MLB Realignment (Supplement)

The primary pitfall of my MLB Realignment proposal is the addition of two MLB teams as part of the realignment.

A simple compromise between my proposition and a short-term solution for the MLB Playoffs is simply adding two wildcard spots without the divisional realignment.

To recap my previous article and incorporate this compromise, I am suggesting that the MLB simply add two more wildcard spots. Then the first round of the Playoffs would have two three-game-series in each respective league. The two teams, in each league, with the best records would earn byes. The rest of the playoffs would presume as the playoffs currently do. The pairings in each round would be based on respective division and record.

My first article includes more analysis on why I believe such a format is superior to the current system instilled by the MLB.

MLB Realignment

Recently adding an additional wildcard spot to baseball has been a hot topic. Universally, it is agreed that this is a good idea. However, the main impediment is how such a change will be implemented. The most talked about solution is to add a wildcard spot and have a one game playoff between the two wildcard teams.

I think there are two main set backs to this plan. First, the additional spot really isn't another "seat" in the playoffs. Essentially, it's a play-in game. The second, and more egregious pitfall, is if the difference between the two wildcard teams could be a considerable number of games, and the team that is considerably behind could defeat the far more deserving team.

While Baseball Moralists may be dissatisfied with this possibility of an undeserving team sneaking into the playoffs, there is a far more detrimental ramification to baseball from creating such a play-in game. This change in playoff format will lead small market team to utilize a "playing for second" mentality as opposed to today's long-term organizational strategy to develop into a championship contender. To elaborate, currently small market teams (under stricter financial constrains) such as the Tampa Bay Rays spend years carefully drafting, meticulously developing, and negotiating through strenuous arbitration to craft championship caliber teams at discount prices. Normally, these teams can only be competitive for a few years each decade until the team is forced to sell off its players in hopes of contending in the future and sustaining profits.

The new system will create a new option for these small market teams to steal a piece of playoff revenues. From now on small market teams would only have to shoot for the second wildcard spot and have one pitcher who is capable of helping the team win the play-in game in order to reek the benefits of a best-of-seven-games series. Small market teams would be reluctant to spend the difference between being a borderline wildcard team and a true contending team because the payoff would not be worth the assurance. In most cases the cost of adding one or two everyday players would not be worth the aspirations of additional ticket sales. To sum, teams will have a small risk and high reward alternative as opposed to today's system which encourages bolder decisions to create more sustainable teams.

A perfect example of this downfall would be the San Francisco Giants this year (2011). The Giants acquired Carlos Beltran, Orlando Cabrera, and Jeff Keppinger in order to become a feasible title contender. However, under the "play-in" system the moves to keep up with the Diamondbacks and Braves would be unnecessary. The Giants would simply have to stay ahead of the second place team in the NL Central (currently the injury worn Cardinals). Furthermore, the Giants could even afford to play down to the second place team in the NL Central and force a one game playoff for the play-in game. This is a more favorable scenario for the Giants. The Giants could play down and then hope to have elite pitchers Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain carry them into the playoffs. The Giants would prefer the "second place" mindset because they would not have to pay the additional salaries, nor give up the prospects for the additional players acquired during the trade deadline to remain competitive.

Currently this down fall is discouraged by the need to be a division champion or hold the prized wildcard spot. Under the current system, the wildcard is highly coveted in both leagues because of the durable big market teams. In the AL, the Yankees and Red Sox make the wildcard difficult to snatch while the Phillies, Mets, and Braves make the wildcard difficult to hold in the NL.

Rather than having a "play-in" system, a four division playoff with two wildcards would be more appealing in all regards. Such a system would use a modified NFL playoff setup as the template. The top two teams would earn byes (these could be the top two teams regardless of division and wildcard status OR the top teams that considering division and wildcard status). The remainder of the teams would play out a best-of-three-games series.

A hypothetical realignment could look like this:

AL Northeast: NY Yankees / Boston / Toronto / Baltimore

NL Northeast: Philadelphia / NY Mets / Atlanta / Pittsburgh

AL South: Tampa / Washington / Florida / New Southern Team

NL South: Kansas City / Colorado / Houston / Texas

AL Central: Detroit / Cleveland / White Sox / Minnesota

NL Central: Milwaukee / St. Louis / Cubs / Cincinnati

AL West: LA Angels / Seattle / Oakland / New Western Team

NL West: San Francisco / LA Dodgers / San Diego / Arizona

Some possible locations for the new Western team could be Albuquerque, New Mexico and Portland,Oregon. Some possible locations for the new Southern team could be Charlotte, North Carolina, Memphis, Tennessee or Louisville, Kentucky.

The most prominent factors in my proposed realignment were geographic location (to reduce the burdens of frequent long-distance travel) and rivalry status. The actual realignment is the least of concern. Installing a fair and competitive format is of higher purpose in this discussion.

The biggest concerns with my proposal are: 1) If baseball can persist in the new markets; 2) How parity is addressed within divisions; 3) Is AL South a sustainable division; 4)Is the extra time for the top two teams fair or an undeserved burden?

Of the four concerns, the first will be the most difficult to address. The proposed locations for a new Western team primarly focuses on forming new markets in seemingly strong fan bases. Albuquerque has proven to be a solid foundation for minor league baseball while Portland has proven to be a great host city in the other professional sports (including soccer). On the other hand, the locations for the southern team focuses on dividing the tremendous Atlanta market and localizing support. All three locations are baseball rich and have shown the ability to sustain teams in other professional sport. While the markets will likely be sufficient, the overlying question is if there are enough MLB caliber players for two more organizations. The globalization of baseball surely helps this dilemma, but whether or not two competitive teams can be formed quickly will remain an obstacle.

Next, parity is quelled by the addition of two playoff spots provides each team an unquestionable opportunity to make it to the playoffs. If you have one of the four best records in your league, then your team is guaranteed to play in October. For example, all four teams in the would be highly competitive AL Northeast could earn a spot in the playoffs.

The third concern is a short term concern. While the AL South wouldn't start as the most prolific division, baseball, like most sports, is cyclic to a significant extent and all the divisions will reach highs and lows.

Finally, the fourth concern is an issue faced in football as well: Is the extra time off fair for the top two teams? If a team is tired, has worn out arms, or has veteran players who need some rest, then there will be little discontent; however, if a team is young and rolling then some time off some from baseball could be destructive. Ideally, there would be four (or a maximum of five) days between the last game of the regular season and the first day of the post-season. Currently, there are two or three games between the the last regular season game and the first post-season game.

The largest possible margin of difference is three days while the smallest is one day between the current and the proposed formats. The only players who will have serious complaints (i.e. not using the break as a scapegoat) are players in their prime who are hot at the time of the break. Both younger players - not used to such an arduous schedule - and older players - worn out from the long season - will appreciate the rest while players who are cold will have an opportunity to fine tune themselves.

The other main concern is that it will leave teams who play in the first round of the extended playoffs in an unfavorable pitching order against the top teams in the second round. Consequently, this forces teams to have deeper pitching rotations. This protects against teams utilizing the "second-place" strategy since teams are almost guaranteed a cyclic playoff position with the expanded spots which leaves the only gained opportunity as pursuing a championship. Ideally, the wildcard spots would function as entry post-season positions as they do in the NFL. Obviously, there is less parity in baseball than football, so such an acclimation cannot go unquestioned; however, it is not an oblivious stretch. Ultimately, there is no prevention for a team that purposely tanks as the Pirates have done.

Below are hypothetical pitching orders for teams based on size of the pitching rotation and the length of the first round series. It is assumed that the team with the pitcher higher in his respective team's rotation wins the game; this assumption is quite sizable. Not accepting this assumption asserts that the spot of the specific pitcher in his respective rotation is not a critical component of a team's success in the game. Either way, the lower seeded team has a reasonable chance to win in all of the scenarios.

FOUR PITCHER ROTATION

- Two Game Series in First Round -

Upper Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Four - Ace - Two - Three

Lower Seeded Team: Three - Four - Ace - Two - Three - Four - Ace

Result: Upper Seeded Team wins 4-2

- Three Game Series in First Round -

Upper Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Four - Ace - Two - Three

Lower Seeded Team: Four - One - Two - Three - Four - One - Two

Result: Lower Seeded Team wins 4-2

THREE PITCHER ROTATION

- Two Game Series in First Round -

Upper Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Ace- Two - Three - Ace

Lower Seeded Team: Three - Ace - Two - Three - Ace - Two - Three

Result: Lower Seeded Team wins 4-2

- Three Game Series in First Round -

Upper Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Ace- Two - Three - Ace

Lower Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Ace- Two - Three - Ace

Result: Evenly matched

FOUR PITCHER ROTATION (Upper) VS THREE PITCHER ROTATION (Lower)

- Two Game Series in First Round -

Upper Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Four - Ace - Two - Three

Lower Seeded Team: Three - Ace - Two - Three - Ace - Two - Three

Result: Lower Seeded Team leads 3-1 win final three games being evenly matched

- Three Game Series in First Round -

Upper Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Four - Ace - Two - Three

Lower Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Ace - Two - Three - Ace

Result: The first three games are evenly matched, and the final games are split 2-2

THREE PITCHER ROTATION (Upper) VS FOUR PITCHER ROTATION (Lower)

- Two Game Series in First Round -

Upper Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Ace- Two - Three - Ace

Lower Seeded Team: Three - Four - Ace - Two - Three - Four - Ace

Result: Upper Seeded Team wins 4-1

- Three Game Series in First Round -

Upper Seeded Team: Ace - Two - Three - Ace- Two - Three - Ace

Lower Seeded Team: Four - Ace - Two - Three - Four - Ace - Two

Result: Upper Seeded Team win 4-3

Essentially, this text matrix shows that the teams have the same chance of winning regardless of the pitching rotation.

All in all, big market teams are unfazed and small market teams are given a chance to contend while being encouraged to continue to develop into a championship contender (as opposed to simply making the playoffs); this is assured by creating more incentive for continued playoff revenue (in other terms, sustaining "longer" and "higher" peaks in cycles of contention) greater than the cost of retaining and acquiring players at reasonable values.

New York Islanders' 2011 Offseason

Under Garth Snow, the Islanders have been progressively rebuilding. The organization is now in a transitional phase in which it is trying to balance the opportunity to contend for a playoff spot this season with the opportunity to contend for a Stanley Cup in ensuing seasons. In this situation, it is important to draw distinctions between players who are in the short-term plans and the long-terms plans.

Below are prospective short-term and long-term depth charts for Islanders.

Short-Term Depth Chart

C: Tavares / Bailey / Nielson / Reasoner

LW: Moulson / Parenteau / Martin / Gillies

RW: Grabner / Okposo / Comeau / Hunter

D: Streit / Eaton / Jurcina / Hamonic / Mottau / MacDonald

G: DiPietro / Montoya

Long-Term Depth Chart

C: Tavares / Strome / Sundstrom / Nelson | Nielson, Lee, Haley

LW: Niederreiter / Moulson / Parenteau / Bailey | Kabanov

RW: Okposo / Grabner / Comeau / Petrov

D: de Haan / Hamonic / Wishart / MacDonald / Mayfield / Hillen | Donovan

G: DiPietro / Poulin | Lawson, Nilsson, Koskinen

Given this outlook, I believe there are three keys for the Islanders trying to solidify themselves a spot in the playoffs this upcoming season as well as also giving themselves the opportunity to become a serious title contender in the near future. The squad must decide on a nucleus, consolidate the remaining talent, and keep winning the primary task at hand. While these keys focus on the players, it is also critical for the organization to establish were it will be playing once its lease runs out pretty soon. This matter cannot be neglected; however, it is not the focus of this article (roster moves will be the focus if it has not been evident so far).

Anyway, as stated before, management must decide on a nucleus. The Islanders have an abundant number of pieces with a limited amount of ice time available to be distributed. Snow has to settle on concrete top two lines for 2013-14 season and stick with most of the players he decides on while using other players as trade chips. All the players that Snow may envision on the 2013-14 squad may not necessarily be on the Isles right now. The abundant youth that the Isles have should be used to acquire a top-flight player or two if Snow believes that he can mold a better team than what is available within the organization.

Branching from the first key, the Islanders must then consolidate its talent once a nucleus is decided on. The team should try to maximize the value of players outside of the core nucleus sooner, rather than later, because limited ice time (or playing in the AHL) may actual hinder the development of players who are ready to be regular players in the NHL leading to a loss of value. A trade should be in the near future for the Isles. Garth Snow has shown interest in acquiring a defenseman which narrows in who the Islanders should expect to join the squad on Long Island.

Finally, the Islanders should place winning foremost. The organization cannot allow DiPietro's contract to restrain the team's success. If he DP is not a starting goaltender, then the Isles must accept him as the most expensive back-up and move on with a starter. While we continue to hope the DP will be able to stay healthy and possible be the goaltender the organization expected when the team drafted him first overall and signed him to one of the longest contracts in sports history.

Given these keys and the Islanders current circumstances. I believe there is an attractive trading partner in the Winnigpeg Jets. Last season, the squad formally known as the Thrashers put together a disappointing season leaving the team as a non playoff contender and with a weak farm system. The Jets have a few tradeable players in their prime who can be shipped off to help renovate the team's rebuilding process as playoff contention seems unlikely after last season. I suggest sending a bulk of youth (specifically, two centers, a winger, and two defensemen) for a prime defenseman and one of Winnipeg's marquee goaltenders. This will allow the future to come sooner for Isles while Winnipeg creates foundation for itself by creating a  young group of promising players that fans can grow with.

Islanders:

2 Centers: (Sundstrom, Nelson, Nielson, or Lee)

Winger: (Comeau or Bailey)

2 Defensemen: (Wishart, Mayfield, Hillen, or Donovan)

Winnipeg:

Defensemen: (Dustin Byfuglien or Tobias Enstrom)

Goaltender: (Ondrej Pavelec or Chris Mason)

There are two important notes on this proposition. First, the salary exchange is not even. The Islanders are well under the cap and an increasing cap only provides the organization with more available space. Second, I have only offered a group of possible players who could potentially be moved. Obviously, I do not have the same resources available as does someone in the position of Garth Snow so only he knows which players are the best fit for the organization. It is a tough trade on both ends. There is a swap of quantity and potential for quality and production. It is a high risk and high reward trade on both ends as all-stars and even more potential all-stars can be moved. However, it allows players who would be seeing limited ice time on Long Island to go out to a refacing franchise and create a foundation.

Hopefully, Winnipeg is a good fit for this franchise and the Islanders can continue to play in Nassau County.