Ok, I didn't see any mention of this, but supposedly top MLB executives have let an idea out about floating divisions, meaning alignment isn't permanent, and teams can move based on need at the time..

I heard this first on Mike and Mike, then again during an MLB segment on ESPN..

Basically, it'd work something like this:

The Cleveland Indians are semi-rebuilding and expect ticket sales to be low.. Well instead of being in the Central division with teams that aren't big draws (i.e. KC) they could swap with Tampa Bay and join the AL East while Tampa joins the AL Central..

Why?

Well, in Clevelands perspective, you'll have 18 home games vs Boston and NY, which would draw money at the gate, which then could help with revenue towards completeing the rebuild..

In Tamp Bays' perspective, their window for competing is closing, and playing in the same division as NYY and Boston severely lowers their chances of competing for a division title or wild card..

Tampa Bay would instantly become favorites in the Central division for the time being with the chance to win a division crown and they wouldn't have to worry about what the Yankees or Red Sox are doing.. (since the inception of the Wild Card, the Yankees and Red Sox have accounted for 37% of the total playoff appearances by teams in the AL)

Again, this would be allowed for all teams to submit why they should be realigned if the teams would come to agreement (for example, Cleveland and TB agreeing on a switch)

What are your thoughts on this? Like it, hate it?

Article on the matter:

-- http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/article/2010-03-10/mlb-discussions-over-floating-realignment

basic summary from the article:

SI.com's Tom Verducci reports there is strong support among the 14-member panel of mainly executives and managers for the idea of "floating realignment." It is seen as a way to increase competitive balance. Verducci adds, however, that the concept is merely in the talking stages and lacks a structure. Moreover, the committee's recommendations are non-binding.
Under the concept, teams would be able to decide where they'd want to play in a given season based on geography, payroll and willingness to contend. SI.com, citing an unnamed source who is familiar with the discussions, notes that a team couldn't move into a division more than two time zones beyond its home city — say, the Rays or Orioles trying to join the NL West.

For the record, I hate it..

There are other ways to create "competitive balance" and this is not the way to do it.. It'd become more of a chore to follow everything than it would do good.

Also, traditional division rivals would be no more.

Not sure about the idea, but it'd be interesting to see how it helped/hurt the Reds!

I hate this idea. It's more of Selig's crappy gimmicks meant to mask the real problem in baseball which is the financial disparity between the richest team, the next richest teams and the rest of the broke-ass teams. At some point, baseball will have to address this and the more layers of Selig's cover-ups there are, the more difficult it will be to fix. If Selig wants gimmicks, try neon baseballs, 10 cent beer night and put the ChiSox in fast-pitch softball uniforms, but leave the leagues alone. This is not a positive change for baseball.

Moving the worst teams to the AL East would only help Boston and New York continue to dominate since they would get more games against bad teams. How do you decide which teams to move when? There could be a lot of manipulation with the moving to benefit certain cities. The real problem is the difference in finanaces.

I hate it. I mean, I get the ideology behind it but its just dumb. You'd have people wanting to switch almost every year based on the results of free agency and things like that, just to give themselves a chance to be competitive. You'd have half of the NL and AL Central wanting to join the NL West because except for L.A. and Colorado lately its been one of the weakest divisions in baseball.

Hell go 3 divisions based on payroll. Fuck it..why not.

People who blame Bud Selig for the salary situation make me laugh. Obviously its the owners who are against the cap. That is the whole reason they are proposing the floating divisions haha. They have no other recourse so they must think outside the box

I dont blame Selig for the salary situation. Dont know why people place that on him.

In his tenure they did add a luxury tax in. Granted..if your the NYY and spend that much whats an extra few million in taxes but its better than nothing i guess...I think it may have helped deter some teams.

Also.....I imagine the owners want a cap but the MLBPA is the strongest union in sports and prolly one of the strongest unions period.

If you look at it.....why do people want a cap?

"competive balance"

Does everyone know that in the last 10 years there have been a MORE WIDE RANGE OF TEAMS in MLB that have won and played in the WS than in any of the big 4 sports? Of which the other three have some sort of cap?

Makes ya think.

but i do agree.....they way its set up now it is very unfair for the complete balance. Teams can, and do, load up on player after player and stuch. doesnt guarentee winning it alll....but it sure does help.

thavoice wrote:
"competive balance"

Does everyone know that in the last 10 years there have been a MORE WIDE RANGE OF TEAMS in MLB that have won and played in the WS than in any of the big 4 sports? Of which the other three have some sort of cap?

Yeah I always bring that up as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a cap would be a terrible thing for baseball, but at the end of the day if you draft well and develop your talent, and spend your money wisely you can win. Look at the Rays, Rockies, A's until a few years ago, Brewers, etc

When I heard that on the radio last season, and then looking it up myself, it did kinda take the steam outta my argument of wanting a salary cap. It really did.

Thing is about the teams you talk about....Rays...one year wonder after awful seasons.

A's....always had to get rid of guys when they got to their next contracts...rockies...marginal success....

Twins....usually could compete to a certain point.


Point is....the system is unfair....unbalanced...no matter what the actual facts state....
that doesnt sound rite does it.

I'm sure when the Indians went to the ALCS, their ticket sales weren't hurting.

Point is, you make a lot of money when your team is good, you don't when your team is bad. Moving your team to a division w/ the Red Sox, Yankees, etc. won't help your team do well, it'll help your team sell a couple thousand extra tickets a game...which will help on a very miniscule amount.

A salary cap would help some, but I think a salary floor is even more important. A $100M salary cap wouldn't be all that beneficial, when teams like the Pirates won't spend even half of that. Baseball needs to force some of the tightass owners to either ante up or get out.

As for this plan, it seems like it's trying to fix a knife wound with a self inflicted shotgun blast.

that_guy wrote: A salary cap would help some, but I think a salary floor is even more important. A $100M salary cap wouldn't be all that beneficial, when teams like the Pirates won't spend even half of that. Baseball needs to force some of the tightass owners to either ante up or get out.

As for this plan, it seems like it's trying to fix a knife wound with a self inflicted shotgun blast.

Very true.
Thing is....the rev sharing model would have to change. In NFL so much more of the overall $$ goes into the cap.

In MLB>..local teams operate more independantly. They have more independant deals than NFL teams do and that money is kept by them. YES network has the NYY covering a ton of their costs without a fan coming through thte turnstyles.

A team like Pitt may not be able to meet a basement salary level if they dont get more rev sharing..and itll be hard to convince alot of those other places to wanna take their money and put it into a pool to share.

jordo212000 wrote:

thavoice wrote:
"competive balance"

Does everyone know that in the last 10 years there have been a MORE WIDE RANGE OF TEAMS in MLB that have won and played in the WS than in any of the big 4 sports? Of which the other three have some sort of cap?

Yeah I always bring that up as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a cap would be a terrible thing for baseball, but at the end of the day if you draft well and develop your talent, and spend your money wisely you can win. Look at the Rays, Rockies, A's until a few years ago, Brewers, etc

Right, some of those lower market teams are competitive UNTIL they have to let their star players go because the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc.. come in and buy them away..

The Yankees and Red sox are able to position themselves for a World Series run every year.. No other team can really do that.

Like I mentioned in my opening post, I saw that since the inception of the WC, the Yankees and Red Sox have combined for a total of 37% of the playoff spots since then.. That is ridiculous.

I think MLB needs a cap, a mix between the NBA and NFL.. I think the MLB needs to adapt the rookie cap, a "bird rights" type system, and maybe some other type of features..

I mean seriously, when you talk about different WS participants, you're really talking about the NL.. In the AL, it's usually the Yankees or Red Sox.. outside of a flash in the pan season by Detroit or Tampa Bay... Amiright?

BCBulldog wrote: I hate this idea. It's more of Selig's crappy gimmicks meant to mask the real problem in baseball which is the financial disparity between the richest team, the next richest teams and the rest of the broke-ass teams. At some point, baseball will have to address this and the more layers of Selig's cover-ups there are, the more difficult it will be to fix. If Selig wants gimmicks, try neon baseballs, 10 cent beer night and put the ChiSox in fast-pitch softball uniforms, but leave the leagues alone. This is not a positive change for baseball.

I agree. Collin Cowherd talked about baseball owners today for about an hour. I like Cowherd...his logic on most issues alligns with mine. But today, on this subject, he was clueless.

He spoke of Steinbrenner losing money on the Yankees. Well, he's wrong. He stood up for the owners of the Pittsburghs, the Royals and the Brewers...in that they have the right to make money.

Well....socialism in the NFL works very, very well.

The pirates payroll is 25 million. New York is over 200 million.

But Cowherd never mentioned that revenue sharing would benefit the overall competitiveness of the league.

One of my business collegues and friend of mine for almost 30 years....a long time Red Sock fan called me the other day. Said he was sick and tired of the Yankees buying titles.

Now that one made me LOL.

Bad idea. This would only exacerbate people's suspicions that the MLB is in it to help certain teams do well. Now they could fucking pair them with whomever they like!

Footwedge wrote:
But Cowherd never mentioned that revenue sharing would benefit the overall competitiveness of the league.

The Lakers win or are close to winning it all every year. They never have a "bad" team. The Cavs have been good for several years... The Grizzlies and Clippers never win anything... What about the NBA? It isn't all that competitive when you think about it.

Like somebody said earlier, baseball has had more parity recently than any of the other sports.

I had read a very good article a year or so about the revenue sharing part of it.

The revenue sharing would be needed for teams to be able to go to the mininum baseball salary.

Believe there is some in the MLB but not near the NFL.

MLB all have their own TV deals, which you dont see in the NFL. MLB teams act more independantly than NFL teams do. MUCH less percentage of what comes in locally in MLB is shared.

So taht makes a salary basement hard in MLB unless they tear down and rebuild the model. Ya really think some of those large market teams will be OK with allowing alot of that money to go elsewhere?


What would a cap do? Give the PERCEPTION that it is more fair. I think also it would even out the talent across the league.

jordo212000 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
But Cowherd never mentioned that revenue sharing would benefit the overall competitiveness of the league.

The Lakers win or are close to winning it all every year. They never have a "bad" team. The Cavs have been good for several years... The Grizzlies and Clippers never win anything... What about the NBA? It isn't all that competitive when you think about it.

Like somebody said earlier, baseball has had more parity recently than any of the other sports.

In the NBA, you have to build a great team to have a long run.. You also have a roster of 15 compared to 25..

Too many different factors to really compare the two..

If LeBron was the GOAT of baseball, like he is basketball, do you think Cleveland would have been able to re-sign him? Nope.

However, I'll back off my salary cap claims..

I think it's be a better idea to drop interleague play, and instill a salary ceiling for Type A Free Agents, as well as Type B free agents.. That way, everybody has a fair shot and knows what the market value is.. I'd also have some incentive for free agents staying with the team that drafted them.

jordo212000 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
But Cowherd never mentioned that revenue sharing would benefit the overall competitiveness of the league.

The Lakers win or are close to winning it all every year. They never have a "bad" team. The Cavs have been good for several years... The Grizzlies and Clippers never win anything... What about the NBA? It isn't all that competitive when you think about it.

Like somebody said earlier, baseball has had more parity recently than any of the other sports.

The NBA does have their own competitive balance problems...I would agree.

But to suggest that baseball haa a level playing field is ridiculous. it doesn't.

Last year, every division champion or wild card team had the highest payroll in their respective divisions.

Of the 8 playoff teams, all of them them spent over 100 million dollars...with St Louis being the lowest at 13th out of 30.

If baseball were truly serious about fixing what ails the sport (the fact that there are a few haves and everyone else is basically a have not) they'd simply put in a salary cap similar to what the NFL has had and level the playing field.

That won't happen, of course, because there's too much power in the hands of the folks who own the Yankess, Red Sox and other clubs that like having the system as is.

Footwedge wrote:
The NBA does have their own competitive balance problems...I would agree.

But to suggest that baseball haa a level playing field is ridiculous. it doesn't.

I am mostly just playing devil's advocate. It just seems like everybody has an ax to grind with baseball, but seemingly ignores other sports who have even less parity. The facts are facts though and there is no getting around it. Baseball has had more parity. People like to talk about the Yankees, well until this past season they hadn't won jack since 2003.

My point still remains the same, baseball's system isn't perfect. However, if you draft well and develop your talent, you can most certainly compete.

jordo212000 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
The NBA does have their own competitive balance problems...I would agree.

But to suggest that baseball haa a level playing field is ridiculous. it doesn't.

I am mostly just playing devil's advocate. It just seems like everybody has an ax to grind with baseball, but seemingly ignores other sports who have even less parity. The facts are facts though and there is no getting around it. Baseball has had more parity. People like to talk about the Yankees, well until this past season they hadn't won jack since 2003.

My point still remains the same, baseball's system isn't perfect. However, if you draft well and develop your talent, you can most certainly compete.

In theory yeah..draft and developed. However in baseball that is much harder than the other sports. Players change team more in FA for baseball and the teams with the $$ can outbid others.

jordo212000 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
The NBA does have their own competitive balance problems...I would agree.

But to suggest that baseball haa a level playing field is ridiculous. it doesn't.

I am mostly just playing devil's advocate. It just seems like everybody has an ax to grind with baseball, but seemingly ignores other sports who have even less parity. The facts are facts though and there is no getting around it. Baseball has had more parity. People like to talk about the Yankees, well until this past season they hadn't won jack since 2003.

My point still remains the same, baseball's system isn't perfect. However, if you draft well and develop your talent, you can most certainly compete.

I think I've done a pretty good job in disputing your "facts". Baseball has from time to time had teams catch lightning in a bottle. But last year's FACTS which I stated showed only the rich teams did well.

NBA and NFL are both structures whereby the good players can be retained. In baseball, the bottom feeders only serve the purpose of being a short term breeding ground to the money elites.

Let's look at the Pirates to further espound my claim. They have not had a winning season since Clinton was first elected.

Now....the reason for that...look at the enclosed link....column 2. Yanks spend 200 million plus...make playoffs 14 out of 15 years...with several titles. Next...Pittsburgh shells out 25 million for an entire payroll. Have had losing records forever. And you are somehow not seeing a cause and affect?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=cle