Go "North" Mets Fans: Realignment Proposal

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe. But I don't think I'd care very much at all about the Mets winning a Division 2 title.

And to be clear, my interest hasn't been dwindling. It took a severe drop after 1994 and has remained steady at that lower level. I've maintained my interest in the Mets, but have lost any real ability to watch a game that doesn't involve or impact the Mets.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure why the discussion of a promotion-relegation system automatically and always leads to the conclusion that the Mets are going to be relegated. And apparently forever.

[seawolf17]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure why the discussion of a promotion-relegation system automatically and always leads to the conclusion that the Mets are going to be relegated. And apparently forever.

Are you... familiar with the Wilpons?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure why the discussion of a promotion-relegation system automatically and always leads to the conclusion that the Mets are going to be relegated. And apparently forever.

I'm just saying that IF the Mets were relegated, I'd be less inclined to pay close attention to them, especially if that Division 2 status lasted for several years. I see the game from a Mets standpoint. If the Colorado Rockies get relegated and never come back, I couldn't care less.

[Edgy MD]

seawolf17 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure why the discussion of a promotion-relegation system automatically and always leads to the conclusion that the Mets are going to be relegated. And apparently forever. Are you... familiar with the Wilpons?

I'm familiar with the reality that the Mets haven't come in fifth place in 14 years, and that was 2003, the first year of the Wilpons' ownership.

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure why the discussion of a promotion-relegation system automatically and always leads to the conclusion that the Mets are going to be relegated. And apparently forever. I'm just saying that IF the Mets were relegated, I'd be less inclined to pay close attention to them, especially if that Division 2 status lasted for several years. I see the game from a Mets standpoint. If the Colorado Rockies get relegated and never come back, I couldn't care less.

Well, interest always wanes when teams are in last place, so that effect would be nothing new.

Beyond that, perhaps some fans might like a team that is more likely to compete in a lower division than struggle in a higher one for a year or two. If they continue to stink, they continue to stink. That's baseball.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure why the discussion of a promotion-relegation system automatically and always leads to the conclusion that the Mets are going to be relegated. And apparently forever. Are you... familiar with the Wilpons?

I'm familiar with the reality that the Mets haven't come in fifth place in 14 years, and that was 2003, the first year of the Wilpons' ownership.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, sure, there's less interest in a last-place team. I also think, though, that there would be less interest in a first-place team in Division 2. When you go into spring training with, literally, NO chance to win the World Series because your team isn't even eligible, then you have a season-long lack of interest. A few years of that, and you can lose your connection to the team. That wouldn't happen to everybody, but it would happen to some. I think it would happen to me, but I don't expect to ever know for sure, because this idea will never happen in MLB.

[Edgy MD]

Well, there wouldn't be a few years of that.

A first place team in Division 2 — which you speculate would draw less interest than a last place team in Division 1, though I don't think the evidence supports that, but OK — would immediate return to the first division, and not remain in Division 2 at all.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, there could be a few second place years in Division 2.

But, whatever. It's not going to happen anyway. I just know that for each year the Mets weren't a big-league team, whether or not they contended in Division 2, my interest would wane. And that waning would be cumulative. And I couldn't be sure that I wouldn't walk away before they even played their first Division 2 game.

I may be in the minority, but I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way.

[Edgy MD]

Well, you framed it as a first place team.

And yeah, your waning interest would be cumulative if they persisted as an also-ran in a lower division. Certainly. But again, that's what happens when a team persists as a last place club year after year. It would be a wet blanket of a team either way.

The goal, of course, is to not be that team. And the Mets haven't.

And when a team does fall to pieces, we wouldn't have this argument for them to deliberately tank. Because last place has consequences, which actually leads to exciting, consequential play for losing clubs toward the end of the season, and sustained fan interest, where now there is torment and boredom in September.

[Ceetar]

The real worry of falling to division 2 would be wasting bullets in ace pitchers and the like.

You have this really good team that comes together and you're wasting it on division 2. Or it comes together second half but it's not quite enough to take over first. Maybe you'd have a shot in the playoffs if it were MLB, but it's not, you come in second, and not you have a juggernaut next year but maybe by the time it steamrolls 2 it's worn out and the year after it's not as good in MLB and you don't get anything for it.

Not to mention that Division 2 is going to be almost by definition lesser in both revenue and value. How do you escape that? You're never signing the big MLB free agents. Are we keeping the draft? You kind of have to, or you're never signing the big prospects either. The only hope is to draft the right prospects and hope the right mix of aging veteran Quad-A guys get you first place so that you can afford to pay them when you get promoted. But it would take time for the revenue streams to return unless we're doing extreme revenue sharing so that might not even be enough.

Essentially you're getting the same AAA system as now except the teams actually care and try to win at all costs instead of focusing on developing the prospects.

[ashie62]

If promotion/relegation happened I would walk away from baseball no ifs ands or buts.

[Edgy MD]

Well, then. No need to wait for the Mets to be relegated. Ashie's right out.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, I'd at least wait until the Mets dropped to Division 2.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, then. No need to wait for the Mets to be relegated. Ashie's right out.

Ashie wouldn't be the only one out. The regional sports networks, with long-term contracts with their local teams, would be right out, if they couldn't guarantee a major league team for their market. And player contracts would have to go year-to-year, because paying a guy $20M/yr when your a major-league team participating in major-league revenues is one thing, but having to pay for big multi-year contracts when your revenues are cut by A LOT would cause teams to go into bankruptcy. Or they'd have to all go to split contracts, with different Division I and II compensation, and a player making $20m 1 year, who has an MVP season, gets cut down to a minor league salary the next year because he played on a shitty team? So yeah, the player's union is out. And of course all the dependent entities relying on major-league teams (support services, vendors, community venues, etc) would take a huge hit for any team that is relegated to a 2nd division. How many season tickets and luxury boxes is a team selling in the 2nd division? What's its in-stadium ad revenue look like then? It's media deals? All these things are planned for over a long-term with relatively stable and projectable income streams.

Relegation is such a logistically absurd concept for MLB teams that my preference (either for it or against it) is utterly irrelevant. As is everybody's. Cuz its impossible.
Hey, lets put a franchise on the moon while we're at it. The Coors effect would be nothing compared to a lunar long-ball. And chicks dig the long ball. It'll be HUGE!

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, but none of that is true. The model works in football, everywhere else. Clubs retain players and retain broadcast partners. Or they sell off players and rebuild, just like declining baseball teams in the US. And they survive and even flourish playing in divisions below the top level. They just do. It's just not the model folks are used to, so it's alien. But change happens.

Federal Baseball Club v. National League has done nearly a century's worth of damage to baseball in America. It doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't. It's the only model we've known, so we think of it as American, but it's really totally not, except in the worst sense. The robber baron sense.

There's this outstanding play by Frank McGuinness you've likely seen called "Someone Who'll Watch Over Me," about three westerners held hostage in (I think) Beirut — an American, an Irishman, and a Brit. The Brit is foppish and the rowdier Irishman gives him no end of grief. But in this one beautiful passage the Brit confesses his love for a small town soccer squad, and wondering how they're doing as time passes during their captivity. The Irishman laughs himself silly, mocking the guy loudly for his devotion to an overlooked club that can't climb out of the fourth division.

But the Brit musters up as much dignity as he can and stammers something like, "Well, a certain degree of loyalty is required of one."

And the Irishman is stopped, moved that this guy's dedication has shown him a character in the Brit he hadn't previously noticed, and realizing that same loyalty has grown between the two of them against their captors. And then he says something like, "You know, they're not all bad. They had that one year or two they climbed up the third division."

And he's practically a fan of the team himself at that point. He wants them to win because he suddenly likes this wishy-wasy Brit he's stuck with.

America used to be like that. Small town teams fighting for the joy of representing small town people. Or medium town people. And it was good. People hear about these great minor league careers and wonder why the guy didn't get a chance. But they did! We just can't imagine a world anymore where MLB wasn't the only game that mattered. Playing in the Southern Association and Pacific Coast League and the Texas League was meaningful. It was a career of sorts They got good contracts (for the time), baseball cards, and endorsement deals. It wasn't that much but it was a lot more, in real dollars, than minor leaguers make now. And there were adult amateur and semi-pro teams, just trying to become local heroes by beating up on that town further down the track, but hey, maybe that scout from the American Association might be watching.

Stevie Jetes likes to remind us that baseball is in danger of no longer being the American Pastime. The reality is that it hasn't been in a long time. Not in the sense that it was originally meant. The anti-trust exemption set baseball culture back for generations and it still hasn't recovered.

Promotion and relegation may not happen. But something else will. Perhaps something far more radical. Cartels are tyrants. And history grinds persistently against tyrrany. It may take another decade or two for the pressure to build enough, but it's been building for a long time.

[Guest d'Kong76]

So you're for adding 18 new teams in new cities too in addition to all the minor
league teams and their towns/cities and the varsity/junior varsity thing?

Edited October 20, 2017 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

No, I'm not. We don't need new cities. We just need to set the minor leagues free.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Free from what? You don't want a team to have AAA affiliate? AA?

[Guest d'Kong76]

Your post on the top of the page is like three times the size it was?

[Edgy MD]

d'Kong76 wrote: Free from what? You don't want a team to have AAA affiliate? AA?

No, I totally don't. It's enough that the Mets play for me. Syracuse ballplayers should be playing for the glory of Syracuse and its citizens, not for the sake of the some other team's development. Affiliation is a vestige of the anti-trust exemption and it has undermined baseball culture for too long.

Think big! Think justice!

d'Kong76 wrote: Your post on the top of the page is like three times the size it was?

I have a typing problem.

[Guest d'Kong76]

My post says it was edited, but your post doesn't. Weird.

It doesn't matter, I don't like the whole Div 1 Div 2 w/ DH soccer like thinking
anyway so I'm not going to go on about it. Feel bad for college baseball if that
ever happens. Hey, Div 2 can use aluminum bats!

[Guest d'Kong76]

You keep changing your posts as I type!

[Edgy MD]

Editing problem too.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I guess I've worn out my welcome here.

[Edgy MD]

Heavens, no! No way!

[Valadius]

Ok, so as I catch up on literally everything since October 10...

I've been thinking about expansion/realignment for, I don't know, about 20 years. I used to write up proposed divisions in my notebooks in school when I was bored.

Promotion/relegation wouldn't work in an established North American sport, for a variety of reasons: money, merchandising, broadcasting, but most importantly talent development. Aside from what goes on in places like the Dominican Republic, for the most part clubs are dependent on drafting players out of college or high school. In leagues that utilize promotion/relegation, player development is generally handled by the clubs themselves from a younger age, and clubs typically are able to develop their own local talent. Blowing up the current pipeline is something that is probably structurally impossible, and would undermine the great equalizer of sports - the draft.

The Ringolsby proposal seems ridiculous to me in how callously it treats a very sacred aspect of baseball - tradition. More than any other North American sport, baseball treats its past with incredible reverence. Blowing up the leagues, or discarding many of baseball's greatest rivalries, doesn't seem likely.

Now, as to expansion teams, I do believe that Portland will wind up with a team. My understanding is that there is about $150 million in public funds sitting there from when the Expos were on the move. Another western team is needed, geographically speaking, and the Mariners would finally get a natural rival. Oddly enough, only MLS currently has teams in both Portland and Seattle at the moment, and it's a huge rivalry.

As to the second team, you've got a variety of cities to choose from. Among my favorite options are Austin, Sacramento (where I personally think the A's should move), Charlotte, Montreal, Vancouver, Orlando, San Antonio, Nashville, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis.

So let's see how we can organize these teams into divisions. Given that I don't think that blowing up the leagues would be received well at all, let's start there.

I've always thought that if you went to a 32-team league, four-team divisions would naturally follow.

The following proposal attempts to take into account historical rivalries, geography, and the limitations of each league.

NL East

New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

NL North

Chicago
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
St. Louis

NL South

Atlanta
Austin/Charlotte/Nashville
Houston
Miami

NL West

Arizona
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco

AL East

Baltimore
Boston
New York
Tampa Bay

AL North

Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Toronto

AL Central

Colorado
Kansas City
Minnesota
Texas

AL West

Los Angeles
Oakland
Portland
Seattle

The hardest part of this was figuring out what to do with Colorado, which was the odd man out of the NL West and is so geographically removed from basically everywhere else. Finally, I decided to abandon my preconception of having both leagues' divisions align with each other, moved Houston back to the NL where it belongs, and moved Colorado to the AL, where it would likely flourish with the DH. The AL West finally makes sense, and with the Royals and Rangers as division rivals, the Rockies have two of their three closest teams in their division.

A word on the second expansion team: my strong preference is that Austin gets a team. Outside of the Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area, which is really just suburban sprawl out of Los Angeles, Austin is the largest metropolitan area without a single franchise in any North American major league. It also is growing rapidly and has a very solid corporate base. I've been frankly astounded at how little noise there's been surrounding Austin as a possible location for an expansion team or relocated team in any of the major sports. The first league that shows up there will likely do very well.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The only thing the draft "equalizes" is how much $$ the bosses make dragging salaries down.

[seawolf17]

Val's plan is pretty solid. Just to pick a nit, I'd swap Colorado and Milwaukee. It gives the NL "North" the Cubs/Reds/Rockies/Cardinals, which still makes some sense (Cincy to Denver is a three-hour flight), and the AL Central the Brewers/Royals/Twins/Rangers, which also makes sense. Plus, since you're moving Houston back to the NL where they belong, it returns the Brewers to the AL also.

[nymr83]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The only thing the draft "equalizes" is how much $$ the bosses make dragging salaries down.

i dont think it drags overall salaries down, it just distributes cash to established players over newcomers - which is why the union isn't ever going fight it - they actually prefer it even if they occasionally might feel the need to pay lip-service to the idea that it isnt fair.