General Baseball Chit-Chat Thread

Sammys Boombox · October 17, 2017

I love the realignment idea. It’s almost exactly what my brother and I have been wanting for a long time. The main thing I would want in a 32-team league is 8-team divisions. With 4-team divisions you’re just asking for somebody to win 100 games and get stuck in a play-in game while somebody else goes straight into the division series with a sub-.500 record.

2. Get rid of the NL/AL.

3. Increase number of games that start at 7:00 in your time zone.

4. Increase the percentage of teams with something to play for to decrease tanking.

5. Decrease number of games played while maintaining the same overall length to the season.

It’s really like they read my mind. I think the overall quality of play would go up with the added off days. Would make up for the diluting of talent caused by adding 2 franchises. Only thing is I’m not sold that Montreal is till a viable location for a franchise.
I think Montreal is far more viable than Portland.

But we're still operating with 2 teams in Florida that have no local support, despite championships and recent successes. Oakland is also still a complete mess.

It’s a good point about Portland and Oakland. You can only move forward with adding at least one team in the mountain and/or pacific time zones. That’s not really all that easy to do. The biggest hurdle is still, are there 32 markets that also fit geographically into the realignment. I’m not sure there is.

Actually, I say that, you wouldn’t have to add the team in the western time zones. There are currently 8 teams already in those time zones. Move Twins back to a central time zone division to replace the Rockies in the BA example. Then you can add any location in the eastern or central time zone to replace the Twins spot.

jersey cubs fan · October 17, 2017

It’s a good point about Portland and Oakland. You can only move forward with adding at least one team in the mountain and/or pacific time zones. That’s not really all that easy to do. The biggest hurdle is still, are there 32 markets that also fit geographically into the realignment. I’m not sure there is.

Whether they fit geographically is not the hurdle that matters most. The hurdle is whether they have 32 viable markets, at all. There are 3 markets barely holding on in the current situation. Pittsburgh, which was barely viable late in the Three Rivers Stadium era, before rebounding with a perfect ballpark and then a decent run of success, are starting to show cracks again.

Talk of expansion is most likely just another way to try exploiting current team local governments into building new stadiums.

Bobson Dugnutt · October 17, 2017

There was an article a year or two ago that talked about expansion and relocation. If I remember correctly, the general plan was to relocate Oakland and Tampa first and then add two expansion teams, so the end result is 32 teams with 4 new cities getting franchises. I'm curious if that's still the goal and what other two cities would wind up with franchises. I want to say Nashville, Indiana, Mexico City, Puerto Rico, a third Texas team, and the Carolinas were all mentioned as possibilities at that time.

I'm not so worried about diluting talent, as the expansion of the talent pool (population growth, international signings, etc.) has outpaced the expansion of the league. But it is definitely a concern as to whether there are cities out there to support franchises.

I'm not a traditionalist by any means, but getting rid of the NL/AL setup would take some getting used to.

Sammy Sofa · October 17, 2017

Teams that should or could easily be on the chopping block to be relocated:

A's

White Sox

Marlins

Rays

Who else?

Hunter · October 17, 2017

Teams that should or could easily be on the chopping block to be relocated:

A's
White Sox
Marlins
Rays

Who else?

The Reds and 9 other teams are financially worse than the White Sox in both revenue and profit.

Cubswin11 · October 17, 2017

I’m fine with the idea outside of the expansion part. MLB doesn’t need more teams.

Well, I haven't been posting much lately, but I vehemently disagree with your take and specifically the "MLB doesn't need more teams" part. That's weird on so many levels. IF and I can only assume if you've ever wondered what you'd do as the hypothetical commissioner of MLB if you were given that power... well, you certainly can't make that statement.

Some reporter asks you about possible expansion and your response is, "Nah. I'm good. We're good... We have enough teams and don't want to expand to new markets and potentially create new fans/TV markets. Why bother? I mean who gives a horsefeathers about expansion teams amirite?"

That's how I interpreted your response lol. It's idiotic and dumb because expansion happens in every sport and it's ultimately a good thing. A lot of posters on here complain about the amateur draft and the horsefeathers rules for signing Int. FA's (I agree with some of their points about how unfair it is), but no one complains about the lack of expansion teams in MLB. Expansion teams create new jobs and opportunities for the players. It creates more competition in free agency, especially in the beginning when they have no salary commitments. The Players Union will ALWAYS be in favor of expansion and rightfully so.

There are other benefits too. Another trading partner for the Cubs (and for other teams too). It creates a new generation of fans who grow up rooting and supporting that team. There were NO Nationals fans going back a couple decades and obviously there are many now. More fans and increased viewership is always a good thing. It also makes realignment easier with 32 teams instead of the 30 teams we have currently.

Sorry about the rant, but I really hate people and posters that complain about expansion (in any sport). It's always a good thing. I don't really care where they expand as long as they do their due diligence and go to a market that will properly support the team. Montreal and Portland/Charlotte seem fine to me in that regard.

I get the commish can't publicly make that statement but he can have the anti-expansion feelings. And I have thought about things I'd do and have posted them before I don't remember all but off top of my head they'd be

1. DH both leagues

2. Expand 25-man roster to 26 or 27 (more jobs!)

3. Automate K-zone/Robot Umps

4. Go back to old rules or near old rules on the amateur draft/IFA (teams should be able to spend whatever they want)

5. Change the qualifying offer/compensation a bit. I don't like just the blanket rule now, I think there should be 3 tiers of QO's teams can offer a pending FA. Tier one would be like it is now, basically only given to top line talent/teams only losing first round pick for signing top line talent. A tier 2 QO would be for less money to the player (let's say $5-7 mil less) and the signing team would forfeit a 3rd or 5th round pick roughly, tier 3 would be another ~$5 mil less on the QO and the team signing would forfeit some IFA money/10th round pick. Tier 1 teams who tender the QO and lose a guy would be compensated back like now, tier 2 maybe add another supplemental round around after round 4/5 and they get a pick there, and tier 3 the team gets compensated some additional draft/IFA pool money.

6. Do better policing of the teams taking advantage of the 10-day DL rule like the Dodgers did this year

As for expansion, no it is not always good and I have problems with it. First it potentially dilutes the talent pool, or at least is a cause for concern for a sport that isn't necessarily growing (especially at youth levels). Second there's already teams in the league that are struggling like many have pointed out. These teams struggle to stand by themselves and are basically subsidized/underwritten by larger markets/massive national TV deals/revenue sharing. Adding two teams potentially strains that and makes it harder for some teams to really make it. Also I think it takes a decent assumption of risk to assume these massive national TV deals are always going to be there and keep getting larger to help support and underwrite everything. A lot of the major networks are struggling and who knows what's going to be there in future for these massive deals that are needed to support growth. If you want to go to new markets fine, but do it through relocation and not expansion.

Sammy Sofa · October 17, 2017

Teams that should or could easily be on the chopping block to be relocated:

A's
White Sox
Marlins
Rays

Who else?

The Reds and 9 other teams are financially worse than the White Sox in both revenue and profit.

I don't care about the White Sox enough to figure out what kind of cheap ass shell game they've got going on to offset routinely coming in near the bottom of annual attendance. They're redundant.

Sammy Sofa · October 17, 2017

Holy horsefeathers; the Indians' attendance is always SO BAD.

Liam Neeson · October 17, 2017

Teams that should or could easily be on the chopping block to be relocated:

A's
White Sox
Marlins
Rays

Who else?

The Reds and 9 other teams are financially worse than the White Sox in both revenue and profit.

I don't care about the White Sox enough to figure out what kind of cheap ass shell game they've got going on to offset routinely coming in near the bottom of annual attendance. They're redundant.

The Sox also must pay a fee on each ticket sold in excess of 1.93 million in paid attendance. Since 2008, the Sox have paid that fee only in 2010, when games drew 2.2 million fans. However, the Sox were allowed to apply a credit based on the taxes the team paid that year, reducing the ticket fee payment from $455,974 to $95,531.

They should have let them move to Florida.

Brian707 · October 17, 2017

I don't care about the White Sox enough to figure out what kind of cheap ass shell game they've got going on to offset routinely coming in near the bottom of annual attendance. They're redundant.

Tim · October 17, 2017

It would never get approved, but the best locations would likely be third teams in NY and LA metros. Texas could absolutely support another team, as well.

jersey cubs fan · October 17, 2017

It would never get approved, but the best locations would likely be third teams in NY and LA metros. Texas could absolutely support another team, as well.

I've got just the spot picked out along the hudson river, surrounded by train/ferry/light rail/bus/car options. Just need ~$1.5B in seed money to begin.

Tim · October 17, 2017

It would never get approved, but the best locations would likely be third teams in NY and LA metros. Texas could absolutely support another team, as well.
I've got just the spot picked out along the hudson river, surrounded by train/ferry/light rail/bus/car options. Just need ~$1.5B in seed money to begin.

Let's start a gofundme.

Regular Show · October 18, 2017

Wow, a lot of expansion haters on this board lol. Okay, I made a lot of good points, but I guess no ones cares about creating new jobs and opportunities for the players. I get that it dilutes the talent pool somewhat, but there already are a lot of decent players that play a game of musical chairs at the end of spring training/FA. It seems like the talent pool in MLB is getting younger and that older veterans are finding it harder to stick around. Maybe it's the right approach and teams are just getting smarter about signing FAs. I don't think adding two teams will drastically dilute the talent pool. The two expansion teams will suck in the beginning and won't have the talent to compete with other teams, but it will even out over time.

I think expanding to Florida was a mistake, but I wouldn't call the other expansion teams in MLB failures. I think a third team in Texas would work. I think an expansion team in Montreal would work really well. I think Charlotte and Portland are good candidates. Relocation + expansion are probably the way to go. Tampa Bay does indeed seem like a shitty market and probably will never support the Rays adequately. I've met Rockies fans and they say Denver is a good sports town. I wouldn't call the Rockies or the Diamondbacks a failure.

Whatever. I believe expansion is always a good idea as long as you go about it the right way. I wouldn't believe a lot of the expansion/small market teams complaining in the NBA about profits and long-term success on the court. The accountants for these teams know the real details and the NBA is very profitable right now even when they claim they're taking losses during CBA negotiations. It's complicated. OKC Thunder are doing very well and are spending an incredible amount on their roster right now. I don't want to get into the minutiae of discussing the viability of small-market/expansion teams in the NBA vs. other sports right now, but fans of those teams are grateful they exist and that the NBA expanded to those markets. Honestly, it's crazy that there isn't an NBA team in Seattle right now.

There is too much to say on this topic, but I think expanding the sport (when a market and a committed ownership group present itself) is a good thing. Do I want unlimited expansion? Of course not. Having 50 teams is ludicrous for any major sport. Do I think MLB could support 32 teams? Absolutely.

Regular Show · October 18, 2017

I’m fine with the idea outside of the expansion part. MLB doesn’t need more teams.

Sorry about the rant, but I really hate people and posters that complain about expansion (in any sport). It's always a good thing. I don't really care where they expand as long as they do their due diligence and go to a market that will properly support the team. Montreal and Portland/Charlotte seem fine to me in that regard.
I get the commish can't publicly make that statement but he can have the anti-expansion feelings. And I have thought about things I'd do and have posted them before I don't remember all but off top of my head they'd be

1. DH both leagues
2. Expand 25-man roster to 26 or 27 (more jobs!)
3. Automate K-zone/Robot Umps
4. Go back to old rules or near old rules on the amateur draft/IFA (teams should be able to spend whatever they want)
5. Change the qualifying offer/compensation a bit. I don't like just the blanket rule now, I think there should be 3 tiers of QO's teams can offer a pending FA. Tier one would be like it is now, basically only given to top line talent/teams only losing first round pick for signing top line talent. A tier 2 QO would be for less money to the player (let's say $5-7 mil less) and the signing team would forfeit a 3rd or 5th round pick roughly, tier 3 would be another ~$5 mil less on the QO and the team signing would forfeit some IFA money/10th round pick. Tier 1 teams who tender the QO and lose a guy would be compensated back like now, tier 2 maybe add another supplemental round around after round 4/5 and they get a pick there, and tier 3 the team gets compensated some additional draft/IFA pool money.
6. Do better policing of the teams taking advantage of the 10-day DL rule like the Dodgers did this year

I agree with you on most of those points btw. I go back-and-forth on having the DH in both leagues. I know Theo is definitely in favor of having the DH in both leagues. If I were the commish I would make an automated uniform strike zone/Robot Umps be my #1 priority. That day is coming, but it doesn't seem to be a priority for R. Manfred.

I also agree on expanding the 25-man roster to 26 or 27 or even 28, and have 25 players be eligible for the game with the other players ineligible unless the game goes into extra innings or something. That said there have to be limits on how many relievers teams can carry. Maybe change the rules and force new pitchers to face a minimum of two batters before a pitching change can be made.

jersey cubs fan · October 18, 2017

Expansion is always a good thing do I think they should always expand no.

jersey cubs fan · October 18, 2017

And no, in the grand scheme of things I do not care about adding "new jobs and opportunities" for the players. Those would be taxpayer subsidized jobs that provide no net benefit to the country or local community. And they'd benefit only a very select few. It would mean a couple more fringe guys get to earn the league minimum for a couple more years.

Expansion means an upfront fee paid to current owners, and not much else.

Maybe expansion can happen one day, but Oakland Tampa and Miami problems should be a higher priority.

Sammy Sofa · October 18, 2017

And no, in the grand scheme of things I do not care about adding "new jobs and opportunities" for the players. Those would be taxpayer subsidized jobs that provide no net benefit to the country or local community. And they'd benefit only a very select few. It would mean a couple more fringe guys get to earn the league minimum for a couple more years.

Yeah, that was a really, really goofy straw for that dude to grasp.

Regular Show · October 19, 2017

Expansion is always a good thing do I think they should always expand no.

Okay Jersey Cubs fan, let me explain again. I said expansion is a good thing when it is done correctly. Unlimited expansion is a bad thing much like unlimited expansion of franchises for any business would be a bad thing. The corporation Starbucks realized this a while back and closed down many of their businesses after expanding too much. Do I think MLB is like Starbucks in that they've expanded too much? No, I don't. I said the franchises in Florida were mistakes, but does MLB think of them as mistakes enough to have them relocated? Maybe for Tampa Bay someday, but I doubt the Miami Marlins will ever be relocated. I also said relocation can happen at the same time as expansion. There are plenty of good markets for relocation + expansion.

I really don't get the "jobs and opportunities" angle from you guys. These are real jobs and not just minimum salary-filler spots assuming you expand to a proper market that has a committed ownership group and not a Jeffrey Loria-type in charge. They will be able to spend some money since they will have no salary commitments like I said before. The Player's Union would be ecstatic about expansion and the 50 new jobs at the big league level from 2 expansion teams.

Again, I never mentioned taxpayers or subsidized stadium deals or bonds or anything that involves the stadium funding. It's controversial and complicated. Do I think the local taxpayers should have to pay for the construction of a new stadium? No, I'm absolutely against that and hate when it happens. I'm happy about the way the Ricketts' family went about renovating Wrigley Field and the surrounding area with private funding/tax credits.

That's a whole separate issue btw. I know it's a big issue, and most stadium deals are bad deals funded by increasing local taxes and getting huge tax breaks for billionaires. Again, I get that. There are ownership groups that are willing to pay for most of the cost of constructing a new stadium through private funding. It's rare, but it's possible.

https://www.sonicsarena.com/proposal-comparison/

This is the prospective ownership group that is trying to get an expansion team or an existing NBA team to relocate to Seattle. In their proposal they state "The SoDo Arena is 100% privately financed". They are very committed to getting an NBA franchise to return to Seattle.

Do I think most ownership groups are like this? No, but it is possible to find some ownership groups like this. It seems like under R. Manfred's regime MLB expects the local markets/cities to provide funding for the stadiums in exchange for hosting future All-Star game festivities and events. I don't agree with that policy and it sucks.

Whatever man. I'm done explaining myself and it seems like there are more anti-expansion posters on here than I thought. We can agree to disagree on this matter. Expansion will happen in MLB and when it happens you guys can bitch and whine and complain to your heart's content...

biittner77 · October 19, 2017

It’s a good point about Portland and Oakland. You can only move forward with adding at least one team in the mountain and/or pacific time zones. That’s not really all that easy to do. The biggest hurdle is still, are there 32 markets that also fit geographically into the realignment. I’m not sure there is.

Talk of expansion is most likely just another way to try exploiting current team local governments into building new stadiums.

Wouldn't expansion make it harder for a team to move by eliminating a potential destination? That would take away the teams leverage. The Rays, for example, can't threaten to leave town unless there's a Portland or a Vegas or whatever that wants and can support them.

That being said, expansion has recently had more failures than successes. Why expand when there isn't enough talent or fans to support them now?

jersey cubs fan · October 19, 2017

It’s a good point about Portland and Oakland. You can only move forward with adding at least one team in the mountain and/or pacific time zones. That’s not really all that easy to do. The biggest hurdle is still, are there 32 markets that also fit geographically into the realignment. I’m not sure there is.

Talk of expansion is most likely just another way to try exploiting current team local governments into building new stadiums.

Wouldn't expansion make it harder for a team to move by eliminating a potential destination? That would take away the teams leverage. The Rays, for example, can't threaten to leave town unless there's a Portland or a Vegas or whatever that wants and can support them.

That being said, expansion has recently had more failures than successes. Why expand when there isn't enough talent or fans to support them now?

If expansion actually happens, sure, but talk of expansion just promotes those locations where it may happen for now. Which drives the "relocation" scam.