NYFS ny mets message boards
http://www.nyfuturestars.com/community/

Expansion could trigger realignment
http://www.nyfuturestars.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44736
Page 2 of 3

Author:  Steve The Original [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

TomInNC wrote:
Let me go on record as stating that I hate this. I hate removing the AL/NL. I hate the DH, I don't like interleague either. Hate the juiced ball.

Might be time for a 90s style hiatus from the game.


It could be worse by the time you decide to come back! :lol:

Author:  TomInNC [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

It would take a promising young Mets team. I'm not holding my breath

Author:  Steve The Original [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

TomInNC wrote:
It would take a promising young Mets team. I'm not holding my breath


If Smith and Rosario pan out and you can keep Noah and Jake and Conforto healthy, they're a promising young team

Author:  TomInNC [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

Lot of IFs there. And 5 guys, IF they work out and are healthy still leaves you with a lot of spots to fill.

Author:  northway [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

TomInNC wrote:
Charlotte is not ready to be an expansion team. If needed I can go through my whole thing I post on Baseball Fever every time this is brought up.


Yeah, and Portland probably isn't either. Moreover, we already have two teams that do a piss poor job of drawing fans, despite being fairly well run, in Oakland and Tampa. Why are we adding more teams to the mix? Particularly in Montreal, where the stadium will have to be privately financed, the private sector is pretty weak, and people may not actually give a crap?

Author:  jdawginsc [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

Expansion should be spelled "contraction"...Tampa, Oakland, Miami all below 20,000 per game...Interestingly, the Cubs were the biggest draw away.

Not sure why Seattle would allow Portland so that both would draw poorly.

Montreal. Been there, done that. Toronto does not equal Montreal...Better to build in the Dominican Republic...

Author:  northway [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

jdawginsc wrote:
Expansion should be spelled "contraction"...Tampa, Oakland, Miami all below 20,000 per game...Interestingly, the Cubs were the biggest draw away.

Not sure why Seattle would allow Portland so that both would draw poorly.

Montreal. Been there, done that. Toronto does not equal Montreal...Better to build in the Dominican Republic...


Portland and Seattle are far enough away from one another (3.5 hours) that I doubt it would affect the draw that much, particularly given how quickly Portland is growing. That's like saying the Phillies and Pirates compete for the same fans.

In fairness to Montreal, it is a very large city and is arguably underserved by sports teams, particularly in the summer when the city is at its most lively. They've got the Habs and the Alouettes, which means they're definitely punching below their weight. I'm highly skeptical, having lived there while the Expos were on their way out, but they could theoretically draw. I just don't see the value in adding teams when you're already dealing with the sick men of Florida and the Bay.

If you want a team in Portland, move the A's there. It makes perfect sense. Half the people moving there are from the Bay Area anyway, and the A's have an identity that can totally play into the city's hipster ethos. If you want a team in Montreal, move the Rays there and you don't even have to change the name - people will just be happy to see the sun.

What value is there in adding teams and (shudder) abolishing the leagues.

Author:  dragonfly [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

http://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Keep in mind those are sold ticket numbers and don't factor in all the no-shows every night.

Attendance is not very good in baseball. It seems like the Mets play to half empty stadiums at home and on the road for the majority of season.

MLB needs to be contracting, not expanding.

Author:  AllWrightNow [ Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

LTKfRGM wrote:
The problem with 8 divisions is that it messes up the wildcard.

Football has 8 divisions and they give a bi-week to the top two teams, and work the wildcard in that way, but I can't see baseball doing that. That would be too strange.

4 divisions or 6 divisions, they can work in the wildcard. 8 divisions it gets clunky.


Well you could always have a WC play the worst division winner, as a bit of a safeguard against giving a 80-win team an automatic playoff berth for winning a bad division. But calling it the wild card game would be a misnomer, then it'd be a play-in game.

dragonfly wrote:
http://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Keep in mind those are sold ticket numbers and don't factor in all the no-shows every night.

Attendance is not very good in baseball. It seems like the Mets play to half empty stadiums at home and on the road for the majority of season.

MLB needs to be contracting, not expanding.


I'm not saying you're wrong but when's the last time a major sports league actually contracted a team? I can't even think of the last time that happened, I know it was threatened with the Expos but obviously didn't happen then. The NFL you probably have to go back to the '50's. The NHL maybe the '70's when there were some sketchy markets and the WHA was involved?

Between ensuring union-paid jobs/revenue leagues just find other markets to move to and prop up bad situations like the two Florida teams, contraction is so far beyond a last resort it's not realistic.

Author:  Hilltop [ Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

TomInNC wrote:
Let me go on record as stating that I hate this. I hate removing the AL/NL. I hate the DH, I don't like interleague either. Hate the juiced ball.

Might be time for a 90s style hiatus from the game.


Outside of the hiatus, I am in complete agreement.

Author:  Hilltop [ Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

AllWrightNow wrote:
LTKfRGM wrote:
The problem with 8 divisions is that it messes up the wildcard.

Football has 8 divisions and they give a bi-week to the top two teams, and work the wildcard in that way, but I can't see baseball doing that. That would be too strange.

4 divisions or 6 divisions, they can work in the wildcard. 8 divisions it gets clunky.


Well you could always have a WC play the worst division winner, as a bit of a safeguard against giving a 80-win team an automatic playoff berth for winning a bad division. But calling it the wild card game would be a misnomer, then it'd be a play-in game.

dragonfly wrote:
http://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Keep in mind those are sold ticket numbers and don't factor in all the no-shows every night.

Attendance is not very good in baseball. It seems like the Mets play to half empty stadiums at home and on the road for the majority of season.

MLB needs to be contracting, not expanding.


I'm not saying you're wrong but when's the last time a major sports league actually contracted a team? I can't even think of the last time that happened, I know it was threatened with the Expos but obviously didn't happen then. The NFL you probably have to go back to the '50's. The NHL maybe the '70's when there were some sketchy markets and the WHA was involved?

Between ensuring union-paid jobs/revenue leagues just find other markets to move to and prop up bad situations like the two Florida teams, contraction is so far beyond a last resort it's not realistic.


I could also see contraction as damaging the league brand as well.

Author:  stevereiff [ Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Expansion could trigger realignment

While I enjoy the idea of 32 teams and a major realignment. This would be a minimum 3-5 years away.

Time is needed to sort out the expansion, new owner, & stadium details. While the schedule change and playoff changes would require a major adaptation to the recently signed CBA.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/