11 comments 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.

13 comments 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.

17 comments MMQB Review: Peter Gets Confused Because There Isn't A Clearcut Favorite Edition

First, I want everyone to notice that my comeback on Bill Simmons in the ESPN NFL Pick 'Em league is nearly complete. Now I just have to hold him off for one more week. I wish I could say the same for my competition with Peter King (looks down sadly).

I'm going to skip the long, rambling introduction about Peter King and MMQB and relay to you something Cris Collinsworth (who I generally like because he can be insightful and is a 200% upgrade over John Madden in my mind) said about Brett Favre during last night's Cowboys-Redskins game. NBC was showing astounding video of Brad Childress and Brett Favre having a heated discussion on the sidelines during last week's game against Carolina. Since there was no audio we have no real indication whether it was the famous sidelines argument, but that's what NBC wants us to believe so we can believe that. While the video was playing Collinsworth said he agreed with Favre on the issue of whether he should have been pulled from the game or not (which I actually do too after some thought) and said this (paraphrased) in regard to Favre:

"I mean this is a guy who Childress begged to come out of retirement, he's one of the fiercest competitors in the game and he has played incredibly well this year. He's saved the Vikings and rescued them from hopelessness (I think that's the word he used, if not it was a word like this), so I think he should stay in the game."

The Vikings went 10-6 last year, made the playoffs and won their division. They weren't a bad team last year, when is the media going to start remembering this? Ever?

Ok, no more Favre rants, on to Peter King's MMQB, which he is posting later and later on Monday morning. It's like if the best teams in the NFL don't play or win their games during the weekend he can't find anything to talk about.

The link.

Five things I want to hit right at the top:

Is this a "your momma" joke?

3. Steve Smith, the Carolina Steve Smith, leads the NFL in guts.

Meanwhile Grady Jackson leads the NFL in "gut."

It's going to be a wide-open January. At this point of each of the past six years, we thought we knew the best team in the game as the regular-season drew to a close. It looked like New England in 2003 and '04, the Colts in '05 and '06, perfect New England the next year, and Pittsburgh or Tennessee last year.

Ok, I don't think anyone thought the Steelers were the best team in the NFL last year going into the playoffs. Maybe Steelers fans thought this, but if I recall correctly many people saw the Titans as the clear cut favorite with the Ravens. Maybe I am misremembering.

But the fact is, there's no lock in either conference. That means the next month will be fun and maddening.

I have no idea how parity in the NFL and the playoffs being competitive with no clear cut favorite can be maddening.

Three other interesting nuggets from Turner.

He said he'd rest Shawne Merriman (plantar fasciatis) against Washington in the meaningless regular-season finale Sunday, which would give him about 22 days off between the game at Tennessee Christmas night and the first playoff game Jan. 16 or 17.

Oh no! Shawne Merriman is going to get 22 days off? I hope he doesn't forget how to play football in that time span! That's a concern we all have for the Colts as well. If these football players stop playing for any period of time before the playoffs, will they still remember how to play football? Or is Merriman just going to be roaming around the field confused because he hasn't played in 22 days?

Steve Smith says his broken forearm is "a minor nuisance.'' Right away in the NBC viewing room at Rockefeller Center Sunday, when Smith got slammed by Giants safety Michael Johnson as he gathered in a pass from Matt Moore near the goal line, Rodney Harrison said, "His arm's broken.''

Brilliant deduction by Rodney Harrison. This is exactly what makes him such a great analyst. It's comments like last week's proclamation Carolina had no chance of winning against the Vikings and seeing Steve Smith unable to move his left arm and wincing in pain as it dangles at his side and thinking, "his arm must be broken" where Harrison earns his NBC money. I think Rodney Harrison was only one of thousands who saw this game and knew the exact same thing at the same exact time.

He went to lift the left arm to help him cradle the ball, but the left arm wasn't working; he couldn't use it for support. So he went to the sidelines -- without grimacing -- and said to the trainer who came to meet him, "It's broken, man.''

Then Steve Smith punched the trainer in the face, spit on a small child, defacated on the ball, threw the ball at the opposing team and then chased Tom Coughlin around the field with a crow bar with his good arm attempting to murder him. Just one tough guy.

When Smith was getting the arm X-rayed, the doctor told him he'd have to have it set in surgery this morning. Smith wanted the doctor to cast it so he could play Sunday in the season finale against New Orleans -- a game that means nothing because Carolina's been eliminated from the playoffs. GM Marty Hurney told him that would be impossible, obviously. Bones set in three months, not five days.

Unaccepting of this answer Steve Smith then attempted to strangle the doctor to death with his stethoscope and then bludgeoned Hurney to death with the little hammer that tests your reflexes on your knee. Steve's reflexes are just fine by the way.

In all seriousness, Steve Smith is not tough, he's batshit crazy. Anyone who saw his postgame interview last week after the game against the Vikings saw part of it. Nice guy, potentially insane.

Colts fans and NFL fans are seething. This e-mail from a 45-year Colts fan, Ron Olshemsky of Sherrill, N.Y., in the wake of the 14-0 Colts yanking many of their starters with a 15-10 lead in the third quarter, and going on to lose 29-15 to the Jets at home: "I have experienced all of the ups and downs and aggravations that any fan has. I don't recall having a reaction like I had when they pulled the starters. If you don't aspire to greatness, what is the point?

I am glad I don't have to make the decision to sit Manning or not. I would have found it very hard to sit Manning and watch Curtis Painter throw (literally) the game away. I don't think I could have done that as coach. Generally I am all for sitting star players when there is nothing to play for, but was there something to play for yesterday? Peter King actually brings up a great point as to why Manning should probably have stayed in the game:

I think, especially because Peyton Manning takes so few big hits (in 12 seasons, he's never missed a start), it's not ultra-dangerous to leave him in the game, even if the untrustworthy Tony Ugoh is playing left tackle instead of Charley Johnson (turf toe). The Colts could rest the guys they need to rest, in my opinion, without putting Manning at undue risk of injury. In the last two years, he'd dropped back to pass 1,132 times and been sacked 24 times. That's one sack per every 47 dropbacks. Offensive coordinator Tom Moore and Manning are smart. They could easily have formulated a gameplan including only quick and intermediate throws, to even further lower the risk of injury.

I personally agree. I think in a different situation with a different quarterback maybe the Colts should sit Manning, but he hasn't been getting touched by the defense and he is probably one of the most trustworthy quarterbacks in the NFL when it comes to avoiding sacks. Generally I have no problem with coaches sitting their players. I don't believe a week or two off throws off a team's timing all that much (if you couldn't get that from the sarcasm in the Merriman passage I wrote above). So the rule I have is I think coaches should do whatever keeps the team healthiest and most ready for the postseason, but I think yesterday may have been the exception to this rule. I think the Colts could have tried to win this game and still keep Manning clean and healthy. Jim Caldwell is the coach though and it was his call, but I think Manning had a good chance of surviving that game healthy and still winning the game.

And you'll never be able to convince me they don't care about 16-0. I don't buy it. Manning doesn't know his stats like Pete Rose knew his, but he's well aware of his place in the pantheon. Why wouldn't he long to have an MVP season in the midst of one of the great seasons a team has ever had? I think he does.

Another issue I think that doesn't get enough play is that the Colts players have to be angry with Jim Caldwell for just giving up this opportunity to go perfect. These guys train all offseason and play hard all season just to try and win football games. Then the team has a chance to go perfect for the season, and match the hated Patriots in doing it, and the head coach just pulls the starters to keep them healthy. You can't convince me at least 40% of the team wasn't happy about this. This team worked hard and wanted to make history. I am not saying what Caldwell didn't make the right move, I am saying no one is talking about how the Colts players must feel about this situation. They bust their ass and can make history, only to have the coach play it safe. Wouldn't you think this would chap their ass just a little bit?

The guy I feel for is Curtis Painter. Talk about a baptism by fire. The only time the Lucas Oil crowd got loud Sunday was to boo the poor kid in his first extended playing time in the NFL. A shame.

They're not booing, they're saying, "Mooooovers."

It's hard to quantify defensive stats, but I like the way Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders thinks. He has built a database that illuminates some dark statistical positions. At cornerback, for instance, interceptions are often not the best measurement if the player is not being thrown at much. So Schatz keeps numbers on the other important stats for defensive backs -- average yards allowed by team to No. 1 receivers (figuring that many corners will match up on the opposition's best wideout), average yards-after-the-catch allowed to opposing No. 1 receivers, and, to measure physicality, run tackles by cornerbacks.

Unfortunately, the "figuring" part about the cornerbacks being matched up on the opposition's top wideout isn't always true. So though I don't disagree with the statistics compiled, that's a fairly large assumption to make and base the Defensive Player of the Year Award in the NFL upon. Revis has had a great year but comparing him to other players by assuming all other great defensive cornerbacks guard the other team's best receiver is faulty. Plus, there is no real way to use this metric to compare Revis to linebackers and defensive ends.

Lots of people have asked why the Dallas-Philadelphia game, for the championship of the NFC East, wasn't flexed. A couple of reasons. All things being equal, the league would have preferred an AFC game to be flexed. By the end of the current contract in 2013, the league has to have flexed an equal number of FOX (NFC) and CBS (AFC) games to the Sunday night NFL package on NBC. As of today, the league has shifted four more NFC games than AFC games.

I did not know this. Now THIS is information I like to learn in a Peter King MMQB. Peter King, though slow and dangerous behind the wheel, does serve a purpose to society.

1. San Diego (12-3). Remember how the game everyone wanted to see was New Orleans-Minnesota? It was that way for two months. Now it's San Diego-Indy.

No, no, no, no, no. The game that PETER KING WANTED TO SEE was New Orleans-Minnesota. I hate it, hate it, when he speaks for everyone else in saying what we all wanted, when it was really just what Peter wanted. He thinks we all want the same things that he does.

3. Dallas (10-5). In this year's NFL, you rise and fall like penny stocks. Ergo, Dallas to number three.

I don't want to toot my own horn (actually yes I do), but didn't I say the Cowboys would go 11-5 a few weeks ago and make the playoffs? Actually, I think I did, I just can't find it. I need to hire an archiver who can search my archives and bring up all my incorrect/correct predictions.

6. New Orleans (13-2). In the past four weeks, the Saints have played teams with a combined record of 25-35. And they've been outscored 100-96. It's officially time to worry.

Here goes my ego again. After the Patriots game I mentioned (I think on this blog) that it seemed like the Saints brought up every offensive play they could think of to win the game. They treated the game like the Super Bowl. I may not have said this, but it felt like the team brought out all the guns for that game and I wondered how that would affect them down the road. They get the Jason Biggs in "American Pie" award for "peaking too early."

11 year old pop culture reference everyone!

10. Cincinnati (10-5). Strong words from Rodney Harrison on "Football Night in America,'' calling the Bengals frauds on TV last night.

Because Rodney Harrison always knows what he is talking about and all.

Tweet of the Week

"How would we look at a team that threw away a game to get a higher draft pick? How is that dif than the Colts game today?''
-- alvaradoangel, Angel Alvarado, late in the Colts' 29-15 loss to the Jets, ruining Indy's chance for a perfect season.

It's different because teams that are tanking don't have players who have busted their asses all season to win every single game. They have busted their asses and failed. The way to improve the team is to lose. The Colts are trying to make history and cause the team to be considered an excellent team years down the road and take some of this momentum to the Super Bowl. Teams that tank are doing the opposite of what the Colts were trying to accomplish. It's just different.

Offensive Player of the Week

Matt Moore, QB, Carolina.

This could easily have gone to Jonathan Stewart (28 carries, a franchise-record 206 rushing yards), but I've got to hand it to Moore, for a simple reason: He's a career benchwarmer, and in the past eight days he's beaten Super Bowl champions Brett Favre and Eli Manning by a combined 67-16, and he's done it by completing 68 percent of his throws (36 of 53) for 470 yards, with six touchdowns and no interceptions.

Matt Moore would have been nothing without Jonathan Stewart running the ball. He is the player of the game, much less the week. Jonathan Stewart has run for over 320 yards the past 2 weeks against the Vikings and Giants defense. Running backs can make quarterbacks look better at times and this is a case of that.

The only question is, what took John Fox so long to yank Jake Delhomme in the midst of the worst year of his life and play this wunderkind?

John Fox is a good coach but a poor judge of talent. He loves veterans too much. Jon Beason wouldn't have even started at middle linebacker his rookie year because Dan Morgan was given the spot out of training camp and DeAngelo Williams sat the bench for two years behind DeShaun Foster.

Goat of the Week

O'Neil Cousins, T, Baltimore.

Early in the fourth quarter of a 20-20 game in Pittsburgh, the Ravens' right tackle -- playing because left tackle Jared Gaither was out with an injury, forcing normal right tackle Michael Oher to play the blind side --

Oh, the irony of that statement!

As you know, I'm loathe to put players into Canton before they finish playing. I love the five-year waiting period because it allows the emotion to settle and the numbers and impact of a player to sink in, with the chance to calmly compare one star to another. But one day around 2017, Tomlinson has a heck of a chance to be joining his boyhood idol, Emmitt Smith, in the Hall of Fame.

"You know I hate it people let emotions take them over and place players on a pedestal they may not deserve before their career is over. I mean, come on people get a grip on reality and let's not get caught up in the moment. But I am going to make an exception and say LaDainian Tomlinson should make the Hall of Fame when he retires. That doesn't seem contradictory at all."

MVP Watch

1. Peyton Manning, QB, Indianapolis. Manning was pedestrian Sunday, but he probably can't sit enough to lose his fourth MVP to Rivers.

The Colts are 14-0 when Manning plays the majority of the game and they are 0-1 when he doesn't play the majority of the game. This is either a huge indictment of Curtis Painter or an example of how valuable Manning is to the Colts.

a. Todd Haley swears he didn't give that Kansas City fan the finger. I hope he's right.

It's a good thing Todd Haley has no history of losing his temper or else I would probably not believe him.

f. America gave up on the Patriots too soon.

When the hell did America give up on the Patriots? After they lost to an undefeated team? I hate it when Peter makes blanket statements like this one. I certainly haven't ever given up on the Patriots.

3. I think I'd present this scenario to you, regarding the proposed 18-game schedule: Suppose the Colts started the season 14-0, and with four games to play, the closest AFC team to them in the standings were New England at 10-4, and Indy had already beaten New England. So the Colts have homefield through the AFC playoff clinched. And say Weeks 17 and 18 are home games. Now you have four games that mean nothing to a team; this year there were three. More games on the schedule could well mean more going-through the motions to make sure guys don't get hurt.

Thank you Peter. I really, really don't like the 18 game schedule. I think it is a huge mistake for the NFL to make. Other than the injury problem which is a huge problem, for example my favorite team would be without their starting (not backups, but STARTING) quarterback, wide receiver, running back, tackles (LT/RT), defensive tackle, and outside linebacker for the next three games (of course they would also still have an outside shot at a playoff spot, but that doesn't really get me excited). Of the 22 starting players they would be missing 7 of them and each of them are Pro Bowl caliber players.

That's just for a team that won't make the playoffs, imagine the injuries for a team that would have to play in the playoffs. Won't that affect the fan's enjoyment of the playoff games? Other than this, the biggest problem with the 18 game schedule is what Peter describes above. I don't like the idea.

b. Julius Peppers lives. What got into him?

Potential free agency. He's shut it down again next year, don't worry.

c. Are you kidding me, Dwayne Bowe? What a shameful, unprofessional display of alligator arms, resulting in a Matt Cassel interception that never should have been.

Don't you know Dwayne Bowe that you don't screw with Matt Cassel? Peter King will have none of it, especially when it makes his favorite "Matty" look worse than he should.

I sort of miss the days when we got the weekly updates from Peter on where Matt Cassel may go as a free agent, how he compares favorably to Tom Brady and how great of a quarterback he is going to be in the future.

9. I think Jerome Harrison has had a season in the past eight days. His totals against Kansas City and Oakland: 73 carries, 434 yards, four touchdowns. Those numbers, over 16 games, are a 3,472-yard pace. Which would break a couple of records.

Having fun with numbers is great fun. By the way, both of these wonderful games came against teams that aren't very good, the Chiefs and the Raiders. I just thought I would point this out.

g. "So this means his retirement was an Urban legend?'' Keith Olbermann said on the set of "Football Night in America'' last night. About flip-flopping Florida coach Urban Meyer, of course.

The day Keith Olbermann says something that doesn't sound smug and annoying to me, I will tell you.

k. Connie Hines played Carol Post, the terminally unaware wife of Wilbur Post, who talked to Mr. Ed the horse in "Mr. Ed.'' She was the perfect southern California wife, pert and pretty and polite. But how are you married to a man who talks to a horse without knowing your husband has a close and conversational relationship with a large white horse who once tried out for the Dodgers and took sliding lessons from Leo Durocher?

Probably the same way that Peter King could be married to a woman who doesn't know that he has a huge, massive crush on another man who plays quarterback in the NFL and probably dreams about spending all his time with said man so that he can write a weekly article about how this gritty, grizzled veteran is the greatest football player of all-time.

Peter actually brought up some good points this week. I guess this is what happens when all the teams he wants to fawn over don't play until Monday or lose. He is forced to do his NFL Insider job and make good observations.

14 comments Jay Mariotti Fails To Understand Baseball Economics

Jay Mariotti is the type of sportswriter who really has no experience interviewing athletes in the locker room, writing in-depth articles about inside information or breaking stories in a sport, or even writing intelligently about a topic using statistics or any type of evidential backing. He gets paid to give his opinion and back it up with all the bluster he can manage. So when I see an article from Mariotti that says, "Phils Should Have Kept Halladay and Lee" I know it is an article I have to write about here.

The basic breakdown of the trade can be seen here. In a nutshell it is a good trade for Seattle, a risky trade for the Phillies, decent for the Blue Jays, and I have no idea why the Athletics got involved other than they must have really wanted Michael Taylor. So yes, it was a risk for the Phillies. They knew they probably could not sign Cliff Lee after this season and they really wanted Roy Halladay at the trade deadline last year, so they decided to go ahead and make the move to get him for this year.

Fortune favors the bold right? Well, the Phillies were bold and Jay Mariotti did not like it. He wants the Phillies to keep adding on payroll and take the chance of losing Cliff Lee in free agency and only being left with draft choices (which means they can't control exactly who is available when they pick, rather than choosing the prospects they get in a trade). I'm not a big Ken Rosenthal fan but he wrote an article about why the Phillies couldn't keep both Lee and Halladay. Reading each of the articles shows exactly why Rosenthal should be employed to talk about sports while Jay Mariotti should stick to condemning Tiger Woods and taking his vendettas out on others in his daily column. Writing this type column is over Mariotti's head.

It's good to know that the Phillies, Yankees, Red Sox and Mariners are doing big business this winter.

The Mariners essentially took on Lee so they could either trade him at the trade deadline for more prospects or get draft picks for him after he signs with a team after the season is over. The Mariners weren't even close to doing big business with an eye towards keeping Lee long term in my mind. The odds of Cliff Lee signing with the Mariners long-term is 15% in my book.

Jay Mariotti fails to understand simple baseball economics. Teams aren't losing money necessarily but teams are also having a hard time adding payroll for the upcoming year. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are also big market teams who can afford to do "big business" at this point in the offseason.

Major League Baseball is a 30-team enterprise, and, once again, we're left with the sort of competitive imbalance that basically eliminates two dozen teams from World Series title consideration weeks before pitchers and catchers report.

I don't know how one simple trade leads to the revelation that 24 teams are now eliminated from World Series contention. I would love to know Jay's list of teams that are still in the hunt for a World Series next year, but we won't get that because Mariotti is being a drama queen about the competitive balance problem in baseball and doesn't want to nail himself down by listing the 6 teams still in contention. The competitive balance in baseball is not great, but it's not so bad that 24 teams are automatically out of contention for the World Series in mid-December. Jay acts like the MLB season starts next week and not in 3 1/2 months.

I realize that this sport has been hit by the recession, too, but I also suspect some franchise owners are using the economic crisis as a convenient reason to cut costs and corners when, in truth, they have the money to make improvements. There is a dirty word for this collective financial inertia.

Fiscal responsibility? Not overspending on free agents early in the offseason?

Collusion.

Of course. The owners of MLB are colluding by not signing expensive free agents and making franchise altering trades before the new year. I would love to know what the point of the collusion between owners in this case is? Jay has already said the good teams in baseball have gotten better this offseason (or at least spent more money), are the owners colluding to ensure the Red Sox, Yankees, Mariners, or Phillies win the World Series this year? If not, then collusion makes no sense in this situation because if some of the teams are spending money and making trades to improve their and other teams are not because they don't want to spend money, that isn't collusion. That's just being cheap.

If NO teams were spending money and making moves I could understand how collusion is a possibility but the same teams that have always made moves are making moves this offseason. If anything, other MLB teams can be guilty of apathy, but not collusion. Not to mention THE SEASON DOESN'T EVEN START FOR ANOTHER 3 1/2 MONTHS. THERE IS STILL TIME FOR TEAMS TO MAKE MOVES LIKE SIGN FREE AGENTS AND MAKE TRADES.

So you'd better appreciate life in Philadelphia, the Bronx, Boston and Seattle, where recent days have brought significant maneuvers that all but ensure a successful 2010 in those places.

Have the Yankees gotten significantly better with the addition of Curtis Granderson? It looks that way, but we don't know yet. The Yankees need some more pitching too. Isn't Roy Halladay over Cliff Lee an upgrade, but not a huge upgrade? John Lackey was the feature pitcher in the free agent market this offseason but that doesn't mean he is going to be anymore than the #3 in the Red Sox rotation (behind Lester and Beckett). This doesn't mean he stinks but it's not exactly like Sabathia or Santana switching teams. Who the hell is going to hit the ball for Seattle with Lee pitching?

It's not like these teams don't have tough questions to answer about their upgrades. It's not necessarily smooth sailing for these teams right into the playoffs.

But here's the rub: Rather than pair up Halladay and Lee for even one season, which would have been one of the all-time dominant collaborations (think Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale)

Gosh, I love Cliff Lee but we are talking about a 31 year old pitcher with 97 career wins and a 3.97 ERA. That's not exactly Sandy Koufax-ian career numbers for a 31 year old. Hell, Koufax was out of baseball by the age of 31. It shows Mariotti's lack of baseball knowledge to compare Halladay-Lee to Koufax-Drysdale as if there haven't been a better combination than Halladay-Lee in a pitching staff over the past 20 years.

How about (I am just thinking about left hand starter/right hand starter combinations, if we included pitchers who were as good as Halladay/Lee and played on the same team it would be a much longer list):

Maddux/Glavine
Pettitte/Clemens
Mulder/Hudson (Oakland A's days...if Lee can get credit for 2 straight great years, I can stretch a little and include these two pitchers)

There are probably 5 other LH/RH combinations that would be nearly as good as Lee and Halladay over the past 20 years. Not to take anything away from them, but do we really have to go back to Drysdale/Koufax for a good comparison?

and dramatically closed the competitive gap between the Phillies and champion Yankees, the Phillies used the deal to ship Lee -- sigh! -- to the Mariners.

The Phillies should not be incredibly concerned with closing the gap between them and the Yankees since the Yankees have won exactly 1 consecutive World Series and play in the American League while the Phillies play in the National League. It's not like the Yankees are a dynasty. I am sure the Phillies want to beat the New York Yankees if they meet again in the World Series, but I am pretty sure the Phillies aren't terribly concerned with making sure the gap between them and the Yankees is closed. The Phillies are more concerned with winning the NL East before anything else.

For months, the Blue Jays had been trying to pry away Philadelphia's best pitching prospect, Kyle Drabek, only to be rejected. Now, suddenly, the Phillies have relinquished Drabek in the Halladay deal, only to dump Lee when he still has a year remaining on his contract.

The Phillies relinquished Drabek for Halladay while giving up Lee, BUT they did get three prospects in return. Essentially the Phillies are betting the three prospects they gave up to get Cliff Lee from the Indians are not going to be as good as the three prospects they get back from the Mariners for Cliff Lee. If the prospects they get are better than the prospects they gave up, the Phillies have come out on top even absent Halladay's performance vs. Cliff Lee's performance for the upcoming year.

Keeping both Halladay and Lee was a non-go from the start, which Mariotti can't seem to understand...Ken Rosenthal explains why this wouldn't have worked for the Phillies:

The Phillies will receive $6 million from the Jays in the pending three-team trade, then subtract $9 million by sending Lee to the Mariners. Their net of $15 million will nearly cover Halladay’s $15.75 million salary for 2010 -- a near-wash.

So basically the Phillies spent $750,000 and added Roy Halladay (plus they signed Halladay to extension and he has been a better pitcher over his career than Lee) and three prospects to the roster (I realize all the prospects won't be on the roster this year) for this year in exchange for Cliff Lee and three prospects. It's a risk, but not a huge risk.

But the Phillies’ owners stretched the payroll for ‘09 by extending the contracts of several of their own stars, signing free-agent left fielder Raul Ibanez and adding Lee at the July 31 non-waiver deadline.

There is a limit, particularly when the team still needs bullpen help.

This is another part of baseball economics, or baseball in general, Mariotti fails to understand. The Phillies still have to spend money to improve their team so increasing payroll by nearly $16 million and giving up 7 prospects for a one year run doesn't make sense when the team will need to spend more money to shore up the bullpen. The Phillies are smart, they can't just look at the short term, they have to also look long term.

As far as Mariotti's criticism that the Phillies were giving up the same thing they offered last summer for Halladay, it's plain wrong.

Remember, the Jays are sending the Phillies $6 million. The idea of including such a sum, from the Jays’ perspective, is to buy better players. The Phillies were not receiving any money last July when they refused to part with either Drabek or Brown for Halladay.

That $6 million dollars can buy at least a reliever and a half on the free agent market. I personally can't believe the Blue Jays threw in $6 million into the deal, they were already giving up their ace pitcher without getting back the Phillies #1 prospect, Dominic Brown.

Enough with the sane arguments, let's get back to Mariotti's criticism of the trade and lack of understanding for baseball economics.

Uh, why not just keep Lee for his final season while giving Halladay the contract extension he reportedly has accepted: a guaranteed $60 million for three years and a 2014 vesting option of $20 million?

Because the Phillies would not have had the money to sign bullpen help for this year and then run the risk of losing Lee in free agency for two prospects (not three like they got back) in a draft. The Phillies were able to choose their prospects by trading with the Mariners. No one said it wasn't a risk, but economically it makes sense.

So even if the Phillies knew they could afford only one or the other for the long term, they could have kept Lee -- who reportedly was making waves about wanting a contract similar to the $161-million pact signed by his friend and former Cleveland partner in Cy Young crime, C.C. Sabathia -- and undoubtedly been the favorites to win the World Series.

The Phillies could have done that and they chose not to because they could not expand more payroll for this one year. I don't know why Jay Mariotti thinks the free agent signing period is over, there is still plenty of time for the Phillies to sign other players to shore up weak spots on the roster. The Phillies have taken a long term view in this trade. Time will tell if it works out or not.

Instead, the Phillies are no better than they were when they lost the Series to the Yankees in six games: a special pitcher at the top of the rotation and a lot of question marks after him, including Cole Hamels, who was last heard verbally blowing off the season before the Series actually was over.

I think it is true the Phillies are not much better for this season than last season at this point, but they are in better shape for the 2010 season because they have Halladay locked up to a long term deal. Somehow Jay Mariotti forgets the Phillies won a World Series in 2008 with Cole Hamels as the anchor of the pitching staff and this year he is the 2nd best pitcher on the staff (just like last year when the Phillies made the World Series and Hamels had a "bad" year). I don't think one bad year is going to cause me to write him off and it shouldn't cause anyone else to write him off either.

But at the major league level, they are no better next season while the Yankees and Red Sox clearly have improved themselves.

Have the Yankees improved? They still have Sabathia, an injury prone starter and a 37 year old as the top three starters in their rotation. They have a better centerfielder in Curtis Granderson but now have a hole in LF since they haven't re-signed Johnny Damon. Not to mention the fact the Yankees weakened their starting pitching and bullpen depth with the Granderson trade by getting rid of Phil Coke and Ian Kennedy. I honestly can't say they have drastically improved themselves yet.

Sorry, but I've never understood why a franchise prioritizes the future over its precious present.

Says the exact same guy who has absolutely beaten up the Yankees in the past for trading for expensive players and signing expensive players in lieu of building a good team through the farm system. When it comes to the Phillies, Jay Mariotti is all about buying players and not worrying about tomorrow, yet earlier in this exact same column he bitched about the competitive imbalance of the league, which is partially caused by teams trading for big name and big money players.

GO FOR THE JUGULAR when you have the chance, when you're clearly the best team in a National League that finds the Dodgers in a divorce-driven fire sale, the Mets lamely remaining idle while the Yankees dominate the back pages, the Cubs not doing much in the infancy of their new ownership and the Cardinals playing their usual payroll games in middle America.

DAMN YOU ST. LOUIS CARDINALS WITH YOUR MIDDLE AMERICAN VALUES THAT REFUSE TO ALLOW YOU TO PAY $16 MILLION (or more) FOR AN OUTFIELDER THAT DIDN'T HELP YOUR TEAM GET INTO THE NLCS LAST YEAR! How dare you not overpay for players in an attempt to keep up with the Phillies who are trying to keep up with the Yankees! How will Major League Baseball ever attain competitive balance if teams don't overspend every winter on free agents that will cause potential payroll problems for the team in the future??? DON'T YOU KNOW OUTSPENDING EVERY OTHER TEAM IS THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP THE COMPETITIVE BALANCE IN BASEBALL????

Plus, the Phillies don't know if their prospects will pan out. They don't know if their prospects will remain healthy.

Plus the Blue Jays don't know if the prospects they got in the trade will pan out either, so just by doing a little math, if the three prospects the Phillies don't know if the prospects they received will pan out and the Blue Jays don't know if the prospects they received will pan out we have essentially a Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay trade...which is a wash except for the fact Halladay signed an extension already and Lee hasn't...and Jay Mariotti has no point.

In fact, if push came to shove, I might have picked Lee over Halladay --

I would never pick Cliff Lee over Roy Halladay. You can call me crazy or stupid, I don't care. I like Roy Halladay over Cliff Lee. Especially if the Phillies are really worried about keeping up with the Yankees because Roy Halladay is 18-6 with a 2.84 ERA and 1.112 WHIP in his career against the Yankees.

See?

particularly if Lee's agent, Darek Braunecker, is being honest when he says he made no demands for Sabathia-type money and that Lee dearly wanted to remain in Philadelphia for the rest of his career.

Because agents are well-known for their complete honesty and willingness to set the market for their free agents before that player has gotten an offer or ever actually been on the market. Brilliant reasoning by Mariotti.

Instead, the winner of the Yankees-Red Sox scrum will prevail in the Series next October/November, with the once-straggling Mariners in position to make the playoffs by teaming Lee with Felix Hernandez atop the rotation and reaping the versatile benefits of new signee Chone Figgins.

Anyone who thinks the Mariners solution to their hitting woes is Chone Figgins is sorely mistaken and also underestimating the fact there is still 3 1/2 months until the baseball season starts and the current AL West division winner, the Angels, haven't started making any moves.

The Cardinals probably will re-sign Matt Holliday, who isn't receiving the offers he expected after his postseason fielding blunder and may sign for less money than he rejected last year in Colorado.

I am sure it is that one error in the NLDS that is holding Holliday back and not the fact he wasn't that great of a hitter in Oakland and teams really aren't keen on spending many millions on a player that may end up being just an almost-great hitting outfielder. He's a great outfielder but is he great enough to get $150 million?

But the Red Sox aren't done, either, as they eye third baseman Adrian Beltre and have a $15.5 million offer on the table to Aroldis Chapman, the lefty pitcher from Cuba. And that means the Yankees aren't done, as well, making these teams the two biggest winners.

What the Red Sox and the Yankees are doing is almost completely negligible in regards to the Phillies. There are 100 different things that need to happen before the Phillies would play either of these teams in the World Series. Does Jay Mariotti know the Yankees/Red Sox and Phillies play in different leagues? I am not sure he is aware of this. The Phillies won't be fighting Boston or the New York Yankees for a playoff spot this year.

For all the grousing about too much East Coast-axis emphasis on this rivalry, it's still the best theater in the sport, by far trumping whatever the Yankees and Phillies gave us.

Philadelphia is still on the East Coast. They are an East Coast team and the World Series between the Phillies and Yankees was an East Coast World Series. Maybe Philadelphia is not exactly on the East Coast, but neither are the New York Yankees. Someone needs an old fashioned geography lesson.

They've re-signed Andy Pettitte, which aligns an imposing postseason rotation that also included Sabathia and A.J. Burnett.

Imposing? Those three pitchers pitched well this year but during the season the Yankees are still going to need two other pitchers to step up in the starting rotation and I am not sure they knew who exactly that will be at this point. For some reason Jay Mariotti forgets the Yankees have to MAKE the playoffs before they can play in the ALCS against the Red Sox.

But next winter, they simply can sign Lee to replace Pettitte.

As can the Phillies sign Lee to replace a pitcher they don't want anymore.

General manager Brian Cashman pretended as if he was torn. "We're excited about what we're getting, and we're distraught about what we gave up at the same time," he said. "It's a tough decision. You're trading the future for here and now."

Anyone remember the Kevin Brown trade or the Randy Johnson trade? That was also the Yankees trading the future for here and now. How did those trades work out for them?

Here and now is where we are. Remember that if the Yankees win their 28th championship and the Phillies are also-rans again.

Jay Mariotti just stated earlier in this column the Phillies were the favorite to win the National League. Based on this, I wouldn't call a third straight appearance in the World Series to be something "also-rans" have accomplished. Making another World Series and losing that World Series is not a sign the Phillies are "also-rans."

And Cliff Lee is 3,000 miles away.

The Phillies made a risk by trading Lee for Halladay like they did, but it's a risk they felt they had to take. I know it sounds sexy to say the Phillies should have kept Lee and Halladay just for one year, but the Phillies know they couldn't do that because they had other needs on the roster that needed to be fixed. Not to mention if the Phillies had kept Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay, stupid sportswriters like Jay Mariotti would have called them cheap for not re-signing Lee after the season was over. If anything has happened the Phillies have basically made a trade that is a wash, which means they could be due to get back in the World Series where pretty much anything can happen in a 7 game series.

Mariotti doesn't have a clear grasp on baseball economics and strategy because he thinks the Yankees have a wonderful rotation built around an injury prone pitcher and a 37 year old that can't be stopped in the World Series. In truth, the Yankees need to worry about who the other two starters are going to be for them before we all go ahead and put them back in the World Series. The Phillies simply couldn't afford to keep Lee AND fix their bullpen and some of the other roster issues they had. I know Jay doesn't like this but if he took a second to think about the reasoning behind this trade (which will never happen) instead of just spouting his opinion off, he could possibly see why it was made. It's a risk, but I don't think it is a bigger risk than is necessary.

6 comments Benny Hill/JaMarcus Russell Competition

Everyone, I have a competition proposal without a prize. Your prize is an increase in your awesomeness...ness. I looked up "bust" and "JaMarcus Russell" on youtube and remarkably, there is nothing on it. This is Benny Hill music - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg&feature=related. I'm sure you all recognise it instantly. I want, for my own perverse enjoyment, a video of all of JaMarcus' absolute, total failures as an NFL quarterback, put on Youtube, with this music playing over the top. It will be hilarious and humiliating for a dude who was going to fucking hold out for the Raiders. He's the worst athlete in professional sports I've ever seen and I will cyber high five anyone who can make this dream of my favourite sports video come true. Being in Australia (did you guys realise that?) I have limited access to NFL film, but this is something we can all "lol" at. Please make it happen you sexy, sexy people.