Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Realignment May Be Coming To Major League Baseball
And Here's How It Could Look


Bill Madden
NY Daily News
Saturday, February 26th 2011

Click Here For Proposed Alignment Chart: http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/ ... _chart.jpg

JUPITER, Fla. - In a few weeks, baseball's labor poobahs will sit down together and begin talks on a new collective bargaining agreement. The principal issues - revenue sharing, cost containment in the draft - are a prelude to bigger ones down the road, specifically: Schedule inequities, the seemingly hopeless stadium situations in Tampa Bay and Oakland, the fate of the designated hitter and Bud Selig's longtime musing, geographic re-alignment.

While none of those latter issues is on the labor agenda, people all over baseball are talking about them. Orioles manager Buck Showalter says he stays up nights configuring Realignment scenarios that would solve a lot of baseball's problems.


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... _look.html

This doesn't look like "realignment". It looks like a simple merging of the AL and NL in their current alignments, for the most part.

With contraction of A's and Ray's

wow... so contraction???

Rays fans and A's fans get f'd...

as for the DH - after nearly 40 years... it's time to get over it, it's part of the game.

dismantling the leagues just seems like such a colossal disaster... the best part of baseball is the history of the two leagues (moving milwaukee for bud is already a black eye)

if they did this, and went back to an LCS-World Series playoff setup - i might be inclined to support

but since ol bud just wants more damn playoffs it won't go down like that

I'm much more in favor of seven four-team divisions with the Phils division being themselves, the Orioles, Nats, and Mets. If the Mets insisted on being with the Yanks, they could be replaced by the Pirates!

I'd be behind that 100%.

93henfan wrote:I'm much more in favor of seven four-team divisions with the Phils division being themselves, the Orioles, Nats, and Mets.

I'd be behind that 100%.

yeah - i'd take one that was the Twins, Royals, Pirates and Indians.

93henfan wrote:I'm much more in favor of seven four-team divisions with the Phils division being themselves, the Orioles, Nats, and Mets. If the Mets insisted on being with the Yanks, they could be replaced by the Pirates!

I'd be behind that 100%.

I'd like the D-Backs to have the Mariners, Royals and Pirates. Can that be arranged?

dbackjon wrote:With contraction of A's and Ray's

Well, I hadn't caught that, but if we're contracting teams, it needs to be the Royals and the Pirates. Period.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:With contraction of A's and Ray's

Well, I hadn't caught that, but if we're contracting teams, it needs to be the Royals and the Pirates. Period.

The Pirates are the case study of what is wrong with baseball today. You have a team playing in a beautiful stadium and in a market that would support them in die-hard fashion if they saw any inkling whatsoever that management could put together a competitive team.

The Yankees can cry about communism all they want, but they are destroying baseball. Deep down inside, they and their fans know it, but they'll never admit it.

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, I hadn't caught that, but if we're contracting teams, it needs to be the Royals and the Pirates. Period.

The Pirates are the case study of what is wrong with baseball today. You have a team playing in a beautiful stadium and in a market that would support them in die-hard fashion if they saw any inkling whatsoever that management could put together a competitive team.

The Yankees can cry about communism all they want, but they are destroying baseball. Deep down inside, they and their fans know it, but they'll never admit it.

Actually, REVENUE SHARING is killing baseball. If it didn't exist, neither would the Pirates or the Royals or half a dozen other teams. Then we'd see overall BETTER baseball with fewer stinker games through the season. Could cut the season back to 154 games, and we wouldn't be cancelling season openers or playoff games because of fucking SNOW.

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, I hadn't caught that, but if we're contracting teams, it needs to be the Royals and the Pirates. Period.

The Pirates are the case study of what is wrong with baseball today. You have a team playing in a beautiful stadium and in a market that would support them in die-hard fashion if they saw any inkling whatsoever that management could put together a competitive team.

The Yankees can cry about communism all they want, but they are destroying baseball. Deep down inside, they and their fans know it, but they'll never admit it.

Small market teams who know wtf they are doing have managed to succeed in this environment... teams who used their revenue sharing checks to plow in to player development and build and achieve success with those young stars and then flip them at peak value to the big boys... The Twins, Marlins (to some extent) the Rays, the Brewers, the Reds, the Padres, the Indians (about 5 years ago)

while being a fan of smaller market team means you don't get to be on top every year, you are competitive for a few seasons every 5 or so years... and that's pretty damn good. the Pirates and Royals are what happens when you consistently f*ck up or trade young talent and get jack shit in return...

the Pirates could have been a .500 team more than once in the past decade, if they had re-upped their emerging talent before arbitration

AZGrizFan wrote: Actually, REVENUE SHARING is killing baseball.

Cool. Then do away with it and institute a hard cap.

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Actually, REVENUE SHARING is killing baseball.

Cool. Then do away with it and institute a hard cap.

Agreed. Basement of $60 million. Cap of $100 million.

AZGrizFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Cool. Then do away with it and institute a hard cap.

Agreed. Basement of $60 million. Cap of $100 million.

so what would happen to the 1-2 seasons lost when the players reject that?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Agreed. Basement of $60 million. Cap of $100 million.

so what would happen to the 1-2 seasons lost when the players reject that?

I didn't say it was "doable". I just think it's the answer.

They'll never accept contraction or elimination of the DH either, so what's the point of this thread?

The F's and the Pirates are two of the oldest teams in baseball. It would be a MAJOR miscarriage of justice to dump them. I wouldn't mind seeing Tampa and Miami go.

But that "Continental Divide" idea is way stupid. There are too many teams in those divisions. Divisions should ideally be four or five closely located teams. Any less than four means too many divisions. Any more than five is too unwieldy. Besides, I like the two-teams in a market in separate leagues. Especially if that inter-league play debacle is eliminated. I like the unbalanced one-league schedule.

The DH was and still is the most cheesy rule ever enacted. It eliminates a major portion of managing and forces people to think that a DH is actually REQUIRED. The way the rule is written at the professional level also prevents a pitcher who can hit from actually hitting unless the DH is NOT used. Why should a .300-hitting pitcher sit when the bloody shortstop is hitting .100?

SuperHornet wrote:The F's and the Pirates are two of the oldest teams in baseball. It would be a MAJOR miscarriage of justice to dump them. I wouldn't mind seeing Tampa and Miami go.

But that "Continental Divide" idea is way stupid. There are too many teams in those divisions. Divisions should ideally be four or five closely located teams. Any less than four means too many divisions. Any more than five is too unwieldy. Besides, I like the two-teams in a market in separate leagues. Especially if that inter-league play debacle is eliminated. I like the unbalanced one-league schedule.

The DH was and still is the most cheesy rule ever enacted. It eliminates a major portion of managing and forces people to think that a DH is actually REQUIRED. The way the rule is written at the professional level also prevents a pitcher who can hit from actually hitting unless the DH is NOT used. Why should a .300-hitting pitcher sit when the bloody shortstop is hitting .100?

Has any pitcher since Babe even come close to hitting .300? Honest question, I really don't know.

Grizalltheway wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:The F's and the Pirates are two of the oldest teams in baseball. It would be a MAJOR miscarriage of justice to dump them. I wouldn't mind seeing Tampa and Miami go.

But that "Continental Divide" idea is way stupid. There are too many teams in those divisions. Divisions should ideally be four or five closely located teams. Any less than four means too many divisions. Any more than five is too unwieldy. Besides, I like the two-teams in a market in separate leagues. Especially if that inter-league play debacle is eliminated. I like the unbalanced one-league schedule.

The DH was and still is the most cheesy rule ever enacted. It eliminates a major portion of managing and forces people to think that a DH is actually REQUIRED. The way the rule is written at the professional level also prevents a pitcher who can hit from actually hitting unless the DH is NOT used. Why should a .300-hitting pitcher sit when the bloody shortstop is hitting .100?

Has any pitcher since Babe even come close to hitting .300? Honest question, I really don't know.

Rick Ankiel and CC Sabathia are the only above scratch pitchers I've ever seen.

Carlos Zambrano is a career .236 hitter with 21 HRs and .631 OPS. Not bad for a pitcher.

AZGrizFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:I'm much more in favor of seven four-team divisions with the Phils division being themselves, the Orioles, Nats, and Mets. If the Mets insisted on being with the Yanks, they could be replaced by the Pirates!

I'd be behind that 100%.

I'd like the D-Backs to have the Mariners, Royals and Pirates. Can that be arranged?

As a Yankee fan, I'll keep the Red Sox. I'm too old to find a new bitch.

Grizalltheway wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:The F's and the Pirates are two of the oldest teams in baseball. It would be a MAJOR miscarriage of justice to dump them. I wouldn't mind seeing Tampa and Miami go.

But that "Continental Divide" idea is way stupid. There are too many teams in those divisions. Divisions should ideally be four or five closely located teams. Any less than four means too many divisions. Any more than five is too unwieldy. Besides, I like the two-teams in a market in separate leagues. Especially if that inter-league play debacle is eliminated. I like the unbalanced one-league schedule.

The DH was and still is the most cheesy rule ever enacted. It eliminates a major portion of managing and forces people to think that a DH is actually REQUIRED. The way the rule is written at the professional level also prevents a pitcher who can hit from actually hitting unless the DH is NOT used. Why should a .300-hitting pitcher sit when the bloody shortstop is hitting .100?

Has any pitcher since Babe even come close to hitting .300? Honest question, I really don't know.

Ken Brett (George Brett's brother) hit over .300 at least one year when he was with Pittsburgh. He was a very good hitter for a pitcher. George Brett said that he could have been a solid MLB batter but for the amount of time he spent on pitching. I think he hit over .260 for his career.

Mike Hampton batted over .300 4 times in his career with 16 HRs. Also had 3 triples.

SuperHornet wrote:Why should a .300-hitting pitcher sit when the bloody shortstop is hitting .100?

Unless that SS is the greatest defensive player baseball has ever seen, a SS batting .100 will be sitting.

Not sure geography is all that important, but it might be nice to play on some of the rivalries in other sports. The one change I'd definitely make in these divisions is trade Pittsburgh for Toronto. Baltimore/Pitt and Wash/Pitt are much better rivalries.

Yankees, Red Sox AND the Phillies! Fuck yeah! Shoot me now.