It seems to be common knowledge to most that something needs to happen but Bud Selig et. al can't seem to get anything done. Just wanted to see what ideas were out there.

What is the common knowledge or the issues with the current setup?

They need fewer teams overall, I say six fewer. This would dramatically increase the quality of play instead of the present horrible #5 starters and relievers.  Also, it would slightly increase the chances of a world series win.  As-is any team can expect to win 3 times per century.  Part of the reason why The Yankees have so many championships is because there were half as many teams in the 1920's. 

The NL has 16 teams. The AL has 14 teams. Having 15 teams in each division would result in an unbalanced schedule b/c of the odd amount of teams.

 

The power and wealth is not equally distributed. Too hard to compete in the AL East if you aren't NY or BOS. The NL Central is fairly weak top to bottom. This results in a team like the Orioles playing a much more difficult schedule over the entire years as opposed to the Cardinals.

 

The Rangers (Arlington, TX) closest team in their division is the Angels (Anaheim, CA), 2 time zones away.

 

Quality talent is spread too thin.

 

There are more but these are just a few off the top of my head.

 

Most of these issues disappear if you use a seeded tourney instead of division winners.  The extremely long schedule makes that an even better idea.  However, baseball is very slow to change, so don't expect the current format to be altered any time soon.

I think Americans need to get over the division thing - in all sports. The leagues should go to a single table with a seeded tournament. Go back to a balanced schedule - even though it is more expensive (coastal trips mostly). It makes all the games matter and the Reds don't have to play the Pirates a thousand times. Get rid of interleague play and the designated hitter expand the rosters to 26 to make the players union happy. Brewers and Nats should be in the A.L.. I'd bounce the Orioles to the N.L. 

Here are just a few of my suggestions:

 

Embrace new technology i.e. instant replay

 

Eliminate the DH

 

Implement some sort of salary cap/revenue sharing system that allows for more equality.  As of now a team like the Indians, or similar small market team, has no chance to remain competitive over the long-term.

 

 

I always thought that the charm of baseball was its penchant for idiosyncrasies.  I also happen to like divisional play in most sports.  I think it goes a long way to creating rivalries and it gives you a chance to learn to really dislike certain players.  I also never buy the dilution of talent argument.  In 1920 there were sixteen teams.  The population of the U.S. was one-third of what it is today and minorities weren't allowed to play.  The current talent pool in the major leagues, I would speculate, is probably stronger than it's ever been.

The NL has 16 teams. The AL has 14 teams. Having 15 teams in each division would result in an unbalanced schedule b/c of the odd amount of teams.

 

The power and wealth is not equally distributed. Too hard to compete in the AL East if you aren't NY or BOS. The NL Central is fairly weak top to bottom. This results in a team like the Orioles playing a much more difficult schedule over the entire years as opposed to the Cardinals.

 

The Rangers (Arlington, TX) closest team in their division is the Angels (Anaheim, CA), 2 time zones away.

 

Quality talent is spread too thin.

 

There are more but these are just a few off the top of my head.

 

The NL Central having 6 teams while the AL East has 4 is a pretty big, glaring disadvantage.  I'm not sure how you decided they're weak overall, compared to the AL Central.  The East and West are naturally stronger because the bigger market coastal cities spend a lot more money on their baseball teams, and generally a bigger budget = greater success. 

AL East has 5 teams.

I meant the West.

I also happen to like divisional play in most sports. I think it goes a long way to creating rivalries and it gives you a chance to learn to really dislike certain players.

 

Probably true, but I've grown weary of rivalries in recent years.  I'm tired of attending football games and seeing fans of the opposing team getting harassed.  That doesn't happen as often in baseball, but it still takes place occasionally.  I'm much more interested in seeing the best teams face off than in watching two mediocre teams that hate each other slug it out for last remaining wild card slot, particularly when either team is likely to get crushed in the playoffs when a better team in the other conference didn't even get in. 

 

I also never buy the dilution of talent argument. In 1920 there were sixteen teams. The population of the U.S. was one-third of what it is today and minorities weren't allowed to play. The current talent pool in the major leagues, I would speculate, is probably stronger than it's ever been.

 

That's interesting.  I had never considered that.

when you have the 2009 yankees at $200+m payroll and the marlins at $36m, it seems to me that a salary cap is of primary importance.

 

i agree a little contraction would be good for the sport too, say one or even three teams to even it out, but lets not exaggerate as mlb baseball isnt even close to the complete joke the nhl is with watered down talent and overexpansion, so its a less important issue.

 

i'd guess they'll probably have a big publicity event and add a team before they reconfigure the divisions again.

 

The NL has 16 teams. The AL has 14 teams. Having 15 teams in each division would result in an unbalanced schedule b/c of the odd amount of teams.

 

You could add 2 teams (San Juan and Monterrey perhaps?) and add a fourth division in each league.  Then either get rid of the Wildcard or have two like the NFL does and first round byes. 

The Reds had a farm team in Havana until Fidel Castro came along, and it was anticipated in the 1950's that Cuba would get a major league expansion team in the 1960's.  When the embargo eventually ends, I doubt there is enough money in Cuba to support a team immediately and at least not for 20 years.  How do you sell luxury boxes to a communist country with no private companies?

 

Puerto Rico might work if there were some kind of cable contract that tapped into Puerto Ricans in this country, because again I doubt there is luxury box revenue to be had in San Juan.  Remember, general seating revenue goes into revenue sharing and luxury box revenue is kept by the team. MLB did this on purpose to force new stadiums to be built which gave them the excuse to renegotiate their leases and bring way more money their way.     

 

 

The Wildcard has been wildly popular, and keeps attendance and ratings up in markets that would otherwise be eliminated.  The Wildcard is probably the best thing that MLB has done in recent memory.

 

A team in San Juan would be great, but I'm not sure MLB can sustain any additional teams.  They could relocate there from underperforming markets, but then that would solve the unbalanced schedule issue.  The NFL really got things right when they reorganized several years ago.

Going to another country would never work. The network would not allow it since they can't control advertising in other countries.

FYI, San Juan is in this country & Toronto (and formerly Montreal) is in Canada (another country).  I think baseball in Monterrey or D.F. would work.  Hell, Santo Domingo!

Isn't Montreal still in Canada or did Quebec finally split off?  :wink2:

Formerly, meaning, they don't have a baseball team anymore ;).

MLB still exists? j/k

 

1. New CBA needed to eliminate have/have not situation. 

2. Realignment.

3. Selig out.

4. Pete in.

Dropping 2 teams would be better than adding 2 teams for sure.

Cbus is too close to Cincy and Cleveland just as Indy is too close to Cincy and Chicago...same could be said for Louisville.  Charlotte might be a good option, and one that I hadn't thought of before.

^Louisville seems like the best fit to me.  I mean, ever hear of the Louisville Slugger?  It's a natural fit, but I'm not sure they have the population to support it.

 

Charlotte probably makes the most sense on paper, but it might be hard to convert some of the die hard Braves fans down there.

The problem with Charlotte is, as mentioned above, their pop has loyalties to other teams.  You have the locals who root for the Braves and you have the transplants who hold on to their hometown clubs.  With the Panthers and Bobcats/Hornets, Charlotte fans have proven to be front-runners and luke-warm fans at best.  When things went well for the Hornets with Zo, LJ and Mugsy, they had an impressive string of sellouts.  Then, the team had to rebuild and the fans dissappeared, forcing the move to NO.  The Panthers were smart to identify their team as "Carolina", not "Charlotte" or "North Carolina".  It really expands their fanbase but you still have to deal with fans that just aren't used to professional sports.  In some ways, I think a pro baseball team would be better off in Raleigh than Charlotte.

The problem with Charlotte is, as mentioned above, their pop has loyalties to other teams. You have the locals who root for the Braves and you have the transplants who hold on to their hometown clubs. With the Panthers and Bobcats/Hornets, Charlotte fans have proven to be front-runners and luke-warm fans at best. When things went well for the Hornets with Zo, LJ and Mugsy, they had an impressive string of sellouts. Then, the team had to rebuild and the fans dissappeared, forcing the move to NO. The Panthers were smart to identify their team as "Carolina", not "Charlotte" or "North Carolina". It really expands their fanbase but you still have to deal with fans that just aren't used to professional sports. In some ways, I think a pro baseball team would be better off in Raleigh than Charlotte.

 

I lived in Charlotte for a while, and i highly doubt they would support a team down there.  Baseball in that area is about 8th fiddle.  Its like pro football in England.  North Carolina is all about Nascar, College basketball, then NFL, college football, pro football.  I just dont know if the interest would be there.

I think San Antonio would be in. The second team would be a toss up between Charlotte and Oklahoma City. Both look good on paper but neither has a solid track record of supporting a major franchise over a long period of time. Granted OKC is pretty new to the scene, the fact they are the smallest metro on the list is a little bit of a concern.

 

I find a team in OKC to be doubtful.  Much of the appeal to moving the NBA team there was that the Thunder would be the only show in town when it came to a professional sports franchise.  Adding in a baseball team (which also happens to be the most demanding of the sports teams due to the 81 home games each year), would go against that and the owner of the Thunder would probably fight it.

 

In the U.S. you've got Portland, Louisville, San Antonio, and Charlotte.  Pick one of those, then add in a team in the Caribbean somewhere.

San Juan in the summer would be impossibly hot, but I think it would be an awesome location for a baseball team.

I think Louisville would be a good choice for an expansion team in the nineteenth century.

I think Louisville would be a good choice for an expansion team in the nineteenth century.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCeVkiUYi_o

:laugh:

FYI, San Juan is in this country & Toronto (and formerly Montreal) is in Canada (another country).  I think baseball in Monterrey or D.F. would work.  Hell, Santo Domingo!

 

I think it would be more popular in Platano-ville than PR as many baseball teams have recruiting centers in DR.  the pipeline is ridiculous.

Here are just a few of my suggestions:

 

Embrace new technology i.e. instant replay

 

Eliminate the DH

 

Implement some sort of salary cap/revenue sharing system that allows for more equality.  As of now a team like the Indians, or similar small market team, has no chance to remain competitive over the long-term.

 

 

 

Keep instant replay out except for rare instances like determining if a home run is fair or foul.  baseball is all about arguments and it has enough stoppages without replays determining if the tag was there or not.

 

Expand the DH to the National League.  ERAs are artificially low in the NL because pitchers get one free out for every 9 batters.  Watch as Halladay (best pitcher in the AL) destroys teams in the NL now that he's on the Phillies.

 

A salary cap? yeah, i'd be okay with that.  I hate the Yankees.  At the same time, isn't there a lot of revenue sharing going on?  And while teams can be very successful with lower salaries (Twins) any owner that fields teams with salaries like those of the Marlins should be removed from the team.

No offense to PR but I don't think they could support a team, not because of lack of interest but rather the type of ticket prices that MLB teams command... add up average ticket price x 40k x 81=total $ spent on tickets by fans...

 

Average ticket price is around 27... making that number $87,480,000.00

 

PR GDP is around $67 Billion where as NEO is more than 1/3 of Ohios GDP which is almost $500 Billion...

 

So PR would have to spend 3x+, percentage wise, of their GDP to support a team...

But then again I am sure there are cities out there that aren't huge that "support" teams... they would have an advantage with regards to farm teaming...

 

I would like it if we offered Cuba an olive branch and baseball could be a part of that by establishing a team in Havana... NOW THAT would we legit.

Salary Cap = Problem solved.