2021-22 Tigers Hot Stove League

[chasfh]

49 minutes ago, Archie said:

I think Nashville would be a frontrunner for an expansion team.  In that case i would move Toronto to the east, Rays to the south and Nashville in the north.

I would be surprised if any other city would get a new team before Vegas and Nashville.

[RandyMarsh]

I think Charlotte should be considered. I know one of the White Sox affiliates play in a beautiful park there and my understanding is it routinely is one of the most attended parks in the minors so I think an MLB team could draw well there. 

[Archie]

Charlotte and Nashville are probably too close together to get an expansion team at the same time.  I still think Nashville gets one first.  

[Motown Bombers]

MLB doesn't need an expansion team. We have 3-4 teams now that hardly have a home. It wasn't that long ago where MLB was talking about contraction. 

[Motor City Sonics]

25 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

MLB doesn't need an expansion team. We have 3-4 teams now that hardly have a home. It wasn't that long ago where MLB was talking about contraction. 

If there is a long strike, one that cancels a season (and don't rule that out) it is going to seriously damage baseball, especially as we are still struggling to return to normalcy.    Both sides have to know this, but I don't think either side gives a damn about it, they want what they want for the right now.    A missed season could easily lead to contraction a few years down the road.    

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Motor City Sonics

[Tigeraholic1]

Interesting point.

 

 

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Interesting point.

 

 

This is going to be an interesting question.... it's sort of Tucker Barnhart or bust in free agency. So trades may have to be an option.

[Tiger337]

8 hours ago, casimir said:

How about 2 leagues with 2 divisions and 8 teams in each division?

That would be the best solution (of all the ones that would have any chance of happening).  Take the top three teams in each division.  Give the division winners a first round bye.  No wildcards.  If you aren't good enough to finish in the top three, then you don't deserve it.  

[romad1]

3 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

I think Charlotte should be considered. I know one of the White Sox affiliates play in a beautiful park there and my understanding is it routinely is one of the most attended parks in the minors so I think an MLB team could draw well there. 

Montreal or bust.  No more floundering around in the sunbelt for fans who don't show.

[casimir]

31 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That would be the best solution (of all the ones that would have any chance of happening).  Take the top three teams in each division.  Give the division winners a first round bye.  No wildcards.  If you aren't good enough to finish in the top three, then you don't deserve it.  

I'd realign geographically.  It forces the decision on the DH by mixing current AL with NL.  I think it reduces travel, but it does keep a majority of times within the same time zone or +/- 1 zone (should benefit Houston & Texas).

I left open spots in the West and East for expansion teams.  And there's some wiggle room.  Colorado could slide to the West, Milwaukee could slide to the Midwest if the expansion teams go to the Central and East (as an example).  And I would go further and just go with one league, not two.  Two leagues isn't necessary for anything.  Make the all star game USA vs World, or old guys vs new guys, or just randomly pick sides.  Admittedly, these suggestions are going to make traditionalists into an aneurysm.  So, let me keep going with schedule ideas.  🙂

So, going back to what I said about one league, I'd have everybody play everybody.  That's right.  13 games vs all divisional opponents (91 games) and 3 vs all other 24 teams outside of the division (72 games) for a total schedule of 163 games.  What, an odd number of games?  Sure, why not.  An odd number of games vs every other team is a built in tie breaker.  And you just move home field advantage back and forth annually.  Detroit at Colorado this season, Colorado at Detroit next season.  Detroit vs Cleveland is 7 games in Detroit and 6 games in Cleveland this season, but 6 games in Detroit and 7 games in Cleveland next season.

As for one league playoffs, they can go with 10 or 12 teams total (or 14 once they expand, it'll happen).  Division winners and wildcards qualify, but I'm ranking the bracket according to record with no worry about whether a team is a division winner or wildcard.  And I would seriously consider reseeding the bracket, definitely after the initial round so that the best record gets to go vs the worst remaining record, second best vs second worst, and so on.

Now, if the powers that be prefer to keep two leagues, that's fine.  A similar 163 game arrangement can be made.  11 games vs the 7 divisional opponents (77 games).  7 games vs each of the other 8 league mates (56 games).  That's 133 games.  I would fill up the rest of the schedule with 3 game series vs 10 interleague foes.  Now, the interleague falls short by 6 opponents, but you just rotate those opponents in and out of the schedule over time.  Detroit play against 5 teams in the West and 5 teams in the Central, and then the next season they pick up the 3 from the West and the 3 from the Central that they didn't play the season before and have 2 holdover opponents from each division.  Interleague is 30 games, a total of 163 games, and the head to head tiebreakers for the playoffs remain intact for each league.

The two league playoffs would be similar to now, but again, I'm racking teams up according to overall record, to heck with division winner or wildcard.

It'll never happen.  But that's what I'd do.

[casimir]

7 hours ago, chasfh said:

I wouldn’t mind this at all, but I believe Baseball would never do this because it both reduces the number of division races, and it forces seventh- and eighth-place teams to try to market themselves late in the season. I get that a 55-85 team would have a bad time marketing itself in September under any circumstance, but it would still be substantially worse if they had to do so as an seventh-place team than as a third-place team. 

I don't know.  The Lions would be last whether they were in a 3 team division or a 6 team division.  Last is last.

[Archie]

3 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

If there is a long strike, one that cancels a season (and don't rule that out) it is going to seriously damage baseball, especially as we are still struggling to return to normalcy.    Both sides have to know this, but I don't think either side gives a damn about it, they want what they want for the right now.    A missed season could easily lead to contraction a few years down the road.    

 

Even a short strike will do a lot of damage.  Fans haven't forgot all the problems they had just starting the 2019 season because both sides were playing games.  Baseball owners and players need to realize they aren't the ones holding all the cards, its the fans.  No fans = no spectators or TV viewers.  

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

I think Charlotte should be considered. I know one of the White Sox affiliates play in a beautiful park there and my understanding is it routinely is one of the most attended parks in the minors so I think an MLB team could draw well there. 

I used to think Charlotte could never support a big league team because the population of the DMA is so spread out, they would never draw 40,000+ fans 81 dates a year. But now I’m coming around to the idea that attendance doesn’t matter all that much, given all the extraneous revenue streams teams enjoy, so they could probably put in a 27,500-seat stadium that will look more full on TV, which helps with optics, plus they could sell out more which would lead to higher ticket prices, which is always a nice nice-to-have.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

This is going to be an interesting question.... it's sort of Tucker Barnhart or bust in free agency. So trades may have to be an option.

Hard no on Tucker Barnhart. One of the worst-hitting catchers in baseball, and his pitch-framing isn’t good enough to make up for it. 

[IdahoBert]

I just want to go on record as being outraged, totally outraged, at the marginalization, belittlement, and criminalization of drunken sailorism. 
 

[davidsb623]

15 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

MLB doesn't need an expansion team. We have 3-4 teams now that hardly have a home. It wasn't that long ago where MLB was talking about contraction. 

Contraction is nothing more than owners using leverage to gain something.  It would never happen.

[IdahoBert]

All joking aside, framing the Mike Ilitch era in relation to the deportment of a “drunken sailor” is an extremely disrespectful and impolitic thing to do, regardless of how accurate this description may be in an off the cuff sort of way. Being off the cuff in this manner about Mr. I seems unprofessional. Al Avila should be capable of a less caustic, less derisive way of framing the Mr. I era. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes, presumably, about the way he and Chris Ilitch view that era. We have all been gnashing our teeth about it for years but most of us aren’t managing an asset of the magnitude of the Detroit Tigers and I would expect a more circumspect manner of phrasing things than a low blow about a “drunken sailor” would imply.

[Cruzer1]

I was in the Army, so any inference to drunken sailors makes me giggle.

[romad1]

34 minutes ago, IdahoBert said:

All joking aside, framing the Mike Ilitch era in relation to the deportment of a “drunken sailor” is an extremely disrespectful and impolitic thing to do, regardless of how accurate this description may be in an off the cuff sort of way. Being off the cuff in this manner about Mr. I seems unprofessional. Al Avila should be capable of a less caustic, less derisive way of framing the Mr. I era. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes, presumably, about the way he and Chris Ilitch view that era. We have all been gnashing our teeth about it for years but most of us aren’t managing an asset of the magnitude of the Detroit Tigers and I would expect a more circumspect manner of phrasing things than a low blow about a “drunken sailor” would imply.

If drunks be what they were....was Jordan Zimmerman the girl the beer goggles sought and later determined had an adam's apple? 

[1776]

1 hour ago, Cruzer1 said:

I was in the Army, so any inference to drunken sailors makes me giggle.

Reminds me of the Marine Corps referring to that other branch of service, the Chair Force.

[casimir]

38 minutes ago, romad1 said:

If drunks be what they were....was Jordan Zimmerman the girl the beer goggles sought and later determined had an adam's apple? 

Good from afar, but far from good?

[Shades of Deivi Cruz]

1 hour ago, IdahoBert said:

All joking aside, framing the Mike Ilitch era in relation to the deportment of a “drunken sailor” is an extremely disrespectful and impolitic thing to do, regardless of how accurate this description may be in an off the cuff sort of way. Being off the cuff in this manner about Mr. I seems unprofessional. Al Avila should be capable of a less caustic, less derisive way of framing the Mr. I era. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes, presumably, about the way he and Chris Ilitch view that era. We have all been gnashing our teeth about it for years but most of us aren’t managing an asset of the magnitude of the Detroit Tigers and I would expect a more circumspect manner of phrasing things than a low blow about a “drunken sailor” would imply.

What leads you to believe it was a dig at the Mike Illitch era? I just took it as not being like the Yankees/Dodgers. My mind didn't go to Mike Illitch / Dombrowski at all.

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Reminds me of the Marine Corps referring to that other branch of service, the Chair Force.

It is the right of social inferiors to critique their betters. 

[1776]

1 hour ago, davidsb623 said:

Contraction is nothing more than owners using leverage to gain something.  It would never happen.

I’d much prefer a contraction of the number of teams over expansion. 
 

We attended a game in Charlotte this year. It was our first trip to the new park. It was the last NC MLB affiliated minor league park on my list where I had not attended a game. As congested as that area is I couldn’t imagine a MLB park there. I also can’t imagine walking away from as nice a facility as the Knights play in to put one elsewhere in Charlotte. 
I have always opposed having a MLB team in North Carolina. 

[casimir]

16 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

MLB doesn't need an expansion team. We have 3-4 teams now that hardly have a home. It wasn't that long ago where MLB was talking about contraction. 

Tampa & Miami are troubling because of long standing fan base issues which aren't necessarily criticisms of the fan bases or metropolitan areas themselves.  Tampa's stadium situation was a fail from the beginning.  Loria has poisoned a fan base that I would think would take in baseball gleefully because of the culture of the area.

I think Oakland is purely a stadium issue.  The A's can draw some boisterous, if not sell out, crowds to that dump now.  What could they do with functioning stadium suitable for baseball, especially now that they are the only pro game in town?