Expansion and realignment

[Kenny]

Eric Davis basically ended his career diving for a ball while playing defense. Having designated defenders would prevent a potential HOFer from going down.

You like the notion of linking the DH to the Pitcher. I'm saying I don't want a pitcher to hit due to possible injury. So are you agreeing with me or not about not letting a pitcher hit.

 

[JohnU]

I never said I didn't like the DH. It seems that people who oppose it forget that every other pro baseballl league in the world uses the DH and the sport is thriving. This is just another continued stupid argument that some couch potatoes have been told to believe. It would be different if pitchers actually knew how to bunt.

I also get tired of seeing young pitchers curling up in the corner in the 4th inning and having a whole long row of 34-year old has beens being used as "relievers.".

I also want to abolish this comment because it's another fuckin' demogogery on the DH. I'd rather talk about expansion than something that's already a done deal.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I also want to abolish this comment because it's another fuckin' demogogery on the DH. I'd rather talk about expansion than something that's already a done deal.

True that.

I'm not 100% sure which side of the DH debate I fall on, but ultimately I realize it doesn't matter because like you said, it is a done deal.

When there are only fifteen baseball teams on the entire planet that have their pitchers swing a bat, it's just a matter of time until the DH is universal.

Moving on. . .

I love the mathematics of adding two more teams - two leagues with four divisions of four teams each. Eight division winners make the playoffs. It's immaculate. However, if I had the chance to wave a magic wand and make it so, I wouldn't. I really like the current format with the wild card winners and their play-in games.

 

[black francis]

The Royals by one.

I could understand if you were suggesting to relocate them because of the reasons you listed, but you're talking about contracting them, and from my perspective, the Rays, measured by performance, are a better franchise than the Royals.

Except when it comes to a stadium, history, and fans

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Except when it comes to a stadium, history, and fans

Stadium and fans have nothing to do with the on-field performance of a team, that's why I said I could understand if you were talking relocation instead of contraction.

And really, history? Royals have two playoff berths in the last three plus decades.

 

[black francis]

Stadium and fans have nothing to do with the on-field performance of a team, that's why I said I could understand if you were talking relocation instead of contraction.

And really, history? Royals have two playoff berths in the last three plus decades.

4 World Series and 2 titles in 48 years. That's way better than Cleveland.

Why aren't we talking about the Indians lack on on-field success?

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Why not abolish the lineup entirely? If I am at an Angels game, I just want to see Trout hit. Allow him to hit every AB. If he gets on base, put in a designated runner and Trout picks up the bat again.

Now THAT would be a cool game.

Just use Ghost Runners

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

4 World Series and 2 titles in 48 years. That's way better than Cleveland.

Why aren't we talking about the Indians lack on on-field success?

Apparently, we are now. Maybe you think the Indians should be contracted too? I don't know.

This was a discussion about your assertion that the Rays should be contracted because they "contribute absolutely nothing to the game."

Two postseason berths in thirty-some-odd years is the Royals' "contribution to the game" that puts them markedly above the Rays, apparently.

"But, dude, we were always fucking awesome when I wore underroos!"

lolz

 

[black francis]

Apparently, we are now. Maybe you think the Indians should be contracted too? I don't know.

This was a discussion about your assertion that the Rays should be contracted because they "contribute absolutely nothing to the game."

Two postseason berths in thirty-some-odd years is the Royals' "contribution to the game" that puts them markedly above the Rays, apparently.

"But, dude, we were always fucking awesome when I wore underroos!"

lolz

OK, then what do they contribute?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

OK, then what do they contribute?

They've been a pretty competitive team over the last decade, which is half of their existence. Particularly when you consider the division they play in and the financial disadvantage they have in that division.

As I said, I could totally see relocating them to a city that would better support them, but contraction despite the success they've had seems ridiculous.

 

[calsnowskier]

You like the notion of linking the DH to the Pitcher. I'm saying I don't want a pitcher to hit due to possible injury. So are you agreeing with me or not about not letting a pitcher hit.

I don’t like the idea. But it is the sort of compromise that I could live with, if I had to.

I brought up Davis to show that the injury argument is stupid because it could be extrapolated into a lot of other areas of the game. Baseball is a sport. Injuries happen in sports.

 

[Jamo]

If Portland wants a team so bad they can have the shitty Mariners

 

[Kenny]

I don’t like the idea. But it is the sort of compromise that I could live with, if I had to.

I brought up Davis to show that the injury argument is stupid because it could be extrapolated into a lot of other areas of the game. Baseball is a sport. Injuries happen in sports.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I rather protect my pitcher, and not have him take an AB. Just like I how I don't want my catcher to get ran over while blocking the plate.

 

[OregonDucks]

congratulations on your new baseball team Montreal.

 

[JohnU]

4 World Series and 2 titles in 48 years. That's way better than Cleveland.

Why aren't we talking about the Indians lack on on-field success?

I think if we were to decide a franchise's fate on the basis of W. S. titles, the Mariners and Padres would have been eliminated 20 years ago ... and there would be no such thing as the Cubs, Indians, Rangers, Nationals, Astros ... and the Pirates would have been laughed off the planet in 2001. The Marlins, conversely, would be right up there with the Yankees.

 

[PhilSimms11]

West (8)--ARZ, LAA, LAD, OAK, POR, SEA, SD, SF
Central (8)--ATL, COL, HOU, KC, MIA, STL, TB, TEX
North (8)--CHC, CHW, CLE, DET, MIL, MIN, MTL, TOR
East (8)--BAL, BOS, CIN, NYM, NYY, PHI, PIT, WAS

Damn, that was hard. It's not exactly perfect, but I think they could make it work. The Cardinals and Cubs I do not have in the same division. Perhaps, with a balanced schedule they'd play each other enough times and that would alleviate some of the "issue". Hell, they play 162 games. They can't find a way to get these teams to play each other enough to satiate the masses? As far as the AL-NL affiliation be my guest as to where you want to place these divisions. You could leave CHC and STL in opposite leagues for the possibility of meeting in the World Series. That'd be something.

There used to be two leagues of 8 with a 154-game schedule. That comes out to playing each league foe 22 times each. With the 16 teams in each league you could play your division 14 times each (98) and the other division 6 times each (48). That's a total of 146 games. You could use the remaining 16 games for interleague play. 8 games with 2 other teams or 4 games with 4 teams...whatever.

 

[msgkings322]

I'm all for the expansion...and obviously some sort of realignment would be required but I think getting rid of the AL & NL is a terrible idea. I'd much rather keep the AL & NL and just have either 4 divisions of 4 teams or 2 divisions of 8 teams for each league. I think it'd work out pretty well to add Portland to the AL and Montreal to the NL. It could look like this:

AL WEST
Portland, Seattle, Oakland, LA Angels
AL SOUTH
Houston, Texas, Tampa Bay, Kansas City
AL NORTH
Detroit, ChiSox, Minnesota, Cleveland
AL EAST
NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Toronto

NL WEST
San Diego, San Francisco, Arizona, LA Dodgers
NL SOUTH
Miami, Atlanta, Washington, Cincinnati
NL NORTH
Colorado, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Chicago Cubs
NL EAST
NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Montreal

Solid, but how would the playoffs work? Don't think for a second they would reduce the number of playoff teams.

 

[msgkings322]

I don't know that Portland is all that appealing to me as an expansion site.

As for realignment, it's not relevant that teams be organized by geography other than it makes it easier for you to make lists.
Time zones might matter. Rivalries only exist on ESPN.

The leagues are organized well enough now and there's no need to go shoving teams into a south division just because it looks good on a map. They invented airplanes.
And aside from how a few teams' fans travel, it's not relevant.

This is not correct. But there may only be 3 relevant intraleague ones: Cubs Cards, Yankees Red Sox, Dodgers Giants

 

[DJ Fieri]

No.

 

[DJ Fieri]

Rivalries only exist on ESPN.

Bull-fucking-shit.

You've never been to a Dodgers-Giants or Yankees-Red Sox game......have you?