(11-20-2019 11:16 PM)EPJr2 Wrote:  

Who the **** is Bruce Schein and why should I listen to him? Dodgers, Giants, Mets, and Phillies to the AL? Why even have an AL and NL? Add TWO expansion teams, when there isn't enough talent to support even one?

Outside of making the designated hitter universal, what problem is this realignment supposed to solve?

Dumb, considering that Portland didn't make the list and it's one of the only markets MLB hasn't tapped yet.

(11-21-2019 12:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Who the **** is Bruce Schein and why should I listen to him?

He produces a talk show that airs on MLB Network.

I mentioned on this board previously that the reason plans like this can never fly -- and these are all variations on a "geographic realignment" trial balloon that Bud Selig floated about 10 years ago -- is that MLB has a rule that no club can be moved to the other league unless it consents. In other words, if you're an MLB owner, even if the other 29 clubs all vote to move your club to the other league, you can prevent the switch by saying no.

Assuming that a goal of geographic realignment is to get rid of the AL West mess that has 2 central time zone clubs playing in the same division with 3 pacific time zone clubs, then the absolute minimum number of clubs switching leagues is 5 if MLB expands to 32 teams, and 6 if they don't expand. Which means it's not going to happen.

(11-21-2019 01:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 12:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Who the **** is Bruce Schein and why should I listen to him?

He produces a talk show that airs on MLB Network.

Yeah, I know who he is (cuz Google) but what I was getting at is what has this guy done/said to make any of us take his proposal seriously. This feels like silly reddit-level bs.

Quote:I mentioned on this board previously that the reason plans like this can never fly -- and these are all variations on a "geographic realignment" trial balloon that Bud Selig floated about 10 years ago -- is that MLB has a rule that no club can be moved to the other league unless it consents. In other words, if you're an MLB owner, even if the other 29 clubs all vote to move your club to the other league, you can prevent the switch by saying no.

Assuming that a goal of geographic realignment is to get rid of the AL West mess that has 2 central time zone clubs playing in the same division with 3 pacific time zone clubs, then the absolute minimum number of clubs switching leagues is 5 if MLB expands to 32 teams, and 6 if they don't expand. Which means it's not going to happen.

This gets to my core question: What problem is being solved? Because I'm not sure team travel is in the top 5 or even 10. If the biggest challenge MLB faces is fan support, what does this do to significantly increase it?

Move Tampa to Charlotte and Oakland to Las Vegas. Add Montreal and Mexico City. Charlotte moves to the NL and Colorado moves to the AL. 4 divisions in each League.

AL
EAST
New York
Boston
Toronto
Baltimore

CENTRAL
Minnesota
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit

SOUTH
Texas
Houston
Kansas City
Mexico City

WEST
Los Angeles
Seattle
Las Vegas (Oakland)
Colorado

NL
EAST
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Montreal

CENTRAL
Chicago
St. Louis
Pittsburgh
Milwaukee

SOUTH
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Miami
Charlotte (Tampa Bay)

WEST
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
Arizona

(11-21-2019 04:00 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 01:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 12:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Who the **** is Bruce Schein and why should I listen to him?

He produces a talk show that airs on MLB Network.

Yeah, I know who he is (cuz Google) but what I was getting at is what has this guy done/said to make any of us take his proposal seriously. This feels like silly reddit-level bs.

Quote:I mentioned on this board previously that the reason plans like this can never fly -- and these are all variations on a "geographic realignment" trial balloon that Bud Selig floated about 10 years ago -- is that MLB has a rule that no club can be moved to the other league unless it consents. In other words, if you're an MLB owner, even if the other 29 clubs all vote to move your club to the other league, you can prevent the switch by saying no.

Assuming that a goal of geographic realignment is to get rid of the AL West mess that has 2 central time zone clubs playing in the same division with 3 pacific time zone clubs, then the absolute minimum number of clubs switching leagues is 5 if MLB expands to 32 teams, and 6 if they don't expand. Which means it's not going to happen.

This gets to my core question: What problem is being solved? Because I'm not sure team travel is in the top 5 or even 10. If the biggest challenge MLB faces is fan support, what does this do to significantly increase it?

It is a big issue for teams in the west. But, that's 8 out of 30 teams.

Selig's argument was: Organize divisions by time zone, put all the pacific/mountain teams in one division (8 teams), all the central teams in one division (8 teams), and the eastern teams into eastern divisions (7 teams each), and by playing more games in the division, local TV rights would be more valuable, in that every team would have more games televised in its own prime time, rather than west coast teams having so many road games starting at 4:30 or 5:30 local time and east coast teams having road games starting at 10:30 local time.

It's a moot point because any club can veto a league switch. It would be easy to get the A's, Angels, and Mariners to move to the NL with the other western teams, but it's difficult to even imagine three NL teams agreeing to move to the AL. IMO the Marlins would do it for the games against the Yankees and Red Sox, but I can't think of any other NL club that would agree to switch leagues.

OTOH, if the goal is to increase fan support, then finding a way to cut half an hour out of the average game time would do far more for fan interest than any shuffling of divisions and leagues. As would pouring more MLB money into youth baseball and softball, because adults are more likely to follow a sport they played as kids.

(11-21-2019 05:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  OTOH, if the goal is to increase fan support, then finding a way to cut half an hour out of the average game time would do far more for fan interest than any shuffling of divisions and leagues. As would pouring more MLB money into youth baseball and softball, because adults are more likely to follow a sport they played as kids.

yep

The rumor I heard was that the Orioles could possibly move as Angelos’ health is in decline and downtown Baltimore is not the draw it used the be. The potential destination was Nashville. Before expanding, MLB needs to resolve this, the Rays and A’s situation.

I haven't heard one compelling argument for expansion, and there are several against it. Does MLB think this is an important issue?

(11-22-2019 02:34 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I haven't heard one compelling argument for expansion, and there are several against it. Does MLB think this is an important issue?

More teams = more games = more media revenue = more profit

More teams = more players = more large salaries = happier union members

I don't think it's coincidental that potential owners in different markets are coming forward.

Does MLB think this is a priority? Probably not, but they are restructuring the Minor Leagues in a significant way which shows they are evaluating the game on a macro level. They'll save some money by contracting the minor leagues so perhaps adding some squads at the major league level is a means of pumping the value? I don't know.

I understand the argument that the talent pool can't support 2 more franchises. To that I would say, does MLB care? The same argument could have been well made at the last 2 rounds of expansion. Probably before that too although that would be before my time.

The biggest question is can they make money off the move?

So is there any real need for expansion? I thought baseball was all evened up in both leagues and divisionaly.

That said, I think NC is way overdue for pro baseball team. Probably Charlotte or the RDU area. That said Charlotte already has the Panthers/NFL and the Hornets/NBA while Raleigh has the Hurricanes/NHL and there is talk of the Panthers owner going all in on a MLS franchise (but also, RDU has a bid in as well).

(11-22-2019 11:50 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  So is there any real need for expansion? I thought baseball was all evened up in both leagues and divisionaly.

That said, I think NC is way overdue for pro baseball team. Probably Charlotte or the RDU area. That said Charlotte already has the Panthers/NFL and the Hornets/NBA while Raleigh has the Hurricanes/NHL and there is talk of the Panthers owner going all in on a MLS franchise (but also, RDU has a bid in as well).

I’d say RDU as the Braves are going to put up opposition to Charlotte IMO.

(11-22-2019 03:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:34 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I haven't heard one compelling argument for expansion, and there are several against it. Does MLB think this is an important issue?

More teams = more games = more media revenue = more profit

More teams = more players = more large salaries = happier union members

I don't think it's coincidental that potential owners in different markets are coming forward.

Does MLB think this is a priority? Probably not, but they are restructuring the Minor Leagues in a significant way which shows they are evaluating the game on a macro level. They'll save some money by contracting the minor leagues so perhaps adding some squads at the major league level is a means of pumping the value? I don't know.

I understand the argument that the talent pool can't support 2 more franchises. To that I would say, does MLB care? The same argument could have been well made at the last 2 rounds of expansion. Probably before that too although that would be before my time.

The biggest question is can they make money off the move?

Your first two assumptions and the last question are where the rubber meets the road, right? If the idea is grow the pie and everybody gets a bigger share of the pie, then those new markets have to bring in enough to share. I think MLB needs to consider that further dilution of talent and saturation of the market could have the opposite effect and turn even more people away from baseball. And look what the candidates are: Orlando - because FL is such a hotbed of MLB fans? Montreal - has already failed. Raleigh? Portland? More small towns. I'm just some moron on a message board but I don't know why relocation of franchises isn't the first option.

Pro sports ticket sales...

(The whole figure didn't link for some reason. x axis is time in five year increments from 1992-2017; y-axis is ticket sales (top to bottom) MLB, MiLB, NBA, NFL)

9% of people in the US think of baseball as their favorite sport. Time Warner payed over $8 billion for the Dodgers' TV rights, and they can't reach a deal with anyone else to carry the games. For 6 years now a huge portion of LA Metro residents haven't been able to watch the Dodgers because all these providers know what those broadcasts are worth and TW/SportsNet is way over-charging. You think TW has a few regrets? Those massive cable deals that are floating a lot of these owners are going to dry up.

Bottom line for me is that expansion is an incredibly short sighted money grab and may end up accelerating what is already a troubling decline.

one thing i liked was putting the expos with the jays. the rest is a mess

(11-23-2019 10:32 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 03:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:34 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I haven't heard one compelling argument for expansion, and there are several against it. Does MLB think this is an important issue?

More teams = more games = more media revenue = more profit

More teams = more players = more large salaries = happier union members

I don't think it's coincidental that potential owners in different markets are coming forward.

Does MLB think this is a priority? Probably not, but they are restructuring the Minor Leagues in a significant way which shows they are evaluating the game on a macro level. They'll save some money by contracting the minor leagues so perhaps adding some squads at the major league level is a means of pumping the value? I don't know.

I understand the argument that the talent pool can't support 2 more franchises. To that I would say, does MLB care? The same argument could have been well made at the last 2 rounds of expansion. Probably before that too although that would be before my time.

The biggest question is can they make money off the move?

Your first two assumptions and the last question are where the rubber meets the road, right? If the idea is grow the pie and everybody gets a bigger share of the pie, then those new markets have to bring in enough to share. I think MLB needs to consider that further dilution of talent and saturation of the market could have the opposite effect and turn even more people away from baseball. And look what the candidates are: Orlando - because FL is such a hotbed of MLB fans? Montreal - has already failed. Raleigh? Portland? More small towns. I'm just some moron on a message board but I don't know why relocation of franchises isn't the first option.

Pro sports ticket sales...

(The whole figure didn't link for some reason. x axis is time in five year increments from 1992-2017; y-axis is (top to bottom) MLB, MiLB, NBA, NFL)

9% of people in the US think of baseball as their favorite sport. Time Warner payed over $8 billion for the Dodgers' TV rights, and they can't reach a deal with anyone else to carry the games. For 6 years now a huge portion of LA Metro residents haven't been able to watch the Dodgers because all these providers know what those broadcasts are worth and TW/SportsNet is way over-charging. You think TW has a few regrets? Those massive cable deals that are floating a lot of these owners are going to dry up.

Bottom line for me is that expansion is an incredibly short sighted money grab and may end up accelerating what is already a troubling decline.

I can't disagree with any of the data you bring forth. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

The unknown variable would be this: is MLB in the process of trying to rectify any of this? If so, what steps are they taking?

I would actually suggest that expansion might be a good strategy in a climate of waning fan interest. They need more fans and perhaps the easiest way to get some is raise the stakes in markets that haven't been tapped yet. Give some of these places a local club to root for and perhaps you put a dent in some of those numbers.

For example, the NFL would be foolish to look at domestic expansion because the market is tapped out. They're not going to access anymore viewers by placing teams in smallish markets. I'm convinced the only reason Los Angeles got another team is because individual owners were in a position to enrich themselves. The league might have slightly better TV revenue if they can count LA as a local market, but the difference wouldn't have been significant on that end.

By contrast, MLS is expanding rapidly in an effort to capture an audience. Their ratings still aren't great, but the league is in better financial shape than they were 20 years ago, no doubt.

I do think a franchise or two will end up being relocated and I bet Montreal is a destination if for no more reason than it reaches outside a saturated US market. With that said, is it possible that MLB will consider a more radical approach to their issues?

I've long thought that MLB plays too many games. If they wanted to capture more fan interest then the last thing they should be doing is flooding the market with the product. They need to artificially create some scarcity. If nothing else, shorten the regular season and increase the size of the postseason. Is it possible they seek to shorten the regular season in the not too distant future? Is it possible they plan on adding franchises so that their total number of games played isn't dramatically affected as far as live events available for TV?

That's 100% pure speculation on my part, obviously, but if I was leading MLB then that's absolutely something I would consider. If MLB wants to capture more fans in 21st century America then they have to let go of more traditions. Their old models aren't working. Businesses that are responsive to consumer interests are the ones that survive.

(11-23-2019 10:32 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  If the idea is grow the pie and everybody gets a bigger share of the pie, then those new markets have to bring in enough to share. I think MLB needs to consider that further dilution of talent and saturation of the market could have the opposite effect and turn even more people away from baseball. And look what the candidates are: Orlando - because FL is such a hotbed of MLB fans? Montreal - has already failed. Raleigh? Portland? More small towns. I'm just some moron on a message board but I don't know why relocation of franchises isn't the first option.

IMO relocation isn't very attractive is both because those possible expansion markets are not more attractive than current markets and because no one in any of those places has any viable plan for getting an MLB-quality ballpark built. Those markets are almost certainly not getting a team, through relocation or expansion, unless something big happens, probably including a new ballpark built at little or no cost to the MLB club's ownership.

The only real smoke I've seen on expansion is coming from Nashville and Portland. Charlotte and Raleigh are similarly sized markets. The only market ranked better than 20th that would be technically be new to MLB is Orlando.

If MLB were smart, they'd go back to two divisions in each league, but expand the playoffs:

American League
West - Seattle, Oakland, LA Angels, Colorado, Texas, Kansas City, Minnesota, Chicago White Sox
East - NY Yankees, Boston, Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Tampa Bay, CLT/RDU/NSH

National League
West - San Diego, San Francisco, LA Dodgers, Arizona, Houston, Saint Louis, Milwaukee, Chicago Cubs
East - NY Mets, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Washington, Miami, Atlanta

Flipping the Rockies and Astros balances the number of trips to the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones in both leagues. It also allows both Chicago teams to maintain natural rivalries. All of the East Division teams are in the Eastern Time Zone with the possible exception of Nashville.

The playoffs would have six teams from each league. The second place team hosts the third place team from each division - or if you prefer, the top two non-division winners host the next two non-division winners. The winners from the single-elimination wildcard games play the division winners the LDS.

The regular season could still allow for inter league play. For example, each team's schedule could look like this:

Division - 66 games (7 teams x 9 games, plus 3 extra games based on previous year's finish)
Intra league - 48 games (8 teams x 6 games)
Inter league - 48 games (16 teams x 3 games)

Each team would play a total of 53 series - 50 of those would be 3 games, and 3 of those would be 4 games.

Not expanding, but now that St. Petersburg and the Rays have told each other to pound sand, they have 8 more seasons in St. Petersburg and can then relocate to anywhere.

Is anyone going to build a MLB ballpark for the Rays? Orlando? Charlotte? Montreal? Portland? Las Vegas?

Tampa? I thought Tampa wanted to build a park.

If not, MLB and the Rays would be wiser to double/triple down in NYC, LA or Dallas (not Arlington, Tarrant County) than open any market in the US. Mexico City and maybe Vancouver are the only logical new markets to explore (or Monterey but only after MXC is proven and established).