What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Astros move to AL? (1 Viewer)

whoknew

Footballguy
Peter Gammons tweeted this morning that the Astros sale will be approved in mid-November and they will move to the AL West so the leagues will have 15 teams in each.

How is that supposed to work?

 
Peter Gammons tweeted this morning that the Astros sale will be approved in mid-November and they will move to the AL West so the leagues will have 15 teams in each.How is that supposed to work?
Well for one it would mean inter-league games every day of the week.
 
Peter Gammons tweeted this morning that the Astros sale will be approved in mid-November and they will move to the AL West so the leagues will have 15 teams in each.How is that supposed to work?
Well for one it would mean inter-league games every day of the week.
That's what I was worried about. That means more inter-league games. I don't like that.
 
Peter Gammons tweeted this morning that the Astros sale will be approved in mid-November and they will move to the AL West so the leagues will have 15 teams in each.How is that supposed to work?
Well for one it would mean inter-league games every day of the week.
That's what I was worried about. That means more inter-league games. I don't like that.
I don't like inter-league either. But if they increase the number of inter-league games resulting in the cover of the local rivalries and also creating a balanced schedule, it would be an improvement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overall, I get that we need balanced leagues. But it should have been resolved by adding expanding with two teams. Not having inter-league all year.

 
Overall, I get that we need balanced leagues. But it should have been resolved by adding expanding with two teams. Not having inter-league all year.
The few series that are major successes in inter-league ensures its survival even if we get 16 and 16.
 
Overall, I get that we need balanced leagues. But it should have been resolved by adding expanding with two teams. Not having inter-league all year.
The few series that are major successes in inter-league ensures its survival even if we get 16 and 16.
I begrudgingly accept that. I just assume that this Astros plan means more inter-league. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they can just spread it out over the entire season and not have more inter-league games.
 
As long as the DH gets abolished in the process.
I've heard no way the union would approve that. 14 guys would have to play the field or find a new job.
Basically the avg DH makes a lot more than the avg 25th guy on the roster. So the union doesn't want fewer David Ortizes and more Don Kellies.Besides - how many more pitchers do we need to see strike out on three pitches? Or execute the exciting bunt play?The AL game is much, much better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Teams currently play 15-18 inter-league games. That doesn't have to change at all unless they choose to have all inter-league weekends.

 
Overall, I get that we need balanced leagues. But it should have been resolved by adding expanding with two teams. Not having inter-league all year.
God no. I'd rather contract two, though obviously the union would never allow that.
Why? Not the union part - but why are you against expansion and for contraction?
I'm skeptical about there being enough talent available to fill two more rosters.
 
Most important question: Which of those big bats are the Astros going to use to plug the DH spot? So many options!

 
Overall, I get that we need balanced leagues. But it should have been resolved by adding expanding with two teams. Not having inter-league all year.
God no. I'd rather contract two, though obviously the union would never allow that.
Why? Not the union part - but why are you against expansion and for contraction?
I'm skeptical about there being enough talent available to fill two more rosters.
This is an Astros thread :shrug:
 
As long as the DH gets abolished in the process.
I've heard no way the union would approve that. 14 guys would have to play the field or find a new job.
Basically the avg DH makes a lot more than the avg 25th guy on the roster. So the union doesn't want fewer David Ortizes and more Don Kellies.Besides - how many more pitchers do we need to see strike out on three pitches? Or execute the exciting bunt play?The AL game is much, much better.
But what about that exciting "double switch" that is such a key strategic move, that only happens in the NL.
 
Overall, I get that we need balanced leagues. But it should have been resolved by adding expanding with two teams. Not having inter-league all year.
God no. I'd rather contract two, though obviously the union would never allow that.
How about losing Florida and Tampa?
Contraction in baseball has always been a bargaining chip in labor negotiations with the PA and with municipalities being shook down for new stadiums. As long as there are buyers for franchises, there's no real impetus for contraction.I think there's a more legitimate threat of this happening in the NBA since the league effectively owns the Hornets. But even in this case, I think it makes more sense to use contraction as a threat than to actually do it.

ETA: nobody really cares about the quality of the product or the depth of the talent pool. Sure there's some short term effect when leagues expand but that gets redistributed in a few years. By then, nobody has any quantitative measure that play is better or worse than it was before. In reality, it's pretty much the same, especially when you restrict your sample size to what happens on the field during a single game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overall, I get that we need balanced leagues. But it should have been resolved by adding expanding with two teams. Not having inter-league all year.
God no. I'd rather contract two, though obviously the union would never allow that.
How about losing Florida and Tampa?
No way on Florida, they just got a new stadium. It would be Oakland and Tampa Bay most likely. But even to contract those relatively inexpensive franchises would cost the other owners well north of 1 billion, maybe more than 2 billion.
 
As long as the DH gets abolished in the process.
I would love to see CC bat
By all accounts he's an excellent athlete and a solid hitterCareer .250 hitter with 3 homers and 14 RBI in 100 career ABs
Livan Hernandez is of similar build (but unfortunately not of similar talent) and is a pretty good hitter. Carlos Zambrano isn't quite as fat but he's also pretty good. Come to think of it, Prince Fielder also falls into this category.Anyway, I've never understood why baseball fans in general, and NL Central fans in particular, tolerate the imbalance. Assuming all teams are equal, AL West teams have a 25% chance of winning the division and getting the automatic playoff spot that goes with that, while NL Central teams have only a 16.67% chance. It's ridiculous and MLB is the only sport that has anything like it. Now that we have interleague games they need to get rid of of it immediately.
 
As long as the DH gets abolished in the process.
I've heard no way the union would approve that. 14 guys would have to play the field or find a new job.
Basically the avg DH makes a lot more than the avg 25th guy on the roster. So the union doesn't want fewer David Ortizes and more Don Kellies.Besides - how many more pitchers do we need to see strike out on three pitches? Or execute the exciting bunt play?The AL game is much, much better.
My personal favorite NL move is intentionally walking the 8th batter to get to the pitcher. Nothing like watching a team refuse to pitch to Gerardo Parra (16 IBB this season) or Daniel Descalso (9 IBB). Strategy at its finest.
 
Overall, I get that we need balanced leagues. But it should have been resolved by adding expanding with two teams. Not having inter-league all year.
God no. I'd rather contract two, though obviously the union would never allow that.
Why? Not the union part - but why are you against expansion and for contraction?
I'm skeptical about there being enough talent available to fill two more rosters.
Yea I don't really buy that one. MLB is becoming more international by the day. Teams just put some academies in Europe. Its only a matter of time before they hit South Africa or South America. Even now - with the Latin and Asian players - I think there's plenty of talent. Especially if Cuba opens soon.

 
As long as the DH gets abolished in the process.
I've heard no way the union would approve that. 14 guys would have to play the field or find a new job.
Basically the avg DH makes a lot more than the avg 25th guy on the roster. So the union doesn't want fewer David Ortizes and more Don Kellies.Besides - how many more pitchers do we need to see strike out on three pitches? Or execute the exciting bunt play?The AL game is much, much better.
My personal favorite NL move is intentionally walking the 8th batter to get to the pitcher. Nothing like watching a team refuse to pitch to Gerardo Parra (16 IBB this season) or Daniel Descalso (9 IBB). Strategy at its finest.
ool
 
Only contract Florida, let's keep Tampa because that's my gb Cappy's team.

What about moving the Braves to Winnipeg? Would that help?

 
I'd be for it.

I can't really see the downside.

It'd be about 1 interleague series every 2 months for most teams and they could get it done with fewer interleague games than are currently played (162 vs. 252).

I don't know why people are resistant to alot of interleague play anyway.

 
I'd be for it.I can't really see the downside.It'd be about 1 interleague series every 2 months for most teams and they could get it done with fewer interleague games than are currently played (162 vs. 252).I don't know why people are resistant to alot of interleague play anyway.
A) I despise the DHB) The rivalry series unbalance the schedule within the divisionsC) There is no more novelty, i.e. interleague brings nothing to the tableAtleast if they do it this way we wouldn't need to have stretches where all but one series is interleague. Also, I don't get why the Astros are the team to move. The Brewers moved over in the first place, why not just ship them back, oh thats right, they're just screwing the new guy.
 
Expansion is always fun to talk about, but I can't imagine there is anywhere good to go. For years, teams used "I'll move the team to DC" as a threat to get stadium deals in their current city. For years, DC was considered the best option for either expansion or relocation. Now, I love having baseball here and I think they'll eventually be successful. But, they consistently finish at the bottom of the NL attendance figures and a story recently said they had the worst TV ratings (yes, part of that is because they have a horrible tv deal). So, the place that had been the no-brainer location for a team hasn't exactly been lighting it up in attendance and local tv ratings. What does that say about the next group of cities?

 
Also, I don't get why the Astros are the team to move. The Brewers moved over in the first place, why not just ship them back, oh thats right, they're just screwing the new guy.
That's probably part of it. Another part is the Astros suck right now, so you're not really affecting the balance of power like you would if you moved the Brewers.But the most "fair" reason is it just makes more sense from a geography/travel standpoint.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top