Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
NUKE:   Can't you let me enjoy the moment?
CRASH: The moment's over.

Indeed. In fact, it's the famous words spoken by Winston Wolf, when Vincent and Jules are congratulating themselves on the wonderful job they've just done cleaning all the blood and gore out of the car, that come to my mind right about now.

(You didn't think I was actually going to quote them, did you? I know for a fact that there are impressionable children reading this...)

To find the last time the Jays burst from the gate by winning five of their first six games, we have to climb into the Way-Back machine and venture back, back in time, all the way to ... last year? Never mind...

While Mr Wolf's immortal wisdom does remind us to take all this with a grain of salt, there are certainly many worse things than winning five of your first six games, all of them on the road. The Astros, alone of the thirty major league teams, are still looking for their first victory. It wasn't one of the more memorial homestands in team history.

Highlights of the week? Well, I sure enjoyed Marky Mark Buehrle's circus play in the White Sox opener...and Jason Heyward announcing his presence with Authoritah... and Joe West calling out the Red Sox and Yankees for the glacial pace at which they play...

You may have noticed that Zack Greinke has allowed 5 earned runs in his two starts. Last season he didn't allow his 5th earned run until his 9th start on May 21... And Miguel Cabrera, who I suspected might be ready to turn in a monster of a season after addressing some personal issues this off-season, is certainly off to a monstrous start...

And Casey Janssen, of course. I've always been a little bit skeptical about Janssen, but he seems such a decent and likeable fellow that I'd certainly like to see him succeed. And here he is, with more wins than the guy in Philly. More wins than anyone in the major leagues. Enjoy the moment, Casey. But I think Crash has something to tell you...

Janssen's accomplishment - winning three games in four days - doesn't quite match the feat of the immortal John Frascatore, who won three games in three days back in 1999. And winning two games in two days doesn't quite measure up to David Wells winning two games on the same day (17 July 1989, a SkyDome double-header.) But hey - any time a pitcher wins three games in a week,  you've got to be pleased.


Week 1 - Nothing Wrong With That | 44 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
lexomatic - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 06:48 AM EDT (#213472) #
Houston fans might hold a memorial for the season after this first weekend, and that might be a memorable occasion, but I doubt they'd want to remember it at all.
FranklyScarlet - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 07:38 AM EDT (#213473) #
Typical Boston Media:
First Week Rankings 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2010/04/12/mlb-power-rankings-411/

Attributes our success to playing #29 Baltimore, yet the Sox loss to
KC doesn't play into the ranking?

westcoast dude - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 11:17 AM EDT (#213476) #
My favourite moment of the first week was The Venezuelan Punch: back to backs jacks by JoBau and AGon on Sunday.  I hope Cito slots Hill in behind Vernon. Now we be talking Murderer's Row 2010.
Wildrose - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 11:35 AM EDT (#213477) #
Blair takes a shot at all the hand wringing over Gaston and Snider.

The manager is gone after this season, so there's no point in heckling or booing Gaston or even really kvetching about Travis Snider's place in the batting order. It's pointless. Gaston's not demonstrably out of his depth like the Raptors' Jay Triano or being exposed like the Maple Leafs' Ron Wilson. Neither will he throw a player under the bus like Wilson. (Not even Lyle Overbay.) People who don't like Gaston's managing didn't like it in 1992 and 1993, either. There are people who will prevent him from shredding Snider's psyche or Shaun Marcum's arm. There's nothing new here, folks. Nothing to see, so move along.



Wildrose - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 11:44 AM EDT (#213478) #
Also in another story ( sorry upgraded my browser and I can't do links anymore) , Blair tosses out a bone to those who desire divisional re- alignment or an expanded playoff format. Blair believes that Beeston has influence over Selig from his days as being the # 2 at MLB head office ( e.g.  Bud when did you first know about steroid use in baseball? )

Beeston, who is now the full-time president and CEO of both the Rogers Centre and the Blue Jays, is on Selig’s blue-ribbon committee examining the game’s future. With divisional realignment already floated, it would be logical to put two and two together and say Beeston ought to say to Selig: “Move us to the AL Central or else… well, you know what.”



Magpie - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 12:19 PM EDT (#213479) #
Here's the Blair link.
John Northey - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 01:16 PM EDT (#213483) #
I remember Godfrey talking about a 16 team playoff at some point (I could be wrong here) being the solution to getting more teams 'into it'.

Once the wild card was adapted I pretty much gave up on 'baseball purity' by having as few teams in as possible. Now I figure they might as well go whole hog with the 16 ala the NBA and NHL.
martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 01:53 PM EDT (#213485) #
16 teams in the playoffs would be awful. I don't see the point of playoffs where more than half the teams, some of whom aren't very good, make it. That's the problem with hockey and basketball, the playoffs are just too big and it gets boring. I like the wildcard because four playoff teams isn't really interesting enough, and eight is a decent number. 12 with a bye week for the top team in football is a decent system too, but a bye week doesn't make that much sense for baseball.

It makes more sense to put in a salary cap to make sure the Yankees/Sox/Angels can't buy a spot every year. I guess it will take years and years of teams overspending and creating the same boring playoff outcomes year in and year out to get this done though. The NFL has a good salary cap system that they should copy. As a Jays fan this is what I'm most negative about... even if we develop a top notch team, can we pay to keep it together for long?

As for divisional realignment, I'm indifferent. It would mostly be a way of patching a broken system so people notice less, but it won't really work. I can't see them separating the Yankees and Red Sox, and that's the biggest issue in the AL East, so even if TO moves the other teams will fail.

Matthew E - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 01:55 PM EDT (#213486) #

Once the wild card was adapted I pretty much gave up on 'baseball purity' by having as few teams in as possible. Now I figure they might as well go whole hog with the 16 ala the NBA and NHL.

It would be easy to interpret that sentence as, "since baseball can't be as good as we want it, we might as well make it as bad as possible." "My new car got a scratch in the paint, so I'm blowing it up."

The problem for me with expanding the playoffs is that you're chasing something you can never catch:

1. Only one team can win the World Series every year. You could let sixty-four teams into the playoffs and only one team would still win the Series. And you're not helping a bad team become good by letting them pretend.

2. The really bad teams won't be helped by expanding the playoffs. How much would you have to expand them before Kansas City and Pittsburgh had a shot?

3. You're surrendering playoff spots to rich smart teams. Just because it seems like the Yankees and Red Sox will be in there every year forever doesn't mean they shouldn't have to work for it.

4. It's true that we don't have many pennant races among excellent teams anymore. But pennant races between good teams are still better than pennant races between mediocre teams.

The situation we have now isn't actually too bad. Four out of fourteen AL teams in the playoffs is not a surrender to mediocrity; more often than not, all four teams are sufficiently far from .500 as to preserve some respect for excellence. Even adding one more wild card team wouldn't change that much. I don't think it would, anyway; I haven't looked it up. Going to eight teams, though? You'd almost certainly have teams with losing records in the playoffs, and who needs that? Plus, the playoffs are almost too long now anyway; I can't see adding, what, 28 to 48 more.

Besides, we already have a couple of sports with playoff systems like hockey and basketball. They're called hockey and basketball. If I wanted to watch hockey and basketball, I'd watch hockey and basketball. Baseball should have a playoff system that suits its own needs.

R Romero Vaughan - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#213489) #

My super -early xmas present would be:

2 divisions per league, top 4  per league make the play offs and a balanced schedule. It's not alot to ask. And before anyone brings up gate and TV revenue from playing in the AL East, with an unbalancesd schedule -  there is no way that a Jays team making the playoffs (or even a pennant race!) doesn't make more revenue than any of the recent versions.

One lives in hope...

 

whiterasta80 - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 02:38 PM EDT (#213490) #
Matthew what is your solution then? 2 divisions, balanced schedule, top 4 get in? Salary cap?

I don't see either of those options being supported enough to get passed.

On the other hand playoff expansion would be supported! You can easily get around the "extra games" thing by going back to a 154 game schedule and remove a few meaningless late september games.
whiterasta80 - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#213491) #
RRV, I think the issue is more with travel plans than with TV/gate revenue.

Plus in your model every team in the AL Central and West would be opposed. There's no motive to sign off on a model where you (all of a sudden) have to compete with the Yankees and Sox.

Still, that model at least gives us a shot at making the playoffs.
martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#213492) #
The best solution is a salary cap, really.
martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 02:55 PM EDT (#213493) #
Although the two divisions thing per league makes sense too. 16 team playoff is just a bandage for a mortal wound, only seems to help but doesn't do jack
martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#213494) #
Oh, and just to clarify the two divisions thing doesn't make it so that we don't need a salary cap... it would just be a cool idea
Matthew E - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:06 PM EDT (#213495) #

Matthew what is your solution then? 2 divisions, balanced schedule, top 4 get in? Salary cap?

Solution? You think there's a solution?

You're adorable.

No, I'm just kidding. I don't know. I liked Bill James's idea about splitting local TV revenue the same way gate receipts are split. (Of course, you'd have to make sure that teams owned by their broadcasters weren't cooking the books.) I don't like the wild card, so I'd prefer an even number of divisions, and of course it should go without saying that I'm in favour of a balanced schedule. (Why don't we have one, anyway? Interleague play? Damn and blast interleague play.)

I'm neutral on the salary cap. A long time ago, someone - Robert Dudek? - proposed in my presence a scheme where teams couldn't spend more than (something like) twice the previous year's median team payroll. I was against it at the time but now I think it's not too bad of an idea. No reason why the players should agree to it, of course, but that's what negotiations are for.

The present divisional system isn't that bad. I think it'd be neater if the AL expanded by two teams and there could be four four-team divisions in each league, but I don't insist on it. Another possibility is to add another wild card team to each league, and have the two wild card teams play each other in a one-game playoff on the day between the end of the season and the start of the playoffs. This would make winning the division mean something.

Do I think that the Toronto Blue Jays could succeed under any of these schemes?

Probably not. But it sure wouldn't hurt them.

martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:18 PM EDT (#213496) #
The salary cap is key. I sound like a broken record, but as an NFL fan I wish MLB would follow in its footsteps. It's just nice in the NFL, where you can only spend so much money, so winning isn't so much about how much money you spend, but how you decide to spend it, how you draft, etc.

A meritocracy of sorts. How nice would that be eh.

SK in NJ - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:19 PM EDT (#213497) #

Please do not add more teams to the playoffs! Watching the Raptors/Bulls this weekend fighting it out for the 8th seed when both teams had no business being in a playoff race is not what baseball should be doing. Adding mediocrity to the playoff format is never a good thing. The Wild Card is fine, but that is as far as it should go.

Plus, at this point, 15+ years without a playoff appearance, I would much rather the Jays make the playoffs in the East up against Boston and New York than in a weakened AL Central. The team has tried to fight this long, let's finally slay the beasts rather than run from them.

uglyone - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT (#213499) #

There is zero chance of a salary cap.

Player salaries are well under control, and take up a smaller percentage of revenues than they do in other sports. A cap would actually end up COSTING the owners more money.

Even better, the owners in MLB have the most restrictive player entry level system in any sport, which they would surely have to sacrifice to get a cap.

They've got zero reason to put a cap in. It makes no sense for them whatsoever.

It's not gonna happen.

Magpie - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:44 PM EDT (#213500) #
I hate the notion of a salary cap, on general principle. There's something very fishy about solving an inequity between the owners by taking it out on the players. You're preventing the people who constitute the value from receiving it. And you're giving it to Hank Steinbrenner, mostly.

The great disparity in money comes from local television, as the home team gets to keep it all. This really doesn't make any sense - unless I'm mistaken, they're not playing intrasquad games. And this has always been far more important to the NFL's own method of generating competitive balance than the salary cap anyway. In the NFL, the salary cap is a comparatively recent innovation, and its purpose is mainly to keep labour costs down.

Bill Veeck actually proposed sharing broadcast revenue with the visiting teams almost 60 years ago, but in large part because the idea came from Bill Veeck the other owners were naturally opposed.
Mike Green - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#213501) #
You're preventing the people who constitute the value from receiving it.

Ah yes.  Surplus value.  Major league ballplayers of the world, unite!  You have nothing to lose but... (finish the sentence for a school of cuttlefish).

I do agree, though.  Skip the salary cap, and split broadcast revenues among all MLB teams.  Salaries in free agency will find a level that reflects the actual revenues of clubs, be they higher or lower than is actually reflected in current salaries.
martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#213502) #
Obviously there is not a '0' chance.

First off, there's probably around 24 owners who are sick of trying to compete with big market teams. It might cost them more money, but it would also make it more likely for them to compete, making a salary cap a possibly attractive option. It might take until the CBA runs out, or possibly longer, but it can and likely will happen. The salary situation in MLB, the massive advantage the elite teams have over the smaller market teams, has just recently become entirely ridiculous in the last decade or so, with the Yankees now spending twice as much as more than 2/3 of the league. Eventually the teams losing out of this arrangement will overthrow their bourgeois oppressors... lol. Marxist theory of baseball?

(Here's the 2010 stats http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries)

And if it's actually good for the players, then the players will have no problem with putting one in, right?

So, around 24 teams and players who have interest in a salary cap, plus fans who are probably getting increasingly bored with the new elitist baseball structure... there is definitely not a "zero" chance. It might take a while, but so will any of these other suggestions.

ayjackson - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:58 PM EDT (#213504) #

I'm with the ugly one for all the reasons he stated.  A salary cap is a mechanism to control excalating costs.  The only reasons salaries escalated in the last decade was because revenues escalated.

The only team that would be over the cap by any material margin would be the Yankees and we already have a luxury tax to deal with them.  Increase the tax, fix the revenue sharing model and sort out the clubs that don't spend to a minimum salary level.

It's got nothing to do with the players, really.

Chuck - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 03:59 PM EDT (#213505) #

And if it's actually good for the players, then the players will have no problem with putting one in, right?

What would make a salary cap good for the players?

 

ayjackson - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#213507) #

I think in the 2008 season, league revenues passed the $6b mark.  If a cap came in and players were guaranteed 50% of league revenues (for simplicity - other sports are around 55-57%), that would be $100m per team salary cap.  A CBA would likely build a range of 20% of that and you get a team payroll of between $80m and $120m per year.  More teams are going to get hurt at the bottom end than the top end with that.

 

martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT (#213508) #
Who says the salary cap has to benefit the owners exclusively? It could be a good salary cap for the players too, increasing every year (like in the NFL), and having a minimum cap as well (like in the NFL). The salary cap in the NFL definitely doesn't make it so that the players don't make any money...

I think sports should be about merit on all aspects, and the Yankees buying playoff berths every year is both boring and not good for baseball. We need some form of salary cap to make it so that a well run franchise can make the playoffs, and so that teams cannot just say massive amounts of money to fill the holes their bad management created.

martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 04:06 PM EDT (#213509) #
If a team can't operate on a 80m budget in this era, then they should move to somewhere that can support them, really.
Chuck - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 04:11 PM EDT (#213510) #
I think sports should be about merit on all aspects, and the Yankees buying playoff berths every year is both boring and not good for baseball.

Not good for your enjoyment of baseball, or not good for the sport? If it's the latter, then you'll have to defend that position.
uglyone - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 04:32 PM EDT (#213511) #

If a team can't operate on a 80m budget in this era, then they should move to somewhere that can support them, really.

there's not all that many cities in the world that can support that, really.

Personally, I'm a big fan of salary caps myself. I have no problem with them in principal as long as they are linked fairly with revenues - the league is the corporation, the teams are franchises, and the salary cap is just a mechanism to ensure the health of the league by keeping costs under control. As a fan, I do believe that parity is better than dynasties., and I think MLB would be better off audience wise if every city had a fair shot at competing.

But it's not gonna happen - mainly because of indentured slavery under the guise of an entry-level season, but also because it seems like there was some solid collusion a few years back when costs started to spiral out of control, player salaries are not a big deal for owners as a group right now - they're well under control.

Neither the players nor the owners have any real bottom-line motivation to use any of their bargaining capital to get a cap in there.

martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#213513) #
Well both really. Well let's look at the function of sport. Modern professional sport is essentially a competition in many different ways. There's a competition on the field, but there's also competition in how the organization is managed (like, who is drafted, what contracts are signed, what coaches are hired, what scouts are hired, and so on).

The fact that a team can essentially skip over the second form of competition by buying players who are obviously good and spending way more than anyone else cheapens the game, which subsequently cheapens the competitive aspect of the actual baseball being played. There's an obvious correlation between salary and playoff berths. Look at the World Series wins and then look at their salaries.

Having some teams outspend other teams by such a wide margin just doesn't promote a real competitive environment. It cheapens the value of real management, and it cheapens the product on the field because its simply bought. 5 of last years playoff spots went to the top 9 teams in salary last years. The same was true in 2008. So there's clearly a skew towards teams that have a higher payroll, leaving 3 playoff spots for the other 21 teams. Money isn't everything, but it's a lot, and having such a skewed money aspect hurts real meritocratic competition, and hurts fan interest in cities with small markets, which of course is bad for the game.

martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 04:50 PM EDT (#213514) #
Agreed uglyone, "linked fairly with revenues" is the best way to have it. That would be fair for the players and small market owners. Regarding the 80m figure, we're talking exclusively about North America, not Addis Ababa. No team in the NFL spends less than 80m and no teams seem to care.

I think it'll happen someday. Might take a while though. These things usually take time, but eventually fans and owners alike will get tired of being disadvantaged due to revenue concerns. And players won't mind much as long as it's "linked fairly with revenues" like you say. If it happened in the NFL it could happen in MLB.
Chuck - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 05:07 PM EDT (#213515) #

Well let's look at the function of sport.

Like it or not, the function of professional sport is simple: to make money. Professional baseball is a business and always has been. It's a form of entertainment, nothing more noble than that. While its employees can certainly compete with honour and integrity, and that certainly adds to the quality of the spectacle for many of us, the industry itself is just business.

and hurts fan interest in cities with small markets, which of course is bad for the game.

Everything you said prior to this statement is a laundry list of reasons why your enjoyment of the game suffers in this cap-free world. Your feelings are your feelings and certainly no one can dispute those. But the truth of this statement is not entirely clear to me. What cities with small markets are currently being hurt? How are they being hurt? How is that bad for the game as a whole? I'm just trying to find out what is behind your assertions.

and having such a skewed money aspect hurts real meritocratic competition

I can't help but think that your personal feelings about the nature of the industry of professional baseball are getting conflated with what you believe are signs of health issues within that industry. Professional baseball is not about meritocratic competition, as much as idealists wish that it were. It's about the bottom line. For meritocratic competition, you'll need to join a Strat-O-Matic league or a fantasy league.

ayjackson - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 05:13 PM EDT (#213516) #

A change of pace...Everybody's familiar with the Joe West controversy over pace of play....Peter King summarizes it nicely.

The West crew did the Boston-New York three-game series in the first week of the season, followed by the Toronto-Baltimore three-gamer.

Time of the three Red Sox-Yankees games: 3:46 (West at the plate), 3:48, 3:21.

Time of the three Jays-Orioles games: 2:54, 2:24 (West at the plate), 2:22.

The Baltimore-Toronto games, on average, were 65 minutes shorter than the Boston-New York games.

West's game behind home plate in Baltimore was 82 minutes shorter.



Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/04/11/bryant/2.html#ixzz0kvG2Ugog
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription
martinthegreat - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 05:31 PM EDT (#213517) #
I guess we'll see in time.

I'm just not happy with settling for mediocrity. I think teams should be on a largely even playing field, and that when they're not fan interest will continue to dwindle among my generation. I don't see what's attractive at all about having teams on such an obviously skewed playing field. Baseball can be profitable with a good salary cap on.

The ideal of sport should be a meritocracy, and we're really not that far from it. all we need is a salary cap. You talk about it like some vague 'ideal' that can never be achieved, which comes off as defeatist. But it's really not that hard. Just put in a salary cap with a top and bottom cap. Then its a meritocracy and should remain profitable for everyone. I think fan interest would increase with a level playing field.




Moe - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 05:39 PM EDT (#213518) #
Hill on DL:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/aaron-hill-lands-on-dl-for-fast-starting-jays.html.php



Chuck - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 06:46 PM EDT (#213520) #

The ideal of sport should be a meritocracy, and we're really not that far from it. all we need is a salary cap. You talk about it like some vague 'ideal' that can never be achieved, which comes off as defeatist.

What you believe the ideal of sport should be and what it is in the real world are vastly different and it's not a matter of being defeatist.

I'm arguing that professional baseball has no compelling reason to attempt to become a meritocracy. It is a business. Right now business is very good meaning that there are no real pressures to dramatically alter the existing business model. When such pressures exist, the model will change. Moving towards a meritocracy will only be a driving force if, in the owners' eyes, such a move would enhance the business model, and not for any motives purer and nobler than that.

Do you believe that the NBA, NFL and NHL moved to a salary cap for pure and noble reasons? No, they did it to salvage flagging industries. Those leagues needed dramatic changes to their business models to survive. MLB needs no such change to survive. At least not right now.

lexomatic - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 07:11 PM EDT (#213521) #
no cap.
NOOOOOOOOO CAAAAAAAAAAAAAP
please.

i'm all for even distribution of tv revenues, but it will never happen. it's too "communist" for americans and for capitalists (seriously.. think about how hard it was to get any kind of healthcare in the USA, then think about Steinbrenner giving up all the money 'he's owed'. naw. )

the most workable solution is a balanced schedule.
there will be lulls when Boston and the Yankees aren't well run, or maybe the money gets tied up in a divorce situation.. who knows.
and like Beaston says (who for the record is not in favour or a balanced schedule) seeing the yankees and boston a ton of times is good for revenue. everybody hates the yankees.
while teams might not want to play those heavyweight teams, the fans will be more likely to come out. increased revenue spread around the league is a pretty huge incentive when your costs are relatively fixed (i.e. you're paying all the related expenses to have a game.. but 2 teams draw double the usual .)
 

Lefty - Monday, April 12 2010 @ 07:49 PM EDT (#213522) #
Oh this is so easy:

Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains, er jeans.

KM

I've always been partial too

Knights of the knee pad unite.

Unknown

This could be the rallying cry for catchers though.
Alex Obal - Tuesday, April 13 2010 @ 12:34 AM EDT (#213527) #
Good game.

Weird game. The Jays continue to bombard everyone with extra-base hits and hardly any singles. Vernon Wells' atbats are greeted with rapturous applause. No lights-out bit to introduce the players - nice! Gaston leaves Camp out after a successful inning to deal with an unconscious, 3/3 Andruw Jones to lead off the 8th - also nice! Downs struggles with his command but bails himself out with slick fielding. Randy Ruiz gets dragged out of the crypt. Snider tags a few liners. Encarnacion makes an error... okay, maybe it wasn't all backwards.

The new turf definitely looks more 'consistent' than the old stuff. It saddens me to point out that consistent is a synonym for carpetlike. It also looks faster.

Was KG off limits? He never warmed up. Merkin Valdez was up to pitch the next inning if the Jays tied it in the 11th.

Tallet battled valiantly even though he clearly only had his C-minus stuff. I assume he forgot his towel at home because there's no other plausible reason for hanging him out to dry so long.
TamRa - Tuesday, April 13 2010 @ 01:50 AM EDT (#213531) #
The best solution is a salary cap, really.

Nah, just more complexity.

Simple:

1. Balanced schedule
2. top 4 teams get in regardless of division.

That solves most of the problem.

Mike D - Tuesday, April 13 2010 @ 09:24 AM EDT (#213534) #
I'm with WillRain completely.  There is no reason to punish teams for their East-ness or reward them for their Central-ity.  Abandon divisions and have the top four in the table go through, and the NY/Bos problem is much less acute. 

If you want to take further steps toward competitive balance, the worldwide draft might be another fairly painless fix (and one the PA might agree to).  Although the Reds, A's and Jays have made international splashes without that constraint...

Matthew E - Tuesday, April 13 2010 @ 09:33 AM EDT (#213536) #

Simple:

1. Balanced schedule
2. top 4 teams get in regardless of division.

That solves most of the problem.

Well, then, why even have divisions? I don't mean this as an objection; I'm just saying that if everybody's playing everybody else the same number of times, and winning the division doesn't get you anything if there's a third-place team in another division better than you, then for all intents and purposes you've just got one big league with no divisions.

It's not a dumb idea.

ayjackson - Tuesday, April 13 2010 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#213542) #

I'd like to see:

  1. 2 Leagues
  2. 2 Divisions per league
  3. 1 pennant winner per division
  4. 2nd place team from each division hosts a best of three playoff series with 2 "next best teams" from the League (wildcards from either division)
  5. unbalanced schedule (though not severe)
  6. no interleague
VBF - Tuesday, April 13 2010 @ 12:08 PM EDT (#213548) #

1. Balanced schedule

Initially I thought that west coast teams would oppose this as they'd lose revenue broadcasting more games at 4pm (or 10am on weekends) local time. But they'd also get more Red Sox/Yankees home games which would be a great boost. I'd be interested to see what would outweigh the other, or if the two could cancel each other out. I'd also have to imagine that from a competitive point-of-view they'd rather maintain the status quo.

Week 1 - Nothing Wrong With That | 44 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.