This makes no sense
New realignment idea ‘ridiculous’
E-mail
Print
ShareFORT MYERS - Tim Wakefield has seen a lot of baseball in the 16 years and six days he’s spent in the big leagues, but even he can find himself baffled at times by the things that go on. Yesterday morning was such a day.
Sitting at his locker at City of Palms Park preparing to do his daily USA Today crossword puzzle, Wakefield was told of a discussion now going on among members of a 14-person special committee for on-field matters appointed by Commissioner Bud Selig. According to Tom Verducci, the venerable Sports Illustrated baseball writer, one thing the committee is considering to improve competitive balance is to knock everything out of balance. As problem solving ideas go, it seems more addled than adroit.
Comments (15)
Sort:
Reply
Link
Abusive
Sorry, but the post that was in this spot has been removed as it did not follow our guidelines.
#1242747 - Mar 12, 2010 8:27 AM EST
That is one of the worst ideas I have heard of in a professional setting. How do you mess with tradition?
If they want to creat more parity, they need to start putting a salary floor (with penalty for spending too little) with their salary tax threshold. Start getting teams more in the middle of the spending spectrum to put more competition out there for good players.
If they want to creat more parity, they need to start putting a salary floor (with penalty for spending too little) with their salary tax threshold. Start getting teams more in the middle of the spending spectrum to put more competition out there for good players.
The proposal benefits the weaker team that moves out of the division (e.g., AL East), penalizes the team that moves in, and does nothing to change the dominance of the strong teams (Sox & NYY). Move one of the strong teams? that breaks up a good intra-divisional rivalry and more or less guarantees that both will make the playoffs.
The present system is more equitable: both strong teams must compete against each other, and some times one knocks the other out (2008, NYY; 2006, Sox). The third team has a shot. The 4th- and 5th-place teams are not likely to benefit significantly simply by being moved.
It's hard to see this proposal working as intended.
The present system is more equitable: both strong teams must compete against each other, and some times one knocks the other out (2008, NYY; 2006, Sox). The third team has a shot. The 4th- and 5th-place teams are not likely to benefit significantly simply by being moved.
It's hard to see this proposal working as intended.
You want more parity? How about a salary cap with that requires a team to spend up to a certain amount, but it also has to force a team to spend up to a minimum amount as well. If you can't afford to spend on a team, maybe you shouldn't own that franchise in the first place.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! That would be absolutely classic.
side note... I actually miss 0-0 ties in Hockey. those were some of the best games I have ever been able to see. Defenses stepping up and goalies standing on their heads. You walk away with a point and a great deal of respect for the other team
side note... I actually miss 0-0 ties in Hockey. those were some of the best games I have ever been able to see. Defenses stepping up and goalies standing on their heads. You walk away with a point and a great deal of respect for the other team
Had season tix for Bruins for many years, we kept them for the last year of the old building and the first year of the new...after that it was a "why bother going" feeling that took over me and my buddy. I will watch thursday night and if they don't DO SOMETHING after last week then I am truly gone forever from this team.
rborges@bostonherald.com
(15) Comments | Post / Read Comments
Next Article in Columnists:Advertisement
