Expansion

[goonys evil twin]

I am completely opposed to adding a 2nd wild card team. It starts getting too gimmicky having the 2 next best records making the playoffs, and then seems to take away from the pennant races down the stretch. The Indians/Red Sox and Astros/Phillies this year would've been meaningless and it would've been just one more team making it without winning the classically defined goal of winning your division.

 

You think people are raising hell now? Wait til the 5th best team in the league wins the world series.

 

Who says it's the 5th best? It certianly wouldn't have been this year. I don't really care about people whining that wild cards win the series. It's the playoffs. Teams play to get in, then they play to move on. Those races would not have been meaningless. First off, you'd want to host that 1 game playoff. Second, the wild card team would be that much more inclinded to go balls out for the division. You wouldn't just say, "well, win or lose today, we're in, it's just a matter of where we play". If the wild card team has to play one more game, it'll force them to throw their best, theoretically weakening their staff for the first round. I wouldn't call that a gimmick. They are playing the game. It's not like they went to a shootout or tried a homerun derby. Furthermore, it would have given Oakland, Minny, NYM and FLA, and more importantly, their fans, a glimmer of hope longer into the season.

 

It's a win-win.

 

Those who want to punish the wild card, force the wild card to play an extra game, screwing up their rotation, weakening the team in their first round matchup. That also provides greater reward for having the best record, giving that team a matchup against what should be a pretty exhausted team, minus 1 starter. It also gives hope and excitement to more teams, and therefore more fans, making more late season games matter, increasing attendance and ratings. The 2 1-game playoffs would make for great TV the Monday after the season ends.

[goonys evil twin]

15 and 15 does work with interleague play. I don't think interleague is special now so I don't how its any different if they don't all play at once.

 

I've been pro-15/15 for a while, with one interleague matchup going on at all times. I'd have the previous year's WS participants, and runners-up, play each other early in the season. With the previous season's cellar dwellers facing off at the end.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

15 and 15 does work with interleague play. I don't think interleague is special now so I don't how its any different if they don't all play at once.

 

I've been pro-15/15 for a while, with one interleague matchup going on at all times. I'd have the previous year's WS participants, and runners-up, play each other early in the season. With the previous season's cellar dwellers facing off at the end.

 

I've backed a 15/15 with an uneven schedule spanning both leagues and eliminating the DH.

[cubbieinexile]

wrote this a few years back

 

To do what I plan MLB is going to need a fresh supply of money to help persuade some owners to my plan. To do this we allow teams to relocate and also to expand. A team can relocate by paying a $120 million fee to MLB. That may sound hefty but when you consider that many of the teams that did relocate would receive great deals from local governments and from broadcast rights and naming rights that an Owner could probably reasonably expect recoup on that fee rather rapidly. Plus we will say that if you want into the league you pay a $200 million fee and we only let two teams in. First off we let Montreal and Oakland move (so that is$240 mil there). Oakland can move into the valley like they wanted too and Montreal can move into NY city. Plus we allow two teams to move into DC and Las Vegas (or for some of those playing at home Portland). So right there we have generated $640 million dollars and that money could be used to soften the blow for San Fran, Baltimore, and NYC teams. First let me say that I remember once that the Commissioner was aloud to do almost anything even break the rules if he used his best interest in baseball clause. Now if he still has that power he could use it to force those teams to allow the proposed moves. If he does not have that power then we could use that pool of newfound money to pay them off. For instance we could give those 4 teams $60 million, and then give the 28 other teams $14 million dollars. Since I don't know the 4 teams and their owners and situations personally I don't know if that would be too much or too little. But I think you get the idea. These moves would do several things. First they would decrease the stranglehold of revenue that Northeastern teams have in MLB. The two new teams would take a piece of that pie in that section. Plus as we will see later on two new teams increase the customer base and interest for baseball in parts untapped before.

 

So now that we have moved troubled teams out of bad situations lets talk revenue sharing. I have not forgotten about Tampa and Florida but personally I think their problem is fixable and one the owners created and it is not a problem of the location. In Florida's case they are stuck using a stadium that creates almost zero revenue for them. This is there fault not the city of Miami's. In Tampa you have a screwed up ownership situation happening with almost no organizational structure being employed down there. Again not the cities fault. If these two teams fix their problems they will be all right. For Revenue Sharing MLB should do what they already did on the Internet, which is to make all broadcasts property of MLB. Meaning that no longer do individual teams negotiate their own separate deals. By centralizing the ownership of local broadcast rights we keep teams from hiding revenue sources in other business' like they are doing now. So then all Media revenue whether National, Local, Radio, or Internet and all revenue from merchandise is split evenly among all 32 teams. With bonuses going to teams that merchandise is the most popular. That way teams will still try to aggressively sell their merchandise. In some situations when revenue is pooled people have a tendency to lollygag and lets others generate the income. Hopefully the bonuses will keep them from doing that. So what Revenue do teams get to keep? They get to keep all the revenue generated from the stadium and game day. Of course by doing this we would have to check lease agreements on the teams to make sure we are not cutting off the legs of any teams. If some teams do have a bad lease we might have to pull an Al Davis or renegotiate the lease. Both possibilities have been used before so I am not asking for the impossible. Anyway the Teams would get to keep all revenue generated from attendances, concessions, parking, advertising, and luxury boxes. By doing this Large market teams still get an edge, and still make money and tons of it so hopefully they would be willing to go along with this deal even though some would be losing out on big broadcast deals. But if we can get enough teams on our side then it won't matter if one or two are against it. Also since we created two new teams in two new areas of the country that did not even have baseball and also added two teams to a highly dense and media competitive area of land we can expect more revenue from the media to be poured into the pot. For instance right now Montreal would bring no revenue to the pot and I believe Oakland brings only 7 million or so. By allowing them to move we could expect the Expos in New York to get at least 25 million and the A's to bring at least $15 million plus the two new teams should bring in a total of around $40 million. So by these moves we add around 75 million dollars to the pot a year. So while the Yankees may take a hit financially with the loss of broadcast rights it is softened somewhat by the $60 million dollar payoff and the increase revenue from new teams. That is not even counting how much more money would be thrown in from all the new merchandise bought in the first few years of these teams existence.

 

Notice how so far I haven't even mention the players, since as we see most of the owners problems are there own. What do we do about the players? Quite honestly I don't think there really is anything wrong with the players right now. According to the figures Baseball revenue has grown faster than the players salaries. Which tells us that while salaries may have gone up that owners are more than able to afford it. But I can see that there is a problem with smaller teams trying to keep or acquire top of the line talent. So my answer to this is simple but also a little vague. The owners simply find out what the rank and file of the Union wants and they give it to them in return for a cap on player salaries. What I mean by this is that for a long time both the union and the owners have ignore the large majority of actual baseball players. Both sides attention has been fixated on the small number of high priced talent. If the owners appease the majority they will probably be able to sign a new agreement regardless of what the rich players say. Since I don't know what the concerns and needs are of baseball players what follows is only a guess. I think some of the examples of appeasing the majority would be to increase minimum wage, shorten the time required to arbitration and free agency. I'm willing to bet that could be a good one, since a lot of these players have a relatively short time to maximize there revenue and allowing them to enter arbitration after two years and free agency after four would be a big draw for them. Agree to cap on signing bonuses, I think this would be another big one for the players since this would allow more money to be spent on MLB players instead of youngsters that might never be part of the Union. From there I get a little more vague on the needs of players making 10 times more money then me, but here are some examples. Decreasing the amount of minor league options on players, increasing rosters, changing the DL rules so that family emergencies are allowed, adding the DH to the NL, and creating guaranteed pay scales based on years. So basically while they may have to be the majority more money overall the owner eliminates the large sum given to relatively few. This in combination with the above would make it more likely that large marker teams would agree to the changes needed since while they would lose some revenue they would also drastically reduce the cost of acquiring players both through signing bonuses of draftees and the high cost of premium talent.

 

I don't think there needs team be a team salary cap since I believe if a teams wants to lose money or not make a profit in there pursuit of title then they should. Plus I believe that large markets teams should have an edge on smaller teams. It is better for the sport if large markets are good and marketable since they have a larger fan base than smaller teams like KC and Milwaukee. We need teams like the Yankees to have a good team that way the league can get more money for there broadcast rights.

 

That is my opinion and granted there are probably some flaws in it but since I am not employed by MLB I am not going to crunch any real numbers or work out the proper language needed for this. Would they go for it? I don't know. What I tried to do was come up with a plan where no side had to sacrifice a great deal or suffer hardship at the benefit of the other side. Nor does my plan cause each side to suffer hardships or great sacrifices which is of course is essential to any plan since baseball will not take part in any plan that does that even if it benefits the fans. I think once we crunched the numbers we would find that most teams and players would benefit from this deal while only one or two teams and a handful of players would get the shaft. But hopefully they would be in the minority.

 

 

 

[YearofDaCubs]

I would like to see Charlotte and Vegas.

[erik316wttn]

15 and 15 does work with interleague play. I don't think interleague is special now so I don't how its any different if they don't all play at once.

 

I've been pro-15/15 for a while, with one interleague matchup going on at all times. I'd have the previous year's WS participants, and runners-up, play each other early in the season. With the previous season's cellar dwellers facing off at the end.

 

I've backed a 15/15 with an uneven schedule spanning both leagues and eliminating the DH.

 

The players Union would never ever eliminate the DH. That's 14 possible places an aging slugger can go and get one last payday.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

With nearly 22MM in the NYC metropolitan area, you could add a 3rd ML team to the city--as they had for many years of course--and at over 7MM pops per team, the NYC teams would STILL be the largest market per team, just edging out LA (13MM people, 2 teams).

 

To be fair, the metro LA population doesn't count the Inland Empire (Ontario, Riverside, San Bernardino). Counting them would give the LA-Riverside-Anaheim metro 17.5 million people, which obviously is still less than NYC.

[mhuber92211]

Also, the area of choice for expansion HAS to include Portland, OR

 

Portland would be my first choice! (Not that my avatar is from the Portland Baseball Group or anything.) The Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area is the largest market in the US without a MLB team. Also, Portland has less rainfall during the baseball season than 16 other MLB cities, including Chicago.

 

However, I am thinking more relocation than expansion. It doesn't make sense to revenue share with teams that don't always put that money back onto the field.

 

Rob Neyer did a great article a couple of years back when the Expos were moving. The Portland area is such a perfect place for baseball to grow with the population. This is part of the key to relocation. The area has to be growing in order to maintain a fan base. Portland is still one of the fastest growing areas in all of the US and it is a bigger market then several places that already has a team. Besides, they would build the most beautiful park along the Columbia river imaginable. Or imagine a Columbia River Gorge stadium! How would that Pujols shot look if it was heading into a gorge?

If we absolutely had to have 16 teams to a league, do it like this:

 

AL West: Los Angeles, Oakland, Texas, Seattle, Portland

AL Central: Chicago, Minnesota, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Toronto

AL East: New York, Boston, Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Norfolk or Charlotte

 

NL: Leave it

 

Three division winners, Wild Card stays, Blue Jays can dream of upward mobility.

[Derwood]

15 and 15 does work with interleague play. I don't think interleague is special now so I don't how its any different if they don't all play at once.

 

I've been pro-15/15 for a while, with one interleague matchup going on at all times. I'd have the previous year's WS participants, and runners-up, play each other early in the season. With the previous season's cellar dwellers facing off at the end.

 

I've backed a 15/15 with an uneven schedule spanning both leagues and eliminating the DH.

 

The players Union would never ever eliminate the DH. That's 14 possible places an aging slugger can go and get one last payday.

 

They might get rid of the DH if you expand rosters to 26 or 27 players.

[frostwyrm]

I still don't know why Mexico can't have a team. Would the Devil Rays really be worse off in Mexico City than Tampa?

[Fred Hornkohl]

I still don't know why Mexico can't have a team. Would the Devil Rays really be worse off in Mexico City than Tampa?

 

Yes. Mexico City is at an altitude of over 6,000 ft. It would produce conditions more severe than Coors Field. Monterrey would be a much better choice.

[Derwood]

I still don't know why Mexico can't have a team. Would the Devil Rays really be worse off in Mexico City than Tampa?

 

Yes. Mexico City is at an altitude of over 6,000 ft. It would produce conditions more severe than Coors Field. Monterrey would be a much better choice.

 

In my simleague, we had a minor league team in Mexico City for two years. The numbers were stupid good

[Exile on Waveland]

The more divisions you have, the more necessary the wild card becomes. Because as the number of divisions increases, the more likely you'll have NYY and Boston will win 95-100 games and some AL-version of the Padres win 82. One of the two east teams would be left out in favor of the loser divison winner. That may have been a possibility with just two divisions, but highly unlikely. You cannot have eight divisions without a wildcard.

 

I'd be for contraction, not for expansion, however. I'd could go for the current six divisions or a revert back to two big division in each league, but with two wild card teams. The wild card has added excitement and revenue, as has the divisional series round. But no more teams, there are already too many as it stands. If Las Vegas or Portland or New Jersey needs a team, fine, move one of the crap franchises with no support like Tampa Bay.

[Tim]

I still have no idea why people think talent is watered down these days other than it is a popular thing to say.

[BigbadB]

I still have no idea why people think talent is watered down these days other than it is a popular thing to say.

 

I agree. There is plenty of talent. Maybe if we didnt' see guys like Jose Macias getting occasional starts or pinch hits... But, as long as their is an end of the bench, guys like this will always have jobs whether you have 32 teams or 16, etc...

[Exile on Waveland]

I still have no idea why people think talent is watered down these days other than it is a popular thing to say.

 

I agree. There is plenty of talent. Maybe if we didnt' see guys like Jose Macias getting occasional starts or pinch hits... But, as long as their is an end of the bench, guys like this will always have jobs whether you have 32 teams or 16, etc...

 

Player talent may not be down, but location/city talent certainly is.

[BigbadB]

I still have no idea why people think talent is watered down these days other than it is a popular thing to say.

 

I agree. There is plenty of talent. Maybe if we didnt' see guys like Jose Macias getting occasional starts or pinch hits... But, as long as their is an end of the bench, guys like this will always have jobs whether you have 32 teams or 16, etc...

 

Player talent may not be down, but location/city talent certainly is.

 

I don't understand what this means.

[Exile on Waveland]

I still have no idea why people think talent is watered down these days other than it is a popular thing to say.

 

I agree. There is plenty of talent. Maybe if we didnt' see guys like Jose Macias getting occasional starts or pinch hits... But, as long as their is an end of the bench, guys like this will always have jobs whether you have 32 teams or 16, etc...

 

Player talent may not be down, but location/city talent certainly is.

 

I don't understand what this means.

 

It means with expansion, you get less and less viable major league cities. Now, some cities currently without teams may be viable, but we know that some cities with teams are not. That's why I advocated relocation instead of expansion.

[BigbadB]

Ahh. I see. If you lived in one of those markets that didn't have a baseball team, and the city had the market to support it, wouldn't you like to see a team there?

 

I could see there being 48 teams someday. Maybe even 64 in another 100 years.

[Exile on Waveland]

Ahh. I see. If you lived in one of those markets that didn't have a baseball team, and the city had the market to support it, wouldn't you like to see a team there?

 

I could see there being 48 teams someday. Maybe even 64 in another 100 years.

 

Actually, no. I live about 50 miles from Indianapolis, which in three years very well may have the best NBA and the best NFL facilities in the nation. Not to mention two of the best teams in each respective league. Now, with all the baseball teams in neighboring states, it may be difficult for Indy to support a team -- I'd question whether it could. However, even if it could, I have no desire for an MLB team in Indy.

 

I also have no doubt we'll see 48 then 64 then 1,280 teams. It's all about the money. That doesn't make it right.

[BigbadB]

Ahh. I see. If you lived in one of those markets that didn't have a baseball team, and the city had the market to support it, wouldn't you like to see a team there?

 

I could see there being 48 teams someday. Maybe even 64 in another 100 years.

 

Actually, no. I live about 50 miles from Indianapolis, which in three years very well may have the best NBA and the best NFL facilities in the nation. Not to mention two of the best teams in each respective league. Now, with all the baseball teams in neighboring states, it may be difficult for Indy to support a team -- I'd question whether it could. However, even if it could, I have no desire for an MLB team in Indy.

 

I also have no doubt we'll see 48 then 64 then 1,280 teams. It's all about the money. That doesn't make it right.

 

Would you consider Portland close to San Fran or Seattle?

 

What's the closest market to Charlotte?

 

Las Vegas is a minimum 3 hour drive to the closest market that currently has a team. I could go on. Just because Indy may not be able to support it doesn't mean no one else could.

[Exile on Waveland]

Ahh. I see. If you lived in one of those markets that didn't have a baseball team, and the city had the market to support it, wouldn't you like to see a team there?

 

I could see there being 48 teams someday. Maybe even 64 in another 100 years.

 

Actually, no. I live about 50 miles from Indianapolis, which in three years very well may have the best NBA and the best NFL facilities in the nation. Not to mention two of the best teams in each respective league. Now, with all the baseball teams in neighboring states, it may be difficult for Indy to support a team -- I'd question whether it could. However, even if it could, I have no desire for an MLB team in Indy.

 

I also have no doubt we'll see 48 then 64 then 1,280 teams. It's all about the money. That doesn't make it right.

 

Would you consider Portland close to San Fran or Seattle?

 

What's the closest market to Charlotte?

 

Las Vegas is a minimum 3 hour drive to the closest market that currently has a team. I could go on. Just because Indy may not be able to support it doesn't mean no one else could.

 

First, you asked me a question about if I lived in a market that could support a team, would I want one there. I said I basically do live in a market that conceivably support a team, but still wouldn't want one there. That was an example to answer your question of me.

 

Second, again, that's why relocation is needed and not expansion. Yeah, maybe Portland can support a franchise. Obviously, Tampa Bay cannot. So move them. I'll say it again, relocation can remedy that.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The problem isn't that cities can't support teams. They can. What is clear is that some cities and teams can bring in much more revenue than others. If a better system of revenue sharing were in place, you'd have a lot less trouble expanding baseball into the smaller markets.

[Exile on Waveland]

The problem isn't that cities can't support teams. They can. What is clear is that some cities and teams can bring in much more revenue than others. If a better system of revenue sharing were in place, you'd have a lot less trouble expanding baseball into the smaller markets.

 

OK, so I should have specified "under the current financial situation." And, under the current financial situation, I think it's clear that a few cities cannot support their teams.