2020 MLB Thread

[MarqHusker]

I never understood this claim that those moves were sinister in any way.  Franchise realignment is hardly novel across pro sports, its happened in 3 different centuries now in professional baseball, and countless times in other leagues.

The two more recent, Stros and Crew (1998) were done with a broader purpose than simply moving Houston and Milwaukee.  In 98, it had to happen to keep even #s following expansion.  In Houston case, The owners wanted a division structure as we now have it, with even # of franchises in each league.  Of course that means all year interleague series,, a mild nuisance.  You may recall,  there were much more radical ideas floated in the 90s, which were roundly denounced, mostly by the Cubs.

Moving the Brewers was quite sensible and it minimized disruption.  Milwaukee did have a 13 year NL history from 53-65, was hardly a blue blood franchise as the Brewers and the Royals, first approached, weren't interested in moving.  Fans were overwhelmly supportive in Milwaukee.  Can you name anybody else that wanted to move?  I cant.

I'm less sharp on the backstory with why MLB settled on Houston, seemed more geographical in motivation in alignment with the present day post season format and scheduling.  I think Houston was compensated in some fashion of course.

[ELA]

Yeah, I think Texas was complaining about being the lone non West Coast team in the West Division.

I liked the couple weeks of interleague play in the middle of summer.  Not a fan of the season long thing now that 15 te leagues necessitates

Granted assuming the DH is here to stay in the NL, going to a strictly geographic split might make sense considering there is no reason to keep up any AL/NL fake wall.  It will be weird to get rid of league specific records though. That is something kind of unique to baseball. You never hear about a basketball player setting a western conference scoring record, or a football player having the most rushing yards in a game by an NFC player

[Brutus Buckeye]

What would those divisions look like?

[OrangeAfroMan]

Off the top of my head....
SEA, SF, OAK, LAD, LAA
COL, ARI, HOU, TEX, SD

BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, TOR
WAS, BAL, ATL, TB, MIA

DET, CLE, CIN, PIT, MIL
CHC, STL, MIN, CWS, KC

Something like that?

[Brutus Buckeye]

Studying the map, it cannot be done. At least not without breaking up teams that "should" be in the same division; either in the same state or really close together.

I would have a California division. They have five teams, might as well keep them together.

I would have a Southern division; Miami, Tampa and Atlanta are obvious, then for the other two you could either do Texas/Houston or Washington/Baltimore. Texas/Houston is preferable, imo.

You'd have to scrape together another western division outside of Cali. Seattle, Arizona and Colorado are obvious. For the other two you could do Texas/Houston, but I like them better in the South. You can't really do St. Louis/KC because it screws up the Midwest/Northeast if you do that, so your best remaining option would be to split up the Missouri teams, and have KC/Minnesota round out the western division. No matter what you do, that division sucks. It either stretches from Seattle to Houston, or Arizona to Minnesota.

The Midwest/Northeast is just a nightmare to come up with three more divisions of five. There are six teams along the eastern seaboard in Boston, Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Baltimore and DC. There is an ideal cluster in the middle of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Detroit and Toronto, but that isn't going to work because of the other teams. And then there are four teams west of that, Milwaukee, Cubs, White Sox and St Louis.

So the best I could do was a Northeast Division of Boston, Mets, Yankees, Phillies and Toronto.

A Midwest Division of St Louis, Cubs, White Sox, Milwaukee, and Detroit.

And then a garbage division of DC, Baltimore, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. That division also sucks.

[ELA]

NHL has two 8 team divisions and two 7 team divisions.  I also think they are going to 32 eventually, so that impacts things.  Nashville or Charlotte would be an obvious south addition.  My guess is the other addition is out west.  Vancouver?  Portland?  Vegas?

EAST: Blue Jays, Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Orioles, Nationals, Pirates
MIDWEST: Cubs, White Sox, Twins, Brewers, Tigers, Indians, Reds, Rockies
SOUTH: Rangers, Astros, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Cardinals, Royals, Nashville/Charlotte
WEST: Mariners, Athletics, Giants, Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Diamondbacks, Portland/Vegas/Vancouver

[FearlessF]

nice try by the Dodgers

Go Braves

[OrangeAfroMan]

The funny part about MLB realignment......the closest MLB city to Atlanta is.....CINCINNATI!

[OrangeAfroMan]

Studying the map, it cannot be done. arrogant  At least not without breaking up teams that "should" be in the same division  if this is a deal-breaker, then why bother in the first place? lol; either in the same state or really close together.

I would have a California division. They have five teams, might as well keep them together. okay, but...

I would have a Southern division; Miami, Tampa and Atlanta are obvious, then for the other two you could either do Texas/Houston or Washington/Baltimore. Texas/Houston is preferable, imo.

You'd have to scrape together another western division outside of Cali. Seattle, Arizona and Colorado are obvious. For the other two you could do Texas/Houston, but I like them better in the South. You can't really do St. Louis/KC because it screws up the Midwest/Northeast if you do that, so your best remaining option would be to split up the Missouri teams, and have KC/Minnesota round out the western division. No matter what you do, that division sucks....you painted yourself into this corner, lol  It either stretches from Seattle to Houston, or Arizona to Minnesota.

The Midwest/Northeast is just a nightmare to come up with three more divisions of five. There are six teams along the eastern seaboard in Boston, Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Baltimore and DC. There is an ideal cluster in the middle of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Detroit and Toronto, but that isn't going to work because of the other teams. And then there are four teams west of that, Milwaukee, Cubs, White Sox and St Louis.

So the best I could do was a Northeast Division of Boston, Mets, Yankees, Phillies and Toronto.

A Midwest Division of St Louis, Cubs, White Sox, Milwaukee, and Detroit.

And then a garbage division of DC, Baltimore, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. That division also sucks. No ownership or fanbase is going to agree to being in a "garbage division"

This post reeks of "BLEH, I CAN'T DO THIS JOB IN 5 MINUTES OR LESS, SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"

[Brutus Buckeye]

Buzz off. 

[ELA]

The funny part about MLB realignment......the closest MLB city to Atlanta is.....CINCINNATI!

I think Nashville is considered a home market for both the Reds and Braves for tv blackout rule purposes

[MarqHusker]

Don't get me started on that fing blackout map.  I pity the folks in Iowa, Vegas among other locales. Freaking El Paso is a Dodgers market, blocked!

Vegas gets blocked out of half the West franchises.   I am blocked from Cubs and Sox, but do have Reds broadcast on cable so indy is legitimately a reds tv market.  Milwaukee area gets Cubs and Sox on EI and is half as far from market than I am in Indy.  I have seen more Cubs v Brewers games in person over past 12 years than I have on TV.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Vegas is the worst blackout city - no OAK, SF, LAD, LAA, SD, ARI, or COL.

[ELA]

Vegas is the worst blackout city - no OAK, SF, LAD, LAA, SD, ARI, or COL.

FIFY