Floating
Recently Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated noted that commissioner Bud Selig’s special committee for on-field matters, an assemblage of 14 baseball luminaries, has actually been brainstorming (or at least brainclouding). One concept they have been discussing is “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.”
Realignment in and of itself is not a bad idea in my opinion. Geographic realignment. One of my favorite things about the CBS Sports website is their league map. It really brings the distribution of teams and their league/division affiliations up for some healthy debate (and points out what fun it must be to travel from Miami to Seattle for a key interleague series). It doesn’t take a group of 14 baseball luminaries to look at that map and see room for some adjustments.
I want to be very clear. I am not anti-realignment. I am anti-”free to change divisions from year-to-year.” Rivalries are an important aspect of sport and annually changing divisions seems likely to destroy current rivalries and does not facilitate the forming of new ones given division change looms at the end of each season.
But where this committee of luminaries loses me completely is when they suggest realignment could be based on “payroll and their plans to contend or not.” Huh? Is MLB seriously considering the concept of the NL Poor, NL Middle Class and NL Rich? And that a team could float from one of those divisions to another based on it’s own whim? We think we’re going to contend this year so what division will be easiest to win – let’s try the NL Poor!
If this committee is seeking to radically alter the MLB landscape some less destructive ideas might be to establish and enforce a salary ceiling (and basement), or to adopt an English Premier League-style promotion and relegation system.
As Verducci concludes, “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.” This I agree with. I applaud the committee’s existence and the fact that they are actually thinking out loud. My goal is not to discourage this committee from coming up with more ideas on how to make the game better. It’s simply to let them know that I think this particular idea is a very bad one.
17 comments
ceetar
3/10/2010-12:15pm at 12:15 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed, and I think that’s why they’ve floated the idea out here, to see the response.
I don’t like the specifics of moving a non-contender to face the Yankees to trump up ticket sales and basically give the Yankees a bye into the playoffs.
One thing that might be worth considering is that all 8 playoff teams get a schedule the following year where they play the other 7 teams. (Even if you could argue this is one of the things that cost the ’07 Mets)
wannybackstra
3/10/2010-12:19pm at 12:19 pm (UTC -4)
Wouldn’t you love to be a fan of a team that is choosing to play in the NL Skid Row division with 18 games against each of the other Skid Row division teams?
This idea is ridiculous for too many reasons to discuss in one post. But one very basic element of the game that it ignores is that the games are decided on the field. No one pegged the Rays nor the Rockies as contenders two years ago.
And any owner that admits to not trying to win should be forced to sell his team.
trs86
3/10/2010-12:31pm at 12:31 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed. How would they even determine who got first pick? Would there be a lottery every year to decide who got to pick first? Would the Yankees just be stuck every year? This is just ridiculous. It does nothing to address the “problem” of lack of competitiveness. I don’t want to turn this discussion into that one but I don’t even think there is a problem much less this joke of an idea being a way to solve it.
wannybackstra
3/10/2010-12:42pm at 12:42 pm (UTC -4)
The way I heard it explained on the radio this morning was that the divisions could be numbered unevenly (more so than they are now). For example, if the Indians chose to compete in the AL East in order to increase its attendance with more games v. the Yankees and Red Sox, no team would have to leave the AL East.
At the same time, if the Rays thought they could compete this year if not for the fact that there were better teams in its division and chose to forego the big attendance draws, it could go to the AL Central and face lesser competition.
It’s just absurd.
trs86
3/10/2010-12:49pm at 12:49 pm (UTC -4)
That’s what I mean, so lets say the Redsox are tired of being in the AL East and want to move to the central. Do they just get to do that because they want? What if no one wanted to be in the division with the Yankees? LOL. It’s just silly.
“Trade us that player or we won’t be in your division anymore”
“So we will just follow you where ever you go”
metsfan4decades
3/10/2010-12:46pm at 12:46 pm (UTC -4)
Couldn’t agree more.
I never really understood why the majority of the divisions in each league – after the last expansion – wound up with 5 teams. — Except AL west who wound up with 4 and NL central who wound up with 6. To me, it should be uniform across the board – 5 teams each.
But to chance year to year on whether you plan to contend or not? Wow, think of the machinations of that one. Some team claiming to be a non contender asks for a ‘non contending’ division for that year. Then they go out and make deals that could very well have them in the mix – have a far greater advantage than the other ‘non contenders’. Bingo – instant division champs.
And who would be in charge of making these divisions – and how unscrupulous will they be? Could they be ‘swayed’? The possibilities of this being more corrupt than some elections would be mind boggling.
And I never, ever want to be in the same division as the Yankees. Crime rate at the stadiums would go up each year – LOL.
Are they advocating being able to switch from the AL to NL and visa/versa? If yes, what would they do with the DH? You make long term plans for certain players sometimes based on whether or not you use a DH. So you spend some money on a heavy hitter for 3 years, only to switch leagues the following year. So what do you do with that heavy hitter that may not be a great defensive player anymore? DHs would probably never get a long term contract anymore….
metsgirl31
3/10/2010-12:50pm at 12:50 pm (UTC -4)
+1 on all points
GravediggerHebner
3/10/2010-1:01pm at 1:01 pm (UTC -4)
The unfortunate necessity for 16 teams in one league and 14 teams in the other is that if each league had 15 teams then every day one team would have to be “off” or there would have to be interleauge play all season long to facilitate it.
Interleague play is a whole different discussion. Personally for me the novelty has worn off and I’d be happy to see it removed. But a way for it to “make sense” and stay would be to shift one NL team to the AL and have interleauge games just going on all season. How to make the schedule (and make it roughly fair) I have no idea at this moment.
metsgirl31
3/10/2010-12:49pm at 12:49 pm (UTC -4)
Wow…such a bad idea.
trs86
3/10/2010-1:03pm at 1:03 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed, it’s like they are putting this idea out there as a “Well it could be worse, lets just leave it the way it is.”
metsgirl31
3/10/2010-1:06pm at 1:06 pm (UTC -4)
That’s a funny thought except that I think you are not completely wrong…sad.
wannybackstra
3/10/2010-1:02pm at 1:02 pm (UTC -4)
A level-headed take on this from Rob Neyer:
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/2681/floating-realignment-interesting-impractical
stickguy
3/10/2010-1:07pm at 1:07 pm (UTC -4)
definitely a non starter.
I do agree with MF4D (wisdom of the ages sticking together again…) that the divisions should be equal. But, you also have to then address having unequal # of teams per league, and if you move one to get 6 divisions of 5 each, you will always have to have teams off or interleague going on.
So, I don’t think expansion of 2 teams is in the cards. But how about this: Scrap the divisions as they are, and go back to the old days, and just have AL and NL.
then, the league winners get a bye, and the next best team, and the next 4 play the WC series like they do today.
Doesn’t fix the problem of 16 vs. 14 teams, but at least the best teams by record get in.
Also makes it easier to juggle (rig?) the schedule to have bad teams play bad teams, if you want to do that. Kind of like the NFL does.
metsfan4decades
3/10/2010-1:28pm at 1:28 pm (UTC -4)
Well, wasn’t the Brewers originally in the AL? So couldn’t they reorganize where there is 5 teams in each division, 15 in each league?
trs86
3/10/2010-1:31pm at 1:31 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed, they are not an NL team.
stickguy
3/10/2010-1:41pm at 1:41 pm (UTC -4)
Yes, but then you have to have an interleague game every day (unless you have a team not playing, even on a Saturday).
either go FT interleague play or scrap it entirely IMO. But you need an even number of teams to make a schedule work.
ceetar
3/10/2010-2:17pm at 2:17 pm (UTC -4)
While this specific idea is bad, the idea that they’re thinking about things is internesting. Not stuck in the history of “it has to be this way cause it is.”
The interleague/World Series mystique has gone down every year. 10 years ago each leagues were still technically operated separately. 15 years ago they never played each other. It might be time to just say ‘screw it’ and mix it up like all the other leagues do. Stick to 76 games against the Division, 50 against the League/Conference and 36 against the whole League. Except for the pesky DH thing, there isn’t much wrong with this idea. But with the way teams play and talk about rest and what not and the AL having the advantage I think most people would get over playing with the DH 18 times a year. Especially since it’s basically be through the entire year, and you could almost field a regular catcher that plays every day and just DHs the 18 times.
Coupled with that, why not allow teams to petition for certain matchups? So if the Mets and Cubs have battled for the Wild Card in ’10, both teams could request an extra series in ’11. (Or MLB could be smart and follow the league and learn which teams are hot for each other going into a season and build rivalries without the teams having to tell them.)