One of the nice things about baseball is that there is very little incentive to lose games or tank a season, unlike in football and basketball. Your proposal would add such an incentive. I also don't think we should dilute the playoffs with teams that only got into playoffs in virtue of playing in the bad division. And I bet it'd be a bit disappointing to the season-ticket holder who suddenly has to put up with a whole lot more bad baseball.

An unbalanced schedule where, say Seattle and NYYs play 19 times? Ugh. Sure it would be fun for some folk to increase the Yankees' travel budget, but it would also penalize low revenue but good teams. Plus the wear and tear of cross-country flights isn't conducive to good baseball.

And while we're on the subject of scheduling, maybe we should cut back on the unbalanced schedule. It might be easier for, say, Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto to compete if they didn't have to play the Yankees and Red Sox 38 times (nearly one quarter of their season). I am sick of 19 Yankee - Red Sox battles every year.

I have been advocating a divisional switch between the Nationals and the Devil Rays.

Not that anyone has been listening, but switching those two teams would result in two natural rivalries that would help the Florida teams for sure, and probably Washington and Baltimore.

Just think:

AL East: Yanks, Bo-Sox, Jays, Orioles, Nationals
NL East: Mets, Braves, Phils, Fish, D-Rays

This has the added bonus of getting the Rays out of a division they have no realistic chance of ever winning.

But all that does it further ruin the balance of power? How it is good for the Red Sox or Yankees to play the Royals or D-Rays in the World Series? That's no real competition.

Maybe the Devil Rays would have a chance of winning the division if they didn't suck so bad every year. The owner is a cheapskate who doesn't want to invest any money into the team. Why should they be rewarded? Why don't they put some of that revenue sharing money into the team instead of into the owners' pockets?

Forgetting for a minute the practical problems of schedule-making and travel, I see a couple of very fundamental problems with the plan that you put forth. First, what incentive is there for any team to improve? No matter how good or bad they are, they have an equal chance to get into the playoffs every year. So, for example, the Brewers go 63-99, the Yankees go 98-64, and the Phillies go 86-76 this season. If none of those teams do anything at all to improve during the offseason, they still have equal chances at the postseason next season due to being put into divisions with teams of equal quality, good or bad.
Secondly, this does nothing to address competitive balance, really. It only segregates the haves and the have-nots into the major league equivalent of NCAA Division I, Division II and so on.
To me, this just creates artificial excitement, and in a way underestimates baseball fans. No matter what their record in a watered-down Mendoza divison, fans of the Pirates will know that they are seeing below-average talent, and more of it, since a majority of their games would be against equally bad teams. What justification could Pittsburgh have to charge Major League ticket prices? Would you buy a season ticket in that setup??
If you measure competitive balance by the quality of the teams, and not by everybody having a chance at being crowned a division winner, there are only 3 real ways to get there:
1) a hard salary cap; 2) baseball controlling all tv broadcast revenues, and sharing that money equally with all teams; 3) have baseball franchises be owned by the cities they are located in, not by private individuals.
The Players Union will kill #1. The national and regional cable team owners will kill #2. But how about #3?
City taxes provide the team with the $$ it needs. These taxes would be specifically earmarked for baseball, not taken from the general tax revenue. Citizens/fans can then decide how badly they want a winner (or if they even want a team at all). The team president and/or GM can be appointed by a city board, and run the team as any other business would be run.
As much as I'm a capitalist, I would love to see this tried somewhere. No more stadium blackmail, no more threats to move the team, and fan control and ownership of their own team in an abstract way. Would the Yankees still outspend the Royals? Maybe. But maybe KC gives their players local tax exemptions, for example, to help attract good free agents. Why shouldn't baseball try it with one team? How about the Nationals?

Thanks & Regards,

While you have a good thought and are right about the salary cap and cable tv deals (both needed and both too forcefully opposed) the idea of the city run baseball team is not good. First, cities can't offer tax breaks (maybe property taxes or local sales tax, but how many players live in the city they play or would move there to shave off 1% of purchases and the city share of their property taxes). Second, gov't can't run anything like a business. All revenue would be spent and alotted well before the team is taken into consideration. Think Soc Sec on a micro level. Third, the thought that citizens would decide if there was going to be a time at all scares me. Lets look at the typical baseball fan, in my opinion we are looking at a 20-30 year old white male or a male over 60. (I've noticed a gap in there, but that could just be me) This then raises the issue if the city needs the funds the team is costing - does majority rule? Then, no baseball. Another consideration, in Atlanta and most markets the team draws on more than just the city dwellers for their revenue. What about those of us in the suburbs? Do we not get a say in what goes on with our team? If I'm a season ticket holder living outside the city, I can't vote for the city council. what say do I get other than the one I have now and that is my wallet?

Although I do not have any better ideas.

The thing that will make a difference if the Nats and D-Rays switched leagues would be added ticket sales.

For example, the Cubs (my team) play games against geographical rivals such as the Brewers, Reds, Cardinals, and White Sox. These rivalries increase gate receipts consistently.

My guess is every game between the Nats and Orioles would sell out if they were both in the AL East. Thats 9 sellouts per team per year.

The Florida situation probably wouldn't be quite as advantageous because St. Pete's and Miami are pretty far away, and neither team has a great fan base... but it would sure go a long way to making Florida baseball a bit more feasible.

Believe me when I say that involving the govt at any level creates waste and inertia, among other things, so I totally agree with you there. Its a desperate last resort type of suggestion. I find it hard though to believe a govt-owned team could do worse than the recent Benson signing in terms of waste. (Just 1 example)
I see what a pathetic group the current owners are, accountable to no one, and in some cases using tax money and soaking taxpayers and fans anyway. While I have no love for the current leadership of the Players' Union, the owners in my opinion are the people who have been truly destroying the game. Even with a salary cap, it wouldn't stop them from tinkering with the game to squeeze out an extra buck. You can debate the value of these changes, but more playoffs, more teams, longer seasons, interleague play, games that finish past midnight, juiced baseballs (alleged), opening day played in Japan, etc., have all come about for that simple reason alone. How to change that? (A REAL commissioner would be a nice start)

Thanks,

I don't like the idea of clustering an area with teams from only one league. If the Nats went to the American league, then the Balto-Wash area (sounds like a detergent) would have two AL teams and no NL baseball. Switching the D-Rays to the NL would put three NL teams in the Southeast with no AL teams. There's a reason why the four metro areas with two teams all have one of each league. People get to see a variety of teams, as well as getting their choice of whether or not they like the DH. All of the "natural" geographic rivalries also have plenty of teams from the other league nearby. The cross-league geographic rivalries play each other in interleague ball anyway; Florida plays the Devil Rays and I assume that the Nationals will play the Orioles, if not this year then next year. Think about it... your Cubs have a rivalry series with the White Sox, and you're in separate leagues.

One small point - the NFL no longer bases the next season's schedule on the previous season's records, with the exception of just 2 games. Other than that, all teams in a given division play the same opponents, determined on a rotating basis.

(http://www.johnnyroadtrip.com/schedules/nfl_nfce.htm)

Why not organize the divisions naturally by geography now that the distinction between AL and NL is (almost) meaningless? Northeast division: Boston, NYM, NYY, Washington, Philadelphia. Etc. etc. etc.... This has the side effect of putting like markets in the same division in many cases and will definitely nurture regional rivalries.

Actually, the reason that the major markets with two teams are in different leagues is because when the American League started, they placed competing teams in the big markets to try and siphon some of the players and gate receipts from the NL teams. It worked so well that the NL had to capitulate, recognize the AL as a major league, and start playing something called the World Series.

I personally like the idea of geographical divisions. Since we already have interleague play, you still get to see the other players, but geographical divisions would intensify the rivalries.

That's true about Chicago and New York, but I doubt National League teams would have been put into Los Angeles and Oakland back in the sixties. Part of the reason the second teams in matro areas are able to compete are because they do offer something different--- a different set of opponents. Fans of the Indians or Tigers in Southern California know that by and large they'll be going to Anaheim to see their favorites play. Fans in Orlando of out-of-state teams can see Marlins games if they like NL teams or Devil Rays teams if they like AL teams. I imagine there are a lot of Yankee fans who show up to Devil Ray games or Mets fans who see them compete against the Marlins.

If the Seattle Piolots do move to Milwaukee, they would still remain in the AL West. We do, however, need to reposition the defending champion St. Louis Cardinals and Leo Durocher's Chicago Cubs to the NL East in exchange for Atlanta and Cincinnati. This is 1969! What are we teaching our children? Atlanta is WEST of St. Louis?!?