Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, and Cleveland Indians Team Previews

Last week's team previews went so well after the discussion of whether the Red Sox lineup was any good or not, I couldn't wait to start this week's previews. I still say the Red Sox lineup lacks something and isn't as strong as I would like, but I guess whether I am right or not remains to be seen. Today I am previewing the Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, and Cleveland Indians. It's a Midwest affair of Major League Baseball team previews today.

Chicago Cubs

Lineup

When I just glance at the Cubs lineup, I feel somewhat impressed that it is a good lineup. Upon a further look, I don't know how I feel about it. Obviously, this statement is not true because some guys hit well, but I feel like every single Cubs regular has a bad season last year. Alfonso Soriano's numbers continue to trend downward and he is still a slight mess out there in left field, while Geovany "I got Rookie of the Year over Jair Jurrjens which pisses Ben off" Soto had a terrible year last year and Aramis Ramirez was injured. Basically, last year was a lost year for the Cubs and their offense. In response the front office didn't really do anything but bring in depth and get rid of Milton Bradley. This Cubs lineup has the feel of either "we are going to blow this up and start over" or "this is the year these guys click and the Cubs can make the World Series." I don't think there is an in-between. Lou Piniella will either get a contract extension or just basically quit on this team. I am not 100% sure which way this season will go honestly. Fukudome and Soriano (though he did have injuries last year) are not playing at a high level, so it either means Xavier Nady has a chance to step up or Marlon Byrd is the best outfielder on the roster. If someone forced to me to lean one way (which I guess is what a preview is all about), I feel like there is going to be a blowup of the roster in Chicago. I don't think this team can get it done in the NL Central.

Rotation

Now here is a positive aspect of this team. The Cubs got great pitching last year and due to injuries and effectiveness were not able to take advantage of this. The question I have is whether the Cubs can pitch as well as they did last year? We pretty much know what we are getting from Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly may have a good year but he did have offseason surgery, while Dempster and Wells I look to see have good seasons again. The 5th starter spot seems to be Tom Gorzelanny, Carlos Silva, and possibly Sean Marshall's to fight over. It's good to have choices and one of those guys is bound to step up and take the spot. The odds in my mind are that Gorzelanny will win that spot and anything Carlos Silva does will be gravy. The Cubs pitching was good last year and I don't know if this staff can pitch the same way this year. I, along with other Cubs fans, have been greatly disappointed in Zambrano's performance compared to how well I feel like he should be pitching. I just thought he would have put it all together into a couple great seasons by now. I have a hard time feeling good about a 34 year old coming off surgery in Ted Lilly and I don't know if they will get 2008 Ryan Dempster or 2009 Ryan Dempster. It wouldn't shock me to see Randy Wells end up being one of the better pitchers on this staff.

Bullpen

I don't know if this will definitely be a weak link for the Cubs, but I don't know if it will be a strong point either. Carlos Marmol wasn't quite what the team was expecting last year as the closer but maybe he will improve this year...or maybe he will lose the closing job. Who knows? Closers can be unpredictable like that. I like the combination of Angel Guzman and John Grabow as the set up guys to Marmol and I hope the Cubs can count on Jeff Samardzija this year, but other than I am not getting too excited about these guys. I feel like it is a solid bullpen but not necessarily the best in MLB or anything.

What I Like

I like the fact the Cubs aren't willing to give up on the team they built which was competitive just two seasons ago. I guess that is a good thing, but can also be seen as a bad thing if the Cubs start tanking again this year. Really injuries didn't do the Cubs a whole hell of a lot of good last year and I blame injuries and general ineffectiveness for a lot of the team's problems. I like the rotation the Cubs put out on the field and I think it is definitely a rotation that can win the NL Central if they pitch as well as they did last year...which I am not sure can happen. As bad as last year was for the Cubs, they were only 7.5 games out of winning the NL Central, so it is hard for me to predict a terrible year for them based upon knowing that. There aren't that many other teams, outside of St. Louis, that gets me too excited when discussing the NL Central so I can see with a strong rotation and decent health in the lineup the Cubs having a good season.

What I Don't Like

On NBCSports.com the preview for the Cubs under "Breakout candidates" says "None" and that pretty much sums up my feelings about the team as well. I mentioned the way they have their roster set up, I feel it will either be a competitive playoff team or be a team that gets blown up. I have read a lot of opinions saying the Cubs are going to go to the "blow it up" side, which obviously leads me to believe they will do well this year since people are idiots at predicting things generally. I know this team is different from last year's team, but it doesn't feel that different to me. I ask myself what will be different for the Cubs that will cause them to have success this year, assuming the pitching takes a step down, can the offense go a step up? I am not sure it can honestly. I like Lee and Ramirez, but I am disturbed by Soriano's fall to just being a decent player and I don't know who else is going to step up in that lineup.

Final Record

For me, there is just a stink about the Cubs this year. Maybe I don't know enough about the team but I just feel like this is a similar team, with small changes of course, as last year's Cubs team. I don't think the players like Piniella and it wasn't just Milton Bradley that was the problem. It is not like they are playing in the AL East where they have to compete with powerhouse teams, so the Cubs should (in theory) have a good shot at winning the division on paper regardless of some problems. I don't like this team that much this year based on the lineup, the fact I do have some questions about the bullpen and the shit smell I just get from this team. Like I said, I think this season will go one of two ways and the Cubs will either blow it up or go far. I am going to go on record as saying they are going to blow it up...assuming Jim Hendry has the balls to do that. I bought high on this team last year and I am not doing it again.

Last year: 83-78
This year: 77-85

Chicago White Sox

Lineup

Oh the Chicago White Sox...one of the most entertaining in baseball simply because their manager Ozzie Guillen makes it so. This is the "other" Chicago team that plays baseball. Last year was a sort of "what the hell happened" year for the White Sox in my mind. They traded for Alex Rios and Jake Peavy but it was pretty obvious they didn't trade for them with last year in mind, but for this year as the focus. As far as Rios goes, if people thought he needed a change of scenery then that may be wrong. He actually hit worse in Chicago than he did in Toronto. I have no idea what the hell happened to him. Apparently if you sign a long-term contract with the Toronto Blue Jays your career numbers will immediately begin to decline. I will say this lineup is interesting to say the least. Out machine Juan Pierre is playing left field and Rios is in centerfield. Not impressive on paper. If Carlos Quentin is able to bounce back this year, then that will significantly make the outfield look better. If Quentin doesn't come back to his 2008 form I am going to wonder a little bit where the power in the lineup is supposed to come from, though it wouldn't shock me if Gordon Beckham decided to pop 30 home runs this year...so maybe he can provide some of the needed power. It's a solid lineup with a lot of questions for me, like Mark Teahen at third base, Juan Pierre in left field and Rios in center field. I feel like Pierre should be the 4th OF, so Kenny Williams needs to find a way to make that happen.

Rotation

I do like the White Sox pitching. Of course I am sucker for young pitching like they have in Danks and Floyd (he's sort of young). I don't know how I feel about Jake Peavy to be honest. The trade has already been made and he looked great in his 3 starts with the White Sox last year, but traditionally he hasn't been quite the pitcher away from Petco Park that he was playing in Petco Park. I do really like the starting rotation and every magazine or preview I have seen has Freddy Garcia as the 5th starter. I would bet $100 it takes less than a month for Dan Hudson to take that spot from him. Hudson is going to be a good pitcher and he showed a little bit of what he could do last year. If he pitches like I believe he is capable of pitching then this White Sox rotation is going to look even better. This is a good rotation and is the strength of this team.

Bullpen

I really like the bullpen the White Sox have put together. Jenks, Linebrink (though he was a little off last year), Thornton, Putz, and Pena are good choices coming out of the bullpen. If I am being picky I would ask where a capable long reliever is for the White Sox, but they may not require too much of a long reliever if the rotation pitches like it is capable of pitching. This is a bullpen that is not going to give up leads and will keep the White Sox in close games. Even if by some marvel Freddy Garcia ends up pitching the full year in the rotation, Dan Hudson can be the long reliever for the White Sox, otherwise that job goes to Garcia. There, I have answered my own problem area for the White Sox.

What I Like

I really, really like the bench players for the White Sox. I like the fact some of the question marks in the lineup have guys with some ability behind them. I like the chance the White Sox took on Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsay can play multiple positions in the outfield and first base. I do wish the White Sox had given Tyler Flowers a chance to be the backup to AJ Pierzynski but it didn't happen. Even though I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame, there are much worse players who are also coaches available than Omar Vizquel and Jayson Nix can provide more backup in the infield. So if Rios/Pierre stinks I feel like the White Sox have other options in those outfield spots and if Teahen starts to look terrible, the White Sox could always turn to Dayan Viciedo, assuming he can stay in shape, and makes the White Sox opening day roster. I like the choices the White Sox have in the lineup and I of course really like the pitching rotation of the White Sox.

What I Don't Like

I have no preconceived notions before I go into previewing each of these teams for the 2010 year. I just do some research on each team and talk about what I don't and do like about them. That being said, I don't hate a lot of things about this White Sox team. Yes, they have questions in the lineup, but the White Sox can also platoon Pierre, Jones, Kotsay, Nix in some fashion in the outfield if it comes down to it. The DH spot has a lot of candidates there as well. Being picky, I like the White Sox depth but it worries me Danks gave up double the amount of homeruns in 2009 that he gave up in 2008. His walks were up, while his strikeouts were down too. Gavin Floyd actually had better numbers last year compared to his 2008 17-8 record, which means he obviously got worse run support, isn't as good as his 2008 numbers suggest, or was just an unlucky pitcher. If those guys bounce back this year, this is going to be a great rotation and the bullpen is fairly impressive as well. What I don't like is the fact the White Sox have taken chances on players like Pierre, Rios, and Teahen and I am not 100% confident those are going to pay off. The offense could struggle at times I think.

Final Record

I like the White Sox for 2010. I think they will solve the lineup issues I have in regard to the outfield and I think the rotation is going to be solid from starter #1-#5. What scares me is if Carlos Quentin doesn't hit well and Gordon Beckham has a little bit of a sophomore slump (it is sort of a sophomore year for him, maybe a "second semester freshman" slump is better wording). Other than Konerko, I don't know exactly where the hitting is going to come from if both of those guys struggle. I see hitting as this team's problem, but I do think they will find a way to solve that problem with the guys on the roster. For this year, I am buying on the White Sox because they have great pitching, a great bullpen, and will figure out the potential offensive problems as the season goes along.

Last year: 79-83
This year: 89-73

Cincinnati Reds

Lineup

There are certain times when I am doing these previews that I think I may offend fans of the teams I am previewing. For some reason, I think the Reds might be one of those teams, so I will try to tread relatively lightly. Some people may be a little nervous about Jay Bruce's numbers from last year but I am not one of those people. He is currently 22 years old, cut down on strikeouts and is currently 22 years old. He is also currently 22 years old so I am not worried about him at all. I like this Reds offense pretty well. I don't think it is quite the offense it needs to be to win the Reds a division title nor do I believe the lineup doesn't have holes. Any lineup built around Bruce, Votto, and Brandon Phillips is going to be a pretty good lineup. For me, the Reds offense is a step below being good enough to win the division. It's too much of a mixture of "hoping young guys take a big leap and veterans who need to have a have a good year" to compete in the NL Central. That combination also makes the Reds a team that few teams are going to want to play, combined with their pitching.

Rotation

The good news for the Reds is they haven't lost any players of importance in the offseason, but the bad news is they have young pitchers on their active roster who still have their arms attached and Dusty Baker is the manager of the team. So Johnny Cueto, Homer Bailey, and Edinson Volquez watch out, you may average 135 pitches per start. My biggest question for the Reds is I wonder which pitcher is going to the bullpen? I am pretty sure you don't pay $30 million to Aroldis Chapman for him to be a long reliever or go down to the minor leagues or at least I hope not. So which pitcher goes? Not Johnny Cueto, Edinson Volquez, or Bronson Arroyo. I don't know what kind of trade market is available for Aaron Harang and I don't know if putting him in the bullpen is the best move either. So that leaves Homer Bailey to either go to the bullpen or go down to the minors. Unless the Reds are planning on having a 6 man rotation, someone will have to go to the pen or the minors, though given Dusty Baker's tendency to overwork pitchers a 6 man staff might not be a bad option. I am going to be interested to see what the Reds do. This is a good pitching staff and if I were the Reds, I would try to trade Arroyo or Harang and see what the market is for them. Overall, assuming Edinson Volquez comes back healthy this is going to be a good pitching staff and I am excited to see how Cueto, Volquez, Bailey and Chapman pitch this year.

Bullpen

Francisco Cordero was pretty good last year as the Reds closer. I still question why they spent so much money on a closer when they are a team that had other needs, but this isn't my team to compile or pay, just to judge in this preview. It is going to take a lot to convince me Arthur Rhodes isn't on some PED because he is too old to be pitching as well as he is and Nick Masset is a good right handed set up guy. I do have questions about the other slots of the Reds bullpen, with little confidence in any of these guys outside of Danny Herrera. Possibly the Reds should look into converting Micah Owings into an everyday player and teach him to catch. That would get Ramon Hernandez out of there and improve their offense. For me, the rotation, bullpen, and lineup have "wait until 2011" written all over it, at which point I think this is going to be a good team.

What I Like

I like the potential of the Reds lineup, I like the potential of the Reds pitching staff and I like that this team isn't great, but is good enough to make me not want to play them in a game of importance. I don't know if that counts for something. I have a feeling this is the year Jay Bruce "gets it" and starts to become the hitter we all know he will be. Edinson Volquez is going to be a great (seemingly) addition to the pitching staff if he is healthy and I am very interested to see what gets done about the surplus of arms in the starting rotation. I feel like the bench is pretty weak at this point and they are relying on guys like Balentien, Janish, and Sutton who are relatively young and inexperienced in the major leagues. This is the first year in a while I have looked at the Reds and thought, "if this goes right and if this goes right, I see them having a shot at winning the division."

What I Don't Like

I don't know how I feel about the Orlando Cabrera signing. It was a good deal but he is a veteran on the downside of his career and I am not sure how that fits into this team long-term. I also am not sure what the plan with the 6 starting pitchers currently is. Having options like that is a good thing, but it also brings questions to my mind as to whether the Reds can properly allocate all of those resources they have in the rotation. I like the back-end of the bullpen and I think if the lineup can stay healthy (which has been a minor issue) the team is going to be pretty good this year.

Final Record

I feel like this is the year the Reds start to play well and this will make them the favorite in the NL Central going into 2011. Even with Votto, Bruce, and Phillips, I am not sure the Reds lineup has enough firepower to compete in the NL Central. Throw in the uncertainty in exactly what we will get from some of the pitchers in the rotation and I think, as I have said they will be the official National League "team no one wants to play" for this year. I just don't think they will have enough (Joe Morgan alert!) consistency to win the NL Central.

Last year: 78-84
This year: 82-80

Cleveland Indians

Lineup

The Cleveland Indians. Now this is a fairly tortured team, not that Bill Simmons was asking, but I am telling. It feels like the Indians start over every few years and then are forced to watch their best players do well with new teams once the team becomes good. Last year it took the cake when ex-Indians Lee and Sabathia met up in Game 1 of the World Series. The entire Indians fan base probably gave up at that point. This year one of their most promising and productive outfielders, Shin-Soo Choo may end up having to do mandatory service in the South Korean Army and it is a big deal over there, so he probably can't get out of it, even if he wanted to. I will just pretend he is playing the full season for the Indians this year in my preview. The loss of Choo would be pretty big for the Indians though. Just looking at this roster, it has a bunch of players with promise, but not players that are necessarily going to reach that promise this year. Other than Sizemore, Choo, Cabrera, and Hafner there just isn't much (realized) talent on this team. The lineup will only get better though if the Indians let the young guys like Brantley, LaPorta, and Marson take their hacks and learn to play in the big leagues. The lineup isn't much to look at but there is some talent there, just talent that hasn't matured yet. At least Indians fans know they sell away their players, but they also tend to get talent in return...which will eventually be sold away. The best thing this team can do is play the young guys as much as possible now and let them learn to be hitters in the big leagues and I think the team will do that.

Rotation

This is where it gets a little bit dicey. Just a couple of seasons ago, Jake Westbrook was starting Game 3 of the ALDS in New York, and that is when Cliff Lee wasn't in the rotation because he was struggling. So he was essentially the 3rd starter. Now he is the ace of the staff, not by skill, but by default. Of course he hasn't pitched since June 2008 because he is coming off Tommy John surgery. Nobody knows what the hell happened to Fausto Carmona and there is a slight chance Justin Masterson may be the best pitcher on the staff. The rest of the rotation is a lethal combination of "not very good" and "too inexperienced in the majors at this point." Even if the Indians had a great lineup, this pitching staff is in no way a quality pitching staff at this point. Again, it is full of young guys and guys with potential so the Indians are going to let these guys work the kinks out. I have a feeling if Westbrook has a good first half of the season he will be wearing a new uniform come late July.

Bullpen

Now here is a group I really like for the Indians. Kerry Wood is a quality (if not inconsistent) closer, which means he is also trade bait and if the Indians happen to get a lead I think Joe Smith can held hold it. I also think the Perez twins (Rafael and Chris) should have a quality performances this year (the opposite of how they performed last year) and it wouldn't shock me if Jensen Lewis bounced back as well. If the Indians get a lead, I feel like this bullpen has a decent chance of holding that lead. At least they have live arms here, which I feel like usually isn't the case for teams that are not very good. Maybe the bar has been lowered for the Indians based on their pitching staff and parts of their lineup, but I feel decent about this bullpen. If they get a lead, they may be able to hold it.

What I Like

I like the way the Indians go about rebuilding their team. I like they don't hold back young guys and let them play and get some experience at the major league level. Of course once these guys get too expensive they have to trade these guys away sometimes, but let's not think about that right now. If Choo has to serve his time in the South Korean military then that will be a big hit to the lineup, but overall I don't think the lineup is strong top-to-bottom, yet I overall I think it will be an interesting lineup to follow this year. They don't have a whole lot of depth on the bench, but the guys they do have Mike Redmond and Shelley Duncan who have experience in the majors. They may not be good players, but at least there are a few veterans on the roster. I like that Carlos Santana could be a major league catcher at some point in the near future and the Indians don't have to force him up to the majors because they have Marson there now. I also like the bullpen. Even though many of those guys struggled last year, these same guys have the potential to pitch very well out of the pen. Other than that, there isn't too much I like at this point.

What I Don't Like

I don't like the rotation and I don't like how there are not that many proven major league baseball players on the roster. It is hard to knock the Indians for this simply because that is part of their plan they have had to execute. They had to trade away good pitchers and other hitters in exchange for prospects. Just because I understand it doesn't mean I have to like it. I think young teams like the Indians are interesting to watch because you either see a team that is not good but has promising players on the roster. So we get flashes of what some of those players can do, which is exciting for a person like me who loves seeing prospects develop. Just from looking at the roster and pitching rotation it doesn't look like this team will be that great this year, but who knows, maybe guys like Laffey and Sowers will pitch well this year and surprise everyone. I wouldn't bet the house or any other valuable possession on this, but it could happen.

Final Record

I am excited to watch LaPorta play everyday and see what some of the young guys on the Indians roster are able to do. I don't think they are going to be very good, but it will still be interesting this year. If I were an Indians fan, I would be incredibly frustrated with how I feel the team is starting over and trading great players for prospects time and time again. The front office and management always seem to make the Indians competitive at some point down the line and I think it will happen again. Just not this year. They do get to play Kansas City this year, so that's good news.

Last year: 65-97
This year: 68-94

Next week I will have 4 more teams to preview.

10 Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: The Gritty Comeback Edition

I haven't done a 10 Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought of in a long while for a variety of reasons. First, during NFL season it is a lot easier to find bad journalism to write about for some reason, and second, I haven't really accumulated that many links in my bookmarks that I didn't think would require a full post. I like doing these "Ten Things..." because it lets me focus on the high points of articles that I may agree or disagree with and skip around from topic-to-topic, which given my short attention span is easy for me to do.

1. Let's start off with a mailbag from the man I am doing a parody of sorts with my title for these "Ten Things..." Peter King.

And now for something completely different: The San Diego Chargers not only did the right thing with LaDainian Tomlinson, they did the right thing at the right time. The next time a team has to deal with releasing a legendary player in decline, club officials should go to school and learn how Dean Spanos and A.J. Smith cut the cord with the eighth-leading rusher of all time.

I would actually disagree in part with this statement. The Chargers did the right thing for Tomlinson but they didn't do the right thing for their team. I always prefer to get rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late and I think the Chargers got rid of Tomlinson a year too late. They used their 1st round pick on Larry English, which I think will pay off at some point, but they could have used that pick or traded up to get Shonn Greene, Beanie Wells, or LeSean McCoy. They didn't do that because they had Tomlinson and Sproles on the roster. They even restructured Tomlinson's contract last year, instead of releasing him.

This is an arguable point, but if they had Greene, Wells, or McCoy would they have been near to last in the NFL in rushing and would they have had a better chance to make the Super Bowl? I argue "no" and "yes." The Chargers did what was right for Tomlinson but hurt their team in the process by getting rid of him a year too late.

In the high-powered offense coach Norv Turner runs, they knew they couldn't tolerate a back who still wanted to be a major presence but couldn't deliver like one.

They had this problem last year as well and didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. I think they should regret it.

Now Tomlinson's agent, Tom Condon, can begin trying to find a new home for LT, working the lobbies at the downtown Indianapolis hotels and the concourses at Lucas Oil Stadium, where the combine drills will take place.

I agree the Chargers were kind to do this, but they should have done it in 2009 and not 2010. Sure, Tomlinson only had one bad year in 2009, but there is a history of running backs slowing down as they hit the work load and the age Tomlinson was coming up on.

From Aaron Monroe, of Tampa: "In honor of your foray to the World Cup this summer (I plan on being there as well to see my first cup games live), I have a question that combines both soccer and the NFL. In MMQB you mentioned about the Bucs shedding payroll rapidly. It's apparent that the product we have here in Tampa isn't as good, but no one seems to honestly talk about why. The Bucs have one of the lowest payrolls in the NFL and lots of 2010 draft picks, yet Mark Dominik has said they are not players in free agency. Passing on Vince Wilfork, Julius Peppers, Richard Seymour. No effort to sign Donte Stallworth or even Mike Vick last year, both coming with minimum cost exposure. Isn't the real reason they're staying on the sidelines because they have all their available cash tied up in a financial disaster with Man U and, a reality that's destroying their NFL product?

Of course, Peter King is probably one of the worst "insiders" at sniffing out "real" stories in the NFL, so I am not sure he is the best person to ask this question to. I get the feeling some NFL people just tell Peter something and know he will accept it without further questions. Sometimes I think people may just make something up and see if Peter King will print it.

PK: That's a commonly held belief by a lot of people around the league, but I checked this morning, and I can tell you there's no evidence to suggest the Glazers are taking, for example, any chunk of their $95 million annual network TV money and funneling it to pay down their debt with Manchester United.

Of course there is no evidence of this. They aren't stupid enough to just leave the evidence of this lying around, but doesn't it make sense they may do this? From a logical point of view? One business is making money, so they use to pay off a debt from owning another team. It doesn't mean they are, it just means it makes sense this could happen.

Rick Gagliardo of Pinehurst, N.C.: "Re: the logjam at the HOF ... I've been thinking about the five- to seven-person limit allowed each year, and I've wondered if that was in the original by-laws when the Hall was founded in 1963...In 1962 there were only 14 teams in the NFL. When the first group of men was voted in, these men, by and large, played in a league with eight teams. If you consider a team as having a 40 man roster -- which I'm sure it didn't most of the time -- it's a stretch to say that as many as 320 men comprised the entire league. After Cleveland and Baltimore were incorporated and Dallas and Minnesota were added in 1960, the NFL stood at 14 teams and 560 players in 1962. With 32 teams now...I would suggest increasing the induction number to seven to 10 a year.

It's an interesting point Rick makes. I am generally against making it easier to get in the Hall of Fame, but his reasoning does seem pretty sound in all honesty. There are more teams, more players, etc...so there should be an occasional increase in the number of players who can make the Hall of Fame.

PK: I think the overriding theme of your letter is that you'd like to see more players inducted, because so many deserve it. As my Sirius Radio friend Bob Papa has suggested, maybe we should have a year or two of much larger classes, to get those the majority of the committee feel are Hall-of-Famers (Dermontti Dawson, Cris Carter, Richard Dent, Shannon Sharpe) off the bubble they've occupied because of the great quality of the modern classes. You may not like my answer, but I don't want to do that.

If a player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, what sense does it make to let a self-imposed limit stop them from making the Hall of Fame?

It should be hard, very hard, to get into any Hall of Fame,

Again, if a player deserves it and the electors don't anticipate doing this every year, and don't get carried away and let players who don't deserve Hall of Fame induction in, what's the problem? It hasn't been made any easier to get in the Hall of Fame, the number limit of players who can be inducted has been temporarily waived. I think we should be able to trust the Hall of Fame voters to make a wise decision in this case...or at least I hope we can.

and who is to say if we admit 12 people in 2011 and 2012 that it won't spawn a whole new class (a slightly lower class) of candidates that we'll be pushed to admit.

It could very well happen. Fortunately, there is thing called "free will" that allows Hall of Fame voters to make up their mind and they aren't forced to vote for any candidate they don't like. If the voters are the susceptible to outside pressure like this, it doesn't make me feel good about their ability to vote for any Hall of Fame class.

The best thing we can do is keep making it difficult to get in and do the best we can each year, and eventually the deserving players will get in.

I can see this point of view, but if a player is only pushed out of the Hall of Fame because of a number limit, what's the difference in letting the player in for 2011 or making him wait until 2013 when there aren't as many qualified candidates? It doesn't matter to me either way, but if we trust the Hall of Fame voters to vote for anyone at all into the Hall of Fame, we should be able to trust them to vote the right players in for induction if the limit was temporarily raised.

2. After the Super Bowl, Jay Mariotti just went ahead and predicted a dynasty for the Saints. You know, why the hell not? They won one Super Bowl, they probably will win 2-3 more, right?

It isn't a bandwagon we're jumping on. It's a Mardi Gras float, a wave of confidence that dares to suggest that the New Orleans Saints, a team that wasn't supposed to win the Super Bowl unless the apocalypse arrived, might win another one next year.

No one ever said the Saints shouldn't/couldn't win the Super Bowl. Ever. No one said this. Ever.

Let's create a false assumption and then disprove it! Now Jay Mariotti is stealing from Jemele Hill.

"I think I could kiss him right now,'' gushed Saints owner Tom Benson, whose standing in New Orleans was saved by Payton and Brees after he was vilified four years ago for threatening to move the team after Hurricane Katrina.

It's funny how Super Bowl success makes us forget the few asshole things Tom Benson has done while owning the Saints. Amazing isn't it?

We've watches several accomplished coaches -- Mike Ditka, Jim Mora, Bum Phillips, Wade Phillips and Hank Stram among them -- take over the Saints and not come close to what Payton has achieved in four astonishingly quick seasons.

Payton's astonishing record in his 4 seasons with the Saints:

2006: 10-6
2007: 7-9
2008: 8-8
2009: 13-3

Two playoff appearances in four years. Good, but not astonishing.

It's stunning enough that he has transformed a hopeless losing culture into a rousing success.

The Saints record for the 4 seasons before Payton arrived:

2002: 9-7
2003: 8-8
2004: 8-8
2005: 3-13

For Payton, 8-8 is astonishing in the eyes of Mariotti, but 8-8 prior to Payton's arrival is a "hopeless losing culture." I think it is funny how other than the Super Bowl year with Payton and the 3-13 in 2005, the records for the 3 years before Payton and 3 years while Payton is coaching the Saints is exactly 25-23 in both cases. I know it is tough to exclude those two years, but is also a bit misleading to call Payton's 4 year record "astonishing" while calling the 4 years before Payton as having a "hopeless losing culture."

but Payton put the Saints in position to win with the greatest play call in the game's 44-year history.

Possibly overstating this a little bit? It was a great call, but was it the best in the history of the Super Bowl?

A hot name at the time as offensive coordinator of the Dallas Cowboys, he easily could have passed on the job when general manager Mickey Loomis offered it. He chose to embrace the challenge.

The challenge of a team that was 28-36 the 4 years prior to his arrival. It's not like he turned the Lions around or anything. This was a team that hadn't had Super Bowl success, but wasn't a terrible team, except for the 2005 season...which not-coincidentally was the year the team was uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.

Also interested were the Green Bay Packers. He grabbed the Saints job.

Revisionist history by Mariotti. He didn't grab the Saints job, he didn't get the Packers job and the Saints were the only other team offering him a head coaching job at the time. It made the choice fairly easy for him.

Once the laughingstock of the NFL, the Saints have become a destination because of Payton. They'll lose some free agents, but as long as Brees is healthy and his receivers and running backs are in place, they'll be a contender in an NFC that isn't as robust as the AFC.

As long as those receivers and running backs are in place the Saints should be fine, right Jay Mariotti? It's not the Saints defense that won them this title was it? The same defense that wasn't good when the Saints were 8-8 the previous year...the same year the Saints had much of the same offense in place? Of course, it's just the offense this team needs. Don't worry about that defense at all.

It is Sean Payton's miracle. And at age 46, he might be just starting.

I hate it when the "dynasty" talk comes up after a team wins 1 Super Bowl. Also, Jay Mariotti is an idiot.

3. Let's get some Jay Mariotti Olympic idiocy as well. The same week he came out in supporting Tiger Woods, he says Bode Miller hasn't redeemed himself yet.

He continues to be a shallow-minded hypocrite and anti-Olympic buffoon, even more so with three additional medals around his neck, one of gold.

Better than being a buffoon with a computer and an opinion, right Jay?

Bode Miller says he now wants to embrace the "passion" and "inspiration'' of the Games, yet he's bothered by the "corruption" and "money'' -- which, of course, any athlete could say about any sport if he chooses to be a rebel without a clue.

Or he could actually be concerned about the corruption and money.

This was the ideal opportunity to make amends for his despicable behavior four years ago at the Turin Games. The assumption was that Miller would fade away as a punchline and wasted talent, but somehow, after pondering retirement, he ignored a beat-up body, including an ankle sprain suffered in December during a volleyball game, and showed up again in the competition he despises.

I am not a Bode Miller fan or anything, but doesn't the fact he matured and won 3 medals mean this should be a good story and not a "this guy doesn't deserve redemption" story?

No one, that is, except Bode himself. Pathetically, he keeps on baffling us with his b.s., trying to embrace the good in the Games while still painting himself as a more subdued counterculturist who doesn't like the accompanying greed. Look, a lot of us don't like corporate America and the way it operates, but that doesn't mean we lash out at it while reaping the benefits.

Exactly. What successful person has ever criticized society and the way that society runs while still living in the society? Other than pretty much any person who ever made a significant change to society of course. The way a person gets credibility to suggest changes and the way a person's words actually mean something is if that person lives in the society he criticizes. It shows he/she actually wants change to be made.

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't marching the streets of Tijuana or some other foreign country in support of better civil rights in the United States was he? No, he was in the heart of cities with racism protesting in an attempt to make life better for others. It's how change is made.

If Mariotti took his own advice, he would not participate in the coverage of the Winter Olympics in Canada because he was so critical of their handling of the death of the luger a few weeks ago. If he wasn't a hypocrite of course.

Instead, he continues to devalue the worth of a gold medal, which demeans the purest objective of the Olympics -- to train for years and beat the world's best competition -- and insults the pride of other athletes who've worked so hard to be here. Who is Bode Miller to look down his nose at a gold medal, then smile and wave during a flower ceremony after winning a gold medal?

I think it is possible for Miller to enjoy winning a gold medal and still hate the commercialism of the Olympics.

"That was the feeling I've been searching for, and I let it build up. I was real nervous before I went, but excited-nervous, not anxiety-nervous," he said. "Normally as an athlete, a veteran of 400 World Cup races, you kind of repress that stuff. I used to crash all the time because of it. But I think that's part of why I wanted to come back."

He came back to get excited-nervous?

No, idiot. He came back for the adrenaline rush of racing down the hill and redeeming himself for past mistakes. This "excited-nervous" is something athletes feel right before they start competing. It's obvious he was trying to redeem himself or at least forget some of the mistakes he made in the past. Apparently Jay Mariotti doesn't like this.

4. Mike Freeman wants us to think about Donte' Stallworth's victim, which he doesn't believe people are doing.

Reyes is the forgotten figure in the Stallworth tragedy, continuing to unfold coldly and uncomfortably right before our catatonic eyes. Reyes was walking to a bus stop on his way home from a construction job at 7:15 a.m. in March 2009 when Stallworth, legally drunk at the time, struck Reyes with his vehicle and killed him.

I think what has caused less uproar about Stallworth is that Reyes apparently broke the law by crossing the street NOT at a crosswalk and there were other circumstances that have caused less uproar about Stallworth's return to the NFL.

Stallworth, meanwhile, fared much better. He was indeed suspended by the NFL for an entire season yet, incredibly, sentenced to just 30 days in prison for manslaughter.

I can't get how Plaxico Burress gets 2 years in prison for shooting himself in the leg but Stallworth got 30 days for manslaughter. I thought the sentence was too light...but no one does seem to care that much.

The most interesting aspect of this ugly case is the lack of attention and outrage it has generated. It seemed the media and sports fans were more concerned about who Tiger Woods was boinking than Baltimore signing Stallworth.

Absolutely, it is amazing to me how few media members and others aren't interested in this case. Mike Vick killed dogs, and I like animals more than humans so just know that, but there was a constant debate over whether he should be allowed back in the NFL. Stallworth kills a human and no one seems to care. Hell, Peter King views it as a redemption of sorts for Stallworth to even be signed by an NFL team. If you remember, he basically was fawning over Stallworth in his MMQB this past week. I don't get how it is a redemption really.

This time, post-Stallworth, the reaction was quiet and there was more examination over whether Stallworth could help the Ravens rather than if he should be allowed back in the NFL in the first place.

Peter has referred to Stallworth previously as "learning his lesson" and indicating he feels Stallworth has redeemed himself through charity activities. Then this week, instead of questioning why Stallworth could even sign with a team, he only talked about how fast Stallworth's 40 yard dash time was on a slow surface.

Again, Stallworth deserves another opportunity to rebuild his life but when you kill a man, professional football should be out of the question. It's disingenuous (at best) when Newsome says Stallworth paid a significant price. Stallworth paid a very minor one.

I absolutely agree. I know Mario Reyes wasn't in the crosswalk, which apparently is an offense punishable by death now, but he was still a pedestrian and Stallworth hit him with his car, while legally drunk. I don't get how being legally drunk and hitting a pedestrian is only worth 30 days in prison. I guess it was the old "I flashed my headlights at him" defense that paid off for him.

Granted, Stallworth has paid the price for his crime, I just don't think it was a very high price for the crime. In a world where Tiger Woods cheating on his wife and Mike Vick killing animals are seen as higher crimes by the media, what does that say though?

5. There are two different trains of thought in the world regarding 2010 free agency in the NBA. The first train of thought wonders what would happen if a bunch of free agents teamed up on one team. The second train of thought thinks this is not realistic. Gene Wojciechowski is the spokesperson for this first team.

How rich is LeBron James? Put it this way: When God needs some walking-around money, he borrows it from LBJ.

Boo!!! You're a hack.

And although Chris Bosh isn't in the same endorsement orbit as King James and D-Wade, he's still pushing $60 million in career salary earnings. So it's not as if Bosh is ordering the 89-cent, five-layer burrito from Denise.

(Throwing fruit at Gene from the crowd and then Bengoodfella steps up his game and starts throwing knives at him.)

All that could change if James, Wade and Bosh decide to put dynasties over dollars, basketball legacies over bank accounts. They just need a dotted line and some stones as big as the ones in Olympic curling.

"What these players should do is prove they are among the greatest players in the history of the NBA by teaming up with other great players to win championships so that way people can dismiss any titles won by a Wade/James/Bosh team as caused by their alliance on the same team and not their individual skill."

If there is anything less attractive to a basketball player like LeBron James and Dwayne Wade than sharing the spotlight and possibly not getting credit for a championship won, I can't think of it right now. Remember how bad Kobe Bryant wanted to win an NBA Title without Shaq? Exactly, so why would two (three? Is Bosh in there?) of the game's best players voluntarily try to have his legacy tied up to another great player? Remember, Wade already has a championship with Shaq, and you are naive if you don't believe he wants to win one on his own.

So not only does it not make sense for James/Wade/Bosh to team up from the point of view in regard to enhancing each of the player's legacy on championship teams and their standing in the hierarchy of the greatest NBA players of all-time...it doesn't really make financial sense either. One or two of the three players would have to take less money than he could get on the open market.

That's not even including the fact three alpha players on one team, with all three players in their prime, would probably not work. Remember Shaq and Kobe? What about Shaq, Kobe, and Iverson? How would that go?

As ridiculous as it sounds, there exists a scenario in which these three guys could play on the same team and win championships happily ever after starting next season.

Maybe they would win a championship or two, but I question how "happily" they would do this and how long this situation could last.

Without going all capology on you, it looks as though next season's projected salary cap will be between $50.4 million and $53.6 million.

Right now, the Knicks are on the hook for only $18.6 million in contracts next season. The Nets are committed to just $26.6 million worth of deals, while the Heat are at $30.7 million, the Bulls at $31.9 million, the Clippers at $33.5 million, the Kings at $33.9 million and the T-Wolves at $35.2 million.

Most likely none of these teams could afford these three players if they got maxed out contracts. They would have to take a pay cut of some type to be on the team and the team will have trouble adding any other players for a few years down the road.

The numbers could change by July, but at least this gives you an idea of who has the most money to make a run at one of the great unrestricted free-agent classes in NBA history.

Without taking less money for 1 or 2 of these players? No one.

I'd ditch them. If you're really serious about creating a brand and a basketball legacy, do something that's never been done before. Don't max out; min out.

The basketball legacy wouldn't be LeBron James winning an NBA Title, but LeBron James winning an NBA Title with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. Then the legacy will be that Dwayne Wade needs one of the top 20 players of all-time on his team to win an NBA Title and so does LeBron James. This isn't the legacy either player wants.

But if James, Wade and Bosh truly want to make history, they could do the unthinkable and split the Knicks' $33 million three ways. It would cost them salary money, but can you imagine how much they'd make on the back end if they started reeling in NBA titles? In New York?

I hope Gene understands players also care about their own personal legacy and players like Bosh, Wade, and James have basketball skills that could very likely conflict with each other. Who gets the last shot on a team with Wade and James? Figure in Bosh on that team as well. You think Wade wants to be a sidekick? Because LeBron James sure as hell won't be one. I am also pretty confident Chris Bosh doesn't want to be a third option. NBA players want to win a championship but there is a limit to how far they will go to do so, especially at such a early part of their career.

Three singular players who know careers are defined by championships, not just checkbooks.

Three players who also understand how Kobe and Shaq's time together with the Lakers winning 3 NBA Titles was perceived. Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, he didn't need a Top 20 player to win an NBA Title. You don't think LeBron James thinks about this? I guarantee you he does.

I think this is a bad idea for a variety of reasons.

6. Now Jemele Hill (of all people) speaks with the point of view I agree on, that this group of three guys won't work well together.

But what I can't take is the idea that the NBA would be better off if LeBron and D-Wade or LeBron and Bosh, or some combination of the three, wind up playing together. Sometimes, it feels as if fans want the NBA to become "Super Friends." Even though Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were far more compelling individually than together.

Even though I am not sure I like the comic book reference, I agree with JemeHill. It is exciting to think how good a team with these three players on it would be, but I don't know long-term how this would work.

The assumption seems to be that two or three megastars on one team is a good thing. But I can't think of a more boring setup.

Agreed. She is taking a different look than the one I have taken, she focuses more on how this move isn't good for the NBA, but I agree with it in principle. I also don't think these three players could play well together for long.

The idea that the NBA needs several superstars on one team is misguided. Every superstar needs help, of course. But it's working for the NBA to have LeBron, D-Wade and Bosh (admittedly, a lower-wattage star than Wade and LeBron) in their respective cities, each competing separately for a championship.

I don't even really care about the parity of the NBA, though it is more exciting when James and Wade are on separate teams. I care more about the fact it doesn't really make sense in many fashions to team these players up.

And although Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett came together to win a championship in Boston in 2008, they were complementary pieces rather than individual superstars who could singularly carry a team the way LeBron, Wade and Bosh have.

I would argue those players were individual superstars before coming to the Celtics and Pierce was still a borderline superstar in 2008. I don't think I would call these three players necessarily "complementary pieces" in 2008 though.

Jordan is considered the greatest because he won six titles with teams consisting primarily of him, plus role players. Had he ever paired with another superstar, he might not have been looked upon as invincible.

That's my point. This is a perception that NBA players care about too. This is not just the protesting of a guy who just absolutely loves parity or anything.

If LeBron and Wade or some of the others wind up on the same team, how will we measure their greatness? How can we ever know what they were truly capable of as individuals?

This is the question these players have in their mind, which is why I don't think they would ever team up.

Kobe was/is criticized sharply for playing a role in the Lakers' split with Shaq. But there's no question that had he not won a title without the big man, he never would have been in the conversation with Jordan as one of the greatest players ever.

Kobe earned a lot of credit for winning an NBA Title without Shaq. He may have still been considered one of the greatest players ever, but not with as much enthusiasm as he is considered in that way now. I don't think James, Bosh, and Wade on one team could or would ever work.

7. Mike Freeman does some athlete bashing and this time it is Dwight Howard he goes after. I have been critical of Howard in the past because he doesn't have an offensive arsenal of shots and he doesn't WANT to be the best player on his own team...at least in my mind.

No matter his alleged offensive improvement, Howard continues to be the most frustrating player in the NBA and maybe all of sports.

I think Shaq has set a new standard for centers in the NBA and how we think they should perform. He had an obvious physical advantage over other players and still developed as a player...except at the free throw line (I still say he should have tried to shoot free throws granny-style. It is embarrassing, yes, but if it helps it would be worth it). It's just my hypothesis, but I think if Shaq had never come along, then we would be happy with Dwight Howard's progress. Shaq was essentially Howard when he came in the league. He could dunk and had a very limited offensive game, then Shaq worked on his footwork and created some (awkward at times) shots in his arsenal. Howard really doesn't have this. I have watched quite a few Orlando Magic games this year and he looks the same to me as he did last year.

Howard deserves credit for attempting to diversify his offensive game with more front looks and handsomer jumpers, yet he still doesn't look drastically different.

But around the basket, I don't like Howard's moves. They are just very basic in my opinion.

He might be demanding the ball more but it looks tepid, almost fake, like he's trying to be something he's not.

Howard doesn't even really "demand" the ball. He wants the ball but he is also perfectly happy with another player taking the last shot of the game. This hasn't changed this year at all. Against Boston earlier this year, Rashard Lewis took the last shot, it wasn't Howard who seemed to want the ball in his hands.

"Kevin Garnett has been in this league forever and he's won six playoff series in his career," Van Gundy said. "Dwight's won four and he's [24] years old. That's a pretty good comparison. Why is Kevin Garnett a great winner and Dwight Howard's not?

That's not the issue. The issue is whether Howard wants to get better and whether he has that hunger to win that great players seem to have. Garnett had that hunger and he seemed to maximize his potential, even if he did seem to shrink from the ball at the end of the game a little bit.

Many times, Howard will be the biggest and strongest on the floor, so he's going to get his points and rebounds.

If only Howard were hungrier, he might already have much more.

Exactly. Howard isn't a bad basketball player, he is going to get his points and rebounds. It's just when the game is on the line or when an old, out of shape center (Shaq) calls him out and steps up to him, Howard doesn't step up his game on the floor.

8. Bill Simmons wrote an article about the NBA that I very much agree with. I care about the NBA and I really believe he has a few good points that he makes.

It's about Jermaine O'Neal making more money this season than Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Eric Maynor, Thabo Sefolosha and Jeff Green combined.

It's about Tracy McGrady making $22.4 million, being unhappy coming off the bench, then convincing his team to let him disappear until it traded him.

It's about Jamaal Tinsley getting paid $10.6 million this season and the next by Indiana not to play there.

Really, these are mistakes made by poor General Managers but they are an example of a greater problem Bill describes well in this column. The finances of the NBA have been screwed up over the past couple years and I don't know if it is getting any better.

Just in the past three years, we've seen general managers Sam Presti (Zombie Sonics), Daryl Morey (Rockets) and John Hammond (Bucks) build competitive teams by prudently watching their cap, searching for bargains, building around young talent and picks, and/or carving out enough cap space to take advantage of desperate suitors who will pay with draft picks or young players just to dump an unsavory contract.

I can't help but recall there was a time when Bill Simmons was wanting to be the General Manager for the Milwaukee Bucks and after Hammond got hired Simmons indicated Hammond may not be the best guy for the job. He won't talk about that of course. Naturally. Who wants to focus on his bid to be an NBA GM for the Bucks and then it turns out the man who was hired actually seems to be competent?

Why should either of us care that owners might not lose as much money in 2013 as they did in 2010?

Does it mean ticket prices will drop? I doubt it.

Does it mean franchises with older arenas aren't in danger of having their team hijacked like the Sonics were stolen from Seattle? I doubt it.

Does it mean failing teams won't continue to tank down the stretch for lottery picks, or dump some of their best players to contenders for 40 cents on the dollar to save a few bucks? I doubt it.

Great points. I won't quote anymore of the column, because I think if you like(d) the NBA, it is worth reading in its entirety. The problem with the NBA is there are people who love basketball who don't watch the NBA for a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with the product on the floor. I am not saying it makes perfect sense.

Quick personal story to help better explain...I desperately try to hang on to my love for the NBA. I watch as many games as I can. Often times with teams dumping salaries and trading players for no competitive reason, it doesn't feel like the NBA is a basketball league, but a league where amateur General Managers learn how not to run an organization. I find it to be a hard league to understand and an even more difficult league to embrace for many people. My fiance loves watching college basketball. She watches games without me and tells me about them in vivid detail. "That fucking Brian Zoubek" may be a phrase used in our wedding vows. She can't get into the NBA, except to watch my favorite team play. What's worse is that she doesn't hate it, but she is indifferent towards it. I find indifference worse than hatred, at least for a sport, because that sport isn't even relevant in a person's mind when there is indifference felt towards it.

I have two good friends who were obsessed with the NBA and they live 15 miles from where the Bobcats play, but their interest has decreased. These are people very interested in basketball as a sport. Now, I don't think my friends encompass the attitude of everyone, I am just using them as an example. College basketball is different from NBA basketball, but it is still basketball, so naturally I would think a person who likes one could at least understand the other. I know there are people who don't like college basketball, but many times it is because the quality of play is lower. I can see that reasoning, but it doesn't make sense how someone who likes the lower quality of play in college basketball doesn't like the NBA. The excitement about the NBA just doesn't happen for many casual fans and I think that is where the NBA is struggling, they can't get the casual fan interested and the way certain teams are being run I can see even diehard NBA fans being turned off at some point. It sounds like I (or Bill) is trying to be dramatic but trades where a guy like Antawn Jamison goes to the Cavs for essentially nothing are commonplace and it can't be good for the game.

Anyway, I enjoyed Bill's article.

9. John Feinstein takes ESPN to task for the Tony Kornheiser situation. I don't necessarily like Kornheiser but Feinstein has an interesting take on the situation since he used to be on "Sports Reporters" and had a sort of falling out with ESPN. Feinstein is a Kornheiser apologist but overall I thought this was an interesting read.

10. Anyone interested in a fantasy baseball league? I am kind of torn but I promise this would be a league where there is more trash talking done. If anyone is interested, do you prefer the head-to-head leagues or the leagues where it is a points based system (I am forgetting the name right now)? I don't care either way. If anyone is interested, I can get a league going, and I promise there will be more talking in this one than there was in the other fantasy leagues. I am limiting the amount of leagues I am involved with, which will help tremendously.

Taking A Real Look At Schoenfield's Realignment

I did not have a chance yesterday to go through each baseball season since 2001 and determine how David Schoenfield's "genius" realignment plan would actually work out based on historical records of teams in each division. I thought I would do that today. Remember, the purpose of the realignment was to ensure more parity and give other teams in the American League (which is the league he focused on) a chance to win the division. He wants things to be fair, and as I explained yesterday, I am not sure how much more fair the divisions would be. So today, I am going to see how much more fair the divisions would have ended up being from the years 2001-2009 under David Schoenfield's 2010, 2011, and 2012 realignment plan.

In my opinion, if the realignment plan doesn't change the playoff teams then it hasn't served it's purpose because increasing fairness doesn't really matter to much if the Orioles go from 4th in the AL East to 3rd in the AL Central. Either way they don't make the playoffs so the end result is the same. So I will list each division winner and Wild Card winner as if the divisions were actually divided the way Schoenfield suggested from 2001-2009. I will then compare who would have been the Division/Wild Card winner under his alignment and who was the Division/Wild Card winner in actuality each year from 2001-2009. I will do this for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 alignment suggested by David Schoenfield.

I will have the new Division/Wild Card winner listed with the actual Division/Wild Card winner in parenthesis. Yes, I do realize that because the divisions will change the team's record would also change due to playing different teams in each division, but I don't know of an easy way to account for that, so I am using the historical data based on the standings for each year. I will also note any changes and how they make the game more "fair."

Here is David Schoenfield's 2010 alignment first:

2010 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Indians	Tigers
AL Central	Blue Jays	Rays	Orioles	Twins	Royals
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Rangers	White Sox

Let's start off with the 2001 results.

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Seattle (Seattle)
Wild Card winner: Oakland (Oakland)

The 91 win Cleveland Indians would be stuck in the AL East and the 85 win Twins would win the AL Central instead. This isn't really fair.

Now for the 2002 results.

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)

Now for the 2003 results.

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

Now for the 2004 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

On to the 2005 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Chicago)
AL West winner: Chicago (Anaheim)
AL Wild Card winner: Anaheim/Boston (Boston)- They have the same record and I won't go through the tie-breaker situations to determine who would win.

The playoffs would end essentially being the same with the changes made by realignment, it's just either Anaheim or Boston would get the Wild Card and one team would be eliminated while the Twins would get to make the playoffs. This is more "fair" according to David Schoenfield even though the Twins have 12 less victories than the Boston Red Sox and 93 win Cleveland would again (like they were in real life) be shut out of the playoffs.

The 2006 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
AL Wild Card winner: Detroit (Detroit)

The 2007 results:

AL East winner: Cleveland/Boston (Boston)
AL Central winner: Detroit (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston/Cleveland (New York)

The 88 win Detroit Tigers would win the AL Central division while the 96 win Cleveland or Boston team would have to settle for the Wild Card. On the plus side, New York would be eliminated completely from the playoffs. I would say there is no change in fairness given this trade-off, if the purpose is to make sure the Yankees don't make the playoffs and someone would consider it "fair" a team with 94 wins doesn't make the playoffs over an 88 win team.

The 2008 results:

AL East winner: Boston (Tampa Bay)
AL Central winner: Tampa Bay (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: New York (Boston)

Instead of Tampa Bay winning the AL East they would win the AL Central and the 89 win Chicago White Sox would be eliminated from the playoffs for the Yankees. This happens because the White Sox didn't have 89 wins until they won the one-game playoff with the Minnesota Twins. This is not fair because the Yankees would make the playoffs under the new alignment when they normally would not.

The 2009 results

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

Now for Schoenfield's 2011 alignment:

2011 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Tigers	Royals	White Sox
AL Central	Blue Jays	Orioles	Indians	Rays
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Rangers	Twins

2001 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Cleveland (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Seattle (Seattle)
Wild Card winner: Oakland (Oakland)

2002 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Toronto (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)

A 78 win Toronto team would win the AL Central while teams that have won 93, 81, and 93 games miss the playoffs entirely. This is obviously not fair, no matter whether the team that benefits is from Canada or not.

2003 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Toronto (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

Again, an 86 win Toronto team would win the AL Central while a 90 win Twins team and 93 win Seattle Mariners team misses the playoffs entirely. This is not fair. Under this 2011 alignment Toronto all of a sudden becomes a powerhouse team don't they? I wonder if David Schoenfield is from Canada?

(Bengoodfella doing research)

There is no biography available for David Schoenfield. For lack of better knowledge, let's just assume he is Canadian and is trying to sell the world on this realignment in order to get the Toronto Blue Jays more division titles because he is Canadian and has been forced to do this by the Canadian Olympic Committee as part of the new "Own the World Series" initiative. We'll just assume this.

2004 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Cleveland (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim/Minnesota (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

An 80 win Cleveland team would win the AL Central while either a 92 win Anaheim or Minnesota team misses the playoffs entirely. This is not fair.

2005 results:

AL East winner: Chicago (New York)
AL Central winner: Cleveland (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: New York (Boston)

If the purpose was to kick Boston out of the playoffs for Cleveland, then this is considered fair.

2006 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Toronto (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Minnesota (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Detroit (Detroit)

So we kick out a small market team, Oakland, for Toronto. I don't think this would be considered incredibly fair...especially since Oakland won 93 games in 2006. This would fit Schoenfield's unspoken Canadian "Own the World Series" initiative though.

2007 results:

AL East winner: Boston (Boston)
AL Central winner: Cleveland (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: New York (New York)

2008 results:

AL East winner: Boston (Tampa Bay)
AL Central winner: Tampa Bay (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: New York (Boston)

Again, Chicago would miss the playoffs and the Yankees would make the playoffs. This is actually fair since the Yankees had more wins than the White Sox, but not what David Schoenfield really wanted since the "evil" Yankees made the playoffs in his new alignment when they didn't originally make the playoffs.

2009 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Tampa Bay (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
AL Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

One small market team, Minnesota, would be kicked out of the playoffs for another small market team, Tampa Bay. I am not sure this is an improvement.

Now for his 2012 alignment:

2012 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Indians	Orioles	Rays
AL Central	White Sox	Twins	Blue Jays	Rangers	Tigers
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Royals

2001 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Seattle (Seattle)
Wild Card winner: Oakland (Oakland)

The 91 win Indians would be left out of the playoffs while the 85 win Twins would win the AL Central. This is not fair.

2002 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)

2003 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

2004 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

2005 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Chicago (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

2006 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Detroit (Detroit)

2007 results:

AL East winner: Boston/Cleveland (Boston)
AL Central winner: Detroit (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston/Cleveland (New York)

One large market team with 94 wins, the Yankees, would not make the playoffs in this case and an 88 win team, the Detroit Tigers, would make the playoffs instead. This is more "fair" according to David Schoenfield, so it serves his purposes of the realignment.

2008 results:

AL East winner: Tampa Bay (Tampa Bay)
AL Central winner: Chicago (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

2009 results:

AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Texas (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)

The impact of this change is negligible other than it doesn't allow a smaller market team, Minnesota, into the playoffs in favor of the Texas Rangers. The Rangers had 1 more win than the Twins did during the regular season so this could be seen as fair.

I have seen a couple times when the Twins have been knocked out and the Blue Jays have been put in the playoffs under David Schoenfield's "realignment every year" idea. Maybe because Minnesota is close to Canada there is a natural rivalry I don't know about this, but I think Schoenfield is finding ways to kick the Twins out of the playoffs and have the Blue Jays make the playoffs to further Canada's objectives. I am actually starting to believe this is true, sadly.

Basically what we have learned with David Schoenfield's 2010, 2011, and 2012 realignment of the American League is that his realignment really wouldn't change the order of the division winners that much and when it did change the order of the division winners, it seemed to do so for the worse. There are two occasions when teams with losing records would make the playoffs and multiple occasions when teams that have won 90+ games don't make the playoffs. Sure, this is part of baseball, but why change the divisions every single year if it isn't going to add some value to the divisional races? We can keep the division format how it is now and not change it every year and have teams get screwed out of the playoffs...we don't need to change the divisions every year if it won't somewhat fix this.

We could stick with the divisional format we have now, and not change it up every year, and I think MLB is going to be just fine. Trying to mess with the system to make it more "fair" will only cause there to be as many, if not more, inequities. Plus, many teams won't be able to have divisional rivalries because the divisions change up every year. I personally like divisional rivalries and consider this a big reason to not change up the divisions every single year.

Out of the possible 36 Wild Card and Division winners from 2001-2009, the 2010 alignment changes 8 of the Division/Wild Card winners and possibly 2 more Wild Card/Division winners depending on tie breakers. Of those 10 teams, 2 times the Division/Wild Card being replaced would make the playoffs anyway and 2 times it is up in the air due to tie breakers.

Out of the possible 36 Wild Card and Division winners from 2001-2009, the 2011 alignment changes 11 of the Wild Card/Division winners and possibly 1 more Wild Card/Division winner depending on tie breakers. Of those 12 teams, 3 times the Division/Wild Card winner being replaced would make the playoffs anyway and 1 time it is up in air the due to tie breakers.

Out of the possible 36 Wild Card and Division winners from 2001-2009, the 2012 alignment changes 4 of the Wild Card/Division winners and possibly 1 more Wild Card/Division winner depending on tie breakers. Of those 5 teams, 2 times the Division/Wild Card winner being replaced would make the playoffs anyway.

So basically what I am saying is not only will David Schoenfield's "realignment every year" idea not make the division races more fair, is not more logical based on geographic location, nor will it have a positive effect on baseball overall...it also most likely won't significantly change which teams make the playoffs from year-to-year. I not only don't like the idea, but I don't think it is will help Major League Baseball with the perceived competitive problem it has.

That is the end of my two day attack on David Schoenfield's "realignment every year" idea.

David Schoenfield Wants To Realign Major League Baseball

I feel a dark void in my soul today. It is because Gregg Easterbrook is not writing his TMQ anymore on Tuesday and I don't know what I am going to post on Wednesday. It's a dark void that only more bad sportswriting from ESPN.com will fix. Fortunately I have found some. David Schoenfield who have highlighted briefly in the past here when he gave the free agent signings of Scott Boras clients a rating using little Scott Boras heads. Ranking these signings, he proceeded to give Kevin Brown and Alex Rodriguez two "Scott Boras heads," which means he thinks both the Yankees and Dodgers got the same return on their investment when they signed A-Rod and Kevin Brown, respectively. I could not disagree more with this. So this is all I know of him before today's article.

Today, David Schoenfield wants to talk about realignment in baseball, which isn't in itself a bad idea. Unfortunately, he wants to realign just the American League, not a whole lot of the National League, and only certain teams in the American League.

Apparently he published this a few weeks ago and I just noticed it. Better late than never I guess. He calls it an "outside-the-box" recommendation to increase fairness and hope for more teams in baseball, even though I don't necessarily see it that way.

In this article, I explained why baseball's competitive balance is better than you realize, actually on par with the NFL's.

I am not an ESPN Insider because I am not going to pay to read online content from ESPN. If every sports site went to where you had to pay to read the online content, this blog would just be me talking about sports with no articles to link or anything. I will not pay for online content...at least not at this point.

The basic premise of the original article David Schoenfield had written (which I don't have access to) was that the Yankees, who play in the largest market in sports, won the World Series in 2009, while the Colts and Saints met in the Super Bowl and they both play in small markets. So naturally, David Schoenfield says everyone will assume there is no competitive balance in baseball compared to football. Then I am assuming he tries to disprove this theory in his column.
Based on the content of this article, I wonder if he was successful in proving both sports have good competitive balances?

Back to today's article...

This does not mean baseball is "fair" and it certainly seems most fans desire the sport to be more fair. And what makes baseball unfair, mostly, is the New York Yankees.

Well naturally. They dare to have their own network, an incredibly popular team, a ton of fans (bandwagon or otherwise) which buy their merchandise and then spend the money they make on baseball players. It's very unfair the Yankees have a deep revenue stream and then spend that money in an attempt to improve their team. Assholes.

As you probably know, the Yankees spend a lot of money and win a lot of games. They don't win it all every season, but they won it all last season, so now everybody is again hyper-concerned about fairness in baseball.

I actually agree with this comment. When the Marlins when the World Series again over the Anaheim Angels, everyone will be talking about how the competitive balance in baseball is great. The one time in the last decade the Yankees win the World Series, they have become evil again and are the reason baseball lacks competitive balance. As soon as they miss the playoffs again, the competitive balance will be restored in the eyes of many.

The lesson? It's fun to watch the Yankees spend money on Jaret Wright and suck, but when they start spending money intelligently on the best players available it's no fun anymore. I don't like it any more than the next person when the Yankees can spend money and go get the best free agents available. You think I like that Jason Heyward, Jair Jurrjens, and Tommy Hanson are probably all going to end up playing in New York? I do not like this, but it is the state of baseball today and I don't know how I feel about putting a cap on how much teams can spend on players.

Of course, leveling the playing field is a difficult task. How do you do it?

A salary cap.

Perhaps, allowing a team an exemption to where the team a player currently plays for can offer more money to him as a free agent than another team can. I have absolutely no idea how to do this though.

If you created a salary cap of $88 million -- the average MLB team payroll in 2009 -- several franchises would likely go bankrupt or possibly relocate.

I am not up-to-date on finances in MLB, and I don't want teams to have to go bankrupt, but if there are teams that are relying on revenue sharing and other streams of revenue for their team that would be affected by the salary cap, I honestly don't feel terrible for these teams. I am a jerk, but an organization has to put a team out on the field that is competitive and if that market can't support a team then perhaps the team should move elsewhere where they can make money. Maybe I am off point on this, but this isn't even really the issue here, but it is just how I feel.

the final eight playoff teams are not allowed to add any new players through free agency except to replace those they lose.

That's stupid. You are essentially penalizing a team for putting together a good team.

So, yes, it's a complicated situation without an easy (or realistic) solution. That's why I'm here. I have one.

Change the divisions. Each season.

Each season? I have to say this is a pretty dumb solution in my mind. There are certain advantages to having teams be in the same division year-after-year. Advantages like regional rivalries, rivalries that develop between teams in the same division every year, and it doesn't confuse everyone when a team changes divisions every year.

I hate this idea. Changing divisions may be a good idea, but not every year.

Why does baseball have to keep the same division format every year?

Because it make sense for the sake of continuity and developing rivalries among fans and perhaps even the players.

Why should Tampa Bay and Baltimore always have to beat out the Yankees and Red Sox while the AL Central teams duel each other to 87 wins?

I do agree it is not completely fair that the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays should have to try and beat out the Yankees and Red Sox every single year. But life is not fair and the Rays have proven the Yankees and Red Sox can be beaten for the division title and even in the playoffs. I don't think the situation is as dire as many want to believe it is.

As far as the AL Central teams dueling each other to 87 wins...that is exciting. I don't see how putting a team like the Rays in the AL Central will make baseball more exciting than the race to the end of the season, and even the one game playoff, the Tigers and Twins had last year. That was exciting. If you add the Rays to the AL Central, they are still the 3rd place team because they only won 84 games last year, so it's not like adding the Rays or any other team outside of Texas (they won 87 games) would have changed the result in the AL Central. Sure, hypothetically this would have changed if the divisions were realigned and every team played a different schedule, but no one can say for sure.

Realigning the divisions doesn't do a hell of a lot of good because whoever goes to the Red Sox or Yankees division will still be second fiddle and there is no guarantee the playoff races will be even more exciting than they currently are. This is assuming the Yankees and Red Sox will always be good of course, which is a fairly large assumption. It is also assuming the only rivalry in the American League that matters is the one between these two teams, which I naturally don't like.

Why should the Angels only have to beat out three teams instead of four in the AL West?

The record of the teams the Angels beat last year to win the AL West:

Texas: 87-75
Seattle: 85-77
Oakland: 75-87

Texas had the 5th best record in the American League last year and Seattle had the 6th best record in the American League last year. Though Anaheim "only" had to beat three other teams, they had to beat teams that were better top-to-bottom (in regard to record) than any other division in baseball.

So the plan is to realign the divisions after every season. For the American League, there would be three basic rules:

1. This premise is retarded.

2. Somehow make this premise more retarded.

3. In order to make the premise more retarded, propose the players dress like clowns when they are playing the field.

1. The Yankees and Red Sox always remain in the AL East. It makes sense and it's good for the game.

So the whole "it's not fair to have good teams being stuck behind the Red Sox and Yankees" thing just goes straight to hell when it comes down to it doesn't it? So rather than have the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays know they are in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox and design their team to compete accordingly, let's just make random teams each season be stuck behind these two teams.

I agree the Red Sox and Yankees should be in the same division...with 2-3 other teams that don't change every year.

2. Tampa, Toronto, Baltimore, Detroit and Cleveland can play only in the AL East or AL Central. All five cities are in the Eastern time zone and having them play in the West creates logistical and television issues.

So the Orioles and Blue Jays will only have a 50/50 chance every year of being in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox? What a brilliant idea that in the end really does nothing! There are 10 teams in the AL East and AL Central and 14 teams overall in the American League. David Schoenfield doesn't think 2 of the 14 teams should ever change division and 5 of these teams can only play in the AL East and AL Central. So basically this realignment would only serve the purpose of making sure Toronto, Baltimore and the Rays only get stuck in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees every other year on average, rather than every year.

If anyone can explain exactly how, regardless of Eastern time zone restrictions or whatever he is talking about here, Cleveland and Detroit can't be in the AL West but the White Sox and Twins can be considered more AL West-type teams then I would love to hear it. I don't care about time zones, Chicago and Minnesota really aren't that much further West than Detroit and Minnesota. They all seem more "Central" to me.

3. The Angels, Seattle and Oakland always remain in the AL West. This makes sense for logistical reasons, as well.

Wow, so out of the 14 teams, 5 of these teams can NEVER change division. Also, the AL West will only change by 1-2 teams every year. So it is not really American League realignment, but more of a 65% American League realignment that pays attention to certain rivalries (Boston-New York) and ignores other rivalries that aren't as cool or popular (Minnesota-Chicago) or (Tampa Bay-Boston/New York Yankees).

Any type of American League realignment that changes every year is dumb in my mind.

Now, how do we disperse the remaining teams? Simple. MLB holds a big telecast two days after the World Series ends.

Which no one will watch. Or if they do, they will be pissed their favorite team is changing divisions again. I bet the Rays fans of the world can't wait to start their collection of "Division Winner" jerseys that have AL Central written on them for one year and AL East for another year...because that makes sense and all.

We put all the team names in a big ball like during the NBA lottery selection show. Teams send their general manager and a star player and Hall of Famers like George Brett and Reggie Jackson draw out the team names.

But will there be clowns? I fucking hate clowns, so that's the only way I could think of me having less interest in this idea..and that's if clowns are present. If this lottery happened once a decade...maybe I could go for it, but every year is a bit of overkill. Plus, have I mentioned I think it is stupid to have the teams change divisions every year? There is no way to keep divisional continuity and rivalries alive. It sounds so bizarre to me to have some teams change divisions every year.

You wouldn't watch this?

Who are you? Bill Simmons?

You wouldn't love to see Dave Dombrowski throw up in his mouth when the Tigers draw the AL East?

No. I would like to see the Tigers play in the AL Central every single year and not move divisions. I guess I am just an asshole traditionalist.

You wouldn't get excited to see Andrew Friedman high-fiving Evan Longoria when the Rays draw the AL Central?

The Rays would have been 3rd in the AL Central last year, just like the Rays were 3rd in the AL East last year. I realize they had to play the two evil teams in the AL East repeatedly, but there is nothing that says the Rays would do any better in the AL Central. They may not get a chance to play the Orioles or Blue Jays multiple times per year and could instead get stuck playing two other good teams.

Each division would rotate as the four-team division once every three years.

Which under David Schoenfield's "The Red Sox and Yankees are better than anyone else" theory is completely fair to whatever team ends up in the 4 team AL East division.

2010 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Indians	Tigers
AL Central	Blue Jays	Rays	Orioles	Twins	Royals
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Rangers	White Sox

This is David Schoenfield's 2010 alignment. Let's see how much more fair this would be if based on last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Twins
AL West winner: Angels
Wild Card: Red Sox

Hey! That's exactly how the results were this past year. Sure, maybe other teams might move up from 4th to 3rd place, but if the entire purpose is to make MLB more competitively balanced it doesn't really matter if the playoff participants don't change does it?

2011 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Tigers	Royals	White Sox
AL Central	Blue Jays	Orioles	Indians	Rays
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Rangers	Twins

Let's see how the playoffs would look with this 2011 alignment, based on last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Rays
AL West winner: Angels
AL Wild Card winner: Red Sox

So instead of a 87 game winner in the AL Central, which David Schoenfield found boring, we have an 84 game winner in the AL Central with the 3 other teams being under .500. We also would have an 86 game winner in 3rd place in the AL East, an 87 game winner tied for 2nd place in the AL West and an 85 game winner in 3rd place in the AL West. None of these teams would be division winners, but instead the 84 win Rays team will be a division winner.

Wow! David Schoenfield really fixed this competitive problem in baseball!

2012 ALIGNMENT

AL East	Yankees	Red Sox	Indians	Orioles	Rays
AL Central	White Sox	Twins	Blue Jays	Rangers	Tigers
AL West	Angels	A's	Mariners	Royals

Let's see the 2012 playoffs would shake out using last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Rangers
AL West winner: Angels
Wild Card winner: Red Sox

Other than switching the 87 win Rangers for the 87 win Twins (they had 86 without the one game playoff), we have the same result as 2009 and 2010...except now the 86 win Detroit Tigers are 4th in their division while the Angels still only have to beat 3 other teams.

I would love to have the time to go back and figure out what each division race would look like if based on 2000-2008 standings as well, but I don't have the time to do that today. I may do that at another point if there is enough interest in seeing the results of this.

My point is the realignment won't really change that much and teams are still going to be screwed over by being in tough divisions or helped by being in easy divisions. It's just they are only in that situation for one year and then the divisions change again. So rather than knowing they are screwed and planning accordingly, they will have to rely on the luck-of-the-draw to know which division they are in. I think this is dumb.

Aren't things suddenly a lot more fair?

As I just showed, absolutely not.

Sure, the Yankees still have their big payroll advantage, but at least a team like the Orioles wouldn't be completely screwed by having to compete with New York every season.

It's just every other team that appears in the AL East would be screwed at that point. It's more like we are spreading the screwing around (insert Tiger Woods joke here) Major League Baseball, which apparently is more fair in the mind of David Schoenfield. This is of course assuming the Red Sox and Yankees will always be the best teams. This is a fairly large assumption.

This divisional realignment every year will also not allow other teams to develop rivalries with each other since they may not play each other every year. For example, the budding Tampa Bay/Boston rivalry (I feel like there is one) would be gone. I think this is a huge disadvantage in realigning AL teams every year.

Tampa Bay, with its plethora of young talent and low payroll, would suddenly be the favorite to win the AL Central in 2010 and 2011.

Yet statistically the only time Tampa Bay would have won the AL Central in their entire existence is 2008, which is the year they won the AL East from the "unbeatable" Red Sox and Yankees.

So regardless of the Rays future prospects, I don't think it makes sense to just automatically make them the favorites in the AL Central nor do I think it makes sense to move teams around so certain teams can thrive.

The AL West would have more competition with the White Sox or Twins joining the division.

Again, based on recent history, the Anaheim Angels would have won the division nearly every single year regardless of the infusion of competition with the Twins and White Sox joining the division.

The National League hasn't had the same disparity, primarily because the biggest spenders (the Mets, Cubs and Dodgers) haven't been as successful.

Let's ignore the fact the Phillies have made it to back-to-back World Series and they had the 5th highest payroll (higher than the Dodgers) in 2009. Let's also ignore the fact the 3 other highest payroll teams in the NL for 2009 have made the playoffs on a pretty consistent basis over the last couple of years. Out of the 12 slots available in the playoffs from 2007-2009, the Phillies, Mets, Cubs, and Dodgers have taken 7 of those slots. So more than half the time, the biggest spenders in the NL made the playoffs.

Obviously, this isn't as urgent of a problem as that in the American League in the mind of David Schoenfield...even though it may be. I feel like he just got lazy at the end of this article and just didn't feel like covering the National League, so he made an excuse for how realignment isn't a huge need in the National League.

But you could certainly do something similar; for example, the Cardinals move to the NL East for a season with the Marlins moving to the NL Central (where they become the favorite to win the division).

You could do this and it would be as idiotic as it being done in the American League.

No, this wouldn't solve all of baseball's problems. But it is a realistic solution to increasing fairness.

I don't think it is a realistic solution because it just replaces which teams are the ones that get "screwed over" from year-to-year by being in a tough division. This doesn't sound like a solution to me.

It provides more hope for more teams.

Actually, it doesn't really do this. It just jumbles the teams up from year-to-year and ensures there is no continuity within divisions, and divisional rivalries take a backseat to a sense of fairness that still won't exist.

Not to mention, I don't get why we would pay attention to why it is terrible for the Detroit Tigers to be in the AL West, but it is perfectly fine for the Rangers to be in the AL East or for the Orioles to be in the AL Central. It's a very disjointed idea in my opinion.

It's time for the sport to think outside the box.

I like how David Schoenfield wrote an entire article, that I can't read because you have to be an ESPN Insider, about how the competitive balance in MLB isn't a problem...then he writes an entire article about how to improve the competitive balance in baseball. So it's not a problem, except for when it is. I don't think changing the divisions in baseball every single year is the solution to the problem (?) of the competitive balance in baseball.