The 2009 AL East, playoff system implications.
As we all know the AL East is going to be loaded in 2009, with three teams that have the talent to win over 95 games, what's everyone's thoughts on what this will do to the discussion of a new playoff system? If that #3 team is the Yankee's or Red Sox (lets all hope) with say 94 or 95 wins, will the media pick up and run with it?
I think before you could start talking about a new format the leagues would have to be balanced, with one team switching from the NL to AL or adding 2 expansion teams to the AL. At that point I liked RJ's idea about creating 2 divisions in each league, East and West, each division winner (4 total) would be garaunteed a homefield-advantage playoff spot, and then there would be 2 or even 4 wildcard seed's in each League.
Obviously quite a bit would have to be changed for something like this to work, but I have the feeling someone in the AL East this year is going to be denied a playoff spot despite a great year.
0 recs |
45 comments
|
Comments
There were multiple times when there were more than one 100 win teams
and it still took several expansions for them to bother changing the playoff system. I don’t think having a stacked division for a few years will be enough to trigger anything.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
Agreed
MLB has been and will continue to be resistant to change, even if it means the potential of giving up dollars such as a case like this; because more playoff teams almost always means more money. Personally, I think that the playoff should remain an exclusive club only accessible by the elite of the elite; so whoever finishes 3rd in the AL East unfortunately will get the shaft, as they can always make a case for being there if they played in another division.
Now I wouldn’t be against seeing MLB attempt to do a divisional re-alignment much like the NFL did in creating 4 divisions, but that would eliminate the wild-card; and the geographical placement of teams in the MLB doesn’t really fit with the NFL’s model, so status quo would be my next choice.
Predicting the future given MLB's rate of change:
1969: expansion and split into divisions, LCS added to playoffs
1994: expansion previous year, divisions split from two to three; LDS added to playoffs
2019: expansion to Portland and San Antonio; divisions split from three to four per league; wildcard eliminated (or six-team playoff per league, added round w/ “bye” for top two teams in each league)
Still not sure I like the LDS, so here’s hoping they don’t expand the playoff system.
I don't foresee an expansion of MLB in the near or distant future
Without, at the very least, increased revenue sharing, and probably a reduction in schedule. Business of Baseball did a piece on this a while ago, as did Forbes, and according to both of them there literally are no untapped markets left in the US with a population and a corporate presence big enough to support an MLB franchise (the LA suburbs and northern New Jersey could support franchises, but the Angels and the Yankees would scream bloody murder and probably would block it from happening). If and when the next expansion occurs, I suspect it will be far enough away that one of the cities awarded an expansion franchise is Havana.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
A hell of a lot of cogs have to turn for something like that to happen.
It’s probably good if Baseball doesn’t change for another 20 years.
An expansion probably wouldn’t be a smart move under current league circumstance, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t happen. If the league gets desparate enough for short-term cash, they can charge massive expansion fees and grab the money (see also MLS). At least some (Fay Vincent) believe the 1993 and 1998 expansions were done solely as a means to pay off debts related to the collusion settlement (did someone say collusion? – Barry Bonds), so it’s not completely off the table.
But yeah, barring something unforeseen, it likely won’t happen any time soon. I forget it’s no longer 1999 and 2019 isn’t decades away any more; after considering practicality, ownership groups would need to be formed and vetted, potential suckers cities identified, stadiums financed, designed and built, etc. A lot of moving parts — even if it isn’t Havana or San Juan or Monterrey.
Havana
Maybe this was a joke, but it’s pretty interesting. Probably wouldn’t happen in Cuba, considering all of the bad blood, but Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, and I’m sure they would go crazy down there to have a MLB team. I think they could add one team in PR, and another in Vegas/Salt Lake City/Albuquerque/ or some Texas city.
If memory serves me correct
Didn’t MLB consider moving the Expos to San Juan? Having been to Puerto Rico, and having a father who is Cuban I can say that a major league franchise will never move to either location in our lifetime. There is just not the local business support nor the substructure to keep a team thriving. I think minor league teams and academies would do fine in these locations but not any major.
With that being said, I do believe having an expansion team in Japan or China would be a viable option. I do not logically believe that even this proposal would fly on the grounds that the two professional leagues would almost certainly not allow it. But still it’s nice to think about.
Las Vegas would be interesting and would and another team into the AL West. But the bottom line here is I base on economic constraints I don’t feel that it’s an opportune time to expand the major leagues.
In the name of Shinji Mori, we shall win!
by thebaddancingraysfan on Feb 3, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
"MLB has been and will continue to be resistant to change"
MLB fans seem fairly change-averse as well, given the reactions to recent changes such as the wildcard and WBC.
Not sure....2 off the top, but looking through....
100-win teams to not make the playoffs
1993 Giants
1980 Orioles
1977 Yankees
1962 Dodgers
1961 Tigers
1954 Yankees
1942 Dodgers
1909 Cubs
Vogt early, Vogt often.
.
I had assumed you were referencing the time between playoff format changes, 1969-1993, in which case the only teams to win 100 games and miss the playoffs would be the 1980 Orioles and 1993 Giants. At any rate, the format changed with just the second expansion in 1969.
While I agree, a three-team 95+ win finish in the AL East is unlikely to spur a revamp (additional round) of the current playoff system, I don’t think the thought can be entirely dismissed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the LCS change from five games to seven in 1985 at least partially as a reaction to the Cubs three-game collapse in the 1984 NLCS? Wasn’t the addition of the wildcard/LDS in 1994 at least partly in response to the 1993 Giants 103-win team? (I could be completely wrong as I’m going off memory and was only 9-yrs-old for the ’85 season — maybe these plans were in the works for several years prior.)
Let's just let everyone in the playoffs.
Every team will be able to “prove it on the field” and MLB will make A LOT more money!
Baseball Championship Series > Playoffs
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
by Sandy Kazmir on Jan 29, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
I've been saying for a few months now that
we need to go back to 2 divisions, with 7-8 teams per division. Top team from each division moves on with everyone else fighting for 2 wild cards. Playoffs remain the same. Get rid of Interleague play, but continue to emphasize intradivisional play. If the Rays are in the East with 6 other teams you could play each East team 18 times and each
West team 7-8 times. If you want 3 series with the west then lets say that is 9*7=63. That leaves 99 games to play the other 6 teams within your own division. So that would still be 16-17 games for intradivisional play.
AL EAST
Baltimore
Boston
New York
Tampa Bay
Toronto
Cleveland
Detroit
AL WEST
Minnesota
Chicago
Kansas City
Texas
Oakland
Seattle
Los Angeles
NL EAST
Atlanta
New York
Florida
Philadelphia
Washington
Pittsburgh
Cincinnatti
St. Louis
WEST
Houston
Milwaukee
Chicago
Los Angeles
Colorado
Arizona
San Diego
San Francisco
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
by Sandy Kazmir on Jan 29, 2009 4:44 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
One of the reasons why the MLB went away from this type of set-up was
Because GMs were saying that could sell a 7th place team to the public.
In the name of Shinji Mori, we shall win!
by thebaddancingraysfan on Jan 29, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
If that is the greatest argument against this idea
then this should be implemented yesterday, honestly who cares about how a 7th place team draws, the goal should be not finishing there and if you do, figure it out.
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
by Sandy Kazmir on Jan 29, 2009 9:06 PM EST up reply actions
The other owners paying into a revenue sharing system care plenty
And I’d expect the teams moved from Central to West decisions would scream about their added travel expense and time. Plus Bud would be forfeiting his beloved interleague play – some orgs with good rivalries wouldn’t be happy about that, and there has been an attendance bump with such. Then there’s the West teams losing a game or 2 with big road draws like NY or Boston.
All the arguments might be business related, but the businessmen are the ones who will make the decision.
Nice to be so dismissive of the issues faced by clubs struggling to compete – your team is only 1 year removed from being the poster child for such. You’re in the midst of what should be a nice competitve run, but look ahead to 2011 and see what could happen – either a $90 MM + payroll or a retool.
Even in 2010 where your roster has a good chance of remaining pretty stable, you’re already contracted for over $12MM in increases (assuming CC is picked up at max option of $11.5) plus up to 11 guys in arbitration, including BJ and Garza for their 1st cracks. And only Percy and Kapler at $5.5MM leave (I’m assuming Bradford will be traded before this season, and maybe some savings come from a trade of Wheeler). You’re looking at an $80MM + payroll – ground breaking, so the revenue picture will have to be improved.
Then you don’t have the obvious pieces to replace all the moving parts by 2011 (Pena, Aki, Burrell, Balfour). And that assumes Jennings and Brignac (2B maybe, giving Beckham more time) can replace CC and an Arb 3 Bartlett. Money could be saved by replacing Kazmir with Davis perhaps, plus Sonny hits arb in 2011 (Hellickson?), so they might offer opportunities for plugging trades. But now you’re starting to count on almost all your top prospects panning out in time, no significant injuries, and you’re happy with watching the roster that broke through turn over. Your org has lately shown good ability to bridge the gaps with astute trades and FA signings, so it’s possible things continue to roll along. But the lower level prospect depth is a bit thin – and expecting guys drafted in ‘09 to contribute in ’11 and even ’12 is pushing it, especially now that draft position has slipped so. It’s going to get tougher – or TB is going to be comfortable at mid market in payroll – $80-90 MM or so.
Sorry about the rant – just couldn’t see the flip approach. I know you were being off cuff, so no biggie. But it ain’t easy for mid market clubs to maintain, so be tolerant.
by nyyfaninlaaland on Feb 3, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
Alright finally some dialogue
Though I do agree with you on most points the one I don’t is where you think I’m being flip about place in standings. If you are in 5th and 35 GB in late August (in today’s format) is that really much different from 7th and 35 GB. I would think the average fan knows when their team is in the basement and woefully out of contention. At least I did for the 5 years preceding 2008.
I agree the money motivators would discourage this idea, but this is a $5B dollar industry, surely something could be worked out. The only reason for interleague is so that MLB can parade around their gorgeous trophy wives. Every city wants the Yankees and Sox to play there because it is an instant boost to attendance (look no further than the Trop for confirmation on this).
I mention this idea, not as a Rays fan, but as a baseball fan. Before the Rays existed, back in the late 80’s-early 90’s I was a Yankee fan because that’s what you did in my family. I remember routinely coming in 5th-7th and not caring. I had everybody’s card on the team from the obvious like Mattingly and Roberto Kelly to Alavaro Espinoza and Matt Nokes. The point of this stultifying nostalgia is to say that it shouldn’t matter where your team finishes in the division. In fact one of the things that drew me to the Rays initially, besides moving to Tampa and then eventually Orlando, was their futility. Then Craw came along and Rocco and we traded for Kaz and you could see it starting to go the right way. If, as you suggest, we fall back off the table in the next few years I would not care if we were in 4th or 5th or 7th anyway because we weren’t in the playoffs. A wise man once said, “If you ain’t first, you’re last.” I agree.
I think the one thing you can predict is that you won’t be able to predict what this team looks like in 4 years. We have a good idea about the pieces coming up, those that are here, and those that may go, but as intelligent as our triumvirate is I fully expect to stay competitive for a long time. As for paying the players, perhaps someone knows better, but the revenue sharing figures should not have gone down at any point as the game further expands. If we were getting 30M+ a few seasons ago and not spending it on anything then by now the RS$ may be up into the 40-50M range. How much money do you think the Rays made in merch last year. Between a brand new design and a suddenly competitive team I would wager it was a truckload. That is basically free money since the markups are so high. As attendance increases and ::gasp:: sponsors come back and ::now I’m dreaming:: the TV money gets better we will have a substantially higher cash flow.
As for mid-market teams being competitive, Minnesota routinely knocks on the door, Oakland is usually hanging around, Toronto is not a big market, nor is Cleveland. I have very little sympathy for teams that place this card when the wins are for the taking. A quick example would be Seattle last year. Not a ginormous market, but big enough, and their payroll was huge, but it doesn’t matter thanks to the catastrofuck known as the Bavasi Era. Smart management is on an even keel with huge payrolls. Now the real problem is when you combine the two like in Boston, but I see them leaning more towards brains over brawn at this point. Time will tell.
This is completely 2ldr, but I thought you put so much time into yours to get back to me that I wanted to do likewise unto you. By the way I finished reading that Torre article in the new SI today, wow that’s a classy front office you got over there. Reminds me of the Enron front office or perhaps what happens when a Rottweiler has too many puppies so she’ll suck them down like they were lo mein noodles. Good luck, but remember pride goeth before the fall, good luck Joe Torre.
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
Once we get into 3 and 4 year projections
I think we are too far into conjecture and too far away from data. The dangers you identify are real and may not be easy to solve, but they also may have been addressed by then.
It was pretty common knowledge 2 years ago that the Rays would never contend because as soon as players became arbitration eligible they would leave and because the ownership would never spend the money to compete. Everyone knew Kazmir was gone soon, for example.
Well, what everyone knew did not happen. Kazmir was extended. Longoria has been extended. Shields has been extended. And the Rays have spent and have even outbid teams. True, it has been at the lower end of the salary spectrum, players like Iwamura and Shouse, and perhaps Burrell. But can we really be certain that they will not spend into the $80 million range? Can we be certain Upton and Garza will not be extended? Can we be certain that the front office will not be able to turn some of its talent into important pieces to fill holes where the system is lacking? Or that they won’t continue to go over slot to get talent passed up in the draft? Or begin to get cheaper talent from their international scouting? Or find ways to maintain a competitve club that we have not even imagined yet?
I don’t know those things will happen. But I do know what has been done so far and it bodes well. The problems you identify are absolutely real, but there is no reason to think the front office is not fully aware of them and seeking ways to address them. They may indeed fail, but by 2012-13 conditions may have changed in too many ways for us to begin to forecast much.
*California
-Mark Langston
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
This system definitelly wouldn't help us (the rays ... not the MLB overall) either ...
… as we would get Detroit (big market team) and Indiana (smart managed team) in our division!
You mean you don't know?
Indiana Indians!
In the name of Shinji Mori, we shall win!
by thebaddancingraysfan on Feb 3, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
The Pacers are certainly smart managed
but their defense is lax and i’ve never even seen them get 1 RBI, not even 1
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
You do have a point.
Come to think of it, I have never see the Pacers score a run, but I have seen them go on a few runs… (ba-zing!)
In the name of Shinji Mori, we shall win!
by thebaddancingraysfan on Feb 3, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
I think we should have voters decide on two teams that play in the World Series
While we have other “Bowl Series” which other teams go in. It’s all about the regular season baby!
Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navi Stroking, 2pitchers1cup, BJ to the Balls, Riggans Your Thingans
Question
If Weiters and Justin Upton got into a collision at the plate, would the resulting impact be more or less powerful than the inevitable implosion of the Large Hardon Collider?
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
by Sandy Kazmir on Jan 29, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
I don't see the big deal,
I like the three divisions. I like the wild card.
In the name of Shinji Mori, we shall win!
by thebaddancingraysfan on Jan 29, 2009 10:43 PM EST reply actions
Ask Toronto and Baltimore about lobbying
I’m a diehard Rays fan… but, you would have to think Toronto and Baltimore have bartered in the past of similar ideas. Ideally, the Rays argument can be directed at geographics relative to our foes. New York to Boston to Toronto to Baltimore is less travel time than Rays to any of them. It’s really about playing the Yankees and Boston so many times a year and they’ve already barked up that tree (Baltimore & Toronto). We’ve had one winning season, so we still have to prove alot and in the best division in baseball.
Let's hope that the Twins and CHW go over 95 wins
Who knows….in the AL East, we might even see something like a PENNANT RACE develop.
It’s been a while.
The stock market will never recover, our armies will never again be #1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of their lives - HST
When I read what you just typed
I had to question who was on more drugs, me or you. Congratulations if you can trump me cuz im fucking twisting in the breeze as we speak. or so to speak, or who cares
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
Do you really see CHW doing that?
Sorry, wrong key. I see Cleveland as the better shot there.
by nyyfaninlaaland on Feb 3, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
Cincy
One year the Cincinnati Reds had the best record in “all of baseball” and didn’t make the playoffs.
vr, Xei
It was a strike year that split the season into two parts, 1981,
and the post-season teams were chosen based on who led at the end of each half. The Reds had the overall best record, but did not lead at the end of either half, so they were eliminated.
In the first half, the Dodgers were 36-21 while the Reds were 35-21, so LA made the playoffs although they finished the year 63-47 while the Reds finished 66-42. In the second half, Houston was 33-20 while the Reds went 31-21, so the Astros made the playoffs although their season record was 61-49, third best overall.
As you can see, what made the Reds even madder is that they only lost the first half because they played one less game and could not make up the half game in the win column.
What's the problem we're trying to solve with a playoff change?
The fact that baseball is at its highest level of interest in history? The fact that the “small money” Rays with all the inherent disadvantages of playing in the AL East just played in the World Series? The fact that the stacked AL East is being hyped more than ever this year, further spurring fan interest?
Can’t help but chuckle at the thought of expansion outside the US… thought it was hard getting free agents to go to Montreal? Try Havana! Think the University of Hawaii football team has trouble scheduling opponents? Try doing 162 games a year with teams shuttling back and forth to China! Let’s stop worrying about the rest of the freaking world and enjoy our beautiful AMERICAN game.

by 





















