casimir

So much urgency that they are taking the weekend off from the negotiating table? I guess what else what else should we expect from a sport that won't address its lackluster pace of play issues. Manfred is strolling around the mound, gets back on the mound. Clark steps out of the box, plays with his batting gloves, gets back in the box. Manfred needs to go through the pitching signs again with his catcher because he can't remember what the one is and what the two is. Once the catcher gets back behind the plate, a midge flies in Clark's eye, so he steps out again and the trainer has to visit him with some eye wash. Clark gets back in, but Manfred now has to get the rosin back. Clark then needs some more pine tar. But I guess this us more activity than there was in December and January, so do we call this progress?

Let's get this 4 teams per division malarky out of here. The one good thing of the 1994 strike ending the season was that it prevented a playoff team with a losing record (I'm looking at you 4 team AL West). The fewer teams per division leads to more chances that a losing team becomes a division winner (its just straight math, homey) and it also becomes tougher to set divisions up with some semblance of all around logic. So, if/when expansion occurs, I'd go with 4 divisions of 4. Las Vegas/Portland and Nashville seem like reasonable choices. I'd like to see Montreal get back into it because I miss Youppi, but that's just me. (Baseball in the gambling capital of the world, yeah, let's keep going with the about face on the cardinal sin of the sport). The two western divisions are easiest to set up. Maybe these teams Pacific/Western - SEA, OAK, SF, LAD, LAA, SD, AZ, LV/POR. This has everybody on the west coast accounted for. Everybody is in the Pacific time zone except for Las Vegas which never sleeps anyway. And it doesn't matter which locale the western expansion team lands in, both cities fit comfortably here. Central/Midwest - CO, TX, HOU, KC, SL, CHC, CWS, MN. The pretty much takes care of everybody else west of the Mississippi. It keeps the Cubs and Cardinals together. Lets be honest, along with realignment, there needs to be some tradition upheld, and that's easier to handle with 8 team divisions rather than 4 team divisions. Now the two east divisions have some more choices to make. I think this is where looking at teams in smaller pools of teams does help make those choices. So you've got NYY, NYM, and BOS together. You've probably got PHI, BAL, and WAS together. TB & MIA. CLE & CIN. Div 1 - MIL, DET, CLE CIN, ATL, TB, MIA, NAS Div 2 - NYY, NYM, BOS, PHI, BAL, WAS, PIT, TOR or Div 1 - MIL, DET, CLE, CIN, NYY, NYM, BOS, TOR Div 2 - ATL, TB, MIA, NAS, PHI, PIT, BAL, WAS In any of the above, I guess Milwaukee looks out of place since they aren't in a division with the Chicago teams despite their proximity. But there's going to have to be a line somewhere, and Milwaukee isn't completely out of place with DET, CLE, and CIN. Its not nearly as goofy as when CIN & ATL were in the NL West and CHC & SL were in the NL East. Sadly, this kills the Leyland Ash Tray as a traditional divisional battle trophy, but again, lines have to be drawn somewheres.

That's a lot of poop on the car.

Might there be some momentum on the horizon?

Hey, I’m an idiot. Shocking, right? I read “non-zero” as “near zero”. I apologize. I think the best way to realign is start with Seattle and work towards the East. It’s probably reasonable to assume nothing happens until expansion. MLB has plenty of other items to deal with. But I think if you group Seattle, the Los Angeles teams, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego, that’s 7 teams in a division. That helps the Ms avoid those trips to Texas as a division foe. Plus, there’s wiggle room for an 8th team, either an expansion team or Arizona. As far as the Eastern corridor is concerned, there’s probably a way to construct it such that teams still have a bit of travel to deal with to even things out with other divisions. Obviously they’d put the New York’s and Boston together. Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia probably get grouped together. From there, it’s a matter of who gets grouped up with teams like Detroit, Toronto, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, vs Atlanta, Miami, and Tampa. Again, expansion teams could affect things, maybe Tampa relocates.

I thought the interchangeability angle makes sense.

I just peed myself a little.

Non-zero? The NBA and NHL are aligned based primarily on geography. The NFL could somewhat be considered in the same boat if you consider how the TV contracts are doled out for the 1pm and 4pm starts among CBS (AFC) and FOX (NFC).

Anytime that I have seen it brought up for MLB, there is no framework attached to it to suggest how it could be implemented. Its the cool thing because soccer does it, and maybe it works fine for soccer. But how would it work for MLB? Now that the last vestige of AL vs NL is being removed and all teams are playing by the same rules, I'm ready for a geographic realignment. Or will they wait for teams 31 & 32 before they do that?

Wasn't it to speed the negotiating process up? I heard an interview with Jeff Passan yesterday. A couple of points he brought up that I found interesting: In prior CBA squabbles, the general public has been in favor of ownership 2 to 1. That appears to be flipped this time around. Players appear to pretty galvanized in their stance, more so than before. The drop dead date before moving regular season games is February 28. OK, so, I guess take it for what its worth, that's just one person's opinion.

I wondered about this. Typically that's what we do where I've worked. Preliminary talks occur before the end of the current CBA. The new CBA is usually not finalized, and the terms of the current/old are just extended. Anything that changes from the current/old CBA to the new CBA (ex, wage increases) is handled retroactively. I assume that's how most union shops work, but I don't know that for certain.

Detroit Pistons (12-45) vs Boston Celtics (34-25)

Hold on now. Do you remember the World Series home field advantage being based off of the all star gimmickery? Never put a bad idea in MLB's head.

I think you are going about it wrong if you are trying to find a way for MLB to adopt it. I wouldn't exchange MLB with AAA teams. That's not possible given the farm system and player contracts and whatnots. I think if it were to be implemented in MLB, you'd simply keep the current 30 MLB teams but split them up into a Bestest/Worstest scenario. But then what about scheduling? How does MLB protect New York vs Boston if they get split up? I am being sarcastic, but also serious.

So how would promotion/relegation work for the MLB regular season and playoffs?

Everything sucks.

So, help me with promotion/relegation. My understanding of it as such (and please correct me if I'm wrong): Multiple divisions in the same league. And for this example, we will call them the Bestest and the Worstest. And we'll use 10 teams in each with 8 total playoff spots. Assignments are based in the previous season(s). Playoffs of the current active season are structured in a way such that teams in the Bestest have more chances for playoff seeds than teams in the Worstest. In other words, a simple ratio of playoff spots to teams in the Bestest is higher than the ratio of playoffs to teams in the Worstest. If there are 10 teams in each division, let's say the top 5 in the Bestest and the top 3 in the Worstest are awarded spots. Or we could go 6 & 2 or 3 & 1, whatever. Promotion/relegation occurs in between seasons the top X number of teams in the Worstest exchange places with the bottom X number of teams in the Bestest. Everyone else remains the same. What I don't like about it is that, in essence, playoff chances are somewhat decided by the previous season's records. I understand that current division winners are somewhat decided by geography. I would suggest as few divisions as possible and the playoff berths are decided solely by that season's play.

This forum needs some Biggs.

Team handball. That's fun to watch.

Maybe soccer is like jazz. Jazz: It's not the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play. Soccer: It's not the plays that lead to a score, its about the plays the don't lead to a score?

But its played on a rectangle.

Soccer is a good first sport for kids to play because they can do it a younger age than most sports. The basic movements are easy to do. You can mix boys and girls and there isn't an advantage to one or the other. The equipment is cheaper.

dumbest.

I remember tuning into a pregame on the radio and Sorensen's letter of resignation was read on air, I think by Beckman. It was just a strange beginning to a ballgame. The situation itself was bizarre because I think it kind of came out of nowhere, at least for those not privy to the situation.

Nothing wrong with MLB on the radio in the background whilst doing yard work or some other chore.