After reading Richard Griffin, do you think JP looks at the Man in the Mirror and asks him to change his ways?

Far be it from to disagree with the King of Pop, but I hope not.

I have a bet with Thomas that the Yankees will now go out and find a new closer because Mariano blew two in a row. The winner gets a large Coke in a commemorative 3-D Roy Halladay cup (approximate value: $6).

The Star's registration system doesn't seem to be mandatory yet. I just skip right over it without signing in.

Noticed that both Rivera and Vasquez throwing around 90 last night. That's got to be about 5mph lower than Rivera's normal velocity. Something's not right with him. I also thought that Vasquez threw harder than that.

Can the person who stole the Blue Jays' plate discipline please return it!

That'll be a new milestone for me: The day I'm older than any Blue Jay.

I started to feel old when I noticed Jays players with 1980s birthdays.

Just wait 'til you're older than any active player.

That Selig guy is smart and well informed about daily local and world events.

Just wait 'til you're older than any active player.

Hmmm, maybe I should start a campaign for the Jays to acquire Julio Franco...

That'll be a new milestone for me: The day I'm older than any Blue Jay.

At 31, that day may well be close for yours truly.

Wilner was on RSN again this morning talking about the Cards and the Braves. How early do you have to get up for that gig Mike?

This has probably been covered before in another thread, but I should add that you're a wee bit older than you sound...

[ducking...]

So I'm sniffing out some highlights on SportsNet this morning, and I see this new talking head discussing baseball. I grimace in anticipation only to discover that this guy is making sense. It turns out to be Mike Wilner (not sure why I didn't recognize the voice). How long has he been getting face time? Nice to see his role at the corp develop. A little Wilner-Faulds switcheroo would be the ultimate next step.

"A little Wilner-Faulds switcheroo would be the ultimate next step."

I just got a mental image of Faulds doing "Wednesdays with J.P."

I just got a mental image of Faulds doing "Wednesdays with J.P."

Fer chrissakes Faulds, quit asking me what I think about that.

I just got a mental image of Faulds doing "Wednesdays with J.P."

J.P. : We're going to take a look at the budget in the off season and see what we can...

Faulds (interrupting; yelling): What do you think about that!

Great minds think alike.

Competitive balance is all fine and well, but not when it results in bland, disposable McChampions. Professional sports needs its juggernauts to serve as an underpinning

Ive been thinking about this over the last week and I would agree. Some competitive balance is obviously required but generally speaking people like to have a favorite to cheer for or against. I happen to enjoy Dynasties and I think they're good for sports, I think people like to be able to point to one team in a league and say 'This is the team to beat, they are the best'. Some of the drama is lost when it's a competition between equals every single day and you never know who's going to win from year to year. Having a favorite means also having an underdog, and those kinds of matchups create great storylines.

Television ratings for golf were never higher than when Tiger Woods was winning every tournament he played in, same for basketball when the Bulls were winning championships I believe. And everyone seems to have a strong opinion of teams like the Yankees and the Cowboys, you either love'em or hate'em there's very little middle ground. Anyway just my opinion, but I feel there is such a thing as too much competitive balance in sports. If all the teams are equally good then how do you know who to cheer against?

Television ratings for golf were never higher than when Tiger Woods was winning every tournament he played in, same for basketball when the Bulls were winning championships I believe.

Same goes for Ken Jennings, the guy who's won 38 games in a row on Jeopardy. Sony's only regret is that this happened in the summer when ratings are traditionally lower.

Competitive balance is all fine and well, but not when it results in bland, disposable McChampions. Professional sports needs its juggernauts to serve as an underpinning, and the Yankees do that better than any team in sports.

I think there's a difference, though, between a dynasty created by skill and one created by money. Yes, the Yankees have generally spent their money wisely (though perhaps getting less wise as the years go by), but one look at the Yankees' payroll just leaves me totally discouraged. It utterly dwarfs everybody else in MLB, and they're talking about adding Randy Johnson.

I tend to be pretty optimistic about the Jays, and I'm really not a "the sky is falling!" kinda guy. But can you blame the average fan in Toronto for wondering "what's the point"?

I know there has to be a flipside to "the Yankees have to spend less money" - teams can't just run about trying to be as cheap as possible. But while the Yankees may be good for baseball itself, are they a good thing for most baseball teams?

On the other hand, if dynasties carry on too long (e.g. the Yankees 20-64), attendance suffers. There's nothing wrong with an evil empire, provided the good guys win once in a while.

A small announcement of interest to all Diamond Mind Baseball enthusiasts out there...

The Long Ball Baseball League is seeking a new owner to take over an existing team, beginning immediately. The LBBL is a 24-team league that plays a full season each year using the current year's Season Disk (i.e. right now we're halfway through playing the 2003 season). The league is quite competitive and the time requirement is not large - an hour per week to set manager profiles or play home games (we play two series per week) and a small chunk of time in the winter during our annual draft. LBBL is a keeper league and the constitution is available on request. This is our seventh year of operation (I believe).

The LBBL plays with version 9 and all owners must be registered owners of Version 9 and the current season disk.

As the Interim Co-Commissioner, I am accepting applications (and anyone who wants a team but doesn't get first in line can be placed on a waiting list... normally two or three teams turn over every year). E-mail me at cburley@hardballtimes.com to get in on the action.

Both DMB beginners and experienced DMB players are welcome.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
I tend to go back and forth on the issue of competitive balance in baseball. In general I don't think it's a problem... unless you happen to be Tampa Bay, Baltimore, or Toronto. Then I'm not as sure. I still mostly believe that it's not a huge problem for those teams, but I'm not 100% convinced of that. Tampa, Baltimore and Toronto have all had some pretty poor management since the Yankees started their current run, and are just slowly starting to improve, so I think it's too early to make any judgements.

This topic came up on primer last week, and it was pointed out that the Yankees are consistently one of the highest, if not the highest, road draw. Which seems to support the contention that people like to see their team beat the Yankees. However, it was also pointed out that since the current Yankee run started the National League has outdrawn the American League.

In the 1970s there were plenty of dynasties - more than we have now. It's just that, in addition to New York and Los Angeles, there were perennial contenders in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Philadelphia, Kansas City and Baltimore. There was no tendency for the biggest cities to produce "dynasties" - there was a good mix of smaller markets.

While this is still basically true in 5 of the 6 divisions, it is certainly not true in the AL East. And the reason for that is that there is a team that spends 3.5 to 4 times what the average major league team does on player salaries.

This is probably the first time since the establishment of the AL-NL major league system that one team outspends the average team by such a large multiple.

It's true that the Yankees are a huge draw on the road - the A's of the late '80s were as well. Any team that wins a bunch of championships will draw very well on the road. The problem is that no one wants to see the bottom feeder teams which exist because there are dominant teams.

My basic point about competetive balance is that intelligence and hard work should account for as large a percentage of success as possible, and market size advantage for as little as possible. That, ladies and gentleman, is my idea of fair competition.

I thought the Jays weren't getting any calls last night, especially near the end of the game. Menechino's "strikeout" did it for me, that umpire got some mean verbal abuse from down the QEW. Don't laugh, I'm sure he heard me.

My basic point about competetive balance is that intelligence and hard work should account for as large a percentage of success as possible, and market size advantage for as little as possible. That, ladies and gentleman, is my idea of fair competition.

Exactly.

I always like to use the Monoploy (the board game) example. Is it a fair game if one person starts with $2500, one with $1500 and one with $1000?

Sure the team with $1000 may win once in awhile, but is it a fair starting point?

Not only does one guy start out with $2500 to the other guy's $1000, but the first guy collects $600 every time he passes GO to the second guy's $200. That's where the real edge derives from.

take with a pound of salt since its from the ny post
but here's a new rumor

With Jason Giambi undergoing testing to determine whether he'll have to take the rest of the year off, the Yankees may grab a first baseman before Saturday's trade deadline. Two possibilities are former Yankee Tino Martinez or the Blue Jays' Carlos Delgado.
-- New York Post (7/27)

not sure what the yanks could offer that the blue jays could afford
besdie the fact the yanks need starting pitching more than giambi's bat

The unrealistic solution remains to put another team in the NYC area. This would at least help offset some of the advantage the Yankees have. The team is not responsible for mistakes that would cripple any other organization. After a while, it just stops being fun. Nothing that happens hruts the Yankees. The Giambi and Jeter contracts should cripple the organization, but they'll just spend to compensate for the declining productivity and increasing costs of these players. But I'm biased because I live in NYC and have to listen to Yankee fans brag about how great their team is. They're rooting for gravity; after a while, it has to stop being fun for them too. Its like playing video game baseball and winning every game 20-0 with a team of all-stars....

Ah, the good old New York Post -- when there's no trade news, invent some. The Yankees have a better chance of acquiring me to play first base than Delgado -- they can't even offer the D-Backs anything for Johnson. We're finally seeing the limits of what George's money can buy.

That's how I feel too dp. Over the course of 162 games the Yanks will always be near the top. Sure you can cloud the issue and point out WS loses etc. but the fact is they were still in the playoffs or the series. How many games are the Jays back? The had a good year last year and still end up something like 16 games back. Undoubtedly I'm speaking from an AL East perspective but I think this unbalance is the main reason the Jays are losing fan support.

I don't think Carlos would ever waive his no-trade to go to New York, especially after the treatment he got from the NY media over his silent protest.

I don't think there are any Jays going anywhere by the deadline now.

My basic point about competetive balance is that intelligence and hard work should account for as large a percentage of success as possible, and market size advantage for as little as possible.

I disagree completely. I'm not interested in GM-ball; by and large, it bores me.

I'd rather a team's success be based more on how much its fans care about it winning. That is, for better or for worse, measured by its revenue.

I realize that this view is heretical. Nevertheless, I think it is a much more just system for the fans than the opposite.

Not only does one guy start out with $2500 to the other guy's $1000, but the first guy collects $600 every time he passes GO to the second guy's $200. That's where the real edge derives from.

The real edge derives from the fact that there are millions more Yankees fans than fans of any other team. You might think that's unimportant; I don't.

not sure what the yanks could offer that the blue jays could afford

Or that they would want. Do they have a farm system of any kind left in New York? Maybe they'll give us Jeter and pay his salary for the next decade since they already have another shortstop.

There's also the idea that there are other forms of capital other than financial, such as human capital. While the Monopoly example posted seems clearly unfair, what about two players in the game, but one of them is your mentally retarded next door neighbour. Is that a fair fight?

If it isn't a fair fight, then shouldn't MLB take a more active role in removing team administrations that have shown themselves to be clerarly incompetent?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040727/MAE27/TPSports/Other
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this story yet (COMN). Not confirmed, but where there's smoke...

Funny thing with competitive balance. Pre-94 the tools for balancing out revenues was minimal (national TV money, a percent of the gate on the road). In the years from '76 to '93 there were only two repeat champions (Yankees 77/78, Jays 92/93) and virtually everyone made the playoffs at some point, even the Expos!

Since the big strike and revenue sharing was brought in, from 95 to 03 (smaller time frame), we had the Yankees win 4 in a row and the AL East become a very easy to predict division (Yanks, Sox, Jays, Orioles, Rays every year since it became what it is today (98). Goes to show that efforts to create competitive balance rarely do what they are supposed to.

IMO there are two solutions to create 'competitive balance'.

1. Follow basketball and hockey and put nearly everyone into the playoffs
   
2. Hard salary cap, thus making 'the evil empire' owners richer than anyone can conceive (picture GS getting to keep the $100 million he'd be over a cap rather than spending it)

To me it is better to leave it an open market and let the teams play. If you have a major league team in a small market (ala Milwaukee) be thankful you have a team and enjoy the rare success you'll get. Works nicely for the US college system, even though they have the ultimate cap ($0).

http://www.cherylandjohn.info
Btw, I also am now older than any active Jay (born in '69). Dang. Guess it beats the alternative.

But the reason the Yankees take in more money than Royals isn't because their fans care more, it's because a larger city affords more fans.

The only real city that clearly "loves its team" way above and beyond the call of duty is St. Louis.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this story yet (COMN). Not confirmed, but where there's smoke...

I'm missing something. What's the "smoke"?

As for Hazel Mae leaving, good for her. I can't imagine where RSN is going to be able to scare up another attractive talking head that adds nothing to anyone's insight on sports.

Rob - what's the gist of that story you linked to? I can't see to register with the G&M since I apparently have an old registration with them.

John Northey:To me it is better to leave it an open market and let the teams play.

to bad the open market doesnt exist in baseball. The owners are a cartell which vote on their own comish and share revenue. there are no rules that crappy teams need to put any of the shared revenue back into their team. (which was the case with the brewers till this year when they got lucky with their prospects).

I know Joe Morgan rants about the anti-trust exemption baseball has but I dont see the merit in competing leagues since that would drain the overall product with major league baseball probably eating up any new leagues

slate had an interesting article on how english football is more of an open market than the american baseball http://www.slate.com/id/2103170
It would be hard to implement in north america given the distance between cities but it would allow for teams with better administration (both baseball and financial).

Hard salary cap, thus making 'the evil empire' owners richer than anyone can conceive (picture GS getting to keep the $100 million he'd be over a cap rather than spending it)

Indeed. This is why I like the soft cap with luxury tax system better than a hard cap. All a hard cap does is make GM's the MVPs of the league, make injuries play an even bigger role, and make large market owners filthy filthy rich. I would support increasing the luxury tax to a much stiffer penalty and wouldnt be against lowering the ceiling, but not a hard cap. I also wouldnt be against allowing a couple more teams into the playoffs, not an insane number of course, but even one additional team per league would help clear up the competitive imbalance suffered by the Jays, Rays, and Orioles.

Rob - what's the gist of that story you linked to?

It's not that important. "Sources" say Hazel Mae is leaving RSN. Since we were just talking about her a few days ago, I thought I'd point it out. It was my poor attempt at being witty to make people think there was some major news. :)
(You can sign in to the Globe using bselig as both name and password, by the way.)

I can't imagine where RSN is going to be able to scare up another attractive talking head that adds nothing to anyone's insight on sports.

Chuck seems to have a different view of Hazel Mae than I do, but I'll just leave it at that. He has his opinion and I have mine.

http://www.nypennleague.com/news/?cat=1&id=636
The real edge derives from the fact that there are millions more Yankees fans than fans of any other team. You might think that's unimportant; I don't.

I'm not sure what your point is. The Brooklyn Cyclones (New York-Penn League, short-season A ball) draw 8000+ per game (COMN- early 2004 figures, but consistent with last year). Does that mean their fans are "better" than Oneonta's or Batavia's (just over 1000), or that they do a really great job marketing the team, or that they just happen to play in a huge population center? I think we need to equalize the "just happen to" part a little bit. Not to take anything away from the Yankees, because they run the business aspect well, but NYC by virtue of sheer numbers exports people all over the country. There are a lot of schools here, probably more than in any other US city (hell, the city has its own University system), so that creates a lot of population traffic. And if you expand the Yankee influence to the rest of NY state and northern Jersey, the numbers get even more absurd. The California teams don't have that advantage. As far north as Buffalo (roughly 1 mil), you have people with either Met or Yankee loyalty (depending on who is playing better in a given span of time) just by virtue of the NY association, even though their are teams (like the Jays) closer. Between NYC and Buff, you've got Albany (200,000) , Syracuse and Rochester (don't remember pop sizes). So how much credit do you give the Yankees for being in a huge population center?

I'm missing something. What's the "smoke"?

The "smoke" comes from the expression, "Where there's smoke, there's fire" which basically means if there's a hint of something happening, it probably will.

Note: This does not apply to Marty York.

Sorry...
"centre"
:>

How about having 2 divisions in each league based upon payroll. You'd have a balanced schedule. Every April 1, the teams would be placed in divisions based upon payrolls. The top 5 payrolls in 1 division and the other 9 teams in another (6 and 10 in the NL). The playoffs have the top 2 teams in division 1 play a best 5 of 9 and the top 4 teams in division 2 play 2 3 of 5 series and the champs of each division meet in the League championship. You could fiddle with the playoff format. If you wanted an unbalanced schedule you'd set the divisions after the end of the prior season so that a schedule could be prepared.

But the reason the Yankees take in more money than Royals isn't because their fans care more, it's because a larger city affords more fans.

Right. More fans = more caring. I'm not talking about individual fans; I'm talking about the fan base as a whole.

I think we need to equalize the "just happen to" part a little bit.

MLB does already. It's hugely equalized through the equal sharing of the national TV contracts. Let along the substantial existing revenue sharing, the luxury taxes and other socialistic measures - together, I think these are good for baseball.

I just think that people bemoaning the success of the Yankees are way, way, way off base. The Yankees - with their tens of millions of fans across America and around the world - are what's *right* with baseball. Not what's wrong.

The Yankees...are what's *right* with baseball. Not what's wrong.

Agreed. I was actually hoping the Yankees would win the WS last year. If there's anything wrong with baseball, it's Jeffrey Loria and the rest of the terrible treatment of the Expos.

IMO there are two solutions to create 'competitive balance'.

Follow basketball and hockey and put nearly everyone into the playoffs

Hard salary cap, thus making 'the evil empire' owners richer than anyone can conceive (picture GS getting to keep the $100 million he'd be over a cap rather than spending it)

I think #1 is great idea, John, and I've been advocating it for a while now. Expanding the playoffs would be great for baseball, create more excitement every year, and generally help generate interest in the second half of the season for almost every team. I wouldn't mind seeing an expansion to twelve teams, but sixteen would (eventually) be preferable in my view.

To counterbalance the expanded playoffs, each league could conceivably award the "pennant" to the regular-season champions. Just a thought, probably crazy.

Incidentally, please don't take my statement that "the Yankees are what's right with baseball" as any sort of endorsement of the Yankees, who are the personification of Evil Incarnate and probably prey on small children when I'm not looking.

To further jayfaninbrooklyn's point, if baseball were an open market there'd currently be a team in Washington and 3, possibly 4, teams in NY.

I'm still undecided on this issue, but I certainly don't see how the Yankees are what's right with baseball. They might not be bad, I'd buy that. But what's right? I'd rather see a team of homegrown players win then a team of free agents. Not because I have any problem with Free Agency, but because I respect the teams that can develop their own players.

Of course, even if there was a hard cap, the Yankees would still have an advantage. If you're offered the same amount of money by both KC and NY, where are you going to take? If you're an American player and Toronto and NY offer you similar contracts, who do you choose? We've seen this happening in the NBA, where Kobe Bryant declared as a high school student that he would only play for the Lakers.
So no matter what measures you inact, the Yankees will always have a natural advantage. With that said, I think I'm coming around to Loveshack's point. The soft cap of the luxury tax system seems to make sense.

I'd rather see a team of homegrown players win then a team of free agents. Not because I have any problem with Free Agency, but because I respect the teams that can develop their own players.

And I respect pople who grow their own food, too, but I don't think they're morally superior to those who buy their food in a supermarket. Did you (or any of us) stop cheering for the Blue Jays in 1992 and 1993 when they won the World Series with a series of rent-a-players on board?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time (certainly not you specifically, Paul). But it's easy (for all of us) to see self-interested arguments as moral arguments when in reality baseball is simply amoral.

Speaking personally, I think that there are individual players who are more worthy of being cheered because they embody the moral life, and vice-versa. I don't think this team or that team has the same quality. My own rooting interest is different from that, and I don't really care how many bodies the Blue Jays have to climb over... when they win their next World Series, I'll be a happy man.

Before '04, I thought the Yanks would sink themselves with their overspending. But A-Rod, Sheffield and Brown, combined with the Jays collapse this year, have left me a little pessimistic. This is just getting boring now. I don't "blame" the Yankees, but I don't give them any particular credit either- they just have too many contracts in the $15 million range, it really shoves it in your face how different a game they're playing than the other GMs. Give me $180 milion and I'll throw to gether a championship team. The other comparable teams don't really compare- the difference between the Yanks and Red Sox payroll is three MVPs, even the Mets OTH are down around $80 million.

The playoffs, as long as they're kept the way they are now, are still exciting, but the rest of the season is just pointless in the AL East. I'll quallify that by saying that if the Jays were having a better year maybe I'd have a different opinion. But when they play each other, I think "send us one $15 million guy for the series and let's see how that changes the outcome.' Give us Jeter or A-rod or Sheff for 3 games instead of Hinske or Gomez or Johnson. Hell, I'll even take one of their $4 million relievers.

Expanding the playoffs would be great for baseball...I wouldn't mind seeing an expansion to twelve teams, but sixteen would (eventually) be preferable in my view.

16 teams? More teams in the playoffs than out? Why bother trying to win the division, trying to beat the Yankees and Red Sox, if the Jays can just coast into a playoff spot?

Why is a MLB playoff system with 16 teams better than one with 8? I'd rather see the "award the pennant to the team with the best record" than see teams with 83 wins make the playoffs.

One thing with the homegrown players- I know a lot of Yankee fans really disgusted with the team because they don't have anyone (young and) homegrown to root for. Boo-hoo, I know. But they were upset when the Yankees traded Johnson because they liked watching him come up. And even though it got them A-Rod, they'd fallen in love with Soriano. They're looking at the Mets with Wright and Reyes, Hubner and Kazmir coming up, and wishing they had that kind of excitement to look forward to. There's hope, even in faded colors...

Speaking of age, I come in at 66. This is the best spot for baseball I have ever seen for news and opinion. Sure beats the media.

As for playoff formula, what about adding 2 more teams to the AL and making 4 divisions of 4 teams. Have a balanced schedule of 150 games. Play each team 10 times. 4 pennant winners go into the playoffs and the next best 4 make the wild cards. Players probably wouldn't like it, but maybe the prospect of a possible
World Series would entice them. The 12 less games would free up room for the playoffs. I used to be a traditionalist but there is no point anymore.

Thanks Rob for the RSN info and the G&M assist.

Paul D: I'd rather see a team of homegrown players win then a team of free agents.

while this this sounds good do the jays win (or get to) 2 world series without free agents winfield,morris,molitorand stewart along with trading home growns for carter, alomar, r. henderson, d. cone, d. white, t. fernandez (from the mets in 93)

granted they had

Why is a MLB playoff system with 16 teams better than one with 8?

Because instead of the medioids turning their attention elsewhere, teams like the Blue Jays would still be in playoff contention right now, ramping up interest in about 10 markets every year for the better part of the second half.

Because playoff games are fun. Because playoff chases are exciting. Because "hope and faith" really are important. Because underdogs make a great story.

Why bother trying to win the division, trying to beat the Yankees and Red Sox, if the Jays can just coast into a playoff spot?

Why try to lose ballgames? The argument that teams will no longer try to win games if a few more teams make the playoffs (it was advanced when they brought in the wild card and it's always advanced every time expanded playoffs are brought up) is sheer lunacy. Everyone is always trying to build the best team possible.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
Craig, I absolutely had no qualms about cheering for the Jays in 92 and 93, and I suspect that if I lived in NY I'd cheer for the Yankees now.

I'm just saying that when it comes down to two teams that I don't care about (say Oakland or Minnesota versus the Yankees), I tend to cheer for the one with the homegrown talent. This could be a product of them being the underdogs, but that sort of goes with not signing free agent talent.

As for expanding the playoffs, I like Jayson Stark's idea. Add one more wildcard team to each league. After the season, the two wildcard teams play a one game playoff against each other, with the winner advancing to the division championships against the division winner with the best record. This way you have a slightly more competitive race, but a massive increase in the importance of winning your division vs. winning the wildcard.

dp wrote: hey'd fallen in love with Soriano.

after the playoffs yankee fans wanted to run soriano out on a rail
and while I like the mets I doubt any yankee fan is envious of the mets prospects or the mets in general

Add one more wildcard team to each league. After the season, the two wildcard teams play a one game playoff against each other, with the winner advancing to the division championships against the division winner with the best record.

I like this a touch more than the current system, but it's a half measure. I really would prefer an NHL-style playoff format, with eight teams in each league making the playoffs and playing four consecutive seven-game series against each other.

There is no reason that Toronto cannot compete financially with Boston in baseball. Our fan base for attendance is similar, and our television market is comparable (the population of New England is roughly 14 million people).

As far as I can tell, the major difference is the popularity of the sport in each place. In Boston, the Bruins lag miles behind the Red Sox in popularity. Here, the Jays lag miles behind the Leafs in popularity. Curiously, both consistent popular franchises, the Red Sox and Leafs, have had many years of being competitive with few banners to show for it, whereas the Jays and Bruins have the banners. We can call it "the Avis Effect".

http://www.thewolfshack.com
The other possibility that Stark suggested is 3 wildcard teams. The top two division winners get a bye, then the 3 wildcard teams and the low division winner play off in round 1. That way you've got more teams in the playoffs, and you'd still have races at the top bracket, as there's a considerable difference between being the 2nd and 3rd seed.

I really would prefer an NHL-style playoff format, with eight teams in each league making the playoffs and playing four consecutive seven-game series against each other.

How long of a regular season would you have in that scenario?

Jayfaninbrooklyn-
i'm just telling you the conversations I have with my (more intelligent) Yankee friends, and what they say other Yankee fans complain about. Reyes is an exciting player to watch, and I don't think the Yanks have anyone comparable right now. Wright looks like he's gonna be great. Hubner will be solid. The Yanks don't have anyone worth anything coming up. Most people that fell in love with the club did so watching Bernie, Rivera, Jeter, Posada, ect become superstars, and that's what drew them. The winning was a byproduct.

Hijack: Baseball Prospectus has their new Transaction Analysis up. Subscribers only.

Here's a teaser for you non-subscribers:

Finally, I suppose Hattig is a nice pickup. He was hitting .295/.411/.519 in the Eastern League, and that's worth something. Terry Adams, apparently. Anyway, at 24 and just now in Double-A, he's having the sort of career where he can't afford a misstep. He hasn't had one so far, although he's flopped in mid-season promotions each of the last two years. Still, he's not a liability at third, he switch-hits, and offensively, he's broken out in his first full season in Double-A.

A subscription is well worth the money if you have the discretionary income to spend on baseball related writing.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
Thanks for the info Moffatt.

Did they say anything interesting about Hentgen?

Every week I debate getting an subscription, and now I figure it's too late in the year to bother. I know that the subscriptions last a year, but I think i'd rather not have one that runs out just before August. Maybe I'll think about it in November. I wish their premium content was like the ESPN insider content...

I'd rather a team's success be based more on how much its fans care about it winning. That is, for better or for worse, measured by its revenue.

This I completely disagree with. I'm sure that Jays fans care more about winning, on a per capita basis, than Yankees fans or Braves fans. Would Yankees fans be happy with a first round playoff loss? They'd probably want to hang someone in effigy. Jays fans would be thrilled to have their team make the playoffs.

Caring about winning is something that can't be quantified with any precision. And as far as revenue goes, I can't see any relationship between that and caring. That's like saying a rich man cares more about food than a poor man because he spends more money on it.

Did they say anything interesting about Hentgen?

Yep. A paragraph that was mainly a summing up of his career.

They said more about Hattig and Hinske as well, but you'll have to subscribe to find out. :)

The real edge derives from the fact that there are millions more Yankees fans than fans of any other team. You might think that's unimportant; I don't.

And that fact derives from the historical develoment of MLB and the Yankees. And the foundatiions of that historical development are fundamentally unjust. Therefore to work AGAINST that fact would be promoting justice.

In other words, the fact that there are more Yankees fans is important; it is also fundamentally unjust.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
They said more about Hattig and Hinske as well, but you'll have to subscribe to find out. :)

Allright, fair enough.
I think I know what I should ask for for my birthday in September... (Well, on top of the DVD player and the CD burner)

If it isn't a fair fight, then shouldn't MLB take a more active role in removing team administrations that have shown themselves to be clerarly incompetent?

Those administrations are weeded out because those teams lose, and the owners replace them with better management. That's exactly what has happened here in Toronto.

The key difference is that the appearance of stupid and smart management teams seems to be fairly random: dumb managemnet can take hold of clubs in small and large markets; the converse is also true.

Market size and wealth is something that is a near-constant in most cases: KC will always be KC and NY will always be NY.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draftdb/xteam.php?team=TOR
BA has updated their draft signings, including bonuses for the first 10 rounds. COMN.

The top 11 draft choices (not including the unsigned Patton) cost the team $4.5 million in bonuses. If you include the signed picks after round 10 it probably totaled around $5 million.

FWIW, it looks like the Jays saved about $370,000 by drafting college seniors Hill, Janssen, Cannon and Hall.

John Northrey,

The big thing that happened after '93 was that local revenues of certain clubs shot forward, while others remained behind. This was due in most cases either to new stadia with luxury box revenue and/or huge cable TV revenues. In 1990, the money CBS paid for the national TV contract was a huge percentage of total revenue (and that revenue was split). Since then, stadium and local TV revenues have become far more important, relatively speaking.

So even though some local revenue sharing provisions were extended (not very much, in fact), there was a de facto decrease in the percentage of total revenue that was shared.

This phenomenon is well documented in the Blue Ribbon Report and the writing of Andrew Zimbalist (a few years ago, his book "May the Best Team Win" discusses this and many other issues within the business of baseball.

Those administrations are weeded out because those teams lose, and the owners replace them with better management.

That's fine as long as it's not the owner who is incompetent, such as with the Brewers, who haven't finished above .500 since 1992.

This is taken from an e-mail I sent someone at The Fan 590 last year after hearing discussion about the MLB playoffs. I still think it makes sense.

"With 30 teams in the Leagues and only 4 from each making the playoffs, the season and fan interest is over in many cities by June or July. The day of watching even a losing team just for the joy of watching the play is long gone among fans; playoff contention is all that creates interest.

Traditionalists may argue that the purity of the game should remain intact, ignoring that baseball playoffs haven't been "pure" since Divisional play began. Much as we like to think of baseball as being unchanged over the past 100 years or so, nothing could be further from the truth. The ball itself is different, strike zones have been changed and changed back, heights of mounds have been adjusted and player skills have altered the game dramatically.

A more valid point raised by the traditionalists is that the 162 game season must mean something. Certainly if 8 teams from each League make the playoffs, there is a real possibility that a team with a regular season record under .500 might make the post-season. Many are uncomfortable with the idea that more than half of the teams in the Leagues would make the playoffs.

I have an idea that might be a good compromise. In each League, 7 teams make the playoffs - the first and second place teams in each Division plus one League-wide wild card. The team in each League with the best overall record gets a bye in a new first round, a best of five series in which the second overall team plays the seventh overall team and so on. Home field advantage goes to the team with the better record. If there is a tie in the standings for first or second place in each Division or for the wild card, a one-game playoff would be held to determine the final standings."

Last year, under this formula, the Jays would have made the playoffs.

I wish [Baseball Prospectus'] premium content was like the ESPN insider content...

In the entire history of the world, I'd venture that this is the first time anyone has ever felt this way.

All a hard cap does is make GM's the MVPs of the league, make injuries play an even bigger role, and make large market owners filthy filthy rich.

Well, it does one other thing - it gives the smaller markets a better chance to win than the current system. And that's what I want, and as long as the owners and players agree I don't care how it's done.

Market size and wealth is something that is a near-constant in most cases: KC will always be KC and NY will always be NY.

Actually I think the market disparity grows greater over time. If you took the growth rates of say, real estate values, I'd think you'd find that certain areas are growing a lot quicker than others.

Actually I think the market disparity grows greater over time.

Why should differences in growth rate increase disparity? Can't they also act to decrease it? New York state, for instance, is one of the slowest growing states in the U.S., while Arizona (where small market Phoenix plays) is one of the two fastest.

Are you saying that some of these fan would not be baseball fans if not for the Yankees? I think it more likely that if the Yankees were cellar dwellers, these Yankees fans would either stay Yankees fans (out of a personal connection to NY) or else root for one of the domininant teams.

I don't see any net fan creation going on here.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time (certainly not you specifically, Paul). But it's easy (for all of us) to see self-interested arguments as moral arguments when in reality baseball is simply amoral.

I think it is not amoral. MLB is a system created by historical evolution, influenced by the owners, players and fans. It's not a state of nature. It can be changed by the will of those involved. It can be anything we (collectively) want it to be.

The question then becomes what kind of system SHOULD it be, and that is a moral question.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
In the entire history of the world, I'd venture that this is the first time anyone has ever felt this way.

I meant I wish it was like ESPN insider in that you're supposed to pay for it but you can get it for free.

To a person, most of the people in NY state wearing Yankee caps now were wearing Met caps in 1986. People that move to the NYC-NY state region (I teach, so I meet a lot) feel like being a Yankee fan is a "New York" thing to do, and usually jump on the bandwagon when they get here. If these were the Bob Geren/Kevin Maas/Pat Kelly/Matt Nokes Yankees, you can bet they'd move here as Met fans...

To a person, most of the people in NY state wearing Yankee caps now were wearing Met caps in 1986. People that move to the NYC-NY state region (I teach, so I meet a lot) feel like being a Yankee fan is a "New York" thing to do, and usually jump on the bandwagon when they get here. If these were the Bob Geren/Kevin Maas/Pat Kelly/Matt Nokes Yankees, you can bet they'd move here as Met fans...

Plus if the Rangers had won a pile of Stanley Cups recently and the Yankees were overpaid mediocrities, I'd bet there'd be a lot more hockey and a lot fewer baseball fans around.

Jeromie Robertson was just designated for assignment by the Indians. He's a lefthander who won 15 games last year for the Astros. The Jays should consider acquiring him for the pen. He could be a good long reliever or lefty specialist.

You can get ESPN insider for free? That's news to me, but maybe I'm out of the loop.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
You can get ESPN insider for free? That's news to me, but maybe I'm out of the loop.

Well maybe I mispoke.

You can steal it, they're not giving it away or anything.

Plus if the Rangers had won a pile of Stanley Cups recently and the Yankees were overpaid mediocrities, I'd bet there'd be a lot more hockey and a lot fewer baseball fans around.

NY has a hockey team?

I think it is not amoral. MLB is a system created by historical evolution, influenced by the owners, players and fans. It's not a state of nature. It can be changed by the will of those involved. It can be anything we (collectively) want it to be.

The question then becomes what kind of system SHOULD it be, and that is a moral question.

It is not a moral question; it may be an aesthetic question, it may be a business question. I absolutely do not believe that there is a systemic arrangement of MLB finances that is preferable to any other on moral grounds.

To a person, most of the people in NY state wearing Yankee caps now were wearing Met caps in 1986. People that move to the NYC-NY state region (I teach, so I meet a lot) feel like being a Yankee fan is a "New York" thing to do, and usually jump on the bandwagon when they get here. If these were the Bob Geren/Kevin Maas/Pat Kelly/Matt Nokes Yankees, you can bet they'd move here as Met fans...

Well, so what? 75% of the Blue Jays fans during the late 1980s and early 1990s are gone *completely*. They're not Tiger fans or Expos fans. They're not really anything, as far as I can tell. They dropped baseball like a hot potato when someone told them it was unfashionable.

There are millions more hard-core Yankee fans than there are hard-cores of any other team. All of which is neither here nor there. I am merely asserting that the best system is the one that allows the teams with the most fans and the best support to win more often (not all the time; that ruins everyone's fun).

Jeromie Robertson was just designated for assignment by the Indians. He's a lefthander who won 15 games last year for the Astros.

I'd have to disagree. Something is wrong with Robertson; he was lit up in Buffalo this year as well, giving up 90-some hits and ten homers in 64 innings, with just 28 strikeouts. I wouldn't mind taking a look at him next year, but right now the Jays have other fish to fry in Toronto and Syracuse.

"I am merely asserting that the best system is the one that allows the teams with the most fans and the best support to win more often (not all the time; that ruins everyone's fun)."

Do have any particular reason for asserting this, as opposed to (for example) asserting that what is in the best interest of the players, owners and fans as a whole is that there be a lot of competetive balance and that each team's fans can believe that they have a realistic shot at some day building a dominant team?

Suppose for a moment that the Yankees were compelled to spend no more than twice the median payroll. They would still win and make the playoffs more often than the average team, but would probably make the playoffs less frequently. That would allow other teams' fans to enjoy an extra playoff appearance now and then. The Yankees fans would be a tiny bit worse off, but a bunch of other teams would experience a huge upswing in happiness. Would this not be preferable to the current system?

Plus if the Rangers had won a pile of Stanley Cups recently and the Yankees were overpaid mediocrities, I'd bet there'd be a lot more hockey and a lot fewer baseball fans around.

Great point. Some will disagree but I don't feel that fans from one city or one region are better than others. The same people that ignore the Jays spend $300 on Leafs tickets. Aren't they real fans? It doesn't matter if you're from New York or not, people love a winner. I think my mother even went to a Jays game during the glory years because it was an exciting night out. Did she offer any real support no, but Jays 'fans' were packing the Dome.

The marketing of the Yankees is fantastic but the foundation is built on being a winner. Manchester United is the same kind of entity. People support them regardless of whether they're from Manchester, of course those people are gormless fools, but their money also works.

To summarize: The Yanks suck and steal the souls of those that support them.

"Jeromie Robertson was just designated for assignment by the Indians. He's a lefthander who won 15 games last year for the Astros. The Jays should consider acquiring him for the pen. He could be a good long reliever or lefty specialist."

NO WAY! Robertson's 2003 numbers are truly deceiving. I was shocked when Hosuton dumped him, but they must've known something. This guy has had a terrible season. I've watched him pitch for Buffalo a number of times, and he's consistently had trouble finding the plate against minor league hitters. And he wasn't much better in Cleveland: allowed 22 hits in 14 IP, along with 5 HRs and an ERA of 12.21.

Do have any particular reason for asserting this, as opposed to (for example) asserting that what is in the best interest of the players, owners and fans as a whole is that there be a lot of competetive balance and that each team's fans can believe that they have a realistic shot at some day building a dominant team?

What I said isn't at all oppose to what you're saying. Read again what I said.

I I asserted because (1) it satisfies the most people; (2) it's the best system to ensure the continued success and growth of MLB and professional baseball; (3)

You apparently believe that there is only one true way to structure baseball to avoid insuperable *moral* problems. This just is not the case. How would it sound for you to say:

"Captain Crunch is a breakfast cereal created by historical evolution, influenced by the owners, sellers and consumers. It's not a state of nature. It can be changed by the will of those involved. It can be anything we (collectively) want it to be.

The question then becomes what kind of breakfast cereal SHOULD it be, and that is a moral question."

I fail to see the moral imperative.

Suppose for a moment that the Yankees were compelled to spend no more than twice the median payroll. They would still win and make the playoffs more often than the average team, but would probably make the playoffs less frequently. That would allow other teams' fans to enjoy an extra playoff appearance now and then. The Yankees fans would be a tiny bit worse off, but a bunch of other teams would experience a huge upswing in happiness. Would this not be preferable to the current system?

No, not really. I doubt it would be much worse. Frankly, that change seems rather cosmetic to me. Again, what is the problem with the say things are now? Is it that the Yankees are good? So what? Actually, they're not really all that good.

It seems to me, as in all things, that the best way to ensure quality of MLB is the best way to ensure quality in any marketplace. That is to ensure two things : (1) high minimum standards and (2) unrestrained competition. Your proposal addresses neither.

Robertson doesn't have great numbers but the Jays don't exactly have a lot of lefthanded relievers to choose from. And it would be a cheap reclamation project. Menechino's numbers weren't exactly glowing when he was brought in and look what he's done. I have a lot of confidence in Gil Patterson's ability to turn pitchers in the right direction. I think Robertson's biggest problem could be lack of confidence.

Sorry, the first part of that came out garbled - badly - because I pasted the second part onto a partially-edited piece. Whoops! It should read:

What I said isn't at all oppose to what you're saying. Read again what I said... that the best system allows the teams with more support to win more often. (Not all the time...)

I assert this because (1) it satisfies the most people; (2) it's the best system to ensure the continued success and growth of MLB and professional baseball; (3) it encourages teams to build their fan base - and thereby build baseball's fan base.

I think Robertson's biggest problem could be lack of confidence.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I suspect his biggest problem is that he's a two-pitch pitcher with no out pitch and his primary pitch (the sinker) sometimes deserts him and runs straight.

In a long reliever, of course, that's less problematic. In a starter, it can be deadly!

RE: Playoff system

Reading through this thread, I noticed various playoff formula alteration suggestions. Using last year's standings (and assuming that the 86-76 Blue Jays were better than the 86-76 White Sox), here are the different scenarios:

A) NYY vs KC, OAK vs CHI, MIN vs TOR, BOS vs SEA
B) Similar to A, but KC and CHI do not make the playoffs and NYY and OAK receive byes
C) BOS vs SEA to decide who is the wildcard team, then playoffs continue as they do currently (NYY-OAK-MIN byes)
D) OAK vs CHI, BOS vs TOR, SEA vs MIN, NYY bye

3 out of 4 formats have the 2003 Blue Jays playing either Minnesota or Boston in the first round.

Craig, in your 16-team scenario, does the winner of the weakest division automatically get the 3 seed, like in hockey? That's one of my main points against the NHL playoffs: the Southeast division getting that third Eastern Conference seed for no reason (Tampa Bay this year notwithstanding).
Last year, Minnesota had the 5th best AL record but the 3rd seed. Should this happen if they expand the playoffs to 8 teams in each league?

Rob, there's no reason why that should be. I prefer seeding based on record, but that's just me. Teams in weaker divisions are alread helped by having more games against weak teams to bulk up their record.

I should also add that D (seven teams in each league make the playoffs; regular-season pennant winner grabs a bye) is also a terrific system in my book.

Under my proposed playoff scenario, here is how 2004 would stack up if the season ended last night:

NY vs CLE; TEX vs ANA; MIN vs CHI; BOS vs OAK

StL vs CIN; LA vs PHI; SD vs CHI; SF vs ATL

26 of the 30 teams would be 8 games or less from the playoffs as of right now.

The "smoke" comes from the expression, "Where there's smoke, there's fire" which basically means if there's a hint of something happening, it probably will.

Er, yeah, I'm familiar with the expression. I guess I just took the Globe & Mail article to be a little more definitive than merely smoke.

As for my Hazel bashing, no offense intended. Clearly you've got a crush going. ;)

You apparently believe, with an overwhelming and frankly suffocating zeal, that there is only one true way to structure baseball to avoid insuperable *moral* problems.

No I do not believe this. There are many ways to structure MLB. What I wish for is a particular result that I feel is a net benefit to the industry. Allowing a team to spend 4 times (and perhaps more) than the average team on payroll is a serious threat to competitive balance, and so affects the overall welfare of the industry.

There are many ways to structure a league, but most of the ways to improve the structure as it exists today are completely unrealistic (e.g. ordering the NL and AL to compete; creating a European-style promotion-relegation system; allowing teams to freely move into any market they want).

The aim I have in mind (and one that is realistic, at least compared to some other plans) is to stop a team or teams from blowing their competition away with their wallet. It is a simple aim, with a simple solution: Forbid any team from spending more than twice the median on payroll.

As for your 2 things that ensure quality ... (1) Higher minimum standards - I don't exactly understand how this applies to baseball: the players are already trying to win and there seems to be a drive to get better and better (even if you have to use illegal and potentially dangerous drugs to do it). I don't think there is anything wrong in that department.

... (2)Unrestrained competition: The MLB structure is so far from unrestrained (protected territories, socialist revenue sharing, lesser leagues acting as slaves) that is seems inconceivable that it could ever be so. Certainly, if professional baseball suddenly started to operate as a free-market that would be better for baseball fans as a whole. That isn't going to happen.

How would it sound for you to say: "Captain Crunch is a breakfast cereal created by historical evolution, influenced by the owners, sellers and consumers. It's not a state of nature. It can be changed by the will of those involved. It can be anything we (collectively) want it to be.

The question then becomes what kind of breakfast cereal SHOULD it be, and that is a moral question."

I think it would sound pretty cool, if Captain Crunch were important enough to enough people to be worth bothering with. Captain Crunch has a lot of close substitutes, such that if I don't like what the makers are doing, I can switch a very similar product.

MLB doesn't have any close substitutes. In my geographic area, there is no alternative of comparable quality available locally or on television. That, combined with the number of passionate baseball fans in North America is what makes the public scutinise the decisions made by the lords of baseball more closely than those made in most other industries.

Robert, I couldn't agree more (as I think you know... we've talked this stuff over a number of times) about the importance of fan oversight and fans exercising the power available to them.

I just don't see revenue sharing as that big a deal. And when I say that teams should compete unrestrainedly, I mean in the baseball arena, not as businesses. Anyway, I've had enough of this for now, and I bet everyone else has too.

if Captain Crunch were important enough to enough people to be worth bothering with.

Cap'n Crunch is in fact so important to me, that it better not be bothered with! Unless you're here to help me fight the soggies, keep your hands off my delicious and nutritious breakfast cereal!

And what does a man have to do to get some cuttlefish around here? I've been waiting patiently since 9:46 a.m. ;)!

I should also add that D...is also a terrific system in my book.

I've liked that one ever since I saw the Q use it a few years back...not sure if they do that now. I realize it's only 1 fewer team than the system I've hated for years, but there's something about that first-round bye I like. And getting rid of the 3-seed gift is even better.

**

I guess I just took the Globe & Mail article to be a little more definitive than merely smoke.

Most of the times, "sources" are blowing hot air about something they know nothing about.
I mean, no matter who writes this, "Although Sportsnet has not announced her departure, sources say Mae, 34, has accepted a job [at NESN]", I don't really believe it until it happens or until the person in question confirms it. I'm just more skeptical than most people. :)

Clearly you've got a crush going. ;)

Mr. Burns said it best (in the softball episode): "Well, DUH!"

Did it seem to anyone else like Vernon's batting stance was a bit different last night? It looked to me like he wasn't crouching as much as he usually does...

I still like the plan proposed by Derek Zumsteg a while back - Revenue sharing based mainly on market size - this allows Kansas City to make up for the fact its not New York, while allowing teams like St. Louis, Boston and even the Yankees the benefit from their ability to make the most from their fans. It eliminates such revenue sharing stupidities as Cleveland giving money to Philly

I think it makes a whole lot of sense

I think an NHL style playoff system makes a whole lot of sense as well

Delgado was just on TSN saying that while he'd like to remain in Toronto he's going to listen to what is out there.

Delgado was just on TSN saying that while he'd like to remain in Toronto he's going to listen to what is out there.

In terms of waiving his trade clause or free agency?

In a perfect world, if Delgado wanted to come back to Toronto and could agree on a contract, the Jays could trade him for prospects and then re-sign him (like Ponson).

I don't think there's a chance of it happening, but it'd be pretty cool.

The strange thing is that Hazel has already worked at least one Red Sox telecast for NESN - because I remember seeing the broadcast here. It was a month or so ago, and Liam and I shouted "Hazel!! Why are you talking to Pedro??"

It appeared as though he was referencing the trade clause. I missed the first part though. CWS, LA and NYY were mentioned.

http://www.cherylandjohn.info
I still like the plan proposed by Derek Zumsteg a while back - Revenue sharing based mainly on market size

I'll agree 100% with that idea. Since MLB creates monopoly situations in markets (see Baltimore stopping Washington from getting a team) then the revenue should be shifted based on that. If the Jays do a lousy job getting money from Canadians too bad so sad (ala the late 90s) you are going to be a small revenue team, if they do a great job (ala the early 90s) then you can have the largest payroll in baseball no matter what your market size is. Larger markets would still have an advantage (increase revenue by 10% in NY would be a larger effect than increasing it by 10% in Kansas City) but not as drastic a one. Plus it would stop the hiding of revenue that goes on now [unless you really think the Cubs are worth less in TV revenue than the White Sox (based on figures in the MLB Blue Ribbon Panel)] or at least make it less profitable/relevant for teams to do so.