Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Sports' started by mymerlincat, Jul 6, 2020.
MLB is likely expanding "Soon" (Soon being like, announcing in the next 5-8 years; not like, new teams in 2022).
Manfred can't shut up about it. Plans for radical realignment have leaked. Nashville and Portland are both serious and Montreal is ever-present as an option.
I really hope it's Montreal/Nashville, because it's far easier to make a good alignment with them (one that makes sense, not the worthless garbage that leaked from MLB).
However, I'm extremely worried that they screw things up royally, since the plan that leaked is terrible and will make everyone upset.
Baseball-Reference has the short, clean version (but for some reason makes it sound like it was AUTHOR'S idea. He was reporting what he saw, not what he thought)
Radical Realignment - BR Bullpen
And that plan is stupid. If you'd like to know why, I have previously eviscerated it here
Makes sense. Growing and wealthy market in a region underrepresented in MLB currently, and could easily be slotted into an Eastern or Central division.
All a matter of if they get a stadium plan financed. I'm convinced that there are probably a solid dozen locations that MLB would be interested in expanding (or relocating) to if they get an MLB caliber ballpark.
And I hope that proposal KevFu mentioned gets killed with fire.
Peter Andgelos’s kids where rumored to want to move the orioles to Nashville. If they can’t find a local owner.
The Nashville and Portland ballpark plans are both privately financed (Portland has a $150 million public money fund that was allocated for a ballpark a looooong time ago back when $150 million bought you something, contingent on landing an MLB team). Montreal is the plan I know the least about, but it's the market that MLB seems to want the most for the same reason they added the original Expos, plus the nostalgia. They better include MON, and they better be the Expos, and they better be in the NL with the Mets/Phillies/Nats, IMO).
I laugh at the last line because I said B-R made it sound like it was the author's idea when it wasn't, and then now I'm associated with the terrible plan as well!
My plan would be to learn from the problem the NHL has and the reasons the 1990s radical realignment failed. Central teams are really Eastern teams and tying them to the West doesn't work; That's why NHL has H/A vs everyone, why the 1990s MLB radical realignment failed, and why realigning to get 75% approval is really difficult.
And the league is too big to play everyone H/A and it's bad for business like my linked post says.
So the solution to get everyone what they want:
PCL: SD, LAD, SF, COL, ARZ, SEA, OAK, LAA
NL: STL, CHC, MIL, CIN, PIT, NYM, PHI, MON
AL: MIN, CWS, CLE, DET, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL
South: KCR, HOU, TEX, NASH, TB, MIA, ATL, WAS
16 vs division (112 games), one series vs half of everyone else (48 games) = 160.
All 4-game series, which reduces travel from 42-45 flights down to 30-32 per team.
2 vs 3 in each league's WC game, winner faces regular season champ for LDS. Then you have semis before the World Series.
- PCL gets the local start times they need, less starts at 4 pm PTZ
- Central teams are tied with East instead of West.
- Everyone E/C get fewer West Coast road games, less starts at 10 pm ETZ/9 CTZ.
- AL and NL are mostly preserved:
all remaining AL teams from been AL since between 1901/1977 to present (100.5 years, AVG)
all remaining NL teams have been NL since between 1876/1962 to present, except 1969-2004 Montreal (102.25 years, AVG)
The South had been in their old leagues for 34.6 years, AVG.
HOU/TEX/NASH would definitely be on board.
So if TB/MIA want home games vs NY/BOS/PHI more than better travel and fewer PTZ games, they might vote against.
KCR gets more CTZ road games, less PTZ road games;
ATL and WAS could be strongly against, but this could pass 28-2 or 25-5.
Couple of questions here...
Is First Horizon Park built with MLB expansion (of the stadium) in mind or would a new park completely have to be built from scratch?
At 1.9 million and with NFL, NHL, and now MLS and not to mention SEC Football (Yeah I know it's Vanderbilt but still), can Nashville even support an additional 82 home games?
How is the Baseball scene in Nashville?
Would the MLB bank more on locals supporting a Nashville based team or do they think the abundance of tourists visiting the city would help?
Manfred Discusses MLB Expansion; Is Nashville a Contender?
As a fan of the original Montreal Expos, I hope Montreal gets another team.
However, I'd like to see them in the same division as Toronto and Boston. Both the Jays and the Red Sox have fan bases close enough to Montreal that games against them would get a lot of visiting crowds, so why not maximize things for Montreal by giving them as many games as possible against those teams.
Also, I would like to see the team named something other than the Expos. Don't get me wrong. I love the Expos name and their logo, however, I would prefer to see the Expos name and logo be a historical artifact -- something that existed from 1969 to 2004 before moving Washington and becoming the Nationals. The only way I want to see the Expos name used again is if the Nationals moved back to Montreal and adopted their original name. I think letting another team use the name is insulting to the original Expos. The new team should have their own name and their own identity.
Also, reusing old team names feels like fans deluding themselves into believing that the original team never left.
Memphis has a strong argument to land Tennessee's possible MLB team too. They only have the NBA right now, while Nashville has the NFL and the NHL. Putting MLB in Memphis gives each Tennessee city one major indoor sport and one major outdoor sport in the Big 4 leagues. And pro teams in Tennessee tend to be supported by the entire state, no matter which city they are located in.
If Montreal and Tennessee are indeed #31 and #32, we should do a radical reorganization of MLB based on the history of baseball, as follows:
Baltimore, Boston, Chicago Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, NY Yankees, Washington
Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Miami, Milwaukee, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis
Atlanta, Houston, Minnesota, Montreal, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Texas, Toronto
(we could also go with Buffalo in place of Tennessee to be even closer to the imagined lineup for the CL in 1960)
Pacific Coast League:
Arizona, Colorado, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle
Here the AL and NL comprise primarily of pre-expansion era markets along with a couple markets in the Midwest and Northeast that entered MLB in the 1950s (before the expansion of MLB into the West, South and even Canada); the only outlier is Miami, which did not enter MLB until 1993. The CL is primarily in markets planned for its 60s incarnation. The PCL is basically a revival of the major-league dreams the minor league PCL had in the 1950s, but with Denver and Phoenix replacing the heyday markets of Portland and Sacramento (Phoenix joined the minor league PCL the same year the Dodgers and Giants moved to California).
You are my soul brother. I've posted something similar to that for years now. Although, your CBL omits the Founders of the CBL!
I actually made the plan for a PCL and three ETZ/CTZ leagues built on the CBL, and that "Southern model" I posted in this thread was merely a modification of it, because every time I posted the CBL version, people lost their minds.
I would say the CBL would be: Montreal, Toronto, Miami, Tampa, Houston, Texas, NY Mets, Washington.
At the time the Dodgers/Giants left New York, the PCL was trying to become a third Major League. So revisionist history: 4 Major Leagues, Dodgers/Giants join PCL.
The original CBL idea was: NY Mets, Minnesota, Atlanta, Toronto, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Buffalo.
- But the Senators moved to Minnesota and the Braves moved to Atlanta.
- So Washington would replace MIN in CBL (but that team became Texas).
- And Montreal would be an expansion team for the CBL (and that team became Washington).
So you're left with two holes: Denver and Buffalo, with TB/MIA substituting nicely: four rival pairs, TEX-HOU, MON-TOR, TB-MIA, WAS-NYM.
I didn't include Miami, NY Mets or Washington in the Continental League because Washington was an AL city for most of the 20th century. The CL was also founded in part to help the NL get back into NYC - which they accomplished.
Every market that had an NL team at some point from 1901-57 - except Boston due to territorial rights - is represented in the NL. The same territorial rights that prevent Boston from getting an NL team again also prevent an NL team from being established in Brooklyn let alone Manhattan or Staten Island. So Miami takes their place. And Miami has a lot of transplants from the Northeastern US, so being able to bring in the Mets, Phillies, and Pirates for multiple series a year would help matters.
Likewise, every market that had a team in the AL prior to the first west coast moves is represented, except for Philadelphia and St. Louis, for the same reasons the NL can't establish a team in Boston, or any of the NYC boroughs without an MLB team of their own, and Milwaukee, which never really entrenched an AL presence until the expansion era (and even they are now part of the NL).
Atlanta and Minnesota do have a lot of history in the leagues they have been in, with the Braves having been in the NL longer than anyone else currently in the league, and Minnesota having originally been the first Senators of the AL from 1901-60. But to truly get the Continental League going in almost the same intended configuration, those two have to leave the NL and AL, respectively.
I admit, I got the four-league idea from you. I just modified it so that it could be closer to what could have been in the 1950s/1960s.
Right now you have two easy local options to keep the team in Baltimore, and MLB probably got on the wrong side of one of those two (Kevin Plank) when they tossed Under Armour overboard for Nike for the new uniform deal that took effect this year. Outside of Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, I can't think of who else local to Baltimore could pull it off.
That said, any move would be a horrible look. Even considering the damage Angelos has done. you'd be looking at a team leaving their city after 70+ years and leaving behind a stadium that changed the game of stadiums. Considering how there is still resentment over the Colts leaving even with the NFL long back, I'd hate to see the fallout over ditching Baltimore and expecting everyone to become Nats fans.
Also, there's an RSN in play. A horribly flawed RSN which treats its minority owner like garbage and has tossed aside a fast growing state under the bus, but one nonetheless. What would happen to MASN without any Orioles? Would no Angelos fix the situation with Spectrum in North Carolina? Wouldn't Charlotte or Raleigh be a better market than Nashville given all three and Baltimore are in the same Nielsen ballpark?
I've also proposed a schedule where PCL teams only play 18 interleague games (due to their locations relative to the teams in the ET/CT leagues) - a 6-game home-and-home against one team each from the AL, CL, NL, rotating every year. PCL teams play each other 20 or 21 times to make up the 144-game intraleague schedule.
Teams in the ET/CT leagues play 126 intraleague games - 18 games against each opponent in their league - and 36 interleague games. Some teams will have a protected regional interleague opponent, which they play in a 6-game home-and-home, with the remaining interleague schedule consisting of 6-game home-and-homes against one PCL team and 2 teams from each of the other ET/CT leagues. Those that don't have protected interleague rivals will have 6-game home-and-homes against one PCL team and at least 2 teams from each of the other ET/CT leagues (playing a third opponent from one of the leagues).
The All-Star Game format would have to change with a 4-league structure.
One idea I had was having one team consist of players from the Original 16 teams from 1901 (of which 5 would now be in the CL and PCL), and players from the 16 expansion teams.
MLB isn't going to go into a 4 league structure. It'll remain 2 AL and NL.
No way MLB does it like that. It'll be AL and NL with 4 division of 4 teams each.
The only way that would work is if two new teams were added to the Southern US to facilitate the creation of South Divisions. Charlotte and New Orleans had been suggested by me in the past, but people didn't like those suggestions.
OK, the addition of teams in Montreal and Tennessee to MLB should result in a reorganization of the AAA level.
The teams of the American Conference of the Pacific Coast League (with a new team in New Orleans replacing whatever Tennessee market is lost to MLB) and the West Division of the International League form a new league, the Heartland League, organized as follows:
Indianapolis (Chicago Sox)
Iowa (Chicago Cubs)
Omaha (Kansas City)
New Orleans (Milwaukee)
Oklahoma City (St. Louis)
Round Rock (Houston)
San Antonio (Texas)
The International League would add two teams to its South Division, by promoting Bowie from the AA Eastern League and Winston-Salem from the High-A Carolina League:
Lehigh Valley (Philadelphia)
Syracuse (NY Mets)
Charlotte (NY Yankees)
Durham (Tampa Bay)
The AAA PCL would have to choose a new name after yielding to MLB who uses the PCL name for its Western teams. Three teams in the league would change MLB affiliations. Fresno becomes the top farm team of the LA Dodgers. while the Nevada teams swap affiliates based on proximity: Las Vegas affiliates with Arizona and Reno with Oakland. Divisional play is also abandoned.
The new look AAA level would have its affiliations more closely reflect the geography of MLB and AAA teams relative to each other.
I've been to Bowie's park. While decent, it would need a bunch of work to keep pace with the newer crop of AAA parks and its closeness to Washington would be unprecedented at the AAA level. The distance between Bowie and Nationals Park is just over half that of that between Gwinnett and now-Truist Park.
If any Eastern League city that is ready - sorry, Richmond - is AAA ready, it's Hartford. Their park was built with AAA in mind and it would give Worcester a geographic rival. If the Eastern League wants to make up for it, Pawtucket (age aside) is wide open and to be honest Tri-City (Troy) and Binghamton might be well off swapping teams/leagues.
Maybe the rays can take the orioles name history and colors and move into Camden. If the current team moves to Nashville.
Fresno more than likely played their last Game as an aaa team last season they seem destined for the CA League.
Given the cancellation of the minor league season, if MLB wants to implement changes they should postpone doing so until 2022 at the earliest. Even then it's not a good idea.
Oh, my reply to you from the other day didn't post for some reason.
I like how you've clearly thought out your CBL assignments, but I think that while the "Revisionist history" is fun, it's realistic only to an extent. Like, Atlanta was a CBL city, but the Braves moved to ATL from Milwaukee in 1966. So you've got the Braves in the CBL, but they were in Milwaukee at the time. So shouldn't that the be BREWERS in the CBL? Same with Minnesota, who was in Washington when the CBL was going to add Minneapolis, but the Senators became the Twins. So a new Senators joined the AL in 1961 as part of the expansion deal between AL/NL. But THAT Washington team is the Rangers now. The Nationals are the former Expos.
To me, the CBL would be an excuse to not have the fourth league be "The South" if someone like Kansas City or Baltimore was hell bent on staying in the AL. I would view the CBL and PCL as "voluntary."
PCL teams choose to leave the AL/NL for a league of 8 teams that gives them a ton of local TV time zone starts. HOU/TEX would choose the CBL over being tied to AL West.
Then you'd need six more CBL teams by either geography, seniority, or rivalry, or a hybrid of those. TB/MIA/NASH would be the obvious choices. Then if you do geography, it's ATL, and two of WAS/BAL/KC. By seniority, it would be Montreal, Toronto and Kansas City. But that's a little problematic.
I'm still set on switching everything to a 4-game series. MLB's leaked plan touted "Travel" as the reason to radically realign by geography, while we've saved AL/NL history AND reduced travel by 25% with a 4-game series plan. "Travel" is dictated by how many times you switch cities. We'd be going from 28 road series per team to 20. MLB teams are taking 37-42 flights per year, now we'd have 10 road trips, 3 flights each, 30-32 flights per year.
And it adds up to what we have for non-division games. 4 series vs division teams, 16 games each = 112 games. 48 remaining games = 12 series left. And there's 24 other teams to play them against. So you can play HALF of each other division, 2 home series, 2 away series, and travel is basically the same each year in terms of games on the other size of the continent. ETZ would always have only 2 road series (8 games) out west, not 3 series (10 games) for AL teams and 5 series (17 games) for NL.
For the All-Star game and playoffs, I'd keep AL and NL separate. Have AL/NL on opposite sides of the playoff semifinals. And have the All-Star game work off the previous year's bracket. So it's either AL/PCL vs NL/CBL, or AL/CBL vs NL/PCL . First year, just do a coin toss or something.
I would make 4 leagues of 8 at EVERY LEVEL of the minors, with 1 of the 4 leagues at each levels being the PTZ/MTZ and reserved for the PTZ/MTZ time zone teams. Same with 8-team central time zone leagues at each level, with spots reserved for (8 of 9) CTZ teams.
My schedule format I proposed aims to reduce the number of games between the PCL teams and the teams in the ET/CT leagues. The PCL teams would salivate at only having to play 3 3-game series in the Eastern or Central Time Zones, especially if the assigned cities in a given year are close enough to have them all in one road trip.
Most series are 3 games while some are 2 or 4 for a good reason. I'm not sure what that is but still. I'm sure it has to do with the number of off days each team is required to have.
The four-league structure would make it impossible for the All-Star Game to maintain its current format. So "Original 16" VS. "Expansion 16" (at least until ultimately expanding to 40 teams) makes a lot of sense. Much more than determining the All-Star teams by the playoff bracket, because this would change every year if a 1-4 seeding proposal (see below) is used for the national semifinals.
The league champions would be seeded 1-4 in a national semifinals, with the winners advancing to the World Series. This would help the two best teams remaining in the postseason have a chance to meet in the World Series, even if it means the AL and NL champs have to meet in a semifinal.
I prefer that Hartford enter the NL when MLB expands to 40 teams. Hartford hasn't been in MLB since the 19th century (1876-77 to be exact), and they have had a top-level hockey team before (the Whalers). They came close to luring the Patriots from the Boston area too years ago.
In my proposal to enter Hartford into MLB, I've proposed their International League affiliate be located in the Providence area. The current Pawtucket park will be razed once the PawSox leave, and they'd be ready to rejoin the IL in the event of Hartford getting an MLB team.
The team could be owned by Hasbro (based in the area) and be called the Rhode Island Transformers (after Hasbro's cash cow franchise of the same name), with Optimus Prime as the mascot.
A major change that would come as part of the realignment to 4 leagues would be universal DH. Both the CL and PCL would have teams come over from both the AL and NL. For reasons of fairness, all 32 teams would now use the DH.
Separate names with a comma.