Quote:
Originally Posted by kq76
Not true. If you do like Pelican suggested and only protect 12 players (+ the under 3 year service time or whatever that option is), the expansion teams end up pretty decent. Both of mine ended up around .500 and they did much better than the White Sox franchise, Pirates, As, and Marlins. Shockingly, the Rockies got off to a great start and finished a somewhat respectable 73-89.
The NHL did something similar when they expanded to Vegas and Seattle. They wanted the expansion teams to be decent right from the get go and there's no reason MLB couldn't do the same.
|
That's consistent with my limited experience with bigger expansions, I've never done enough testing to find a sweet spot but it's pretty easy to have really good expansion teams, if that's what you want. OTOH the Buccaneers went from 0 wins for more than a season to the league championship in 3 years so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kq76
I do kind of agree with this (I think it's probably why I remembered liking Bluenoser's so much, he didn't do anything too weird), but one thing I really like about the idea of merging the leagues now (I would have said no before the universal DH) is that if say the Dodgers and Mets are the best teams in baseball then they can very easily make the World Series. Whereas with how things are now they obviously can't.
|
Sure, if you don't care about the optics of having two AL or NL teams in the WS. Or you're worried about balance and competition, unlike the baseball cartel
It's also realistic in that TV revenues matter even more to those folks so that interest will probably result in straight-up geographic realignment so NY vs. LA is a more likely result (or west vs. east at least). I don't think there will be any, or enough, holdouts for any kind of traditional realignment. Maybe Steve Cohen? But probably no one with enough votes to stop geography... or 4 team divisions
Anyway good luck with your game!