Could the Astros' move to the AL hurt the Royals?
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 12:54 PM EST
Email
PrintIt seems clear at this point in time that the Astros are headed to the American League. As has been oft-discussed, the inevitable consequence is interleague play throughout the year (see here for a brief overview of the potential ramifications). While the exact details haven't been hammered out, I have reason to be concerned from a Royals perspective.
It seems fairly likely that this will result in a net increase in interleague play (the above-mentioned link presents one possible model with 30 interleague games). The purist in me hates this, but that's neither here nor there. The DH issue is the real concern. Not having Billy Butler available other than in pinch hitting situations (which was more or less the case in away interleague play this year for the Royals) removes WAR and places the Royals at a competitive disadvantage.
Of course, this is just one possible model, and it only increases the number of games played in NL parks by six per season.. but six games can make quite a difference. It's nearly 4% of the season. As much as I know some of you hate the DH, it isn't going anywhere, and I honestly think the time has come to just institute it throughout the league to place every team on the same page.
129 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
In the short term it looks good for us
since the Astros suck and we’ll be playing them more often. As for interleague, well, we have the advantage of a big bat off the bench with Billy. (“Butler pinch-hitting for Giovatella” will resound in more than one stadium.) Might be wise to sit Hos a few games against, like, Pittsburgh, and let Billy play first to keep his fat ass in shape.
Except for 2011, don’t the Royals have a good record vs. the NL?
Yes, all leagues should change to DH. Who wants to watch pitchers hit?
Even better: Expand to 32 teams and eliminate interleague play. Portland, Charlotte, Nashville, Salt Lake, Austin/San Antonio are all possible targets.
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
In the long term, there is of course also the obvious issue of one more team to compete with in the AL,
but the Astros seem light years away from contention, so for the Royals’ upcoming window of opportunity, that particular issue probably isn’t a problem.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
It hurts the Cards more than it impacts the Royals
I swear, if Houston wasn’t in their division, they wouldn’t have even made the playoffs the last couple times they ended up winning the World Series. A six team division is a huge advantage in padding your record when the Cubs, Pirates, Astros, and Reds usually suck.
by OnixConcepcion on Nov 18, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
I like the variable of the rare “good-hitting pitcher”. Greinke, Zambrano, Betancourt, etc.
"On the last day of your life, don't forget to die."
- David Berman
by Crooow on Nov 17, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
More games versus the Astros
and less verse another AL team is a positive. also we usually do well in interleague play so that would also be a positive.
Looks like a positive to me.
I still find it hard to believe that Butler used to play in the field.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
Remember him in LF?
I went to several games when hr first came up as an “outfielder.” His routes were entertaining. If I remember correctly, he came up at the same time that Justin Huber had his cup of coffee, and Huber looked no better in the field.
"Put that in your pipe and smoke it."
by Hal McRae's Telephone on Nov 19, 2011 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
Must play Frenchy
Chen for Cooperstown
by tiquanunderwear on Nov 17, 2011 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
I came up with this scenario in 2 minutes, just scribbling on a notepad:
Each team would play:
13 games against 4 division opponents = 52 games
9 games against 10 league opponents = 90 games
4 games against 5 interleague opponents = 20 games
Note: there are 26 weeks in a season, so you need a minimum of 52 interleague series in order to have 1 or more going on at all times. This covers that.
Also, addresses the competitive balance issue, as it is reasonably close to playing a more balanced schedule.
As for the interleague, I would simply rotate division vs division each year (like the NFL does), so every team would face every interleague opponent once every 3 years overall, and face them at home once every 6 years. Might actually bring back some meaning to the STL – KC series, if it was a “special” occassion every 3 years instead of what we do now. Also, this addresses the competitive balance issue more fairly than the current system.
Your thoughts?
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
by loyal2sdad on Nov 17, 2011 1:31 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Forgot to add:
Something good for the players: No 2-game series in this scenario. All would be either 3 or 4 game series…
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
if there are no 2 game series, how are the "9 games against 10 league opponents" working?
i don’t see teams accepting 6 away games to 3 home games against a given team each season.
no different than they do now:
6 home and 3 away against one of your other divisions, and the opposite against the other. This alternates from year to year.
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
for some reason i thought the schedule was more balanced in that regard
but i just looked it up, this year they played the angels seven times at home and only three times on the road.
My thoughts are
That if they’re going to shift teams between leagues and say “screw history”, they might as well go all-out and re-align MLB along geographical lines. It’s not like there are separate umpiring crews and administrative staff for the AL and NL anymore. It’s a historical relic, and if you’re willing to break with history, just do it right.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
That's a big jump
I can deal with two teams jumping leagues, but you start messing with the whole thing? That’s a seismic shift.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I also don't really see the benefit of "geographic alignment"
It won’t breed more rivalries IMO.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
The benefit would be
reduced travel expenses and travel-related player weariness. Assuming, of course, the schedule is heavily unbalances.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
Pretty marginal benefits IMO
With a lot of downside of upsetting tradition and history.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
My point is
That they’re already upsetting tradition and history. Moving Milwaukee to the NL is at least arguably historic, though obviously it wasn’t the Brewers. Houston has never been an AL city at all.
The NHL and NBA work fine with geographically arranged divisions. I have no problem keeping the NL and AL separate if history is considered sacrosanct, but the Astros’ proposed move pretty much puts that notion to rest.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
I don't see how moving Houston buries history in that regard
any more than doing it with Milwaukee did. The vast majority of teams are still in their original leagues. Now, if 6-7 more teams switched, that would be different.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
I think Milwaukee was that too
But at least there was a fig leaf of “Milwaukee has a National League tradition” that some people felt more comfortable with.
I think that the willingness to flip teams between leagues means that league has ceased to really matter to anyone. The teams that stay put do so out of inertia, not out of some sort of don’t-mess-with-history ideology.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
Right
I think there’s a huge difference between two teams switching leagues and 15-18 teams switching leagues.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Switching? Heck, I'd abolish the leagues totally
They’ve all got a “tradition” of being MLB teams. They will all still be MLB teams. And the new divisional setup will be equally new for all teams.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
Well that's your preference
I’m just saying I don’t see switching two teams means we should take the next level and abolish the leagues.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
doesn't bother me to mess with tradition and history.
i say the best move is this….
a) 30 team league
b) 145 game season
c) play every team 5 times
d) alternate 3-2 Home-Away set up with each team each year
e) top 8 records make the playoffs
Nice!!!
No more November WS games (depending on the new playoff system with extra wild card teams)!!!!
I can't recall
But I seem to recall Jayson Stark or someone saying each team would have around 30 interleague games.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Retro, this is why I am posting an alternative:
I thought one of the driving forces behind this was competitive balance, i.e., teams playing closer to an equal number of games intraleague? My plan has 13 division, and 9 intraleague – certainly closer to that goal than 18 division and 6 intraleague as proposed in the link.
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
(I realize the more unbalanced scenario might favor the Royals more)
but I think one of MLB’s goals is to give the three AL East superpowers (NYY, BOS, and TB) an equal chance to ALL make the playoffs…
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
Also forgot to clarify:
to balance out home and away, ONE of the 5 interleague opponents would require a 2 game home and 2 game away scenario – thus keeping everyone at 81 home games.
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
this represents change
change is evil
therefore, your plan is evil
signed,
Major League Owners
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
All teams are at a disadvantage
When you replace a decent hitter in the lineup with a pitcher, and on most AL teams the regular DH is a guy you’d want in the lineup every day.
I don’t think it makes more of a disadvantage relative to other AL teams, i.e., the ones the Royals would be competing with for playoff spots.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
the NL and AL just need to start playing by the same rules
i don’t care if the DH is taken away in the AL, or institute it in the NL, but it has to become consistent around MLB. with the added interleague games, a team like the Royals would now play 9.25% of their schedule without the starting lineup they constructed to start the season. to have to do that not because of injury or performance just doesn’t seem right.
does anyone really care about the perceived differences between the AL and NL anymore anyway? its all baseball, why are the leagues playing two different games?
Agreed 100% - see my reply above to loyal2sdad
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
Agree; I like the analogy of it being like the AFC and the NFC in football.
They began as two separate leagues, but no longer are, and it no longer bothers anyone.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
The problem with that analogy
is the old AFL is the new AFC, with three historic NFL teams moving to the AFC and the rest staying in the NFC. They didn’t just mingle the two leagues together. And the NFL had nothing like the tradition of the two leagues in baseball, which has been going since 1901.
Moving the Astros isn’t a travesty since they’re an expansion team, just like moving Seattle to the NFC wasn’t one either. But I would prefer to keep the traditional two-league structure.
I would prefer to expand to 32 teams and eliminate interleague play.
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
Two leagues, 16 teams each
divided into two eight-team divisions. Four playoff teams from each league, the two division winners and two wild-cards. You play every other team in your division twelve times, and every team in the other division ten times, for a 164-game season.
One problem with uniting the leagues and re-splitting them up geographically would be that your Northeast division would be Boston, the Yanks, the Mets, Philly, and probably Toronto. You don’t want all the big teams in the same group.
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
That's a natural consequence of heavy geographic concentration
on the Eastern seaboard. While the status quo is certainly unfair to teams like Baltimore or Toronto, I would agree that it would probably make things worse to divide them strictly geographically (though figuring out the logistics would no doubt be fun).
I actually don’t have a real problem with keeping the leagues separate as you suggest (though I still think they should go for consistency within the DH simply because of the World Series) and with eliminating interleague play overall, but I’m recognizing that it’s so ingrained at this point in time that it won’t be going anywhere.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 18, 2011 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
You want one team each in the three big metro areas per league
The two leagues are actually pretty well distributed geographically. This change will put the second largest state and the fastest-growing, Texas, in AL hands, though the largest, California, is 3-2 NL. When Tampa moves Florida will have just one NL team.
The underrepresented part of the country is the Upper South; I’d put a team in both Nashville and Charlotte. They might try Durham instead, making the Bulls major-league.
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
I think that is actually feasible, come to think of it.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 19, 2011 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
Is this what is going to lead to two more Wild Card teams as well?
Isn’t that still looking like a probable outcome?
yes, that will happen too
from what I’ve read, not sure if that starts immediately in 2012, or doesn’t kick in until 2013 like the realignment?
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
They have not decided
Seem to be leaning toward 2012.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Surprised no one called me out on my REAL motivation:
my schedule results in TWO series each against the NYY and Red Sox every other year at the K! MORE PEANUT SALES!
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
wait
you sell peanuts there?
i’ve purchased so many peanuts from the nut-vendors there over the last couple years…….makes drinking beer super-awesome…….shit. Give me a code signal and I’ll do it next time.
Come to think of it, we need a Royals Review gang-sign.
"On the last day of your life, don't forget to die."
- David Berman
A compromise option
If there is more IL play, I could see them instituting a rule that there is a DH in all such games regardless of venue.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 17, 2011 1:51 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Don't know if they would
But some (like one of the above linked articles) are saying that a significant increase in IL games might even lead to the NL adopting the DH rule entirely. I think my compromise choice makes sense. I don’t know that the NL would fight it too much.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 17, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
that is entirely silly, and if you think that would happen…..you’re just silly.
I have no source for this other than….what you said is entirely silly.
"On the last day of your life, don't forget to die."
- David Berman
Not sure why they don't flip the rule and do NL rules in AL parks and vice versa during interleague
At least the fans would be seeing something new from interleague instead of the same bullshit they’ve been subjected to for years now.
by OnixConcepcion on Nov 18, 2011 5:21 PM EST up reply actions
The two wildcard thing is a bit disconcerting
Evidently, they are hell-bent on that being a one game playoff, with the winner joining the 3 division winners in the league semifinals.
Positive: Would make the division race itself MUCH more meaningful.
Negative: Theoretically, the 2nd best team in the league could be eliminated solely on “one bad game”
Not sure the positive outweighs the negative on this…
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
by loyal2sdad on Nov 17, 2011 1:54 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
1 game playoffs are exciting
and statistically not much more of a crapshoot than 3 or 5 game playoffs
I love it
A lot of people complain that it’s playoff creep and that they’re letting too many teams in, but this system is really closer to eliminating the wild card than it is to expanding it. It puts a premium on winning your division, but it also gives a bunch of cities whose teams are sort of good a reason to follow baseball into September.
Sure, the change hurts the best team that doesn’t win its division, but they had 162 games to avoid putting themselves in that position. It’s a small price to pay for increasing excitement and drama across baseball.
it still doesn't fix the problem that will happen
one of these years, a 96 win team is going to win the wild card and have to play a one game playoff and lose. meanwhile, some division winner with only 86 wins is going to get a free pass to the ALDS. the only way to do it, if they’re going to go five teams, is just rank the teams 1-5 and forget about divisions.
by BeauJackson on Nov 17, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
But the same purists that hate this change also hate having a wildcard at all
And without a wild card, that 96 win team misses the playoffs entirely. The purists argue both sides.
Anyway, I’m okay with one of the Yankees and Red Sox getting screwed each year. It’ll make me moderately interested in their late-season games.
Also, if the Royals are ever the 2nd-best team that doesn't win its division under the new system
I doubt I’ll feel like they got screwed by the system. I’ll be pissed that they didn’t call up Myers when he was was raking in AAA and could have made a difference and that they dropped those series against the crappy Twins in July. And I’ll be psyched up for the 1-game playoff to keep the season alive.
so if the royals won 91 games
and had to play in a one game playoff to stay alive, that’d be hunky dory? even if a 85 win A’s team didn’t have to play in a playoff because they won a weak AL West?
by BeauJackson on Nov 17, 2011 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'd feel like we should have won 93 to beat the Indians
And I’d be glad we traded for Felix Hernandez as the deadline.
Any system is going to have its inequities. This system increases excitement.
I agree
If the Yanks were ahead of the Sox in September but blew the lead and then got eliminated in the one game playoff, there would be a riot. My response would be “Boo hoo. Win more games!”
really?
we’re just going to accept a bad playoff system because it might hurt the yankees and red sox once in awhile?
What's the better system?
Remember that the #1 priority should be excitement, not equity.
we're not going to agree here
a one game playoff, to me, is a gimmick that creates no excitement due to the problems it will inevitably create.
i have one scenario above, but another good one would be
a) two 15 team leagues
b) 150 game season
c) no interleague games
d) play every team in your league 10 times each
e) 6:4 home away ratio switching each season
f) four best records make playoffs
correction
b) 154 game season
d) play every team in your league 11 times each
e) 7:4 home away ratio switching each season
four best records make playoffs
Will it be fun watching the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rangers fill 3 of the 4 playoff spots every year for the next 5+ years?
Also, how exciting will September baseball be when the Yankees are 10 games ahead of the 5th place team and have effectively clinched in early August?
Just as an aside, why would the Rangers be a near lock to be in MLB’s top 4 each year of the next 4?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 17, 2011 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, I agree. I think it’s almost obvious.
Are you saying this is, like, silly or something?
"On the last day of your life, don't forget to die."
- David Berman
I'm not saying it is silly. But I don't think they are a lock to be in the playoffs for each of the next 5+ years
How often do teams make the playoffs in 7 consecutive years? And how often has that happened when the team didn’t have the highest payroll in baseball each of those years?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2011 9:12 AM EST up reply actions
To be fair, adding the Astros to their division gives them at least 5-10 more wins a year
Just from the benefit of playing a shitty team more. The Cards go away with padding their record for years against the Pirates, Cubs, and Astros… Rangers will definitely take advantage of it.
by OnixConcepcion on Nov 18, 2011 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
We Drink Their
Milkshake.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 20, 2011 12:23 AM EST up reply actions
was it fun watching the twins dominate the AL Central earlier this decade?
was it fun watching the Indians do the same in the mid-90s? isn’t that the goal of teams, to set yourself up for a window of playoff runs?
if the yankees are 10 games up in September, they deserve to be in the playoffs. if that yankees team then has to go play a team that finished ten games behind them in a one game playoff, that is ridiculous. adding a one game playoff, where even the best team only has a little more than 50% chance of winning just makes no sense.
i realize it is fun to hate on the big spending teams making the playoffs, but adding a one game playoff does nothing to alleviate the overall problems with how baseball is set up.
Isn't there a lot of excitement either way?
And if fan excitement is important, isn’t fans getting pissed off important too?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 17, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
are fans that care enough to be pissed going to not watch or go to their teams playoff games?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 17, 2011 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
Games will be attended regardless.*
TV ratings are what drive everything.
*(unless it’s the Rays)
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
yes...and people that know/care enough to be mad about these things...
do you really think that number is enough to matter? is it enough to offset the advantage of having the yankees in the playoffs every year with their huge local fanbase and their huge national fanbase?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 18, 2011 1:47 AM EST up reply actions
the problem is the divisions are a totally arbitrary concept
and are quite often wildly imbalanced
we’ve had some really mediocre teams win the Wests and the Centrals in the 3-division era
making a much superior team play a one-game playoff , while treating an 83 win padres team like they’re super-duper is an awful idea
I sort of agree with you. But I also sort of feel like the divisions are act as a grandfather clause to soften the competitive advantage the wealthy teams have. It’s not perfect for that role (see: eg. Orioles), but a lot of teams get their spring hope from the possibility of a weak division, and if we abolished divisions, the AL wouldn’t feel as fun.
If MLB is never going to impose a hard salary cap
Then the least it can do is align divisions purely according to market size.
by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 17, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
That’d be sort of fun and totally impractical. It’d be a little funny to see a Yankees schedule that has a 3 game set in Boston, a 2 game set at the Dodgers, a 3 game homestand in NYC, 2 games in Texas, and then 4 more games in Boston.
Also, the smallest market division would be kind of cute. Tampa, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee. Would ESPN even acknowledge that division’s existence?
That can be pretty fluid though
Philly was a mid-sized market in the 90s while Cleveland was a big spender. I guess have them change every five years?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
The size of Philadephia's market has changed significantly in 15 years?
Are are you just talking about size of payroll?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 17, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
The perception of what was big market and small market
People used to say Detroit and Philly were “mid-market” because those teams didn’t spend much while Cleveland and Baltimore were “big market” because they had a big payroll.
How would even gauge market size? Boston as an MSA is smaller than Miami. But of course, their territory covers all of New England (and nationwide). St. Louis is smaller than San Diego, but of course they can support a much higher payroll because of their geographic base (and the fact their fans are simply the BEST).
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Nate Silver did a big 3-part market size study back when he was with Baseball Prospectus
His analysis was based on multiple factors which I can’t remember. While you can’t just look at MSA size, it’s not like determining effective market size isn’t doable. But by any measure, Philly is one of the larger markets. Certainly in the top third.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 17, 2011 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
BTW, this was Silver's market size ranking
1 Yankees
2 Mets
3 Dodgers
4 Angels
5 Phillies
6 Cubs
7 Red Sox
8 Braves
9 Nationals
10 White Sox
11 Blue Jays
12 Rangers
13 Astros
14 Giants
15 Tigers
16 Marlins
17 Orioles
18 Mariners
19 Athletics
20 Diamondbacks
21 Reds
22 Rays
23 Indians
24 Twins
25 Cardinals
26 Padres
27 Rockies
28 Pirates
29 Royals
30 Brewers
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 17, 2011 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
the rockies never get brought up as a small market team for some reason
i don’t seem to remember that being a narrative during their WS run. is the perception of Denver around the country that far off?
I wonder if part of it is that they're one of the few four sport cities.
Then again, so is Minneapolis (I know the Wild play in St. Paul, but that really doesn’t count against the point here.)
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
This worries me a bit
Astros are a mid to large market team. And Houston is the 2nd largest market without teams in all the big 4 sports leagues (Atlanta just lost their hockey team to Winnipeg and, technically Toronto doesn’t have an NFL team, but they have both the Argonauts and the Bills). The Astros also have a big new TV deal kicking in in 2013 and new ownership may be inclined to spend money in order to foster good will amongst fans.
Adding them to the mix in the AL will not help the Royals’ relative spending power.
The Cubs on the other hand are in a hugely lopsided spending power division.
Taking the NFL analogy one step further:
One could argue, if the NFL is sorta acting as the “model” for the future schedule and playoff parameters, then each post season scenario should be a best of 11!
(One-sixteenth of the baseball schedule is 10 games – same as one sixteenth of the football schedule is 1 game)
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
In which case, the Royals should acquire Clayton Kershaw
Should be easy because Frank McCourt hates him or something.
but what if he was part of the divorce settlement?
his ex might not want to give him up
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
He has opinions
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 20, 2011 12:26 AM EST up reply actions
I don't have a real strong opinion about the whole thing
But I think the NL needs to get the DH and I think the regular season needs to be shorter.
damn just add 2 more team and make it 32
like add 1 more team to those borough thing of New York and add 1 more team to whatever city without a team
I am probably the only Royals fan in Hong Kong?
by Yamfun Cheng Kamfun on Nov 18, 2011 8:48 AM EST reply actions
There's no really natural place to put a team, other than maybe San Antonio.
Neither New York team would likely allow placing another team there. Most of the cities that are frequently brought up have territories blocked by other teams or serious stadium issues.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 18, 2011 9:42 AM EST up reply actions
san antonio would be horrible...
too small and not enough money to support another pro team
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 18, 2011 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
Portland is large enough to support a team IMO
But no one is going to build a stadium in this economic and political climate.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Nov 18, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
Portland has quickly become a soccer town
They love their Timbers, and I don’t think they could support both baseball and soccer in the summer.
And it's an extremely progressive town. They don't want to build a new stadium.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 19, 2011 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
Besides, Seattle Would
Want a MLB team, too
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 20, 2011 12:28 AM EST up reply actions
Somewhere in the Carolinas
is a no-brainer for 1 of the 2…
You all probably already have read me rail about New York not having enough teams.
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
You might as well just say
“Somewhere in North Carolina.” It’ll either be Charlotte or Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill. I suppose a Charlotte team could play in a South Carolina suburb of Charlotte, but calling that a South Carolina team would be like calling the Washington Redskins a Maryland team.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
The Carolinas don't really have any big cities
Charlotte is far smaller than Kansas City but it’s the biggest city in the region.
For the team to succeed, it would have to figure out how to draw from the rest of the medium-sized cities that dot the area (if it’s in Charlotte, it would need to draw from Raleigh-Durham, Asheville, Columbia, Charleston, Richmond, Greensboro and Norfolk-Virginia Beach). Which means it would only succeed by causing quite a bit of harm to the Braves.
The city of Charlotte itself is bigger than KC in populatioN
and the metro area is catching up overall. If Charlotte sees growth in the 2010s like they did in the 2000s, the Charlotte and KC metro areas will have roughly the same population.
Charlotte can support a team without relying on customers driving at least 90 miles to the game (Asheville and Columbia are the closest listed). But, the Bobcats/Hornets experience has shown that you need to win if its not Nascar or the Panthers.
I think it could work, but I also had season tickets to the Charlotte Knights (AAA) team when I lived there, so I want to see it work.
by BeauJackson on Nov 21, 2011 12:27 AM EST up reply actions
You're more knowledgeable about Charlotte than I am
But I’d guess that with Wachovia being taken over and Bank of America struggling to avoid the same fate, Charlotte’s growth rate is going to slow dramatically. The last decade was a great time to be a banking center, but I don’t think the next decade will be as kind.
Of course, among the top 50 biggest metropolitan areas, North Carolina had two of the five fastest growing (Raleigh at #2, Charlotte at #4) over the last decade, so there’s something more than just good banking jobs pulling people to North Carolina.
the banks brought people
the lower cost of living brought a lot of people too. the growth of unc-charlotte also helped. i think the growth rate won’t be what was seen in the 2000s. it won’t be stagnant, but it’s not going to be around 32% again. probably be in the 5-10% range, so the population would be somewhere in the 1.83-1.92 million by 2020. the housing bubble bursting and bank troubles won’t help.
charlotte has likely seen its largest growth period pass, and will settle in around where the KC metro area is. but you never know, if the economy comes back, that could change.
by BeauJackson on Nov 21, 2011 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
Give Des Moines a team.
The team will be a massive failure, but at least it would probably result in the blackouts on the Royals and Brewers getting lifted in Iowa.
by OnixConcepcion on Nov 18, 2011 5:30 PM EST up reply actions
Name it "The Iowa Slipknot".
Isn’t it a nine man band anyway?
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 20, 2011 10:04 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
Related FanShots on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
