Talk of a third baseball team in New York rises again (1 Viewer)

[On The Rocks]

This is from a blogger on Yahoo Sports:

Will NY be a Three Team Town?

Talk of a third baseball team in New York rises again

By 'Duk

I've always been intrigued by the thought of making New York a three-team town again and I love talking about the possibility whenever anyone brings it up.

Really, can you think of anything in baseball with more storylines? Anything that would cause more debates or grandstanding press conferences?

It'd be a blogger's dream and covering the saga and answering its myriad questions would probably require its own blog. Where would the team play? Would it be a transplanted franchise or an expansion outfit? What would its stadium look like? Who would pay for it? Who would become fans of this new team? What would it be called? What would the uniforms look like?

Oh yeah, how would the Yankees and Mets respond?

I bring all of this up because Tim Marchman of Sports Illustrated broached the subject in his latest column and suggests that adding a third team could be a market-robbing method of reigning in the Yankees and their spending.

Writes Marchman:

"(Adding a third team) would bring the town's population:team ratio down to the level of Los Angeles or Philadelphia, and with the same number of people and dollars chasing more baseball, would quite likely bring Yankee spending down a hair without doing anything punitive or unfair."

Marchman, of course, notes that baseball's territorial rights rules would provide a major roadblock and he's right. If Baltimore's Peter Angelos can hold off baseball's return to Washington for over a decade, could you imagine what the Steinbrenners could do with the power of baseball's flagship franchise? Still, Craig Calcaterra notes that the owners themselves could nix the territory rules themselves, which would be an easier route than instituting a salary cap, which would involve a bigger collective bargaining fight.

The takes of both writers summon warm points of speculation for a cold winter week, but I have to say that I find faults with each viewpoint.

When it comes to Marchman's fracturing of New York, the Mets would be at much more risk of losing market share than the Yankees, who have built a luxury brand that many people equate with status. I suppose there's a point to be made about the Yankees pricing many fans out of their new stadium, but to borrow a page from noted thinker Kanye West , never underestimate the power of people who can't afford a car but name their daughter Alexis.

(In other words, there are plenty of people who will still watch on TV and buy jerseys, t-shirts and hats, even if they have no designs on stepping inside the new Yankee Stadium. Here's betting the third team would be more of a landing spot for disgruntled Mets fans.)

As for Calcaterra's thinking that owners approving a third team would be a relatively lesser path of resistance, I'm not exactly sure that I agree. There seems to be a code of honor among baseball's owners and I'm sure that not screwing with your neighbor's golden goose is among that code's top guidelines. A few of the cash-strapped owners would probably love to get their hands on their share of a big franchise fee, but I don't think there would be enough votes to sell out a few of their own. Those rich folks stick together.

 

[Michael Brown]

I've long said that the most financially viable plans for relocation would be to put a third team in NY or a team in NJ from one of the locations that can't support a team anymore. I also thought it'd be wise to put a team in Vegas, but the financial problems going on out there would seem to make that less of a reality these days.

 

[Bogart]

There is no doubt that New York could support a third team, I just don't see it bringing back the memories of the past. There are no more Mantle vs. Duke vs. Mays playground conversations anymore. The two questions I have are:

1. Which team do they move to New York? I just don't see another expansion team at this point.

2. Where do they play? AL East or NL East? I think you have to realign completely if they wanted to move another team into either division.

 

[jfranco77]

North Jersey probably makes the most sense, only because Brooklyn is almost a direct attack on the Mets' market. As to the division, that's a whole different issue. If it's an expansion team then I'd imagine it would come with realignment. 8 divisions, 4 teams each, ala NFL? That would be Yankees, Red Sox, O's, and the new NYC team. Toronto goes with Detroit. Tampa Bay goes with some other Southern teams.

 

[Bogart]

North Jersey probably makes the most sense, only because Brooklyn is almost a direct attack on the Mets' market. As to the division, that's a whole different issue. If it's an expansion team then I'd imagine it would come with realignment. 8 divisions, 4 teams each, ala NFL? That would be Yankees, Red Sox, O's, and the new NYC team. Toronto goes with Detroit. Tampa Bay goes with some other Southern teams.

I like this. 4 division winners to the playoffs, no wild card. And if it somehow gets Texas out of playing in the AL West I am all for it. I'm getting too old for 9:35PM start times.

 

[RoxSolid]

If you are going to make it an expansion team, you would need two expansion teams in order to balance the schedule so teams could play everyday.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'd be all for a North Jersey team. Move the Royals.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

North Jersey probably makes the most sense, only because Brooklyn is almost a direct attack on the Mets' market. As to the division, that's a whole different issue. If it's an expansion team then I'd imagine it would come with realignment. 8 divisions, 4 teams each, ala NFL? That would be Yankees, Red Sox, O's, and the new NYC team. Toronto goes with Detroit. Tampa Bay goes with some other Southern teams.

I like this. 4 division winners to the playoffs, no wild card. And if it somehow gets Texas out of playing in the AL West I am all for it. I'm getting too old for 9:35PM start times.

I like the wild card and I have to admit that I like Francessa's idea of two more teams getting a wildcard spot for a one game playoff Monday before the Divisional/Wild Card round starts.

 

[TLEF316]

I kinda think this would fail. Who would root for the team? Yeah, people might show up (if ticket prices were way lower than the yankees) but i dont think the NY fan base would take to a new team. if the overall goal is to take market share away from the Yankees, i guess it could make a slight dent.

 

[Northern Voice]

I seriously think we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the Toronto Blue Jays. I expect attendance to plummet this season (and it's not great to start with). Toronto is the 4th biggest market in North America, so maybe they don't just let it die but it would be pretty easy just to move the Jays to New York, no realignment neccesary.

 

[DropKick]

North Jersey probably makes the most sense, only because Brooklyn is almost a direct attack on the Mets' market. As to the division, that's a whole different issue. If it's an expansion team then I'd imagine it would come with realignment. 8 divisions, 4 teams each, ala NFL? That would be Yankees, Red Sox, O's, and the new NYC team. Toronto goes with Detroit. Tampa Bay goes with some other Southern teams.

Small divisions just increase the chance of a marginal team in the play-offs, while a division with 2+ very good teams would miss out. I don't like to dilute the post season.The current NL structure (5-5-6) would work for two new AL teams. The imbalance doesn't bother me, but I'd rather see 2 big divisions (per league) than 4 small ones. (Ain't going to happen)ETA: While we're at it, I would reduce the number of inter-league games upon expansion.

 

[DropKick]

I kinda think this would fail. Who would root for the team? Yeah, people might show up (if ticket prices were way lower than the yankees) but i dont think the NY fan base would take to a new team. if the overall goal is to take market share away from the Yankees, i guess it could make a slight dent.

Like always, the overall goal is about making money. I see it as more of an attempt to exploit the size of the market rather than attack the Yankee's share.

 

[DropKick]

I seriously think we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the Toronto Blue Jays. I expect attendance to plummet this season (and it's not great to start with). Toronto is the 4th biggest market in North America, so maybe they don't just let it die but it would be pretty easy just to move the Jays to New York, no realignment neccesary.

Maybe a trade? We'll send you the Buffalo Bills for the Jays. What say you, Canada?

 

[DropKick]

I like the wild card and I have to admit that I like Francessa's idea of two more teams getting a wildcard spot for a one game playoff Monday before the Divisional/Wild Card round starts.

This is the worst idea since the NCAA "play-in" game.A 162 game season for a 1 game play-off that will typically "waste" both team's Ace prior to the start of the real play-offs?Almost as bad as what MLB did to the '09 Twins.

 

[=Smackdown=]

The Jersey Jays

has a nice ring to it

 

[Koya]

I like the wild card and I have to admit that I like Francessa's idea of two more teams getting a wildcard spot for a one game playoff Monday before the Divisional/Wild Card round starts.

This is the worst idea since the NCAA "play-in" game.A 162 game season for a 1 game play-off that will typically "waste" both team's Ace prior to the start of the real play-offs?Almost as bad as what MLB did to the '09 Twins.

It would not be a 162 game season for a 1 game playoff. Its a 162 game season to actually WIN your division. If you CANT, then you get at least a shot to make it via the PRIVILEGE of a one game playoff.Personally, a 2 out of 3 series may make more sense, but you dont want a winning team to be waiting a week after a bye.

 

[DropKick]

I like the wild card and I have to admit that I like Francessa's idea of two more teams getting a wildcard spot for a one game playoff Monday before the Divisional/Wild Card round starts.

This is the worst idea since the NCAA "play-in" game.A 162 game season for a 1 game play-off that will typically "waste" both team's Ace prior to the start of the real play-offs?Almost as bad as what MLB did to the '09 Twins.

It would not be a 162 game season for a 1 game playoff. Its a 162 game season to actually WIN your division. If you CANT, then you get at least a shot to make it via the PRIVILEGE of a one game playoff.Personally, a 2 out of 3 series may make more sense, but you dont want a winning team to be waiting a week after a bye.

And you don't think this extra work for the pitching staff would put the wild card at a severe disadvantage in the play-offs?PS. I don't need the caps and you're making way to big of a deal about winning a division. Unlike football, there is only a single wild card in each league. Often, given imbalance between divisions, these teams are within a couple games of each other and have earned their shot already.

 

[Michael Brown]

I like the wild card and I have to admit that I like Francessa's idea of two more teams getting a wildcard spot for a one game playoff Monday before the Divisional/Wild Card round starts.

This is the worst idea since the NCAA "play-in" game.A 162 game season for a 1 game play-off that will typically "waste" both team's Ace prior to the start of the real play-offs?

Almost as bad as what MLB did to the '09 Twins.

It would not be a 162 game season for a 1 game playoff. Its a 162 game season to actually WIN your division. If you CANT, then you get at least a shot to make it via the PRIVILEGE of a one game playoff.Personally, a 2 out of 3 series may make more sense, but you dont want a winning team to be waiting a week after a bye.

And you don't think this extra work for the pitching staff would put the wild card at a severe disadvantage in the play-offs?

PS. I don't need the caps and you're making way to big of a deal about winning a division. Unlike football, there is only a single wild card in each league. Often, given imbalance between divisions, these teams are within a couple games of each other and have earned their shot already.

Bolded part = the pointRight now there is no incentive to win a division over winning a wild card. Not only would this put the wild card at a disadvantage, but it would also create greater interest around baseball for the teams that are fighting for a chance to get in. Adding one extra wild card team probably increases rooting interest in anywhere from 2-4 additional cities per league over the final few weeks. All without watering down the overall playoff structure.

 

[Billy Bats]

Please, for the love of god, no more expansion.

 

[Tau837]

Please, for the love of god, no more expansion.

I'd rather see some teams contracted and redistribution of their major and minor league players via some kind of draft. Two at minimum, but more would be better. I think 24 teams would be a nice number... 3 divisions of 4 teams in each league. Then realign and move a team or two if it makes sense (e.g., to New York).ETA: I realize this will never happen.

 

[Koya]

I like the wild card and I have to admit that I like Francessa's idea of two more teams getting a wildcard spot for a one game playoff Monday before the Divisional/Wild Card round starts.

This is the worst idea since the NCAA "play-in" game.A 162 game season for a 1 game play-off that will typically "waste" both team's Ace prior to the start of the real play-offs?Almost as bad as what MLB did to the '09 Twins.

It would not be a 162 game season for a 1 game playoff. Its a 162 game season to actually WIN your division. If you CANT, then you get at least a shot to make it via the PRIVILEGE of a one game playoff.Personally, a 2 out of 3 series may make more sense, but you dont want a winning team to be waiting a week after a bye.

And you don't think this extra work for the pitching staff would put the wild card at a severe disadvantage in the play-offs?PS. I don't need the caps and you're making way to big of a deal about winning a division. Unlike football, there is only a single wild card in each league. Often, given imbalance between divisions, these teams are within a couple games of each other and have earned their shot already.

As a NY Jew, the caps are my only way to approximate my hand gestures as emphasis. You may not need them, I do.To the point at hand, WHO CARES if the wild card is at a disadvantage. WIN your division and you win the right not to be a wild card and to have a (well deserved) advantage. Right now, there are situations where a WC gets a benefit, i.e. not playing a tougher opponent because its intradivisional. I would much rather see a WC have a little too tough a road, than too easy a road considering they are just that... a wild card and not a division champ.To the winners go the spoils... at least that is how it should be imo.

 

[DropKick]

I like the wild card and I have to admit that I like Francessa's idea of two more teams getting a wildcard spot for a one game playoff Monday before the Divisional/Wild Card round starts.

This is the worst idea since the NCAA "play-in" game.A 162 game season for a 1 game play-off that will typically "waste" both team's Ace prior to the start of the real play-offs?Almost as bad as what MLB did to the '09 Twins.

It would not be a 162 game season for a 1 game playoff. Its a 162 game season to actually WIN your division. If you CANT, then you get at least a shot to make it via the PRIVILEGE of a one game playoff.Personally, a 2 out of 3 series may make more sense, but you dont want a winning team to be waiting a week after a bye.

And you don't think this extra work for the pitching staff would put the wild card at a severe disadvantage in the play-offs?PS. I don't need the caps and you're making way to big of a deal about winning a division. Unlike football, there is only a single wild card in each league. Often, given imbalance between divisions, these teams are within a couple games of each other and have earned their shot already.

As a NY Jew, the caps are my only way to approximate my hand gestures as emphasis. You may not need them, I do.To the point at hand, WHO CARES if the wild card is at a disadvantage. WIN your division and you win the right not to be a wild card and to have a (well deserved) advantage. Right now, there are situations where a WC gets a benefit, i.e. not playing a tougher opponent because its intradivisional. I would much rather see a WC have a little too tough a road, than too easy a road considering they are just that... a wild card and not a division champ.To the winners go the spoils... at least that is how it should be imo.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE IGNORANT NEW YORKER.

 

[Koya]

As a NY Jew, the caps are my only way to approximate my hand gestures as emphasis. You may not need them, I do.To the point at hand, WHO CARES if the wild card is at a disadvantage. WIN your division and you win the right not to be a wild card and to have a (well deserved) advantage. Right now, there are situations where a WC gets a benefit, i.e. not playing a tougher opponent because its intradivisional. I would much rather see a WC have a little too tough a road, than too easy a road considering they are just that... a wild card and not a division champ.To the winners go the spoils... at least that is how it should be imo.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE IGNORANT NEW YORKER.

Huh? We will have to see who the ignorant one is.Just what about my comment has anything to do with being a New Yorker? If you must know, since this may be where you are assuming... I am a Mets fan. Winning divisions is not exactly in our blood. That said, regardless of whom I root for, why shouldnt a division winner earn an advantage?

 

[Michael Brown]

As a NY Jew, the caps are my only way to approximate my hand gestures as emphasis. You may not need them, I do.To the point at hand, WHO CARES if the wild card is at a disadvantage. WIN your division and you win the right not to be a wild card and to have a (well deserved) advantage. Right now, there are situations where a WC gets a benefit, i.e. not playing a tougher opponent because its intradivisional. I would much rather see a WC have a little too tough a road, than too easy a road considering they are just that... a wild card and not a division champ.To the winners go the spoils... at least that is how it should be imo.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE IGNORANT NEW YORKER.

Huh? We will have to see who the ignorant one is.Just what about my comment has anything to do with being a New Yorker? If you must know, since this may be where you are assuming... I am a Mets fan. Winning divisions is not exactly in our blood. That said, regardless of whom I root for, why shouldnt a division winner earn an advantage?

I was about to basically type of this exact response word-for-word, but figured you'd eventually get to it! I was more than a bit confused as well.

 

[avoiding injuries]

That would be Yankees, Red Sox, O's, and the new NYC team. Toronto goes with Detroit. Tampa Bay goes with some other Southern teams.

Sounds fun. How about a full realign? NYY, BOS, NYM, PHI Get all the large market/spending teams together? I would give anything to have the O's get out of the AL East somehow.

 

[the moops]

That would be Yankees, Red Sox, O's, and the new NYC team. Toronto goes with Detroit. Tampa Bay goes with some other Southern teams.

Sounds fun. How about a full realign? NYY, BOS, NYM, PHI Get all the large market/spending teams together? I would give anything to have the O's get out of the AL East somehow.

If they could also add a team to the AL west to bring the total to 32 it could work nicely. Maybe Portland?AL EAST - BOS, NY, NJ, TORAL CENTRAL - DET, CHI, CLE, MINNAL WEST - LA, SEA, OAK, PORAL SOUTH - TB, TEX, BAL, KCNL EAST - PHI, NY, WASH, PITTNL SOUTH - FLA, ATL, HOU, STLNL CENTRAL - CHI, MIL, CIN, COLNL WEST - LA, SF, SD, ARIZ

 

[Michael Brown]

That would be Yankees, Red Sox, O's, and the new NYC team. Toronto goes with Detroit. Tampa Bay goes with some other Southern teams.

Sounds fun. How about a full realign? NYY, BOS, NYM, PHI Get all the large market/spending teams together? I would give anything to have the O's get out of the AL East somehow.

If they could also add a team to the AL west to bring the total to 32 it could work nicely. Maybe Portland?AL EAST - BOS, NY, NJ, TORAL CENTRAL - DET, CHI, CLE, MINNAL WEST - LA, SEA, OAK, PORAL SOUTH - TB, TEX, BAL, KCNL EAST - PHI, NY, WASH, PITTNL SOUTH - FLA, ATL, HOU, STLNL CENTRAL - CHI, MIL, CIN, COLNL WEST - LA, SF, SD, ARIZ

All of it looks good except one thing. Can't break up that Cards/Cubs rivalry into two divisions, so you'll probably want to put the Reds or Rockies in the South.

 

[shut it down]

I kinda think this would fail. Who would root for the team? Yeah, people might show up (if ticket prices were way lower than the yankees) but i dont think the NY fan base would take to a new team. if the overall goal is to take market share away from the Yankees, i guess it could make a slight dent.

I agree with this.Dont both NY teams have territorial rights that would make this a near-impossibility? Now I'll go back and read to see if this was addressed before.

 

[gump]

Love this idea. Get the Rays as far away from the AL East as possible.

 

[DropKick]

As a NY Jew, the caps are my only way to approximate my hand gestures as emphasis. You may not need them, I do.

To the point at hand, WHO CARES if the wild card is at a disadvantage. WIN your division and you win the right not to be a wild card and to have a (well deserved) advantage.

Right now, there are situations where a WC gets a benefit, i.e. not playing a tougher opponent because its intradivisional. I would much rather see a WC have a little too tough a road, than too easy a road considering they are just that... a wild card and not a division champ.

To the winners go the spoils... at least that is how it should be imo.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE IGNORANT NEW YORKER.

Huh? We will have to see who the ignorant one is.Just what about my comment has anything to do with being a New Yorker? If you must know, since this may be where you are assuming... I am a Mets fan. Winning divisions is not exactly in our blood. That said, regardless of whom I root for, why shouldnt a division winner earn an advantage?

I didn't assume you were a Yankee fan. The Mets are also a big market team and enter every season with a leg up. Because of this reason, baseball already lacks the competitive balance of the other sports.Last years NL wild card, the Rockies had 92 wins. One less than the Phillies and 1 more than the Central winning Rockies. The AL wild card Red Sox won 95 games. That's 8 more wins than the Twins and just 2 less than the Angels. This is how close the teams typically are over a 162 game season.

Since there are 3 divison winners and a single wild card, do you really think it is a good idea for a "wild card play-in series"? Once you exhaust the eventual wildcard's pitching staff while the other teams sit and wait for the weather to get even colder, which rested division winner gets to play the handicapped wildcard? And the quality/competitiveness of the following series doesn't degrade?

You're ignoring how impractical the idea is within the context of baseball. Sorry, but I find the mentality of "let's make it tougher for the wild card" offensive and self serving.

 

[Koya]

As a NY Jew, the caps are my only way to approximate my hand gestures as emphasis. You may not need them, I do.

To the point at hand, WHO CARES if the wild card is at a disadvantage. WIN your division and you win the right not to be a wild card and to have a (well deserved) advantage.

Right now, there are situations where a WC gets a benefit, i.e. not playing a tougher opponent because its intradivisional. I would much rather see a WC have a little too tough a road, than too easy a road considering they are just that... a wild card and not a division champ.

To the winners go the spoils... at least that is how it should be imo.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE IGNORANT NEW YORKER.

Huh? We will have to see who the ignorant one is.Just what about my comment has anything to do with being a New Yorker? If you must know, since this may be where you are assuming... I am a Mets fan. Winning divisions is not exactly in our blood. That said, regardless of whom I root for, why shouldnt a division winner earn an advantage?

I didn't assume you were a Yankee fan. The Mets are also a big market team and enter every season with a leg up. Because of this reason, baseball already lacks the competitive balance of the other sports.Last years NL wild card, the Rockies had 92 wins. One less than the Phillies and 1 more than the Central winning Rockies. The AL wild card Red Sox won 95 games. That's 8 more wins than the Twins and just 2 less than the Angels. This is how close the teams typically are over a 162 game season.

Since there are 3 divison winners and a single wild card, do you really think it is a good idea for a "wild card play-in series"? Once you exhaust the eventual wildcard's pitching staff while the other teams sit and wait for the weather to get even colder, which rested division winner gets to play the handicapped wildcard? And the quality/competitiveness of the following series doesn't degrade?

You're ignoring how impractical the idea is within the context of baseball. Sorry, but I find the mentality of "let's make it tougher for the wild card" offensive and self serving.

Well, sorry about your high horse there. Self serving? Do you know anything about my motivations? I am ALL for a salary cap. I think the imbalance in baseball is a detriment to the game. I'd rather my Mets NOT have an advantage (even if they are terrible in terms of using that advantage) and have a better overall game.Oh, an I am an Orioles fan as well - so yeah, I must be all for giving big market teams an advantage.

 

[Darth Cheney]

I like the wild card and I have to admit that I like Francessa's idea of two more teams getting a wildcard spot for a one game playoff Monday before the Divisional/Wild Card round starts.

This is the worst idea since the NCAA "play-in" game.A 162 game season for a 1 game play-off that will typically "waste" both team's Ace prior to the start of the real play-offs?

Almost as bad as what MLB did to the '09 Twins.

It would not be a 162 game season for a 1 game playoff. Its a 162 game season to actually WIN your division. If you CANT, then you get at least a shot to make it via the PRIVILEGE of a one game playoff.Personally, a 2 out of 3 series may make more sense, but you dont want a winning team to be waiting a week after a bye.

And you don't think this extra work for the pitching staff would put the wild card at a severe disadvantage in the play-offs?

PS. I don't need the caps and you're making way to big of a deal about winning a division. Unlike football, there is only a single wild card in each league. Often, given imbalance between divisions, these teams are within a couple games of each other and have earned their shot already.

Bolded part = the pointRight now there is no incentive to win a division over winning a wild card. Not only would this put the wild card at a disadvantage, but it would also create greater interest around baseball for the teams that are fighting for a chance to get in. Adding one extra wild card team probably increases rooting interest in anywhere from 2-4 additional cities per league over the final few weeks. All without watering down the overall playoff structure.

You got to admit. Those last two play in games were pretty awesome. It didn't really affect the Rockies negatively.....and Twins mistakes really hurt them in the series against NY.

 

[Darth Cheney]

Baseball should:

Force all international FA's into the MLB draft.

Push for a slotting system of pay in regards to draft picks.

Install a hard salary floor.

Install a higher percentage luxury tax on a lower total salary figure.

before they move a team to NY. Salary parity has a mixed track record. I don't think it's worked in the NBA and the NHL. People want to push the NFL as this model of perfection....but MLB has one thing that the NFL doesn't....guaranteed contracts.

 

[Michael Brown]

As a NY Jew, the caps are my only way to approximate my hand gestures as emphasis. You may not need them, I do.

To the point at hand, WHO CARES if the wild card is at a disadvantage. WIN your division and you win the right not to be a wild card and to have a (well deserved) advantage.

Right now, there are situations where a WC gets a benefit, i.e. not playing a tougher opponent because its intradivisional. I would much rather see a WC have a little too tough a road, than too easy a road considering they are just that... a wild card and not a division champ.

To the winners go the spoils... at least that is how it should be imo.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE IGNORANT NEW YORKER.

Huh? We will have to see who the ignorant one is.Just what about my comment has anything to do with being a New Yorker? If you must know, since this may be where you are assuming... I am a Mets fan. Winning divisions is not exactly in our blood. That said, regardless of whom I root for, why shouldnt a division winner earn an advantage?

Once you exhaust the eventual wildcard's pitching staff while the other teams sit and wait for the weather to get even colder, which rested division winner gets to play the handicapped wildcard? And the quality/competitiveness of the following series doesn't degrade?

No, because it would be a single game between the two wild cards. They play the day after the regular season (which currently is devoted to potential play-in games anyway). They'd have to use their best available pitcher, get no rest, and then play the top division winner in that league on the same day the playoffs currently start.I fail to see the issue here.

 

[DropKick]

As a NY Jew, the caps are my only way to approximate my hand gestures as emphasis. You may not need them, I do.

To the point at hand, WHO CARES if the wild card is at a disadvantage. WIN your division and you win the right not to be a wild card and to have a (well deserved) advantage.

Right now, there are situations where a WC gets a benefit, i.e. not playing a tougher opponent because its intradivisional. I would much rather see a WC have a little too tough a road, than too easy a road considering they are just that... a wild card and not a division champ.

To the winners go the spoils... at least that is how it should be imo.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE IGNORANT NEW YORKER.

Huh? We will have to see who the ignorant one is.Just what about my comment has anything to do with being a New Yorker? If you must know, since this may be where you are assuming... I am a Mets fan. Winning divisions is not exactly in our blood. That said, regardless of whom I root for, why shouldnt a division winner earn an advantage?

Once you exhaust the eventual wildcard's pitching staff while the other teams sit and wait for the weather to get even colder, which rested division winner gets to play the handicapped wildcard? And the quality/competitiveness of the following series doesn't degrade?

No, because it would be a single game between the two wild cards. They play the day after the regular season (which currently is devoted to potential play-in games anyway). They'd have to use their best available pitcher, get no rest, and then play the top division winner in that league on the same day the playoffs currently start.I fail to see the issue here.

So the idea came from a NY based sports writer and you, as a Yankee fan, see no issue with it? Hey why not, just another thing to tip the scales further to the Yankee's favor.In the NFL, one of every six teams that doesn't win a division qualifies as a wild card. In baseball, only one of twelve qualify. One team from each league with a record that typically meets/exceeds that of a "division winner". And let's face it, over a 162 game season, the difference between a win or two could boil down to minutia like balls/strikes call from an inconsistent ump.

So this single team (after 162 games) still doesn't deserve a post season bid so you would add an additional wild card team (with a lesser record still) and force these two teams to play a single game (someone else suggested a 3 game series) to accomplish what? One game? To weaken the wild card team? To possibly get a lesser opponent?

One and done works in football, but baseball? Frankly, I thought you were a bigger fan of baseball and more level headed to promote this type of thing.

 

[DropKick]

You got to admit. Those last two play in games were pretty awesome. It didn't really affect the Rockies negatively.....and Twins mistakes really hurt them in the series against NY.

I do admit that.. excellent games. but they were necessary to break a tie. The Twins, because of the collision with the NFL schedule, really got screwed and started the play-offs mere hours after clinching. This definitely detracted from the quality of that series and probably contributed to their mistakes as well. By the way, the umpiring didn't help either. I don't think I've ever seen a ball that landed a foot fair called foul with 6 umpires on the field.

 

[Koya]

One and done works in football, but baseball? Frankly, I thought you were a bigger fan of baseball and more level headed to promote this type of thing.

Not sure why, because you have a difference of opinion with someone - about a potential playoff format in MLB at that - that gives you any right to impugn their integrity, motivations or knowledge of the game.You want to go after the writer of the article if he is a straight forward Yanks fan, fine... but why not discuss merits here? For one, many of us (who, btw, do love, understand, study, have followed, respect the game of baseball) think you are actually in the wrong on this one... understanding we are still talking opinion here. Even so, we don't say that you only want what you want because you arent a "big enough fan" of baseball or because you want your team to have some advantage.

I mean, blast "New Yorkers" as ignorant (the irony in the a statement reeks with irony. Calling out an entire populace as ignorance is indeed just that), assuming the only reason they would want a better system is to help their team (when the current system of punishing the team with a better record at times is just so perfect). Let's stick to the issue - is there a better system than the currently flawed one in terms of a wild card?

You believe it is too much a disadvantage to have a one game play in.

Personally, I think a one game play in does not fit with baseball, HOWEVER, that is BIG motivation to win your division. A Division win can too often mean nothin in the current system in terms of helping a better team earn the best playoff position. So you have meaningless/ near meaningless games because a team doesnt care about winning the division because the WC is just as good, and they want to set up their playoff rotation. If you have a signficiant disadvantage as a WC, many of us are fine with that - next year win.

In football, how many years was it before more than one WC won the Super Bowl? While not the same as a 162 game baseball season, not getting a bye vs. homefield advantage (SO much more important in football) is a HUGE disadvantage.

Best option imo, which will NEVER happen: two day, best out of three. Yeah, it will hurt the pitching staffs, but again, win the division and you dont have to deal with the disadvantage of the WC. My second choice would be a three game series, but then you are giving some disadvantage to the non WC by waiting so long. Would HAVE to be over three days.

Third option imo is the one game playoff. Yeah, a bit part of me thinks one game sucks after 162... but one more time, win the division. Lose it, and you win the WC, you win the OPTION to get into the playoffs which only the other WC team has - better place than almost every team.

In the end, this is not about big vs. small markets. Not unless there is some axe to grind, unless I am missing something. This is about a current crap system, and ways to make it better.

 

[Michael Brown]

So the idea came from a NY based sports writer and you, as a Yankee fan, see no issue with it? Hey why not, just another thing to tip the scales further to the Yankee's favor.

In the NFL, one of every six teams that doesn't win a division qualifies as a wild card. In baseball, only one of twelve qualify. One team from each league with a record that typically meets/exceeds that of a "division winner". And let's face it, over a 162 game season, the difference between a win or two could boil down to minutia like balls/strikes call from an inconsistent ump.

So this single team (after 162 games) still doesn't deserve a post season bid so you would add an additional wild card team (with a lesser record still) and force these two teams to play a single game (someone else suggested a 3 game series) to accomplish what? One game? To weaken the wild card team? To possibly get a lesser opponent?

One and done works in football, but baseball? Frankly, I thought you were a bigger fan of baseball and more level headed to promote this type of thing.

So now because I want to add a wild card team and promote fan interest in other cities I'm suddenly not level-headed? This has nothing to do with how big a fan someone is (by the way, it was originally suggested by Bob Costas if I'm not mistaken, so the NY sportswriter thing is crap). But let me see if I understand. Your suggestions is that the wild card team has done enough to earn its place in the postseason by virtue of winning just as many games if not more, so their road shouldn't be any more difficult. So then you would be in favor of the following? List all of the teams from 1-14, get rid of divisions, have everyone play one another the same amount of times, and at the end of the year the top four teams in each league get in. Because that's essentially what you're saying. You're saying that division titles aren't earned any more than a wild card slot, so if that's the case then why even bother HAVING divisions?And in terms of fandom, I'm a bigger baseball fan than anyone I've ever known. Sometimes I think it would be easier to not be known as a Yankee fan around here, because every time one of us suggests something we MUST be coming at it from some sort of a pro-Yankee "angle" or something. As if we don't care about the game and just want the Yankees to win regardless of what happens. Keep in mind that some of us do in fact realize the problems of the game and also realize that if the league got so upside-down that MLB went away, there would be no Yankees to root for.

In any case, I don't see the relevance of the football comparison. The difference in division winners and wild cards is typically a greater difference percentage-wise because it's such a small sample size. Check the wild card standings of MLB after the first 16 games of the season and you'll see a few teams at 11-5, a few at 10-6, and maybe a bunch of teams fighting for the wild card at that point at 9-7 too. When you keep playing more games, the good teams separate from the pack a bit. What I'm saying is, if football played a theoretical 162-game season, you'd see wild cards with as many wins as division champs a whole lot more. Hell, last year in the NFL the 12-4 Colts had to travel TO 8-8 San Diego. What's more, a wild card team doesn't get to play a lesser opponent in football if their scheduled opponent plays within the same division (I assume in baseball this is the Yankees vs. Red Sox rule). The wild cards in football are at a decided disadvantage because of how much home field matters. But in baseball, home field is not nearly as important and you get a series of games to overcome that. There should be a built-in disadvantage to not winning the division (or at least, as Koya said, a positive aspect for winning the division other than being able to fly a banner the following season).

 

[DropKick]

So the idea came from a NY based sports writer and you, as a Yankee fan, see no issue with it? Hey why not, just another thing to tip the scales further to the Yankee's favor.

In the NFL, one of every six teams that doesn't win a division qualifies as a wild card. In baseball, only one of twelve qualify. One team from each league with a record that typically meets/exceeds that of a "division winner". And let's face it, over a 162 game season, the difference between a win or two could boil down to minutia like balls/strikes call from an inconsistent ump.

So this single team (after 162 games) still doesn't deserve a post season bid so you would add an additional wild card team (with a lesser record still) and force these two teams to play a single game (someone else suggested a 3 game series) to accomplish what? One game? To weaken the wild card team? To possibly get a lesser opponent?

One and done works in football, but baseball? Frankly, I thought you were a bigger fan of baseball and more level headed to promote this type of thing.

So now because I want to add a wild card team and promote fan interest in other cities I'm suddenly not level-headed? This has nothing to do with how big a fan someone is (by the way, it was originally suggested by Bob Costas if I'm not mistaken, so the NY sportswriter thing is crap). But let me see if I understand. Your suggestions is that the wild card team has done enough to earn its place in the postseason by virtue of winning just as many games if not more, so their road shouldn't be any more difficult. So then you would be in favor of the following? List all of the teams from 1-14, get rid of divisions, have everyone play one another the same amount of times, and at the end of the year the top four teams in each league get in. Because that's essentially what you're saying. You're saying that division titles aren't earned any more than a wild card slot, so if that's the case then why even bother HAVING divisions?And in terms of fandom, I'm a bigger baseball fan than anyone I've ever known. Sometimes I think it would be easier to not be known as a Yankee fan around here, because every time one of us suggests something we MUST be coming at it from some sort of a pro-Yankee "angle" or something. As if we don't care about the game and just want the Yankees to win regardless of what happens. Keep in mind that some of us do in fact realize the problems of the game and also realize that if the league got so upside-down that MLB went away, there would be no Yankees to root for.

In any case, I don't see the relevance of the football comparison. The difference in division winners and wild cards is typically a greater difference percentage-wise because it's such a small sample size. Check the wild card standings of MLB after the first 16 games of the season and you'll see a few teams at 11-5, a few at 10-6, and maybe a bunch of teams fighting for the wild card at that point at 9-7 too. When you keep playing more games, the good teams separate from the pack a bit. What I'm saying is, if football played a theoretical 162-game season, you'd see wild cards with as many wins as division champs a whole lot more. Hell, last year in the NFL the 12-4 Colts had to travel TO 8-8 San Diego. What's more, a wild card team doesn't get to play a lesser opponent in football if their scheduled opponent plays within the same division (I assume in baseball this is the Yankees vs. Red Sox rule). The wild cards in football are at a decided disadvantage because of how much home field matters. But in baseball, home field is not nearly as important and you get a series of games to overcome that. There should be a built-in disadvantage to not winning the division (or at least, as Koya said, a positive aspect for winning the division other than being able to fly a banner the following season).

What's the goal here? I haven't asked that question because I wanted it to come out naturally. There has been a reference to increased fan interest but the dominant reason seems to be to handicap the wild card.The single wild card in baseball is a by product of having 3 division. Simple numbers, you need a forth team to make it work. The rule that has been in place for about 15 years awards the last spot to the team with the best record. Something they've "earned" over 162 games just as the division winners have. And, yes. sometimes division titles are not earned any more than wild card spots. You yourself pointed out that the 12-4 Colts (a wild card) had to travel to 8-8 San Diego. Did San Diego "earn" the right to host that game more than the Colts? That's the issue with divisions; sometimes they're strong and sometimes they're not. We don't need a "built-in disadvantage to not winning the division".

This past season, the Yankees got home field advantage, were able to set up their pitching rotation and got to pick their play-off schedule to play a Twins team on 18 hours rest. That seems like plenty to me.

Obviously. football is a different game from baseball and is really more a war of attrition. I don't think you could play many more games realistically. I used the comparison because "one and done" works in football. A division winner can lose a single game to a wild card and it's over. What did the division winner get? To host a single game? At the end of the day, you need to produce on the field. I don't hear complaints that the road to the SB is too easy for wild card teams.

Baseball is more unpredictable than football and features more one on one match-ups. The worst team in the league can and does beat the best teams in the league relatively often. And the major factor is pitching match-ups. One game is not a good way to decide the better team in baseball. In fact, the one game "play-off" is really just an extension of the regular season. They've always used a series of games (the more the better) to decide a winner. A one game play-off series is counter to the nature and tradition of the game.

I don't think the current system is flawed as seems to be KOYA's foregone conclusion. Baseball, unlike the other sports, still only admits a small number of teams to the post season. This maintains the value of the regular season.

All this talk about merit! So, this season in the NL, we would have 88 win San Francisco play one game against 92 win Colorado? What will this prove that wasn't already established in the regular season? So, if the Giants win a single game against the Rockies they go on to play the Phillies? What would this accomplish? A lesser team advances? Both teams spend their Ace and overload their pitching staff? What if there were actually a tie at the end of the regular season? We would need a series of one game series to figure it out. Meanwhile the other teams sit... and eventually we get a tired team to move on and a reduced quality play-off series. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Dropkick - get a glass of scotch, drink, and cool down.

Since I brought up the play in game on Wild Card Monday, and since I actually listened to Mike's idea why he liked the idea, I might as well add it to the conversation, such as it is.

If I recall the broadcast the idea was there for two main reasons. The first was that it gets another team into the playoff chase. We get that at least one person here doesn't like the idea regardless. But the second idea was actually the more compelling one. It was to give baseball as a sport one day where it takes over the sports landscape and grabs back a little of the land it lost to the NFL. FRom the end of September to the beginning of October it gives baseball more power against the NFL schedule. And then to give baseball a Wildcard Monday where it is the predominant story it takes the front pages from the NFL and gives it to MLB, and then hopefully generates long term interest in the playoff series that follow. That was teh gist, although he probably said it better.

I still like the idea though I'm not married to it. It's better then adding another level of playoffs to baseball which people bring up from time to time because the season is too long as it is - frankly, I'd drop the regular season back to 154 but that will never happen.

 

[MexiContractor de NY]

You guys realize that some nerd with a blog needed an idea for a topic and brought this back up, right? It's not something that's actually planned or discussed.