball commissioner Bud Selig named a 14-person "special committee for on-field matters" four months ago, he promised that all topics would be in play and "there are no sacred cows." The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

 

The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season).

 

As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East. In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths. The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons.

 

One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

 

Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs.

 

Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions. It is important to remember that the committee's talks are very preliminary and non-binding.

 

"But if there is something that comes up we feel should be addressed during the season, we can make a recommendation then," said committee co-chair and Braves president John Schuerholz, referring to less complicated issues such as pace-of-game directives. "This is all about any ideas that help make the game better."

 

The floating realignment idea is nothing more than a concept at this point, part of the brainstorming sessions that have occurred in the committee's one in-person meeting and occasional conference calls. (Selig is pushing for another in-person meeting, such as at the All-Star Game. The committee includes current managers and executives, making in-person meetings logistically difficult.) The mechanics of the system are far from nailed down. But what is important is that the committee is making good on its mission to look at absolutely any on-field idea that could make the game better. Blowing up fixed divisions as we know them -- and even leagues -- certainly qualifies as radical thinking.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[ptatc]

I agree, for the most part, the divisions are logical (regional).

 

If teams move like Detroit, KC, or Tampa move, then i can see some minor adjustments (shifts within the league). For example, if the Rays moved to Vegas, then I could see them moving into the West and leave it as that, or move Texas to the Central and Cleveland to the East.

 

The only way a "radical" realignment happens is if the DH is either abolished by the AL or adopted by the NL. Then you can do some major whole sale changes to create "hyper-regional" match ups (an Idea I love by the way). In a situation like that, you clump teams like the Brewers, Cubs, Sox, Twins, Royals, and Twins in one division.

 

So, for the sake of some fun, here is my "Hyper-Regional" Realignment (it still has some flaws I need to work out)-

D1 - Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Mets, Washington

D2 - Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Toronto

D3 - Minnesota, Sox, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cubs, Milwaukee

D4 - Tampa Bay, Florida, Atlanta

D5 - Texas, Houston, Arizona, Colorado

D6 - Angels, Seattle, Oakland, Dodgers, San Francisco, San Diego

 

Note, i did NOT give the divisions names or leagues. In a massive realignment scenario, there would be a LOT of politics as to what divisions go in what league.

 

One thing to look at is you can't have teams from the same geographic TV market in the same division like Sox/Scrubs, Yankees/Mets/ Giants/A's.

 

The TV audience draws more if they have different teams to play and are viewedas interleague rivals. Football does it as well with the Giants/Jets. It's not realistic to put them in the same "league" or "division" or however you want to describe it.

 

[Buehrlesque]

That floating realignment of Bud's is just a terrible idea.

 

Here's what I would do:

 

• Keep all divisions exactly the way they are.
• Shorten spring training by one week.
• Shorten the season to 150 games, cutting mostly interleague play.
• Include one "Double-Header Saturday" in June, July and August across MLB.
• 3 division winners in AL and NL all make playoffs, as always.
• Top 2 Wildcard teams in each League play a one game playoff to determine who wins the Wildcard.
• Eliminate the "you can't play a team from your own division in the 1st round" rule. (How stupid is that one?)
• Extend first round (LDS) to Best-of-7.

 

I don't like the Wildcard because it puts you on completely equal footing with division winners, who deserve a greater advantage/reward for winning their division. You played 150+ games darn it, winning the division is a big deal! In my plan, you couldn't "clinch" the Wildcard. You want to "clinch" something and get an automatic playoff berth? Then win your division!

 

Everybody loves single elimination Game 163s, so why not institute them every year? That would make the Wildcard race more interesting down the stretch, make the playoffs more reachable for small budget teams, and by forcing the 2 Wildcard teams to use their best starting pitcher in the Play In Game, give the division winners a deserved advantage in the LDS.

 

With players staying in shape year round, there's no reason for spring training to be as long as it is. It's just the owners trying to milk as many profits out of spring as possible. The regular season could be cut by two weeks also, to avoid November baseball. For competitive reasons, no playoff series should ever be less than a Best-of-7. Heck, I'd at least take at token look at the Best-of-9 World Series of ol'.

 

The bottom line is there's nothing better than playoff baseball, and, after playing a long season, division winners deserve a longer victory lap. Plus the better team would win more often. Also, you could schedule a day game or two in the World Series, which fans have been clamoring for. With the 2-4 weeks you'd be saving with the regular/pre-season shortenings, you would have some room to play with.

 

(Neutral site World Series? I'm skeptical, but open minded. Maybe 1 or 2 games in each team's park, then the final deciding games Superbowl style. I wouldn't implement that one right now however.)

 

Now, with the shorter season the players would have to accept a modest payscale decrease. I think they would sign off on it, realizing they're still raking in the cash and now have three extra weeks away from work (as long as the owners don't turn it into a cash grab). Revenue changes would have to be carefully scrutinized to keep the balance.

 

All that is somewhat far fetched, but it keeps the integrity of the game while integrating some new and old ideas and greatly improving competitive standards.

 

Thoughts, anyone?

 

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

That floating realignment of Bud's is just a terrible idea.

 

Here's what I would do:

 

• Keep all divisions exactly the way they are.

• Shorten spring training by one week.
• Shorten the season to 150 games, cutting mostly interleague play.
• Include one "Double-Header Saturday" in June, July and August across MLB.
• 3 division winners in AL and NL all make playoffs, as always.
• Top 2 Wildcard teams in each League play a one game playoff to determine who wins the Wildcard.
• Eliminate the "you can't play a team from your own division in the 1st round" rule. (How stupid is that one?)
• Extend first round (LDS) to Best-of-7.

 

I don't like the Wildcard because it puts you on completely equal footing with division winners, who deserve a greater advantage/reward for winning their division. You played 150+ games darn it, winning the division is a big deal! In my plan, you couldn't "clinch" the Wildcard. You want to "clinch" something and get an automatic playoff berth? Then win your division!

 

Everybody loves single elimination Game 163s, so why not institute them every year? That would make the Wildcard race more interesting down the stretch, make the playoffs more reachable for small budget teams, and by forcing the 2 Wildcard teams to use their best starting pitcher in the Play In Game, give the division winners a deserved advantage in the LDS.

 

With players staying in shape year round, there's no reason for spring training to be as long as it is. It's just the owners trying to milk as many profits out of spring as possible. The regular season could be cut by two weeks also, to avoid November baseball. For competitive reasons, no playoff series should ever be less than a Best-of-7. Heck, I'd at least take at token look at the Best-of-9 World Series of ol'.

 

The bottom line is there's nothing better than playoff baseball, and, after playing a long season, division winners deserve a longer victory lap. Plus the better team would win more often. Also, you could schedule a day game or two in the World Series, which fans have been clamoring for. With the 2-4 weeks you'd be saving with the regular/pre-season shortenings, you would have some room to play with.

 

(Neutral site World Series? I'm skeptical, but open minded. Maybe 1 or 2 games in each team's park, then the final deciding games Superbowl style. I wouldn't implement that one right now however.)

 

Now, with the shorter season the players would have to accept a modest payscale decrease. I think they would sign off on it, realizing they're still raking in the cash and now have three extra weeks away from work (as long as the owners don't turn it into a cash grab). Revenue changes would have to be carefully scrutinized to keep the balance.

 

All that is somewhat far fetched, but it keeps the integrity of the game while integrating some new and old ideas and greatly improving competitive standards.

 

Thoughts, anyone?

I really don't like the two bolded parts.

1) Shortening ST doesn't help anyone. It just makes the players have to work harder when they're there, and it gives them less time to work on things while also providing less time for the players on roster bubbles to prove themselves. The players would just have to get ready earlier. Besides, cold weather cities are just going to have more problems if the season starts earlier. What MLB needs to do is find a way to make ST more lucrative for all clubs in baseball. Perhaps a couple prospect showcase games, maybe some All-Star break type festivities, something like that. MLB needs to get more people to ST.

2) Shortening the season is a terrible idea. Baseball is supposed to have 162 games per season and shortening it just makes records harder to achieve. I don't see any reason why there would need to be fewer games.

 

Realignment and stuff is all way, way down the list of priorites anyway, or at least it should be. The biggest problems in MLB right now have to deal with the arbitration process, the comp pick process, the Rule-4 draft, the lack of ability to trade draft picks, the fact that MLB just looks the other way when teams completely ignore slot recommendations, the problems in foreign baseball academies, the Japanese posting process, etc. The international signing system is probably the most scrutinized of all, but it also might be the most fair system of all because at least all teams have an equal shot at a player if they can afford him. But even this system is bad because dealings are shady, undeserving players get big money, etc. and it's also begging to be exploited by American players in the future. I also think there needs to be a draft lottery so that way teams like the Nationals and Pirates don't automatically benefit from tanking all the time. But there are a ton of issues that need to be addressed before realignment is considered.

 

And really, there's no perfectly fair system. A salary cap would be bad for baseball, and you can't make small-market teams put all their money into on-field talent just to chase .500 when what they really need is superstar prospects down on the farm. There will always be teams like the Rays, A's, Twins, etc. that have to find ways to compete with other higher payroll teams (although Target Field is going to help the Twins for a bit). Maybe an idea would be for MLB to redistribute revenue sharing money in a way where, for example, 20-30% of funds from the top-10 teams in the league go toward subsidizing farm system costs for the bottom-10 teams in the league, and maybe this would help an organization turn over a bit quicker and at the same time help out with the idea of parity. But then there's the issue of s***ty management just pissing away money and teams still not ending up profitable. I imagine as long as baseball is around these issues will be around.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

One other thing, too: the plight of the Rays and so forth should be considered, but really, teams like the Rays shouldn't be forcing MLB to make major changes anyway. The game runs off big teams in major market cities and it's these teams that keep the league afloat. The most important clubs are the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Cubs, Sox, Angels, Dodgers, Cardinals, Phillies, etc. and fair or not, they just have to come first no matter what. But hopefully the draft issues can be fixed if nothing else.

 

Also, any realignment that would cut into the amount of Red Sox-Yankees games is never going to work. Both teams wield too much power and would never go for that. And the floating teams idea is pretty retarded too, I mean why reward the Indians for sucking with a bunch of premium games against the Yankees and Red Sox, and then hurt the Twins by bringing the Rays to the AL Central? Besides, how many Indians fans would rather see a bad Indians team get handled by the Yankees when they could potentially see a more competitive series against the hated White Sox?

 

But yeah, the system will never be perfect. The one thing I'd like to see though is a more balanced schedule and I proposed an idea in this thread that would help create that. But no matter what you do, there will always be problems. For example, there will always be Detroit Tigers-like situations, where a club goes from a bottom-feeder that lasts like a decade or more to a top contender and WS team that MLB can hang it's hat on, only to end up swamped with bad contracts a couple years later and facing attendance issues plus very limited FA dollars. And unless the MLBPA wants to allow owners the ability to include buyouts in each year of a multi-year contract, that will always happen. So there's really no answer IMO.

 

K, I'm done rambling on this topic.

[Quin]

FWIW, I thin realignment is a terrible idea with the current 30 teams.

 

I'd add a team to New Orleans/Memphis and Portland/Las Vegas to the AL and this is the result.

 

AL East

 

New York Yankees

Boston Red Sox

Toronto Blue Jays

Baltimore Orioles

 

AL Central

 

Chicago White Sox

Detroit Tigers

Cleveland Indians

Minnesota Twins

 

AL West

 

Oakland A's

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

Seattle Mariners

Portland Rain/Las Vegas Aces (included names for the heck of it)

 

AL South

 

Texas Rangers

Tampa Bay Rays

Kansas City Royals

Memphis Blues/New Orleans Gambits

 

NL East

 

New York Mets

Philadelphia Phillies

Pittsburgh Pirates

Cincinnati Reds

 

NL Central

 

Chicago Cubs

St. Louis Cardinals

Milwaukee Brewers

Colorado Rockies

 

NL West

 

San Francisco Giants

San Diego Padres

Los Angeles Dodgers

Arizona Diamond Backs

 

NL South

 

Washington Nationals

Atlanta Braves

Florida Marlins

Houston Astros