Isn't It Time to Fairly Re-Align Baseball?

Interesting how you disparage communism and capitalism in back-to-back sentences.

The Tao of Stiles.

Rubbish. If I give you the choice of Team A with a $200 million payroll and Team B with $40 million, which would you bet on to win it all? Can small market teams compete? Yes, but if they make one mistake, they're done. Big markets can afford to buy their way out of a scouting error.

And there is a problem with your Marlins reference. First, Miami isn't small market (6th largest metro area population), they just have a cheap owner. Second, while their 2003 title was a result of development from within, the same cannot be said of the 1997 title. That year, Wayne Huizenga went all in and the Marlins had baseball's highest payroll.

In three years, Kansas City will be better than Tampa

Miami is a small market because they don't spend the money because people don't go to the games so there is no money to spend. But reality is that if Cleveland kept CC and lost him to free agency they'd get 2 1st round picks as compensation. That changes things a great deal. Now that Milwakeee has him, if he goes, THEY get those 2 picks. The parity is there, teams just have to work for it.

Taytay24 said:

Yes, but if they make one mistake, they're done. Big markets can afford to buy their way out of a scouting error.

See: New York Mets

They keep buying and the whole keeps getting bigger. Money does not solve all problems. It is a tool and if used improperly it can cripple a franchise. If used wisely it can do some amazing things.

I don't believe I ever said money cured everything, but you admitted yourself that it can do "amazing things". That is exactly what I am saying: the disparity in payroll gives some team a distinct advantage. I ask again: would you prefer your team to have a $200 million payroll or $40?

fact of the matter is money is important...you're ignorant if you don't think its an advantage...

can a small market team not win? No, they have a shot, but Tay's been pretty dead on the whole time

1st round picks are great, but do they match the ability to keep a solid player and market him later (talk about cash cows)

Carl Pohlad is a multi-billionaire. He could buy the Yankees several times over. He owns the Minnesota Twins, (a "small market team")

He is specifically who I had in mind. Several years back when baseball was considering contracting the Twins, I looked up populations size. Minneapolis/St Paul is 16th, hardly small market.

Please allow me to clarify my second statement. I am not concerned with Pohlad's personal wealth, and I do not expect him or any other owner to operate their team at a loss year in and year out. My complaint with Pohlad and others like him (see the reference below to Loria's Marlins) is that they claim small market status in order to operate at a low payroll in order to reap more profits. The Twins (and others) could be more competitive on the field and still earn a profit for the owners if they raised their payrolls.

Totally agree, Tmil. If you want to play, you have to ante up. If I have my $130 million cap, I'd also set a floor at about $65. And if my team was ever at the floor, I complain to the high heavens.

That sounds like a great idea.

No way it would ever happen, but still, it would significantly level the playing field.

A floor is essential for the cap to work. These owners spend $15 million because they know they can't compete at $60 or $70, so why not get the same result (losing) and profit an extra $50 million? But if they were forced to spend at least to the minimum, it becomes reasonable to spend a bit more and have a chance to actually win. Since a pennant chase would likely spur attendance, the increased payroll should at least come close to paying for itself.

hockey did that

and its a percentage system (i think 80%) X% of the salary cap must be spent

What's the point of that? With the exception of the Rangers, all of the teams are in the right geographical areas. How would you realign them?

How about we get rid of the NL West and call it a day?

And the Rangers are no easy fix anyway. There just aren't enough teams in the western half of the country to do it evenly. I would suggest moving Houston to the AL West, which would create a Tex/Hou divisional rivalry and even all divisions at five teams apiece. But Houston doesn't want to join the AL.

You can't have two 15-team League's unless you want an interleague game everyday. I like interleague play, but not that much!

Not necessarily--they don't play everyday.

tay, pip's got ya hear...because of the series system (2, 3 and 4 game sets) its just not really possible to keep the rotation just right...unless teams player other teams every day (aka no series)

Well, I'm not going to get out a calendar and work out a full schedule, but I think it could work. It's not like teams are on the exact same schedule, ie, they don't all start and end series on the exact same days. It might require shortening the season to finish in October, but that isn't necessarily a bad idea either.

bad idea for who? ; - )

Many teams have no desire to shorten the schedule because they make so much already...especially contenders near the end of the season (when seats fill up)...

Basically, the issue would involve one team being off (in each league) every day...and it would make the arrangement of series incredibly difficult (if not impossible)...but i agree, I'm not going to attempt to work it out...

Shortening the season doesn't cut the games at the end when attendance is up, but rather the games in the middle when it's down. Look, I love baseball, but 162 is a bit unnecessary. I understand teams (read: owners) want as many games as possible to maximize gate receipts, but I don't think there is any competitive reason for having so many games, and that should be the deciding factor.

competitive reason? not really

Texas in the West is a requirement, not a need. There's just too many teams centralized, or in the East, to make the division perfect. It's not that bad, and it could be alot worse. Remember, when division play first started, the Braves and Reds were in the NL WEST...

When the Diamondbacks franchise was first granted in '95, they were to be an American League team. After the NL pitched a hissy fit, (they wanted their share of the expansion fees), Jerry Colangelo agreed to be an NL team, with the understanding they would move to the NL within, I believe, three years. MLB compromised by moving the Brewers to the NL, and after the Dbacks won the NL West in '99 and the WS in '01, there was no way moving them to the AL would have worked. Despite their on-field success, the DBacks were in debt up to their eye brows to MLB, having had to take numerous loans to cover expenses, including payroll. Both MLB and Colangelo realized moving to the AL at this time would hurt the gate and marketing, since rivalries with the Dodgers, Padres and Giants had already been established. So the whole idea was scrapped.

Two 15 team leagues actually would work, a team could be off three days or so once or twice during the season, it would allow players to rest, it would lessen the stress of travel, and there would be no need for any scheduled off-days during the season. That, in itself, would shorten the season to the point the World Series would be over mid-October as it should be.