I'd only be in for an expansion of the field if the regular season was reduced back to 154 games.

The playoffs play far too deep into fall as it is in northern cities without retractable roof domes.  The weather itself changes the dynamic of the game.

I really like 6 teams (with 2 bye's, like football) - you can maintain division-heavy schedule, and 8 teams, but 8 teams drastically changes the dynamic, making divisions meaningless...but they are aleady anyway, aren't they? It's only the league's that have different characters.

More teams in the playoffs solves the cap problem because more teams have a shot, and would, take down bigger teams.

More revnues, happier fans.

The 162 game schedule would probably have to be shortened, which probably makes me think that this won't happen unless hell freezes over. A salary cap that distributes talent better might have the same affect, but I'd rather see bigger playoffs because it's just so much more exciting.

It's hard to talk about playoffs without dealing with competitive balance issues.  What I would like to see is 2 divisions in each league, as in the early 1970s:
AL West- Seattle, Oakland, LAA, Texas, KC, Chicago, Cleveland
AL East- Toronto, Boston, NYY, Detroit, Baltimore, Tampa, Minnesota
NL West- LAN, SF, Arizona, SD, Colorado, Houston, Chicago, St. Louis
NL East- NYM, Florida, Atlanta, Phil., Pitt. Milwaukee, Washington, Cincinnati

Limited inter-divisional play (1 series home and away).  No interleague play. Hard salary cap and expanded revenue sharing.  Only division winners advance to the playoffs.

It's a 162 game season.  Winning a division title should really mean something. None of this is likely to happen any time soon.

Where can I vote for "2"? Division winners only, all that. Insert curmudgeonly argument  here.

I'd like 6, give the top teams something to shoot for (1st round bye), so nothing is really set in stone until the end of the season in all likelyhood.

I'm not just speaking as a Blue Jay fan either - more teams in it = more revenue = most fan interest.  I'd also like to see a hard cap, but thats another story, and not likely going to happen.

If I was an Astros or a Braves fan, I'd be a lot more interested in buying tickets when you are only 1 and 1.5 games out of the wild card respectively, than 5 and 5.5.  Toronto would be 4.5 out instead of 6.5, but they'd be holding on to 7th place.

I voted four, but like Mike and Mick I would prefer two division winners per league and that's it. I like Mike's model, but would switch Minnesota and Cleveland in the AL, and would allow a little more interdivisional play. For the AL, maybe 17  games against each intradivisional rival and 10 games versus each team in the other division, and for the NL 14 games against each intradivisional rival and eight against each team in the other division. (I think my math works).

I also think if the current model continues, then the imbalanced schedule should be eliminated. As it stands, the wild card contenders have very different schedules depending on what division they are in.

Winning a division title should really mean something.

I agree, and it's part of the beauty of the 5 team system. It empasizes the importance of winning your division while keeping more teams in the race later in the season, and without requiring the regular season to be shortened. Brilliant!

I really couldn't make up my mind about Cleveland vs.Minnesota; you're probably right though- Minnesota being in the Central Time Zone being the key factor.  The rationale for limited interdivisional play is that I'm not a big fan of the two cross-continent trips a year, and the performance lags that flow. 

I'm in favour of four post-season berths for the American League: one for each division winner, and a special one for the Yankees, who aren't a real baseball team any more but rather a collection of over-30 free agent all-stars.

The Jays would be considered an extremely successful franchise had they been in the AL Central all these years: they would have won titles in 2000 and 2003 for sure. And there's not that much of a reason to put them in the East: they're the farthest west geographically of the AL East teams, and the closest American League cities are in the Central (Detroit, Cleveland).  Grrr.

rather a collection of over-30 free agent all-stars.

Well, not ENTIRELY ... having made appearances in the last week or so:

S. Proctor 29
C. Wang 26
A. Phillips 29
M. Cabrera 22
C. Wilson 29
R. Cano 24
N. Green 28
TJ Beam 25

Okay, maybe proving your point. Ah well.

I'm boycotting this poll, as my favoured candidate ("less than four") was not allowed to stand.

I feel like rallying in Batter's Box Square or something.

"who aren't a real baseball team any more but rather a collection of over-30 free agent all-stars."

This has been true for at least 30 years, though, except maybe for the late 80's when they were a collection of washed up over-30 free agent all-stars.

1979 YANKEES
C - Munson (32)
1B - Chambliss (30)
2B - Randolph (24)
SS - Dent (27)
3B - Nettles (34)
RF - Reggie!!! (33)
CF - Mercer (33)
RF - Piniella (35)
DH - Spencer (31)

BENCH - Rivers (30), White (35), Beniquez (29), Narron (23), Gamble (29), Stanley (31)

SP - John (36)
SP - Guidry (28)
SP - Tiant (38)
SP - Hunter (33)
SP - Figueroa (30)
RP - Gossage (27)
RP - Davis (23)
RP - Kaat (40)
RP- Clay (29)
RP - Hood (23)

Other than the young backup catcher, these guys look identical to the current Yankees, including the young 2B.

"these guys look identical to the current Yankees".... really, now, check out this historical team payroll data sheet: http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/TEAMSAL.xls

In 1979, the Yankees payroll averaged 199,236.  There were 8 other teams making 66% (2/3rds) or more of that Yankee payroll (Boston, Milwaukee, California, Montreal (!), Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincy and Los Angeles), with 2 other teams close behind at over 60% (Texas, San Francisco).

In 1992-1993, the Jays, payroll leaders (those were the days) had 8 other teams (1992) and 11 other teams (1993) making 66% (2/3rd) or more of their payroll.

Fast forward to 2006 -- there are 0 teams making 66% or more of the Yankees payroll with the RedSox at around 60% (even less now with Abreu's and Lidle's acquisition).

Anyone that is advocating for 4 teams or less (!?!) playoffs in the AL is either a closet Yankees fan, living off their memories of the late 80s-early 90s, or is a masochist.  Note that in a short series the Marlins pitching can get hot and beat the Yankees, but in a full season the rest of the AL East is playing for 2nd.  And that's sad.  (Note: I voted for "8" because I am a Jays fan and believe they could pull a 2003 Marlins ... if they had a hope in hell of making the playoffs).

What does payroll have to do with it, though?  The game's played on the field, and pennants are decided by wins and not dollars.

Check out the 1979 Yankees and see how many of those guys were either signed as free agents, or acquired in salary dumps, usually from small market teams.

Out of the starting 9, only Munson and Randolph were with the team from the minors, and Randolph was originally a prospect in the Pirate system.

Chambliss and Nettles were  acquired from the Indians, the smallest market team of them all at that time. 

The Yankees gave up 3 players and 200 grand in cash to get Dent from the White Sox.  Spencer was also picked up from the White Sox.

The Orioles couldn't afford Reggie and were about to lose him to free agency, so he was traded to the Yanks.  The Yanks resigned him.

Piniella came from the small market Royals.

Murcer was a late-season pickup from a mediocre Cubs team.  He was traded for a guy who would never make it out of the minors.

The Yankees have been using their massive resources to acquire players since before I was born.  This is nothing new.

Pepper, I'm not just talking about payroll, I'm talking about payroll *differential*.  The differential, as your numerous examples prove, allows the Yankees to take on many star players who price themselves out of their own teams budgets.  This creates inequity *on* the playing field over a long season, as the Yankees can simply replace injured expensive players (Sheffield) with more expensive players (Abreu) on the fly without betting the farm (team).  The rest of the teams have to pray that their own stars don't get injured.  Which increases dramatically the Yankees' odds of making the postseason, at which point, I agree, it becomes a crapshoot as some teams can get hotter than others.

Do you feel it's a level playing field if the Yankees can afford to resign their homegrown stars (Jeter, Posada, Rivera) and at the same time add free agent stars?  The only homegrown player I can think of that the Yankees let go (who if stayed, would have helped the team) was Pettite.  The Jays and pretty much every other team lose homegrown stars like Delgado, Green and Hentgen because they can't afford to keep them.  Not the Yankees.  And that's the difference.

All of that is fine and good, but you've missed the point.  I didn't say that anything you discussed *isn't* happening, just that it isn't a new thing.  I agree with your point, I'm just saying it was happening in 1979 as well.

The differential doesn't necessarily matter either.  Suppose you and I both want an item up for auction.  If I have $12 and you have $10, I'm going to win it.  If I have $200 and you have $15, I'm going to win it.  The differential doesn't matter in this case, at the end of the day, you're going to go home empty handed, and I'm not.

That's been what's happening over the last 30 years.  If the Yankees wanted someone, they got him, and the Royals or Expos or A's or whoever went home empty handed.

Pepper, I appreciate you engaging me with this discussion.  I think you are missing my point, however.  Please re-read my first post in this thread.  In the 1979 World Series of Poker, er, Budgets of the 26 MLB Teams, 8 other teams came to the table with at least 66% of the chips that the Yankees came to the table with.  Ergo, the chances of some team outbidding the Yankees for some major league talent was a bit less than 1 in 4.

In 2006, those 8 teams have been reduced to.... zero, out of 30 teams (4 more teams = even less concentrated major league talent).  Thus, the chances of some team outbidding the Yankees for some major league talent is now.... 1 in the maximum number of players allowed on the Yankees roster.  As such, why is anyone surprised that the chances in 2006 are far greater that the Yankees will continually make the playoffs than in 1979, as no team has the budget to even give the Yankees a run for their money, er, free agents.

Oh yeah, and how do the Yankees keep coming up with more minor league talent to exchange in salary dumps?  Because they can sign 16-year-old prospects for $2 million.  And overwhelm other bidders for internationals like Matsui, Contreras, El Duque, etc., etc. Jays fans rejoice when they sign BJ Ryan *away from* the Yankees, who, if signed by them, would have been their.... setup man.  Do you not see the *increasing* futility in all of this?

Buying free agents isn't a poker game, though.  It doesn't scale that way, just as you don't get a one-in-ten chance of buying a new Toyota Yaris if you've got $1500 to spend.

"As such, why is anyone surprised that the chances in 2006 are far greater that the Yankees will continually make the playoffs than in 1979"

Other than the actual year of 1979, the Yankees did constantly make the playoffs in that time.

There's also twice as many  playoff spots as there were back then, with the same number of teams in the AL.  Go back to the old style playoff structure, and the Yanks don't make the playoffs in 1995, 1996 (2nd to Cleveland), 1997, 2000 (2nd to Cleveland),

In 1999, they'd win by one whole game over Cleveland.  In 2001 they'd be 4 games ahead of them.  In 2005 they'd have a one-game playoff with the Red Sox.

In only 4 of 11 years - 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004 they'd be clear cut winners.

How is that any different?

While I do not favour expanding the number of playoff teams, I do support confiscating two of the NL's playoff spots and giving them to the AL!

 

You make very good points, Pepper.  But it is hard to compare the Yankees pre-playoff expansion records with post because it opens itself up to endless "what if" scenarios.  For example, do you not think that the eventual-World-Series-champion Yanks of 1996 and 2000 wouldn't make another "trade" or two to overtake the Indians if they were behind by 1 or 2 games and not solidly in the playoff picture in the post-playoff-expansion AL East?

In fact, this is exactly what they did this year when facing the BoSox in first in the AL East and the White Sox/Minny aiming for the Wilcard in the Central.  I highly doubt the Yankees would have sprung for Abreu and Lidle if they were running away with the division.  Case in point: look at the Mets not upgrading at the trade deadline.

I guess my argument is that it's *trending* to even more imbalance.  In 2003 the Yankees gave up Soriano for A-Rod.  In 2006 they didn't have to give up practically anything (at least, not anything that their scouting department can easily replace by tossing more money at raw prospects) for Abreu and Lidle.

"While I do not favour expanding the number of playoff teams, I do support confiscating two of the NL's playoff spots and giving them to the AL!"

LOL.. that's *amazing*.  Awesome idea!

Giving the AL both wild cards would make a lot of sense.