Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, that map ignores population, which is a key component.

[Gwreck]

Most such studies though, leave out adding teams to esteablished territories. Greater New York could handle six teams and New England three.[/quote:2ezr99qs]

In theory, sure. In practice, a third NY team might work but that's about it.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

The disparity in the size of the leagues has always bugged me. Four of fourteen teams make the playoffs in one league, and four of sixteen in another. One of six is guaranteed a playoff spot in the NL Central, one of four in the AL West.

Another issue, which was meaningless until they changed the rules, was that sixteen NL teams are guaranteed an All-Star representative, and fourteen are in the AL. While the drop-off in talent might not be that great, if the game means home-field for the World Series the AL could have a small advantage, considering that a better player may be left off the NL squad in favor of an automatic pick for a lousy team. Not a big deal, but it could matter.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Most such studies though, leave out adding teams to esteablished territories. Greater New York could handle six teams and New England three.[/quote:2og52hj8]

In theory, sure. In practice, a third NY team might work but that's about it.[/quote:2og52hj8]
Why? You don't think the Jersey Jackasses, the Long Island Lugnuts, and the Brooklyn Thugs could out-profit the Royals and the Padres? Sure intitially, they'd be a joke in comparison to the established teams, but the tickets would be easy to get, a loyal following would ensue, and with any luck, eventually, they'd land a transformational superstar.

[Guest GYC]

So here's a map:


Basically, if anything, we need more teams in the South and West.

[Valadius]

What county is that in New York where virtually no one lives?

[Gwreck]

Hamilton.

[Gwreck]

Sure intitially, they'd be a joke in comparison to the established teams, but the tickets would be easy to get, a loyal following would ensue, and with any luck, eventually, they'd land a transformational superstar.[/quote:1sdd9l2q]

That's the problem.* Who's gonna pay the expansion fee and suffer through 5-10 years of that before their team gets good enough to start turning a profit?

*We're assuming the Fred/Jeff and Uday/Qusay's objections were already overruled, of course.

[batmagadanleadoff]

We're assuming the Fred/Jeff and Uday/Qusay's objections were already overruled, of course.[/quote:syn3pd6g]

Not me. In my hypothetical, any team could relocate to anywhere -- league permission not needed. I'm talking about a free for all. Or a free to move for all. With four teams in NYC, the Mets and Yankees might even lower their ticket prices. An average income family of three or four might then be able to buy choice seats to a game once in a while without having to spend a week's paycheck to do so.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I know it only seems fair for teams to locate their businesses wherever they see fit, but I'd hate to see MLB become like the NFL, with all the shuffling that's occurred.

I know the NFL isn't exactly hurting for fans, but if I had been a Baltimore Colts fan, I wouldn't have embraced the Ravens. We'd probably think we're safe as fans of a major market team, but New York has lost baseball teams before, and Los Angeles has lost two football teams, to lesser markets like St. Louis and Oakland.

I may not be the typical fan, but if the Mets ever left New York I'd be done, finished as a sports fan. I wouldn't root for the Indianapolis Mets, and I wouldn't root for the New York Padres.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Has there been that much movement --- in the great scheme of things --- in the NFL?

The NFL has a terrible labor situation that turns my stomache, but their shared TV income has made it the only sport where a major league team can survive (and prosper) in Green Bay.

(I may be woefully out of date, but I think the NFL restricts franchise movement, requiring an approval vote of three fourths of owners before a team can move.)

[Valadius]

I want MLB to add teams in Portland, Charlotte, and Sacramento. I would move the A's to Sacramento because 1) the Bay Area doesn't have the population warranting two teams and 2) Sacramento is Oakland's AAA affiliate already anyway.

[Frayed Knot]

Has there been that much movement --- in the great scheme of things --- in the NFL?

[Benjamin Grimm]

And there really do have to be some restrictions. Otherwise an owner can move his team (to make an extreme example) to Tokyo. The travel would be grueling, both for the Tokyo team and all the visiting teams, but if he didn't care about that, he'd make a hell of a lot of money in a huge baseball-crazy city.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Sorry to talk like a republican, but presumably the market itself can provide some restrictions. Moving has it's costs. Re-establishing yourself in a new market isn't easy.

It's the lack of a free market that has made Kansas City such a wasteland, so the establishment of a truly free market, while allowing Kansas City greater leave to move, would also diminish the incentive to do so.

Presumably, the league would still be allowed to OK or refuse extra-national moves.

[metirish]

Olbermann has a good read take on this

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/03/im_open_to_realignment_too.html

[Frayed Knot]

Nothing wrong with Olberman's take on this - but for the most part I find these realignment plans akin to nothing more than a re-arranging of the furniture and are usually based on conditions as they exist now but may not in the future.
I don't think they really solve any problems.