MLB Requires Realignment with expansion to 32, Some Possibilities

During the Thursday press conference when Rob Manfred said it was much easier to work with division of 4’s than divisions of 5’s, that signals what MLB likely would look like under a 32 team structure, eight divisions of four teams each.

When the radicle realignment was met with great anger in 1997, it was quickly shelved, a proposal that would have aligned the leagues geographically into a 16 team circuit with eight teams each in the western and central part of the continent, with two divisions of seven in the east. The Brewers would become the first team in history to switch leagues later that year, but it was a natural fit as Milwaukee was originally a NL market when the Braves moved in back in 1953. The reaction was more positive among Brewer fans who had identified with the NL style during the golden day’s of Milwaukee baseball. A polar opposite reaction occurred in Houston when the leagues were finally evened out at 15 each starting in 2013, as the Astros fan base did not take kindly to the switch from NL to AL, this blogger among them.

But now we see an ever evolving game with regular interleague play and some day many believe, the DH in both leagues, which will effectively bring an end to the difference in league identity that has marked the game my entire life time, as I was born just weeks before the first DH games in 1973.

Knowing that such changes are likely on the horizon, it is easier to imagine what some new alignments might look like under a divisional system with eight groupings of four teams each. Assuming as I have before that the new expansion teams would be in Montreal and San Antonio, and also assuming that the Athletics and Rays do not relocate, here are some possible scenarios. For team names, I will use the historic Missions name that San Antonio has been known for during much of its minor league history, and we all know that Montreal will gladly welcome back the Expos name and colors. Note that because of geography, right now five of the eight teams in the western US are in one division while three are in the other, someone, either the Rockies, Diamondbacks, or Padres will have to make a switch.

Scenario 1.

Astros and Diamondbacks switch leagues, Missions to NL, Expos to AL.

AL West: Mariners, Athletics, Angels, Diamondbacks.

AL Central: Rangers, Royals, twins, White Sox.

AL East: Rays, Orioles, Yankees, Red Sox.

Al North: Expos, Blue Jays, Tigers, Indians.

NL West: Rockies, Padres, Dodgers, Giants.

NL Central: Missions, Astros, Braves, Marlins.

NL East: Nationals, Pirates, Phillies, Mets.

NL North: Cardinals, Cubs, Brewers, Reds.

Scenario 2.

More radicle realignment, focusing more on geographic rivals though same city teams would not share divisions.

Missions to AL, Expos to NL, Braves and Diamondbacks move to AL, Blue Jays and Rays move to NL.

AL West: same as before, Mariners, Athletics, Angels, Diamondbacks.

AL Central: Missions, Astros, Rangers, Royals.

AL East: Orioles, Yankees, Red Sox, Braves.

AL North: Twins, White Sox, Tigers, Indians.

NL West: Same as before, Giants, Dodgers, padres, Rockies.

NL Central: Using the NL North from scenario 1, Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers, Reds.

NL East, Marlins, Rays, Pirates, Phillies.

NL North: Nationals, Mets, Expos, blue Jays.

Scenario 3.

Four leagues with two divisions each. Interleague play would still exist with the other three leagues. The union would never go for this option, but think about how historic this would be based on the below layout.

National league.

East: Braves, Phillies, Pirates, Reds.

West: Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants.

American League

West: Athletics, Twins, white Sox, Tigers.

East: Red Sox, Yankees, Orioles, Indians.

Continental League, the 1960’s expansion teams.

West: Angels, Padres, Rangers, Astros.

East: Brewers, Royals, Nationals, Mets.

Federal League, most recent expansion teams.

West: Mariners, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Missions.

East: marlins, Rays, Expos, Blue Jays.

MLB expansion, Montreal must be considered favorite: San Antonio and Vancouver could battle for second prize or relocation

Thursday, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said that while baseball needs to first resolve the stadium issues that confront the Rays and Athletics, expansion is in the long term view of the sport. He also said that it is important to keep those clubs in their current markets, which means MLB unlike the other major sports leagues truly wants to try and maintain those two ball clubs in their current markets. Clearly any market that could offer relocation to the Rays or Athletics would first also be required to have a place for the team to play temporarily and only a small number of cities can make such a claim. Those same cities will of course be on the short list for expansion to 32 teams as well.

I have read some columns in recent days that talk about how baseball doesn’t have enough markets that would be a good fit for the sport, and yet we have to remind ourselves that baseball has five duel markets, by far the most of any of the five major sports leagues. The NHL has two teams in greater Los Angeles and Anaheim, three in greater New York with teams in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Newark. The NFL has three such markets, Baltimore and Washington have successfully coexisted for over 60 years, minus the 12 year period from 1984-1995 that the Baltimore team was high jacked to Indianapolis, only to have Baltimore obtain its replacement in a similar manner from Cleveland. The Giants and Jets have shared the same stadium for the last 32 years and have played in the same New York market together since 1960. The Raiders have always shared a market too, with the 49ers during their time in Oakland, and with the Rams during their time in Los Angeles. The Raiders might be a year from joining the Rams back in L.A., after both left in 1995. The NBA has the same pair of duel markets, New York and Los Angeles, though the Warriors and Kings are 80 miles apart in Oakland and Sacramento and MLS will have the same arrangement within another year or two. MLB has all four of those dual markets in greater Los Angeles, the bay area, New York and Baltimore-DC, plus a fifth dual market that has the longest shared history, the Cubs and White Sox have both been in Chicago together for the last 116 seasons.

If you look at existing NFL cities that don’t have an MLB team, the list of landing spots for relocation and expansion are Charlotte, New Orleans, Buffalo, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and Nashville. Ironically, none of them have a viable MLB stadium option. The NFL stadiums in Nashville, Charlotte, Jacksonville and buffalo are not able to be configured for baseball. Buffalo does have the largest minor league baseball facility that could potentially be expanded to serve as an MLB venue and do note that all of these cities accept Jacksonville are AAA markets, Jacksonville is in the AA Southern League. New Orleans could at one time configure the Superdome for baseball, though it had been updated to a locked in football configuration and it would cost a good chunk of change to redesign the dome for baseball. MLB surely would prefer that a new stadium just be built. Indianapolis has the very multipurpose oriented Lucas Oil Stadium, though to my knowledge this venue could not be configured for baseball, though perhaps it could serve as a temporary home if a team were to arrive, waiting for the baseball facility to be built. The same locked configuration would eliminate Aloha Stadium in Honolulu, which did host a three game set in 1997 though even now, a Honolulu franchise presents a unique timezone travel problem.

The two cities that have large stadiums that could host baseball ironically don’t have NFL teams, though one, Montreal is in the CFL. Montreal’s Olympic Stadium is by far the best temporary venue as it was at least built with baseball in mind and that configuration still is in full operation. San Antonio is the other city which found a way to take the Alamodome that had never been built with baseball in mind, shoe horning a diamond into a football structure as was done in the Los Angeles Coliseum for the Dodgers until Dodger Stadium opened in 1962.

Looking at other NHL and NBA cities that could host MLB, the candidates would be IN addition to the afore mentioned Montreal and San Antonio, a group that includes Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Orlando, Ottawa, Columbus, Raleigh, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver.

Of these, Vancouver is the only one with a large stadium that could host baseball, though the ability to configure the stadium to baseball there was as I understand it also taken away with restructuring following the Olympics.

When we look at the last three expansions in MLB< the stadium plans tell a big story about how the teams would do long term. IN 1977, the Mariners moved into a massive dome stadium, planned for them and the football Seahawks who arrived the prior fall. King Dome was never a good baseball facility and bad management the first 14 years of the franchise didn’t help matters. Toronto played in what was best described as an outdated multisport facility, but a well-run franchise and great fan interest helped the team survive, as the now rogers Center begun to be planned in 1983. The teams that got it right as far as stadium work was concerned also happened to be more successful at the gate. The Rockies came in knowing that they would play two seasons at Mile High, a football venue that could also capably host baseball, moving into Coors Field in 1995. The diamondbacks had no stadium to call home when they were awarded to Phoenix in 1995, but plans were already on the board to build the retractable Chase Field and it opened on time in 1998. The marlins thought they had a viable plan moving into a stadium that was intentionally built for them and for the football Dolphins. It became apparent within a few years though that it was not as ideal of a facility for baseball given the Florida climate. Climate was not the issue when the already built Tropicana Field finally earned its right to host a team, when the then Devil Rays arrived in 1998, but its location is sited as a reason for lackluster attendance ever since the first season of the Rays franchise. IN fact, the Rays only averaged 30,000 in their first year, the Marlins were over 32,000 in their second year, a large drop followed aided in part by the 1994-95 strike. The Diamondbacks would average over 30,000 for several seasons until 2005, the Rockies would do the same for the first 10 years they existed and Denver and the Colorado franchise by far has been the most successful in terms of attendance.

Now, let’s look at every city on this list of possible expansion and relocation sites, and I will give my reasons for yes or no.

First the no column and a brief comment on each.

Portland, lost AAA baseball twice and has no real effort to build a baseball worthy facility on the board at even the minor league level. Sacramento, too close to a pair of existing teams, would only get team as relocation option if Athletics move from Oakland. Salt Lake City, with a caveat, has no facility that could be expanded to MLB capacity, though given support for NBA Jazz for last 30 years, market the size of Kansas City would clearly support a winner and market is more comfortable western option for MLB than Vegas for obvious reasons, so it could rise like Phoenix into a franchise and local fan base is not full of snow bird transplants like Florida . Oklahoma City, concern over market size and interest in the fall would be more about the two local college football teams and the coming Thunder NBA season. Memphis, a nice geographic fit between Dallas, St. Louis and Atlanta, but support for NBA team has always been among bottom third of the league and baseball has twice as many tickets to sell for each game and twice as many home dates. Orlando, see Miami and Tampa bay, too much else to do, too many transplants who would come to root, root, root for the road team. Ottawa, not a viable option as the market is too small and Montreal has what the capitol of the Great White North does not have, a history with the game. Columbus, growing market but fans there are loyal to Reds and Indians, plus Ohio State athletics. Raleigh, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton, all hockey markets that have or are now facing the possible loss of a team. Winnipeg would geographically work the best as it is not far from the US border and would be an easy road trip when joined to Minnesota, but the Gold eyes won’t be in MLB. Charlotte and Nashville, both candidates with a similar case that could be made along the lines of Salt Lake City. Fans are very enthusiastic about their local pro teams, but unlike SLC, college sports is a more dominant force in these markets and Charlotte has a lot of sunbelt transplants that could create a situation similar to Florida or at least to Atlanta which has never been known as a baseball attendance hot bed. New Orleans, was on the radar of relocation for the Athletics around 1980, but issues with local economy and recovery still after hurricane Katrina 11 years ago, the market does not seem to be ready for an MLB team. Jacksonville, market too small, has been rumored at times to be possibly losing Jaguars, though location would fit nicely within existing MLB alignment, but JAX has never been mentioned on any list of expansion consideration. Buffalo, at one time a city that really was on the short list for MLB expansion, but downturns in the local economy mean that if the city did get a team, it could be a replay of what we see now in Cleveland with lower attendance and weather problems would force this team to get a stadium that could at least be covered like Safeco, but it would need a very strong structure to hold the weight of the heavy lake effect snow. Indianapolis, has a large stadium that could be retrofitted for baseball perhaps, though here too, the story would likely be more like what is mentioned for Salt Lake City, building a stadium from the ground up if a team is awarded.

This leaves three candidates, Montreal and San Antonio plus Vancouver. Mexico City would be on the list as well, but the question here is how does baseball deal with an exchange rate and a perception income that is a third that of the US and Canadian markets. For me, the yes column clearly is Montreal if they agree to build a stadium, with San Antonio and Vancouver in a battle for the second franchise. Mexico City will get a lot of talk as a candidate, but its odds are too long in my estimation.

If If the stadium mess is not resolved for the Rays or Athletics, the loser out of the Vancouver and San Antonio contest could be the future home of the green and gold.

Diamondbacks Stadium Threat is in a Word, Obscene

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog entry about the future stadium issues that would be likely haunting baseball fans as many ballpark leases signed in the 1990’s would start coming due. Well the Diamondbacks have started making threats of leaving and the lease they signed with Phoenix and the county still has 9 guaranteed seasons of Diamondbacks baseball to be played at Chase Field.

When this news broke with dueling press conferences on Thursday held by the team and by the officials with the stadium district, it only made me cringe. ON one hand, the baseball team says that the county has not paid for what they claim are $187 million in payments needed to maintain the ballpark. This in terms of contract obligation if true would seem to leave the locals on the hook for said repairs, but the Diamondbacks are likely to get a cold reception by the tax paying community in Arizona, since they just saw the team hand out a $203 million contract over the next 7 years for one of the league’s elite pitchers.

Beyond this though, where will the team go if it did leave. NO major city worth its money in gold will ever build a stadium for a team that it does not already have or will gain through expansion or relocation. St. Petersburg built a stadium before it had a team and by the time an actual team did exist, the facility was nearly a decade outdated, no one will make that mistake again. That leaves two choices, Montreal which still has its Olympic Stadium that was home to the Expos through 2004, and another city which built a stadium, San Antonio. The Alamo dome was home to the NBA Spurs for 10 years until they got a new arena and the NFL team San Antonio thought it could get with the dome when it opened in 1993, that team still does not exist. At best, Montreal’s big O would be a temporary venue until a new baseball specific stadium opened in 2-3 seasons. MLB won’t let a team go their until that deal is signed, sealed and delivered on the desk of Rob Manfred. As for San Antonio, the Alamo dome is at best a temporary venue along the same lines, as a baseball diamond would be shoehorned into the facility the way that it was done in the Los Angeles Coliseum for four years while Dodger Stadium was built. The only difference, right field rather than left would be the cheap side of the park for homers that would be outs anywhere else in the big leagues.

The other reason the Diamondbacks stated as the need for upgrades though is at the same time petty and childish sounding. The reason, Chase Field will be the third oldest facility in the National League behind Dodger Stadium and Wrigley Field. Give me a damn break, the place is eighteen years old. Ballparks used to be built as long tern construction projects that would last many generations, yet the Diamondbacks like the Braves are copping an attitude that says, we must be in the newest, greatest, most modern facility to compete. So with that argument, folks in Houston, Cleveland, Arlington, Denver, Baltimore, the south side of Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Seattle all must plan to fork over a billion dollars apiece or lose their teams in the next 5-15 years? If this is where MLB is headed, it will forever lose its credibility as a sports organization and what was once a growth touted by Mr. Manfred will be a great contraction. Cities and states are not going to be held hostage by these henchman asking for corporate Welfare and let’s get one thing strait, what the Diamondbacks are asking for, what the Braves received is pure and unadulterated corporate welfare.

The same goes for the fleecing of Florida and Arizona tax payers for spring training sites. A storm washed out the final Astros game in Kissimmee on Saturday night, and how fitting that must have been. The building of new spring training sites for team after team by these two states has proven to be a money loser, as facilities stand vacated that were built within the life time of today’s college grads. Fort Myers has two teams in a pair of facilities, a third stands empty, City of Palms which opened in 1993 when Bill Clinton was a new President. What was once known as Tucson Electric Park opened in 1998 and it along with historic Hi Corbett Field do not have a spring tenant, though the latter now is home to the University of Arizona baseball team. The Champion Stadium facility built at Disney opened in 1998 and it likely will be vacated after 2017 by the Braves with all teams from Central Florida having headed south. Space Coast Stadium in Vierra Florida opened in 1994, it will be vacant for spring training by the middle of the coming week.

We treat today’s baseball stadiums as if they are temporary palaces to be built and torn down within 30, 40 years, not as treasures of great engineering and baseball history. This madness must stop and the fans must demand that it be stopped. People joke about the cost of the proposed wall Donald Trump wants to build, 11 billion or more. That won’t and should not happen. But guess what else should not happen, an equally amount of wasted money on new stadiums for teams that are crying poor because they don’t have the newest house to play ball in. If we as a nation spend another 15 billion dollars on new ballparks, we should demand that the leases are much longer, say 70 years in length, 30 years was clearly a mistake. That money should instead go to what really needs to be done, major infrastructure repair. If teams want new stadiums, come up with the money from your private funds, through the huge TV deals you signed with your cable and satellite TV providers. Ask now, before they too are crying poor because their business model has died like an outdated piece of computing technology.

IN closing, nice move Arizona. You get fans excited about your team by signing a major free agent and making big trades, then say that if you don’t get what you want, you will leave. Good luck finding a better place to play than the ballpark you currently call home.

Bring Back a Bigger, Better Southwest Conference

Forgive me for writing something that will seem obvious to those who live in Texas and what will seem like a Lone Star slanted point of view to those elsewhere. While this blog does dedicate most of its baseball writings to things concerning the big leagues, I want to take a departure and look at college athletics, especially within the state of Texas.

Many of the major universities in larger states even today after a dizzying array of conference realignment are in one or two major college conferences. A third smaller conference is home to the remaining schools at the division I level in big states like Florida, New York and California. When I first truly began paying attention to all sports in 1985, to include college athletics, the state of Texas at college athletics largest level was basically part of just two conferences, the Southwest and Southland. The Southwest was home to 8 Texas schools, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, SMU, TCU, Texas Tech, Rice and the University of Houston, along with Arkansas. The Southland was for the smaller Division I programs that actually did have a true playoff even in those days, the old I-AA was for those smaller football programs, while division I schools that did not have a football program were listed as I-AAA. IN those days, the Southland was home to a few out of state schools, Northwestern State, Louisiana Tech and Northeast Louisiana, plus McNeese State were all part of that league, while Texas programs included UT Arlington, Lamar, and what was then called North Texas State, now the University of North Texas. Arkansas State was also part of that Southland league.

Over time membership changed in the southland and the Southwest died in 1996. Schools that were not even Division I-A in 1985 like UT Arlington and Texas State in San Marcos, as well as North Texas are now playing in various conferences at that level. UT San Antonio did not even field football until 2011, now it too is at that top level of classification, while the smaller schools like Lamar, SFA, and Sam Houston are now joined by other similar schools around the region, Incarnate Word, Abilene Christian, Texas A&M at Corpus Christi and Houston Baptist among them. While the Southland does still have a degree of rivalry between many of the smaller programs, though some old division II rivals were split up when Incarnate word stopped facing St. Mary’s and Abilene Christian stopped facing Angelo State, there is at least a degree of Texas identity in that league. To follow sports is still enjoyable and this baseball fan does keep up with who the players are to watch from those different teams. The historic Southwestern Athletic conference has never lost its identity, Texas Southern and Prairie view A&M have been part of that league as long as I can remember and while they are small Historically black Universities, they deserve their due here too.

With the larger schools though, it is almost impossible. UT El Paso, which is so far west it naturally fit in the old WAC way back when, now is in the same league (Conference USA) as Rice, UT San Antonio and North Texas. Texas State and UT Arlington play in a second league, the Sunbelt which has teams spread over a huge geographic footprint. The largest of the old Southwest conference membership lingers in the Big 12, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech and Texas. Houston and SMU call the wide spread American Conference home, while Texas A&M moved to the Southeastern conference and renewed ties with Arkansas after 20 years apart. Who is in the old WAC, the newly renamed UT Rio Grande Valley, which was forever known as Texas Pan American.

One successful baseball only program should get mentioned here, Dallas Baptist University, which plays in the Missouri Valley as a baseball school, rather than with some of their local competition.

Given how large some of the once smaller universities have become, while not all play football, I firmly believe it is in the best interest of these programs to come back to their roots as Texas rivals and face one another in leagues that draw from among the best athletic talent in the nation. Texas is still one of the leading producers of football and baseball prospects, and we are better now in basketball as well. So my message is simple, realign into something that creates true rivalries that can bring students together even if it means leaving larger money on the table.

My proposed alignment would look like this. The old southwest Conference comes back with its eight original Texas schools, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU and Texas Tech. It adds North Texas, UT Arlington, Texas State, UT San Antonio, UT El Paso and UT Rio Grande Valley as full members and Dallas Baptist is a baseball only school. Note that UT Arlington and UT Rio Grande Valley do not field football, so your league would divide into a pair of 6 team divisions for football, Texas Tech, TCU, North Texas, SMU, UT El Paso and Baylor would be the western division, Texas State, Texas, Texas A&M, Rice, Houston, and UT San Antonio would be the eastern division. In football divisional teams would play every year, four of the six teams in the opposite division would play on a rotating schedule. In basketball, you would have a 14 team league, divisional placements would add UT Arlington to the West and UT Rio Grande Valley to the east, playing 2 games against each divisional and 1 against each opposite divisional member each season for 18 conference games. The top 12 would make the postseason tournament.

IN baseball, SMU, UT El Paso and North Texas do not field teams, though North Texas has been rumored to be looking at renewing the sport since a five year experiment from 1984-88. If that happened, Dallas Baptist as a baseball only member would play in what would be a western division of six teams. The east would maintain its basketball look. If North Texas fails to get baseball, an eastern team would rotate from those seven schools into the west each season to create a balanced 12 team baseball league. It should be noted that SMU has no baseball plans since it dropped the sport for good following the 1980 campaign. The baseball tournament could be an 8 team double elimination event and played at some of the largest ballparks in the state. The league would be a mix of Texas’s top universities, Dallas Baptist would give the league a 5th private school for baseball, while all of the large public universities would field teams in the major revenue sports of football and men’s basketball.

Could this happen and is it easy to draw up on paper, sure it is. Will such a reality of school spirit and local rivalry bring back together old conference partnerships, not for quite a long time I am afraid. The fractures created have their roots in the politics of money and big college athletics and as we see today in modern politics, no one really cares how much damage is done to what was once a great Texas, a great American institution.

Global Draft, Changes to Signing Pools, Qualifying Offers Part of Ten Point Draft Makeover

The key to any successful long term winning effort more than ever in today’s MLB depends on a quality player development program. Teams rely heavily on the domestic draft and international scouting to infuse the pipeline with young talent that will eventually play in the big leagues. As we all know, baseball has tried to level the playing field, with caps in place on how much a team spends internationally and within the domestic draft. Both procedures have their good and bad qualities and what follows is the New Deal plan to improve this process.

One of the big complaints is that the penalty for exceeding the international spending limits, the inability to sign players for more than 300 thousand dollars during the next 1 or 2 seasons has proven to be no deterrent. Teams that go over the amount are not impeded from spending huge sums of money once the limit has been exceeded, think of it as a credit limit of 5 thousand dollars to spend. Nothing exists to stop you from taking it to 10, 20, 50 thousand over the limit, other than your own budget. So if you can afford the large fee that comes with blowing through the limit, what good does the limit serve in the first place? The penalty for going over by 15% is no more severe than the penalty for going over by 150%. IN addition, teams can certainly load up on lower cost prospects and a team that hits on one player out of 10 signed for 300K each will still reap a true benefit even when the 300K contract caps are enforced for the following one or two seasons, because the international pools do not go away, just the size of how big your contract offers are to those prospects.

Second is the issue concerning the draft caps, the draft slots teams value much more greatly. They have not shown any willingness to blow through the draft budget for fear of losing a first round pick, even though teams will gladly give up that same pick for an aging free agent. These players in theory may offer more in terms of a known quality but less future upside, as opposed to over spending for more prospects who are unknown beyond their amateur ability, even if the ceiling is higher. The major problem with the system as many have documented, is the incentive to lose as much as possible. When only two or three teams take this approach, the reward is huge because the value of the top three picks is so much greater. IN 2015, the difference between pick #1 and pick #4 was around 3 million bucks, the difference between picks 5 and 20 was half that. So in a season like 2016 with the Reds, Brewers, Phillies, and Braves all clearly playing for the future, plus other weak teams like the Athletics, Rockies, and Padres in the running for those worst records, how well a team does may depend less on its luck of the draft order from 1-5, and more with how much money it can allocate to the obtaining of top talent. This was how the Astros, who had a huge hall of money due to a pair of top five picks, were able to get three players viewed as top 10 talents, by paying under slot value on two of them and then going well over the assigned value with their first pick in the second round.

I have many solutions that I believe MLB and the players should all consider as part of the next CBA to solve these issues. Before I go down the list of changes, lets first be clear on this point, one worldwide draft. OK, many will say it can’t happen, here is how it can. First, the Major League Baseball Players Association has by its own design not represented minor league or amateur players, so MLB is governed not by what MLBPA wants, but rather by the laws of the US and Canada with respect to employment and immigration of foreign players. Now with that out of the way, my 10 point plan that changes the MLB draft.

1, move the draft to the Wednesday through Friday during the week of the College World Series. The third and decisive game could be played on that Wednesday evening and prior to that game, the first round of the draft takes place. Rounds 2-20 would be on Thursday, 21-40 on Friday.

2, have regional draft combines to evaluate the health of players. Offer 10 of them around the US, including one in Hawaii. Offer three in Canada, one each in Mexico, Japan, Australia, two in Europe, and one in South Africa. Participation would not be mandatory but MLB should take a page from the NFL so that Brady Aiken 2.0 can be easier to avoid.

3, With one combined draft, the pools for international and domestic players would be combined into one and teams would be able to spend more freely on who they believe is the best player. The pools would be less extreme in the difference of total dollars, the average combined international and domestic draft pools for top 10 picks in 2015 was just over 10,270,000, with over 70% of this focused on the domestic draft. However, the Astros had over 17 million in the draft pool, the Mets had less than 4 million, while international allotments ranged from just under 2 million for the Nationals and Angels, to over 5 million for the Diamondbacks. Rather than have a slot value system that starts very steep in its decline before leveling off, the slope down the curve if you will should be more gradual. I would propose a pool of 12 million for the worst team, 8 million for the best team, even if first round picks are lost. This would encourage teams to spend more in the free agent market, as they would lose just draft picks, not money with which to also sign them when dealing with those players tied to qualifying offers. Teams that went over their draft pool would face the loss of future draft picks which would be awarded via lottery to other teams. the best team in terms of win-loss record that did not qualify for postseason would have the best lottery odds for this type of pick, with odds decreasing as win percentage decreased. The key here is the overall draft pool, not the assigned slot value, so a team with a pool of 12 million could in affect spend 10 million on its first pick if it so chose. But if that team went over its pool by a single dollar up to 2.5%, it would lose a second round pick in the next draft. Go over from 2.5 to 5.0%, it would lose an additional first round pick, again those picks then going into a lottery as just described. Going over from 5 to 10% would result in the loss of picks in both the first and second round in the next two drafts, and going more than 10% over the pool would result in the loss of first through third round picks in the next two drafts.

4, change the draft eligibility rules so that they are uniform. If a player goes to a junior college, he must complete 2 years of schooling before being able to appear again in the draft, players who go to a four-year university maintain the current rules, accept they apply in a uniform manner to all colleges and universities in the united States or Canada, with the player having to complete three years of college eligibility, or be 21 on June 1 the year of the draft. For all players from any corner of the globe not in college, they must have completed high school or received an equivalent diploma, or turned age 18 by June 1 the year of the draft. Players not graduating high school must be 18 by June 1 to be draft eligible, those graduating high school or receiving the equivalent diploma can be drafted no younger than age 17, with the 17th birthday no later than June 1 of that year’s draft.

5, Drafting players from nations with pro leagues, Japan, Cuba, south Korea as examples. Any player not from the United States or Canada who has a proof of current contract to a foreign league can be drafted by an MLB team and his draft rights maintained until age 28. A 19 year old player from japan would thus have his MLB draft rights held by an organization until age 28, with those rights expiring on the 28th birthday of the player. The players MLB salary would be structured like that of other MLB players, accept that if he does not come to an MLB team until age 25 or later, his first year salary would be based on the average of all players his age on opening day rosters from the previous season. This formula would govern the first three years of salary with standard arbitration and other rules taking effect as normally scheduled for all MLB players. MLB teams would be allowed to buy out the contract of the player from the foreign league, while paying a posting or transfer fee to the foreign league or team. Foreign players who were not under contract to another pro league at the time of the draft would have their MLB draft rights held until age 24. After the 24th birthday, the player if not part of an existing foreign professional league would be an undrafted free agent who would be free to sign with the team of his choosing but only for the MLB minimum taking a 40-man roster spot, or to a minor league contract with the signing bonus then counted against the draft pool for the year in which the player is signed. Players age 28 or older signing as free agents would be treated like MLB free agents, in that they would be signed for however much the club feels the player is worth, accept the contract would be no longer than 6 years in length and players age 28 or older could not sign to contracts from the minor leagues and draft bonus pools. Players returning from MLB to their foreign league would have their MLB contract bought out by the foreign league in question and they would have to wait one calendar year before returning to an MLB roster.

6, Trading draft picks and draft rights. Teams who owned draft rights to an international player outside the United States and Canada would be able to trade those rights like any other future draft pick to another organization as part of a trade to obtain MLB talent. Draft picks and draft rights to international players could not be used as a player to be named later and they could not be offered in a deal involving only players not on a 40-man roster. A team trading such a pick must be receiving at least one player on another teams 40-man roster. If three or more teams are involved, the player rights or draft picks being sent away do not have to go to the same team that is the source for the obtained player to meet the 40-man roster requirement. Lastly, teams could trade no more than the rights to three picks from any single draft that they have obtained, even if additional picks were granted through lottery, compensation or trades. Example, Nationals trade draft rights to the Brewers, Nationals must get a player from the 40-man roster of the Brewers or from another organization if a third team, such as the mariners were involved.

7, Qualifying offers and compensation picks would change. The qualifying offer would be the average of the top 100 salaries among all players in MLB and the qualifying offer would be good for a two-year contract if accepted by the player. Compensation for qualifying offers would be modified, so that the first four players signed would result in the loss of a second round pick, all others would result in the loss of a third round pick. All first round picks would be protected going forward.

8, The order of draft picks would change so that the top 20 teams who did not make the playoffs would draft in the inverse order of their win-loss record from the previous MLB season. Picks 21-22 would go to the two teams who lose the wild Card game in inverse order of win-loss record. Using a similar formula, picks 23-26 would go to the four losers of the division series, picks 27-28 to the two losers of the League Championship Series, pick 29 to the World Series loser and pick 30 to the World Series winner.

9, Draft pool totals. The worst team would be allotted a total draft pool of 12,000,000, the best team would be awarded 8 million. The difference from positions 1-6 would be a drop of 200K per slot with the 6th position in terms of pool rankings worth 11 million. After position 6, starting with the 7th through 30th positions, the drop would be 125K per placement, so that the 7th position would be worth a pool of 10.875 million and the 14th position worth 10 million. Positions 15-22 would be from 9.875 to 9 million, while positions 23-30 would range from 8.875 to 8 million in terms of the total draft pool value. A draft pool lottery could also be put in place for pool positions 1-14, so that the worst team is not guaranteed the top pool of 12 million but it is guaranteed a pool of at least 10 million. If MLB expanded to 32 teams, the slope downward in pool totals would be slightly adjusted for picks 15-32.

10, additional picks. Two rounds of six draft picks each, one between rounds 1-2 and one between rounds 2-3 would be held. The first round would be for teams that missed the playoffs for each of the previous two seasons, with the order of draft picks based on best to worst combined overall winning percentage, think of it as a way to reward teams who tried and missed out rather than tanking on purpose. So based on 2014-2015, the Mariners, Twins, White Sox, Indians, Red Sox, Rays, Padres, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Reds, Brewers, Phillies, Marlins and Braves would be in the running for those picks. The second set of six picks would be based on the current MLB competitive balance lottery.

IN conclusion, I believe that one combined draft is the way to go forward, with many changes needed both in terms of how bonus pools and compensation are dealt with. I believe that current players are being harmed by the system as teams don’t want to lose the ability to obtain current amateurs by losing highly valued draft picks and the dollars tied to them. It removes the incentive for thugs to smuggle players like they were cocaine in return for huge sums of the players professional contract. It rewards teams who scout well in all corners of the globe and it does not guarantee teams that lose on purpose will obtain the best drafting slots. I’m not Tony Clark or Rob Manfred, but maybe this serves as a blueprint for what a future MLB draft looks like.

MLB Has Significant Social Responsibility Opportunity to Promote True Accessibility for Disabled, Blind in Particular

As a person who is blind and who has loved sports since I was 10 years old, I always knew that my ability to participate in such events would be limited. That did not mean I could not find joy in sports in my own way. Adapted games like beep baseball were fun and I would also play my own modified version of the sport with a friend one on one. He would get his turns at bat against me as a pitcher, I’d take mine some times against him, sometimes using a technique where I threw the ball with one hand in the air, then took a swing with one or two hands holding the bat, while the friend was in the field of play. Similar slight modifications were made in my other favorite one on one sport, basketball. Nothing is more thrilling than hitting a long jump shot from beyond the 3 point line, even when you can’t see the goal, because you here the swish as the ball goes nothing but net.

Accessibility to other items in life has proven to be a bit more of a challenge in our ever increasing digital world. My first employer was a cable and internet service provider after college, where I worked in the call center and then took a promotion to an account coordinator position. But then one day the systems were upgraded and suddenly our database that was used for everything from managing billing and technical systems, to scheduling trouble tickets and the like became inaccessible. Weeks later I was out of a job and while they said it was a budget cut, I knew the reason, but in a state with no union laws, it would be my word against their word. Over the years since that first bitter pill in 2002, I had several interviews that ended up not working out because of software issues. Fidelity Investments literally wanted to hire me in 2006 but they said we can’t make you an offer because we don’t know if you can do the job. Translation, they knew I could not do the job only because of their half ass designed software that was used by their organization. If they doubted my ability to work for them, I would not have received the offer to work and gone through the software testing phase in the first place.

IN March 2007 seeking a new direction, I was accepted to grad school, where I began working on my master’s in education, a focus in student affairs. I wrote the guy at Fidelity and said that I was going back to grad school and that they could take their job somewhere else. I told them that they should be happy I was going to the classroom, for my other option was to consider a court room instead.

Since finishing my masters, getting employment has been somewhat easier, but today massive inaccessibility still exists. Many companies, nonprofit organizations and government agencies use many computer software programs to operate on a daily basis, no matter the job title or rank, an employee has to use these many systems. Often, at least one or more of these computing systems has some or total inaccessibility and thus workers are denied employment. A case was recently allowed to proceed last year when a county in Maryland lost in court, after it claimed it would be too cost prohibitive to upgrade its new system to make it accessible, even though the same system replaced outdated yet accessible technology that was much more expensive to maintain and operate. Often though, these choices are made based on pure dollars with no forethought that a person needing a different way of accessing the system would come along.

Even in higher education it is a huge problem, with a variety of systems in place today on college campuses where I work, that are somewhat if not entirely lacking accessibility.

While government guidelines exist that say how a building must be designed to meet ADA requirements in terms of physical mobility for those using wheel chairs, walkers and other devices, and while rules exist laying out how interior signage is displayed so that the blind can read it for instance, the rules don’t exist for exterior signage and technology. So when walking around a campus with many buildings, the blind person cannot walk up to the door and literally get a feel for what building he or she is entering. Similarly at stadiums and arenas, no signage is available in Braille that says what section a fan is entering and no Braille is on the small metal plates that are fixed to stadium seats, indicating the location in the stadium that the fan is sitting in. I found this to be true at every game of my 30 ballpark, 30 day tour in 2012. As for technology, many of today’s websites present major accessibility hurtles for the blind user like me, many desktop applications for sale to the general public lack this as well. Only the Apple products with onboard Voiceover technology are largely accessible, but even here a lot of the third party apps have issues.

Some examples of in inaccessible web content include, the use of CAPTCHA with no audio (The boxes that want you to enter the letters and numbers displayed in an image to prove you are a real person). Many buttons on flash oriented features have no labeled button that tells the screen reader what you are about to press, as all buttons on the player just show as button, button, button, rather than stop, play, rewind, Etc. many sites have links that say click here, rather than the name of what they actually represent and so you have to guess as to what the click here references. Then there are those sites that present a list of options but none are accessible to the screen reader because they have not been designed as a button or link that the screen reader can actually focus on. The key to all this, blind people will not now, nor will they ever in the future use a mouse. So web and application designers must use an approach that allows for the use of other input methods, including voice response and keyboards.

So why is your baseball blogger writing about this very non-baseball topic. It is because Major League Baseball is in a unique position with a very important responsibility. MLB through its diversity and inclusion programs has an opportunity to display to the world the best practices when it comes to all aspects of accessibility. This means it could hire someone who is blind or has a related disability as an accessibility expert, to make sure the league is fully accessible to all its customers both virtually on its websites and literally in the ballparks. Further, this puts MLB in a position to be a leader in the business community and brings a very public voice and recognized brand that could lobby for Federal legislation that strengthens ADA technology guidelines and provides more opportunities for the blind in the work place. Have you ever tried to buy a new TV or other device and set it up as a blind person? Good luck.

Why does all this matter? We have a social responsibility and a moral obligation to do the right thing. We cannot be the most free nation in the world if we do not remove barriers that limit the right of certain citizens to work. Furthermore, we reduce the demand on the government, as many blind people who currently live on social security disability checks would now have a real job with real income and it would allow for a greater contribution for all too the greater good of our society. Finally, it allows MLB to bridge the gap that exists between the blind and sited worlds, teaching the blind that yes we must live and operate in a sited world, while teaching the sited that it is in the best interest of everyone to solve these major problems that truly do limit opportunity for this small population of often overlooked American citizens.

Is Baseball Prepared for a “Walking Dead” Apocalypse?

Happy Valentine’s Baseball lovers. Tonight is the second half of the current season of “The Walking Dead” and while it is far from my type of entertainment, I’m personally all too familiar with the storylines because my wife like so many American’s finds it more interesting than politics, the news, or other more pressing subjects. So much of what is presented at least in the view of this writer is an overhyped and overblown focus on a postapocalyptical world where everything has been destroyed by some horrible event, be it man made or nature’s doing or some out of world alien/zombie created circumstance and the few survivors fight for what is left in a tribal like society.

What I present may seem a tad apocalyptical but based on past baseball history and current trends, it could become a stark reality that dramatically alters the sports and baseball landscape over the next 20-40 years. God willing, I’ll still be alive at age 82 in 2056 with spring training upon us, but will baseball look anything like it does today, will any major sports league? Below, I present some of the potential pitfalls that await MLB and its pro sports partners in the NFL, NBA and NHL, and the question is, what will they do to prepare for the end of the sports world as they know it?

Walkers are coming from all around to eat up the sports landscape. From the west, a group of walkers is carrying signs that state in very harsh language that government funding is dead, sports leagues must make it on their own. The owners are running in circles with no idea how to resolve this conflict. They don’t want to admit that society finally grew tired of their endless begging for corporate welfare, which asked for public money to build new stadiums and arenas to replace the ones that were built just 15-30 years ago. The last round of the sports building boom, everyone was told that to compete and field a winning team, the club had to have the latest, greatest state of the art facility. Build it, we win championships and contend every year for the opportunity to win more. Don’t build it, we leave. NO one stopped and realized, there are 30 teams in MLB, so if every team won just one single championship, it would take 30 years for every team to get its title, meaning it was nearly a stone cold lock that several MLB teams would not see a championship and might not even make it to the World Series during the same 30 year or shorter term for said stadium lease. The White Sox, Giants, Astros, Padres, Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Twins, Pirates, Mariners, all made the I’m leaving threat in baseball and the Expos eventually did leave. IN the NFL, the Rams have made good on the threat twice, the chargers and Raiders both could potentially join the Rams on that have done it twice list, while the Saints, Jaguars, Colts, Bills, Vikings, Seahawks, and buccaneers, have had or are currently making the same threat to government officials, while the Colts and Cardinals, and old Houston Oilers made good on the threat. IN the NBA, the Kings and Bucks are the latest teams to make the threat and get a new building, those two had brand new arenas in 1988, while the Hornets, Heat, and Magic which all got new buildings at the same time as new expansion teams all have since moved into new buildings that replaced those original new homes. The Grizzlies had a new home in 1995 and moved six years later, getting a second new building in 2004, while the Supersonics moved and became the Thunder in 2008. Similar arena threats were put out by the Rockets, Spurs, and pacers that got new buildings put up between 1999 and 2003, while other multiple sports cities, Dallas, Denver, and Chicago opened new facilities between 1994 and 2001. IN the case of Dallas, the new arena was replacing a building just 21 years of age that now no longer exists, Reunion Arena. Miami may be the most gross case here, because the new Miami arena that opened in 1988 was used to get both the expansion Heat in the NBA that year and the Panthers NHL team in 1993. It was built specifically for both sports. Yet by 1996 both teams were asking for new buildings, they each got one that they call home, the Panthers in 1998, the Heat a year later. The original Miami Arena was used sparingly until it was brought down less than 20 years before its first NBA game. Meanwhile, in the NHL, the Senators want a new arena, the current facility this 1992 Ottawa expansion franchise called home opened in 1996. The Red wings are getting a new building of their own, largely paid for by local public dollars in a city and state that is bleeding red ink, even though the owner could easily spend enough of his money to build the whole thing and still have billions left over. Talk about welfare, but of course when it is the owner of Little Caesar’s Pizza, the Tigers and Red Wings, that is somehow OK, but it is horrible when we give well fare to a 19 year old pregnant girl who is on her own with no family to turn too? Every arena used by NBA and NHL teams today not named Madison Square Garden and Oracle Arena is younger than Jennifer Hudson, younger than Yankees slugger Mark Teixeira. Remember the Warriors are getting a new building unless things fall apart in San Francisco, scheduled to open by 2018. Only six MLB stadiums are older, Wrigley which is getting remodeled, Fenway which has had upgrades, Kaufman which received a new round of upgrades on the public tab in 2006, Dodger Stadium and yes, that ballpark urrrr stadium in Oakland; Angel Stadium went through a pair of major upgrades, one to add football in 1979 and one to undo that change and update the baseball only feel in 1997. IN the NFL, the only older venues that predate Jennifer and Mark are Lambeau Field and Soldier Field (both which had a major makeover and upgrade in 2002-03), Arrowhead Stadium, Rich Stadium, that stadium again in Oakland, the temporary home the Rams are moving to at Los Angeles Coliseum which had no NFL team since the Raiders left in 1995, QUALCOMM Stadium in San Diego and the new Orleans Super Dome which has had its share of upgrades and repairs. The Falcons like several NBA teams got a new facility that opened the year Bill Clinton was elected to his first term in office, only to have it torn down potentially in the first year of another Clinton administration 25 years later in 2017. The Dolphins again as we point fingers at greater Miami moved to a facility built in 1987 for them and to get what would become the marlins. Almost immediately, the Marlins wanted out when it rained too much before baseball games to keep fans coming, hey Miami has always been that way, and now the Dolphins want upgrades or a new facility.

How do owners then fund new palaces to play in you ask? Well that depends on where else they can reach out with buckets in hand begging for private money to build the new stadiums. The public money is all gone, being used to build much more needed and much more outdated public works items such as electrical grids, water and sewer lines, replacing old gas pipes that keep exploding, and upgrading the telecommunications utilities. But there is another problem, walkers coming from the east, with signs featuring more stark language. Your cable TV money is gone, never to return. Here, we see another problem that takes us back in time while also developing on the horizon like a hurricane 1000 miles out in the Atlantic. We know damage could be done, we don’t know where or to what extent, but we know it is coming. IN this case, let’s think back to 1988 and the announcement that CBS had paid massive media rights fees to MLB. Teams were spending money on players left and right with this new found wealth of TV dollars. Yet in 1994, that CBS deal was gone and the new package was not nearly as lush with free greenbacks. Since MLB is not the treasury, it could not issue its own money and had to cut back. Baseball’s best season was ruined by a player strike, but the owners had just as much to do with it. Instead of using some of that TV money to build and update stadiums, owners bid against themselves and overpaid players, then begged for a salary cap to keep their fellow owners from spending too much on player contracts. We all know how that ended. But now fast forward to 2016, many teams have recently entered into or are just now starting new TV contracts with massive payouts from regional sports networks that are operated by and owned by divisions of the major cable and satellite TV companies. ESPN, Fox and TBS also are in the middle of huge contracts that pay very high rights fees to MLB through the 2021 season. But by 2021, it could be painfully apparent that baseball will need to come up with new revenue sources. The problem is simple, many people especially younger folks are ditching cable and satellite TV for on demand internet programming and who can blame them, a new trend known as chord cutting. Our own Time Warner bill has gone up almost 25 dollars in the last year, most of that in extra fees including a 6 dollar sports channel use fee. TWC and the other providers like Comcast, DirecTV and Dish will say that ESPN is to blame because of the high fees it demands for carriage over these systems. That has some truth to it, but look at how much money these same cable companies have sank into local TV rights contracts for teams in MLB< the NBA and NHL. The NFL largely dodges this issue because most of its games are still on over the air TV, something that is almost unheard of these days with the other leagues. This also does not even take into consideration the huge amount of money promised to college athletics, mainly in the form of NCAA football and men’s basketball at the division I level, viewed by many including myself as nothing more than university sponsored minor leagues. As more and more customers drop 180 to 200 dollar a month cable bills for on demand internet programs where they are purchasing only the programming they want to see, it forces the cable folks to raise rates. That bubble is about to pop like an overblown helium balloon and when it does pop, the sports leagues could find themselves being short changed because future promised dollars that were coming are suddenly now evaporating in the smoke and dust that is left behind by the burning down of the cable and satellite TV industry as we know it today.
Walkers are coming from the north and south too. From the north, they carry signs from entitled players who want even larger salary figures from owners who no longer have public welfare and no private money in hand to spend. The southern flank carry signs representing fans who are revolting against ticket prices that are increasing at many times the rate of working wages, fans who are tired of overpriced food and drinks provided by third party venders that do not follow food safety requirements in several instances. Minimum wage was $4.25 in 1993, it is now $7.25 in most locations. Yet $4.25 in 1992 will cost you more like $9 in today’s market for the same goods.

So the fans won’t buy tickets, the players are demanding money that is not there because the cable contracts are dead and worthless sheets of legal paper, while the government bonds have expired and no public official worth his or her weight in is coming through that door with as much as a dime of free goodies. This could happen and when it does, how do the pro leagues respond, and how does baseball in particular adapt to this very possible future reality?

I don’t have all of the solutions, but here are a couple. First, MLB should realize that the way fans are going to consume sports is changing and they will not be able to rely on passing this service fee on to the backs of many people who will never watch a game on television, much less attend a game in a stadium. MLB must come up with other revenue from the broadcast of game events. How you do this in part would be to make every single game you broadcast on TV and radio available worldwide to anyone online, no matter what. The audio service largely already accomplishes this and the MLBTV product should follow suit. Make that service available to any fan who wants to see any game, any team, anywhere. Already class action has forced MLB to sell an individual team package for out of market games, but this out of market concept is outdated and frankly it should have been terminated 15 years ago. MLB should have a very basic process here, no matter the fan, no matter where in the world you are geographically. Want to get the audio only package, sell it on a monthly or season long basis, sell it also on a per team or whole league type of package. So, I can get all MLB games for a month at a time, one team for the entire season, or all MLB games for the entire season. The same concept naturally would be true for those who upgrade to the video streaming service.

MLB should also hire broadcasters to cover games in other foreign languages. Many teams already have Spanish announcers, but hire a few MLB controlled broadcast teams who can do games in various popular languages around the world. While these announcers would not be able to cover all 2430 regular season games, they could cover 5-7 games a week, with all teams being offered throughout the season. Imagine if on any given day, you could find a couple games with an option in French, or German, or Chinese, Etc. These foreign language products would be streamed anywhere in the world, including to US based customers with a 30 day free intro to get fans interested. Teach them about the game if you will, then if they get hooked and fall in love, they can by a subscription. Similar audio broadcasts in various languages should also be made available via streaming services and if in languages that are in parts of the world with less internet traffic, dedicate a shortwave or related radio broadcast service specifically for this purpose.

Second, find ways to make the stadium into a year round money generating facility. Stadiums would become better public works investments if they were used more than 80 some odd times a season. MLB teams should find ways to book events at stadiums on all possible dates outside the baseball season and during the season, allow various events to take place at the facility on all dates not used for baseball, accept the day prior to a team returning home from a long road trip when the facility needs to be prepared for the next home games on the schedule. With more and more teams creating social zones in stadiums, those could all be rented out for big events and receptions on a very regular basis. I think the future here is interesting, as I could see a day where seats as we know it are no longer sold, with fans instead buying tickets to various zones within a ballpark and having areas to move around in, while using more restaurant style seating with tables and movable seating that allow for folks to face the field of play if using such setups on game days. Plus here is a big leap of Sheldon Cooper sarcasm, host more baseball games. Schedule the big state high school tournament during certain seasons at your stadium, bring college teams in on a regular basis for more than just the single weekend tournament and have events at the stadium on those open dates that are baseball related that get the community involved with one another. Have showcase events for international prospects, have baseball combine style events prior to the draft, and other events that promote baseball’s future talent, but do so in MLB stadiums where you can draw in MLB crowds. Imagine, you sell 30 thousand seats at 15 bucks a pop for any seat in the stadium and charge 5 dollars for parking, you know, minor league rates back in the day and you have made 450K just in ticket sales for that one event. For the stadiums as we know them to become true profit machines and thus to view them as investments or properties that have value, they must be living breathing spaces that are regularly active throughout the calendar year. We would never see funding for office buildings that were open only on Monday and Tuesday, or about 100 days in the year, which is even more than we see for actual game day events in MLB, even when postseason is accounted for. The numbers are certainly much worse in terms of usage dates for the NFL which has a max of about 12 in any given season, while the numbers for NHL and NBA arenas are about a max of 58 dates if a team played all the way to the finals, since no team plays the max 7 games in all four series. Even and arena that is home to both an NBA and NHL team gets a max of fewer than 120 usage dates during the year.

In conclusion, it is safe to say that things will probably not unfold in exactly the way that my imagination is presenting here. But the issues I have laid out on electronic paper here could very well take baseball and sports as we know it into new directions that require very difficult decisions and it will require creative solutions by power brokers who are used to getting everything the way they want it. All in the baseball and sports industry will need to be willing to make some real sacrifices and change how they think today, or risk forever destroying the very games we love in the future when resources have dried up and the league as currently funded becomes a bankrupt hulking mass of debt with empty decaying buildings that are home to no games, no fans, and no joy.

Bringing a Full Slate of Exhibition Games to Fans Outside Florida and Arizona, a 2017 Proposal.

Spring training 2016 is coming upon us and one month from today, the first teams begin reporting for pitcher and catcher workouts in Florida and Arizona. As fun and relaxing spring training is for the many fans who make the journey to warm climates for spring ball, another tradition is the many games that are played between MLB teams at unique venues that do not normally host MLB games. Teams face one another in larger minor league ballparks, in international settings such as Mexico and the Dominican Republic, and in large multipurpose stadiums that could be temporary baseball venues for a city trying to show itself as a candidate for a potential MLB expansion or franchise relocation.

Typically, the final weekend of the exhibition season features about a 50-50 split of games played in traditional spring training venues and games played at sites outside Florida and Arizona. I propose a one-time unique form of baseball outreach for 2017, where all teams play outside Florida and Arizona on the final Friday and Saturday of spring training. March 31-April 1 of 2017 assuming the scheduling model remains as is would be those dates. NO games are played April 2 and it is likely six teams will have a regular season opener that Sunday if MLB finds that the 2016 triple header is a big success. So here is my proposal.

First, the traditional games, Dodgers v Angels, Giants V Athletics which have been made a bit less meaningful with interleague play, would still be scheduled as Wednesday and Thursday exhibitions, one at each ballpark.

The following matchups would all take place Friday March 31 and Saturday April 1, 2017. The Padres top two minor league clubs are in El Paso and San Antonio, while the Dodgers used to be a long time San Antonio affiliate. So the dodgers and Padres would face one another, Friday in San Antonio at the Alamodome, Saturday at El Paso. The Rangers and Astros would also face one another going in the opposite direction, Friday at El Paso and Saturday in the San Antonio Alamodome, as they did in 2014. Houston also played an El Paso exhibition against the Brewers in 1997.

The marlins and Rays would play a pair of games at the 55,000 seat stadium in Havana, Cuba, while another international matchup would take place in Montreal as the Blue jays play another pair of games, this time the opposition would be the New York Yankees. Keeping with the international theme of the moment, the Diamondbacks would face the Angels for two games at Monterey, Mexico. Other matchups, the Giants would face the Mariners for a pair of games in Sacramento, while the Rockies and Athletics play at Salt Lake City. The Nationals and Orioles would meet in Norfolk, the Pirates and Phillies at Redding, Pennsylvania and the Cardinals would meet the Royals in Springfield, Missouri. Indianapolis would get two games between the White Sox and Cubs, The Reds and Indians would play in Louisville, while the Braves would face the Twins in Charlotte. The new ballpark in Hartford, Connecticut though not affiliated with either of these teams would play host to a matchup between the Red sox and Mets, and Toledo Ohio would be host to the matchup between the Brewers and Tigers.

More Thoughts on why MLB Must go to Universal DH

On Saturday the Cardinals GM was quoted as saying that there was “growing momentum for the DH in the National League”. Now, a look at why this should ultimately be the choice made by MLB.

A while back I wrote about how other sports leagues after mergers had to decide which rules to play under. The ABA/NBA merger in 1976 took away the 3 point shot from the four ABA teams that had used it in their former league. It would be just three seasons until the NBA adopted the rule for the 1979-80 season. Similarly, the AFL teams once legally merged into the NFL in 1970 had to take away 2 point conversions after touchdowns out of the playbook, until the NFL brought the play back for the 1994 season.

Now, let’s look at how other sports teams are structured and use that as a way to debunk the argument that it is better to have a less skilled pitcher as a batsman rather than a skilled hitter at the dish. IN early football it was more common for players to take the field both on offense and defense. Today in some very small high schools with limited roster sizes, you may still see a few players take the field on both sides of the ball, but a majority of players are going to play only with the offensive or defensive unit. Could you imagine asking Aaron Rodgers or tom Brady to play defense just because that was how old school football was played? How about asking star defensive cornerbacks to come in and play quarterback. Sure this happens on rare occasions with players moving off a natural position in football, where a receiver or running back plays QB in a wild cat formation, but that is about as common as a pitcher coming in to pinch run for a slow base runner who would then be replaced by the appropriate defensive player when the team went back into the field next half inning.

IN hockey and soccer, the goal tender is never used as an offensive player and all that is contributed from that position is the start of a break out the other direction via a long outlet pass to a skilled position player. In basketball, the point guard would never be expected to be a leading rebounder and the center would never be expected to lead the team in assists. So why then do baseball purists insist that watching a pitcher swing the bat is somehow enjoyable baseball?

I used to be among those who believed that the DH took away a degree of strategy from the game, that it was too easy to just leave the starting pitcher in the game since he would not take a turn at bat. But I now view this differently, because having the pitcher bat could be an easy excuse to use as a deciding factor on when to pull your ace while down a run in the 6th inning or later for a better hitter. In the DH world, you truly have to evaluate when your guy has begun to tire or be figured out by the opposition as he goes through the lineup for the third or fourth time and decide when you then put in that relief specialist. Managers today often go to the bullpen to maximize a winning opportunity based on hitter and pitcher matchups, so why not allow the manager to place a 9th skilled hitter into the lineup against a difficult opponent?

As I have noted before, most modern pitchers do not learn to hit if they have always been a career pitcher since high school. Even those who played a position and converted later when in college or the minor leagues often did so because they were viewed as more capable on the mound than in the batter’s box. IN the minor leagues below double A, pitchers never bat and in double and triple A, pitchers only bat if the game is contested by a pair of NL affiliates. Even when an NL affiliate is at home against an AL affiliate, the DH is still used, thus these pitchers have very limited batting experience as professionals. It would be like asking the quarterback to suddenly double as a kicker or defensive safety with very limited training or experience. In other words, given the practices of professional baseball today, such expectations on pitchers being able to take what would even be considered a quality turn at bat in the majors can only be described as asinine.

If you ever here the reason for not making a change in your business practice that goes like this, “we have always done it this way because it is our tradition”, then you should already have your BS detector raised to the maximum. For centuries, women had no voting or property rights and this was even true for more than half of this nation’s history. Only in the last century have our modern democracies encouraged literacy for all citizens. Many arguments against changing things, interracial marriage, same sex marriage are all steeped in some form of religious and political tradition. Baseball has many rich traditions but how many famous plays, important games, hall of fame worthy moments are tied to a contribution with a pitcher at bat? Can you name one? I’m waiting. Sure it is cool when a pitcher comes up and jacks one out of the park, but how many of those hits decided a critical game, much less a post season game and I’m talking any type of a hit by a pitcher at bat, not just homers.

To underscore the point, during the history of the league championship series, only three pitchers have homered for the winning team at any point during the series and one of those was Mike Cuellar for the Orioles in 1970 before the AL brought the DH into existence. The other two, Don Gullett for the Reds in 1975 and Jeff Suppan for the Cardinals in 2006. How many world Series winners have had a pitcher go deep during any point of the series, not many. That list features only 8 names, Jim Bagby of the 1920 Indians, Jesse Haines with the 1926 Cardinals, Bucky Walters of the 1940 Reds, Bob Gibson with the 1967 Cardinals, Mickey Lolich with the 1968 Tigers, Dave McNally with the 1970 Orioles, Ken Holtzman of the 1974 Athletics and Joe Blanton with the 2008 Phillies. IN fact, no pitcher homered in any post season game from 1976 through 2005. The best baseball played is when the best pitchers face the best hitters with capable defensive players in the field, so why not have a universal DH?

Modern baseball is starting to evolve in a way that also would debunk the argument that says, the DH is not contributing to the team as a defensive player. Some teams now are using the DH as a way to rest another wise capable defensive player from time to time. So as more and more teams want to focus on having a versatile roster of players who have high defensive value, from time to time one of those players may need a day off from play in the field, but they would still be capable of swinging the bat for four or five turns during a particular game at DH. Finally, give me Edgar Martinez any day over Randy Johnson as a hitter, give me David Ortiz over Pedro Martinez and give me Jeff Bagwell in 2005 instead of any Astro pitcher during that World Series when the Astros were still an NL team. Oddly, had Houston been an AL team, Bagwell might have been able to continue as a hitter who would have been limited to DH only.

A universal DH brings about other potential implications for the good of the game. While this piece won’t be an extensive overview of potential realignment, another topic I have written about before, clearly having one unified Major League Baseball playing under unified rules makes for a more seamless transition from one division to another. When the Brewers went from the AL to the NL in 1998, they had a team that was built with a DH in mind and on the roster under contract, with only the 1997-98 offseason to adjust. When Houston needed to transition from NL to AL, the franchise had a year notice and could begin planning accordingly, even before the 2012-13 offseason arrived. Such a unified system would allow for more geographic realignment which would make it possible to create new divisions and organize franchises in ways that would in some ways remind fans of the reported but never considered radicle realignment detailed in media reports in August 1997.

IN closing, MLB needs to deal with this situation once and for all. You never saw the AFC playing under different rules from the NFC after the 1970 NFL merger. Baseball I have argued needs to settle on one common rule, DH or no DH for all teams. My vote clearly has evolved, as I now think given today’s game structure, the universal adoption of the DH is the only proper way to go. The only time we should ever see another pitcher at bat, is if the existing DH gets put into the field as a defensive player.

Be Careful What You Wish for Theo, Changing MLB Wild Card System?

This week I read where MLB is going to consider changes to the Wild card system if the clubs ask for it. Part of this is born out of the fact that the three best teams in the NL are all from the central division and thus, two of them will play a single elimination game to then decide which of them faces the division winner from ironically the central, while the weaker western and eastern winners who are likely the Mets and Dodgers respectably will face off in the other National League Division Series. This will insure that either the fourth or fifth best team in the NL in terms of winning percentage advances to the National League Championship Series. But before you react to all the howling from Chicago, Pittsburgh and St. Louis, the Cardinals or whoever wins that division have the biggest gripe because they will face a stronger team no matter who emerges from the Wild card game, but let’s look back at the many other examples of teams being shut out all together because they had the bad fortune of being in a strong division and the lucky ducks who won it all despite being weaker from soft divisions.

I went back and looked at the league standings using Baseball Reference which has a page that organizes the win/loss records by all of MLB, not just the division. In 1969, the top four records belonged to the four division winners, Baltimore, the Mets, Minnesota and Atlanta. Three other teams won 90 or more games and missed the postseason, the Cubs, giants and Tigers. That season produced the highest percentage of 90 game winning teams in the division era, 7 of 24. IN those days, a division heavy schedule was played with no interleague, so no complaining could arise. IN 1970, the Yankees had a better record than the Pirates, but with no interleague play, it was a moot point since the Twins and Orioles were both better, the Pirates had the second best mark in the NL behind the Dodgers and Pittsburgh was the first sub-90 win division champion with an 89-73 mark. In ’71, the Tigers were like the Yankees in that they were better than the NL Giants, but they were not as good as the Athletics or orioles in the AL. The Cardinals interestingly had the same record of 90-72 as the Giants, but because the Cardinals wanted to be in the East, they finished in second. Of course we cannot assume the Cardinals would have been better in the West, but we can always say what if. The Dodgers remember were just a game behind San Francisco win the season ended. It was the 1972 White Sox who were the first team to really feel left out in the cold, they were better than the Tigers by a game, but Detroit won a weaker Eastern division while the Sox were left staring up at the developing dynasty in Oakland.

The 1973 NL season was the first that would make you ask what could have been done to make things better. The Dodgers won 95 games and were second to Cincinnati in the West, the Giants won 88 in third, yet the Mets won just 82 games to win the NL East. Going into a Monday of makeup games after the regular season ended for most teams, a situation was possibly going to occur where a three-way tie took place in the NL East between the Mets, Pirates and Cardinals, who all could have tied for first at 81-81. When the Cardinals played game 162 on Sunday September 30, they came in at 80-81 and a loss would have won the NL East for the Mets had New York split a doubleheader in Chicago. Pittsburgh had to win on Sunday to go to 80-81 and if the Mets split or were swept at Chicago, it met a makeup game on Monday for the Pirates and two for the Mets. As fate would have it, the Cardinals did win 3-1 over the Phillies in St. Louis, the Pirates beat Montreal 10-2 in Pittsburgh and yes, the Mets only split that doubleheader in Chicago, winning 9-2 in the first game but losing 1-0 in the second. On Monday, October 1, the Mets and Cubs would play two in Chicago and if the Mets lost game one, the second game would be played. If they won then they had the NL East crown and the second game would be called off since it would have no impact on the final standings. Pittsburgh played a home game and lost to San Diego finishing 80-82, and the Mets would win that first game in Chicago to take the division at just 82-79. Had the Pirates won and the Cubs had swept those Monday games, a three-way tie of 81-81 clubs would have taken place. Those Mets would go to the World Series, the Giants and Dodgers who had left new York behind 16 years earlier despite better records could only watch at home.

It happened again in 1974 with the Reds and Braves sitting at home, Cincinnati won 98 and the Braves 88, while NL East winner Pittsburgh won just 88 and faced the 100 win Dodgers in the NLCS. IN 1976 a pair of second place NL teams had better marks than AL West winner Kansas City, but no interleague play and thus no reason for gripes from Dodger and Pirate fans that year.

The 1977 season was an expansion year and so the divisions were top heavy, especially in the American League which was home to the new Toronto and Seattle franchises. The top four teams in MLB all made the playoffs, the Yankees, Royals and Phillies all won over 100, the Dodgers won 98, while the 97-64 Red Sox and Orioles, 96-66 Pirates, 94-68 Rangers and 90-72 White Sox all watched at home. The ’77 season holds the record for most 90-win teams that missed the playoffs in the division era, with 9 of the 26 teams at that time winning 90 or more and another eight teams losing 90 or more, the Indians, Padres, Brewers, Mets, Athletics, mariners, Braves and Blue Jays, Toronto and Atlanta both were over 100 losses. Only two teams, both in the NL had exactly .500 records, the 81-81 Cubs and Astros. Three teams would win between 82 and 89, four would lose between 82 and 89.

The 1978 season would see eight teams win 90 or more, in the AL we all know what happened with the Yankees and Red Sox in that division playoff at Fenway. But did you remember that the Orioles and Brewers both won over 90 and Baltimore had a better record than the Royals, another 90 plus winner out of the west. The NL saw better records for the Reds who finished behind the Dodgers in the west than the Phillies who took the east. The Giants just missed the 90 win club with 89 victories. The 1978 season was interesting in that no team won between 80 and 83 games and another eight would lose 90 or more, Seattle and Toronto both losing over 100.

In 1979, the AL Brewers, Red Sox and Yankees all won 90 or more, all were behind the Orioles in the eastern division and all were better than the 88-74 Angels out west. The NL Expos were better than Cincinnati who won the west, its final official flag until 1990, but in the east Montreal was behind Pittsburgh.

The 1980 season was remembered for three great races. The Yankees would edge the Orioles in the AL East and Baltimore would miss the postseason even though the team was 100-62, Kansas City won the west in a romp with a 97-65 mark. The NL featured great finishes with Philly edging Montreal by 1 in the NL East, Houston beat the Dodgers in a playoff for the western flag and Cincinnati was not far behind.

I mentioned official flags for the 1979 and 1990 Reds, they should have also won one in 1981. But that was the season of baseball’s first massive strike and thus the rushed choice by MLB to split the season, giving those teams in the lead when the strike hit June 12 an entry to post season, so everyone started fresh with a chance to win what became a race over a eight week period from August 10 to October 4. The Reds were the best team by far, they were 66-42, playing exactly two thirds of the normal 162 game schedule. The Reds were on pace to win 99 games if you project the record to a full season minus the strike, but the Reds were not the best team in either of the two halves, those titles instead went to the Dodgers and Astros, who were second and third in their division overall, and fourth and eighth overall in MLB for that season. The same thing happened to the NL East Cardinals, who had the third best record overall in MLB in ’81, but the split portions went to the Expos and Phillies, teams who were second and third in the NL East and who were seventh and ninth in MLB. IN the AL, the Athletics had the best mark in the AL West and second overall in MLB for the entire season, but with the split, it gave them a matchup with a Royals team that overall finished in fourth in the division and 17th in all of MLB with a combined 50-53 record. IN the AL East, Milwaukee had the best overall mark and the Brewers did win one of the split portions, the other went to the Yankees. The Bombers would go to the World Series that year, despite having a mark overall that was third in the AL East and tenth in MLB at 59-48 behind the Orioles who were second. In the AL in 1981, it would have been Athletics vs Brewers if the split had not taken place, Reds vs Cardinals in the NL and we would never have had the story of Montreal’s blue Monday.

In ’82, Milwaukee edged Baltimore by a game in the AL East, the Angels two games worse than Baltimore would win the west by three over KC. The Cardinals edged the Phillies by three in the NL East, Philadelphia had the same mark as the 89-73 Braves who took the western flag by a game over the Dodgers.

IN 1983, the AL would see a repeat of 1980, the White Sox romping this time in the West, while Baltimore got justice and took the east, the Tigers and Yankees would both win over 90 and stay home, though most teams in the AL East had winning marks that year. The Dodgers and Phillies had the best two records in the NL, as did the white Sox and Orioles in the AL.

In 1984, the Royals took the AL West winning just 84 games, the Orioles, Red Sox, Yankees and blue jays were all better back east, all were way behind the 104-58 Tigers. The Cubs and Padres had the best two records in the NL. A year later in 1985, the mashing of teeth would come from New York, the Mets were better than the Dodgers by three games but the 98-64 Mets were behind the Cardinals in the NL East, the Dodgers took the west easily outlasting Cincinnati by 5.5 games. Meantime, the Yankees at 97-64 finished 1.5 behind Toronto but easily had a better record than the royals at 91-71, the eventual World Series winners, just don’t remind Cardinal fans about it.

The ’86 season is remembered for one of the best postseason events of all time, even though the regular season was really not all that dramatic, the entire postseason field was locked up with a full week left on the baseball calendar, Boston locked up the AL East on September 28, the season did not end until October 5, while the Astros, Angels and Mets had clinched previously. It would be 1987 that again would bring us some odd divisional results in both leagues. IN the AL, Detroit won the eastern title at 98-64, Toronto 96-66, Milwaukee 91-71 and the Yankees 89-73 all were better than the 85-77 Twins who got in winning the west and that Minnesota team would go on to a championship, despite the ninth best overall record in MLB and the fifth best in the 14 team AL. Over in the NL, the Cardinals took the eastern flag at 95-67, while the 92-70 Mets and 91-71 Expos sat at home, the 90-72 Giants got in winning the west.

Ironically the twins would then be bumped out in 1988, they were 91-71 and better than the 89-73 Red Sox who won the east, but Oakland was great again winning 104 and leaving Minnesota in the dust, even though the Twins were six games better than the 1987 World Series titlist. It happened to two teams in the 1989 AL West, Oakland won 99 to take the flag, but Kansas City with 92 and the Angels 91 victories both were better than the 89 by Toronto in the east, while in 1990 the White Sox at 94-68 were better than the 88-74 Red Sox. Again Oakland ran away in the west in 1990 going 103-59 to face Boston in the ALCS.

The 1991 World Series is probably the best ever played and nothing cheap happened to allow the Twins and Braves to get there. Minnesota had the best record in the AL followed by Toronto, Atlanta was only bested by Pittsburgh overall in the NL. In 1992, the best four teams again went to the post season, the Brewers, Reds and Twins all won 90 or more that season and went home as second place teams.

The 1993 season though will be remembered as the one that produced the best team to not go to a post season game in the division era. The 1980 Orioles won 100, the 1981 Reds played at a 99 win pace, but no one will ever forget those 1993 San Francisco Giants, a team that was all but moved to St. Petersburg, Florida. The Giants raced out to a commanding lead, but ’93 was an expansion year and so the divisions had a top heavy feel, particularly in the western division of the NL which was home to the newly formed Rockies and the Padres which went through a fire sale. The Braves would win 104 and take the division on the final day of the season, the Giants had a chance to tie Atlanta but got blown out at Los Angeles and sat at home with a 103-59 mark. The Phillies would win the NL East with just 97 victories edging Montreal by three. The White Sox and Blue Jays were the best two teams in the AL that year. Interesting to note, MLB had already announce the new three division alignment for 1994 and the balanced schedule used in 1993 would continue that next season. Had the 1994 division alignment been used in 1993, the great race would have been in the NL East, where the Braves at 104-58 would have pulled away from the Phillies and Expos who were then seven and ten behind the Braves. The Giants would have won the NL West by 22 over the Dodgers and the Padres and Rockies would have both been eliminated before September 1. The interesting race would have been in the NL Central, that title would have gone to the 87-75 Cardinals who would have edged Houston by two games. The Phillies would have been the wild card and if we had a second wild card like we now have in 2015, a 94-68 Montreal team would have played those Phillies, the winner to get the 104-58 Braves while the 103-59 Giants would have taken on the 87-75 Cardinals. IN the AL, the white Sox would have won the new central division, Toronto the east, while the west would have gone to the 86-76 Rangers. The Yankees at 88-74 would have been the wild card and if we went to a second one, it would have resulted in an additional playoff to break a tie between Baltimore and Detroit. The wild card winner would have then faced Toronto while the White sox and Rangers did battle.

What happened in 1994 does not matter ultimately since the strike canceled the World Series, but imagine if the Rangers had kept playing at the pace they were, they were the best team in a division with a record of 10 games under .500 and the 21st out of 28 teams in terms of overall winning percentage. If that pace would have continued, much better teams like the White sox, Orioles, and royals would have faced a possible Wild card entry against a team that got in with a horrendous division record. We almost saw that play out remember in 1973 and it nearly happened again in 1997, 2005 and 2008.

IN 1995 and 1996, nothing unusual would take place. IN ’95, the Astros would have played the Rockies, something that almost happened if not for a Rockies win the final day of that season, the playoff for that wild card would have been in Denver. Also, the loser of that divisional playoff between the mariners and Angels would have then played the Yankees in another elimination game, while the winner would have faced Boston, Cleveland awaiting the wild card winner in 1995 using today’s rules. IN ’96 if a second wild card would have existed, the Expos would have won as many as the central division Cardinals and a possible three-way tie for the second slot would have taken place in the AL to end the season. The Mariners would have had to make up a game and if they had lost it, a three-way tie for that second Wild card would have been created with the White Sox and Red Sox.

In 1997, the Mets and Dodgers both were 88-74, both would have been tied for the second wild card berth if it had existed, both better than an 84-78 Astros team that took the central title. In ’98, the only thing of note is that Boston had a better record than the AL division champs in Texas and Cleveland. Texas would have been tied with 88 victories with Toronto, a Blue jays team that would have been the second wild card if it had existed and thus Boston and Toronto would have played in that game for the right to then face the 114-48 Yankees, while Texas played Cleveland under today’s rules.

The NL in that same season actually had a tie and a playoff between the cubs and Giants, the winner got the NL’s best team in Atlanta, while the Mets just missed joining that party, a win the final Sunday would have created a three-way tie that would have needed to be broken under either the 1998 or modern Wild card systems.

IN 1999, the top teams all made it to post season, and we had another tie break in the NL between Cincinnati and the Mets. IN the AL, the second Wild card if it existed would have gone to Oakland.

In 2000, the Yankees at just 87-74 took the east, Cleveland was 90-72 and missed the post season, if the second wild card existed, the Indians would have faced Seattle and then that winner would have taken on the White Sox, while New York and Oakland, the series that was actually played in 2000 would have opened the ALDS.

If not for the Wild card in 2001, Oakland at 102-60 would have missed the playoffs. This great team though instead of facing the Yankees to open the playoffs would have had to play the 85-77 Twins under today’s rules and then get the 116-46 mariners if they had advanced, while the Yankees would have faced Cleveland. IN the NL, St. Louis would have had a playoff with Houston to decide the central and then that loser would have hosted San Francisco under today’s rules. That winner would have played who ever won the central that year and Atlanta and Arizona would have met in the NLDS.

In 2002, 11 teams won 90 or more, a higher mark than the 9 in 1977, but a lower percentage as 9 of 26 is still more than 11 of 30. In 2002, The Yankees had the best AL record and they would have faced the winner of a playoff between the Angels and either the Mariners or Red Sox, a tie existed if we had a second wild card. Oakland would have played Minnesota which was actually the case that year. IN the NL, the Braves would have faced the winner of a Giants and dodgers wild card game, while the Diamondbacks played the Cardinals as was the case that year.

The 2003 season would have presented an interesting change. Under today’s rules, the Yankees would have faced the winner of a Boston and Seattle wild card game, both teams were better than the Minnesota team Oakland would have faced in the AL playoffs. IN the NL, the Braves would have played the winner of a marlins and Astros Wild card, while the Giants would have faced the Cubs.

In 2004, Boston would have hosted Oakland and Houston would have hosted the Giants if the modern Wild card playoffs existed. The AL winner would have played the Yankees in the ALDS while weaker teams in the Angels and Twins would have faced one another. IN the NL, the Houston and San Francisco winner would have gone to Atlanta which was the case for the ’04 Astros, while the Dodgers went to St. Louis.

The 2005 season presented another weak division winner. The 82-80 Padres won the NL West that year. The Phillies 88 and the Marlins and Mets both at 83 wins were better than San Diego. Had a second wild card been around, the Phillies and Astros would have played to see who took on the Cardinals who won over 100 games, while the Braves at just 90-72 would have faced that San Diego team. IN the AL, the Red Sox and Yankees would have played off the AL East and the loser would have hosted Cleveland in the Wild card game. That winner would have then played the White Sox, while whoever won the East would have matched up with the Angels.

IN 2006, the Yankees at 97-65 and Mets with the same record had the best marks in all MLB. The Yankees faced the 95-67 Tigers that post season and lost. Under today’s rule, the Yankees would have played Detroit or the White Sox, Chicago would have been the second Wild card if it was around and that sox team was 90-72. The Twins and Athletics who won 96 and 93 respectably would be the other matchup in either playoff format. IN the NL, the Mets were clearly the best team and they would have played the winner of a Phillies vs either padres or Dodgers wild card. Los Angeles and San Diego tied at 88-74 to win the West. The western division winner would have played a an even weaker Cardinals team at just 83-78 from the NL Central, the team that ultimately won the 2006 World Series.

The 2007 season in the NL was one of the great finishes. With three days left, a possible five-way tie existed for the NL East, West and wild card positions between the Mets, Phillies, Rockies, Padres and Diamondbacks. When all was said and done, the Diamondbacks got the weakest team in post season, the 85-77 Cubs. Under today’s rule, Arizona would have played the winner of that great game between the Rockies and Padres, while the Cubs would have faced Philadelphia. IN the AL, the Yankees would have hosted Seattle to settle a Wild card, then the winner would have played Boston, while Cleveland would face the Angels. The Indians and Red sox both had 96-66 records, best in the AL, but Boston won the season series 5-2 and thus claimed the top spot.

The 2008 post season was memorable for many reasons. If we had a second Wild card, it would have produced another memory, because Boston would have hosted the Yankees. The winner of that would have then opened at the Angels, while the Rays would have awaited the winner between the Twins and white Sox as was actually the case in 2008 when those two had a playoff for the central division. IN the NL, the Mets would have lived one more day and played at Milwaukee in a Wild card game, the winner of that would have then played at the Cubs, while the Phillies would have played a weak 84-78 Dodger team from the west, a team that was not as good as the Astros at 86-75, Cardinals 86-76 or marlins 84-77.

IN 2009, the Yankees had the best record in the AL, they would have been rewarded by playing Boston under today’s rules, Boston won 95 and was much stronger than the Twins and Tigers who had to go to a playoff game to decide the Central. Boston would have first had to win a wild card game against the 87-75 Rangers who would have taken the second spot a game ahead of the Tigers and Twins, who thus had to play the second consecutive one-game playoff to decide the central division winner. The Angels would have had the fortune of facing Minnesota under that system. IN the NL, the 92 win Rockies would have played the 88 win Giants in the Wild card, the winner to then get the 95 win Dodgers from the same division that season, while the Phillies with 93 wins would have faced a 91 win Cardinals team.

IN 2010, the AL East would have produced what we have this season in the NL Central. Tampa with 96 victories took the division, the Yankees with 95 would have faced Boston with 89 in the Wild card, yes Theo, your Red Sox would have benefited from the new rules two years in a row, more about 2011 in a minute. The Twins who won 94 and the Rangers with 90 would have played in the other series. Over in the NL, the top teams all were the division winners, the Phillies at 97, Giants 92 and Reds 91. The Wild card would have featured the 91 win Braves hosting the 90 win Padres, the winner going to Philadelphia while the Reds opened against the Giants.

Then there is 2011, which for all purposes had its own version of one game playoffs the final day of the season. We all remember the epic fall suffered by the Red Sox and Braves, which allowed the Cardinals and Rays to get into the post season and lead to a Cardinal championship. Now under today’s rules that great finish would not have taken place, but the Rays and Red Sox and or the Braves and Cardinals could have had memorable games that match some of the other one-game playoffs in history such as the Yankees and Red Sox in ’78, the Rockies and Padres in ’07, the White Sox and Twins in ’08, the Tigers and Twins in ’09, or the Royals and Athletics in ’14. The winner in 2011 of Boston and Tampa would have faced the Yankees who won 97 games, while the Rangers and Tigers who won 96 and 95 respectably would have opened with one another. IN the NL, the Phillies would have opened against the Cardinals or Braves, they did face St. Louis that season, while Milwaukee and Arizona would be the other contest.

Since 2012, we have had the two Wild card system. IN 2012, the Tigers won the division with just 88 wins in the central, the Rays and Angels were both better and missed the playoffs even with the second slot available as a Wild card entry. IN 2013, 11 90 win teams existed tying the record from 2002, though again in terms of percentage, that still falls short of 1977 and 1969. Pittsburgh won 94 that season and settled for the Wild card, better than the Dodgers with 92 in the west. Pittsburgh faced a 90 win Cincinnati team and the Cardinals who won 97 faced those Pirates, while the 96 win Braves faced the slightly weaker Dodgers in the other series. The 2013 NL results are a foreshadow of what we are seeing now in 2015, the numbers are just more extreme in terms of the likely win totals for the five teams involved. IN 2014, the top 10 teams in MLB and in deed the top 5 in each league perfectly aligned themselves, the top teams were all division winners followed by the four Wild cards.

IN 2015, it would appear that the top 10 in MLB and the top five in each league will again qualify, it is just the unbalance where by the best three teams are all from the same division, so two of them will be Wild card entries. But hey if it were not for that wild card Theo, your Cubs would very much be on the outside with two weeks to go. Just look at the final standings in 2002 where the Red Sox would have had a chance for something facing the mariners in a second wild card tie breaking game. Look at the AL East standings from 1977 through 1980 and again in 1987, the teams who would have been happy to just have a Wild card to play for were many. Those Red Sox in 2011 would have given anything to play another day against those Rays on September 29, this current system would have done just that.

Bottom line, nothing is perfect, but at least we know that these great teams on paper have their opportunity to play their way toward the ultimate prize, a World Series championship. We all know what the real solution is though baseball would probably never do this, which means getting rid of divisions all together and either sending the top five from each league or the top ten from MLB into a post season tournament. If the leagues remained, the fourth and fifth teams would have a playoff game, the winner to face the team that finished first while second and third did battle. If going with no leagues and just looking at all of MLB, then the seventh and tenth teams would have a playoff and the eighth and ninth teams would do likewise. The weaker of those remaining teams would face the team finishing first, the stronger of the teams would play the team finishing second. The remaining two series would feature third and sixth place teams in one, fourth and fifth place in the other opening series.

Personally, I love the wild card, even if a weaker division winner gets in, it still rewards winning the division. My solution to that, a balanced schedule where everyone plays everyone, 14 games against each team in the division, six against each team in the rest of your own league, four interleague games against one team and three against each of the remaining 14 teams from the opposite league. Cut the schedule to 154 games, simply reduce the number of divisional games to 12 per opposition, or 13 for a 158 game schedule.

Theo, be careful what you wish for, because you are at least able to have your club in position to play for something that you would have gladly accepted with those 2010 and 2011 Red Sox. IF baseball realigns someday say to 32 teams and 8 divisions, that second wild card could again be taken away and the weakest division winner would be forced to play the lone wild card in that playoff elimination game.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.