I don’t know. The Indians currently play 3 (sometimes 4) home games against the Red Sox and Yankees. This move would bump that up to 9. That is 10-12 extra games against these teams, which presumably will sell out (although perhaps these games sell out precisely because they visit town only one series per year – i.e. the novelty factor might weaken). Let’s be conservative and assume it’s ten: all else being equal (a big assumption, I concede), if these replace 12 games versus AL Central opponents, which let’s just say sell out, on average, half the seats, then this shift would lead to an aggregate of 6 games worth of ticket revenue that would not be generated otherwise.

Balance this against the possibility that a bunch of things go right for the Indians this year and they are around .500 or slightly above coming into August/September. In my mind there are two important points here: a) this is more likely to happen if they are playing in the AL Central, against weaker opposition, and b) that, in all likelihood, puts them squarely in the playoff race. If this happens, the Jake will start selling out again for the stretch run, as we saw in 2005.

So you can have 6 extra games worth of ticket sales or you can take a shot at contention – which would be too unrealistic in the AL East – that, if successful, would presumably lead to far more than that as the fans start showing up for a playoff run, not to mention the additional home games the Indians would host if they actually made the playoffs.

It’s an interesting conversation, but I have a hard time seeing how it would actually play out. For instance, if the goal is to break up the “Boston-New York axis of power”, I don’t think giving teams the choice to switch divisions will do the trick. As much as those teams may hate each other, they undoubtedly recognize how good it is for business to play each other 18 times a year.

Or top two and then take the next 8 and have a mini playoff for the final 2 in each league. This way nearly every team will have a chance towards the end of the season. Disclaimer: this is Bill Simmons’ idea for the NBA.

I would have absolutely no problem with this.

I don’t like the salary floor idea because in the end you might force lower revenue teams to sign crappy old players for more than they are worth.

so…this idea is like some kind of new ketchup?

We have that already.

Here is the plan I was referring to from Cousineau; the post is called, “Results Based On Merit, Not Market.”

In regards to a “salary floor,” the teams that don’t develop talent that is compelling enough to generate interest on the open market, then they don’t get any more of a share of the “Tax Pool”/“Central Fund”/whatever name you give it than the larger market teams get, essentially forcing them to spend money to develop their teams in order to gain those additional revenues from that “Tax Pool”/“Central Fund”/whatever name you give it.

Personally, I think the plan would at least be a good starting point and an improvement over what we currently have – this plan would provide the benefits of a “salary cap” and “salary floor” without essentially having those in place, thereby keeping the salaries of players high, yet allowing smaller and middle-market teams to compete with and outbid the large-market teams to keep competitve teams together for longer periods of time, thereby providing real hope of winning a championship every or nearly every year to fans of all teams, not just NY and Boston.

That also would likely help to boost MLB’s sagging attendance and television ratings, both of which are falling behind the other major sports (football, basketball, and even hockey is gaining in the ratings, and probably will again due to Team USA’s impressive showing at the Vancouver Olympics).

Most fans do not want their teams to have little to no shot of competing for the postseason in April and May, which is a major reason why many fans don’t bother coming out to ballgames in June and July in places like KC, Pittsburgh, and even here in Cleveland, where most games only have maybe 20-25K, out of a possible 42K-43K capacity. It takes a fireworks display to get that number up to 30K+; otherwise, most games, outside of a select few, aren’t even close to 30K, and that’s only about 70% capacity, so most games might have about 50%-60% capacity at best. This is partly why the team finds itself in the financial straits it’s in now. Additionally, even when the team was competing well in 2005 and 2007, it took quite a while for fans to start showing up in the 30K+ range, let alone 40K+, only doing that regularly in the playoffs.

Again, I think the fact that there is uncompetitive balance in baseball really grates on many fans, including here in Cleveland, especially when the Indians were on the cusp of reaching the WS, then having to tear it all down and start again because they had the inability to retain their best players, leading to their being traded ahead of time, with one now in NY (Sabathia), another likely to wind up there (Lee), and another who is in Boston (Victor) by trade, but could resign there or in NY (especially since Posada likely won’t be back and there being questions on whether Mauer will actually be available or not).

Having true competitive balance would likely boost the average fan’s fervor for baseball again, knowing that their team isn’t out of it by April or May due to their losing their best players after a few years or giving out a bad contract or two hampering their team’s chances for 3-5 years afterwards. Additionally, keeping those types of players together longer would enable more dynasties to be built outside of NY and Boston, which would also likely help fans, especially younger fans, identify more with their teams, which could also encourage more young kids to pursue baseball as their main sport, which is another aspect of baseball that is falling behind other sports here in the United States, as many of them are turning to basketball, football, and even hockey and soccer. Don’t get me wrong; there are still many kids who pursue baseball, but from what I have heard and read, the numbers aren’t as numerous as they were in the past, and especially when compared to basketball and football. I think part of the reason is because baseball has become monotonous in terms of NY and Boston always competing because they can spend the most money for the best talent and FA, and the other teams can try to scrape together decent teams from the leftovers and hope that luck is on their side to perhaps knock off one or both of them and win a championship in a given year, then have to tear it down again a year or two later and hope that luck is with them once again. It’s virtually the same storyline being written year after year; after a while, most fans get sick of the storyline and lose interest and passion in baseball, unless you’re a fan of the Yankees or Red Sox. That is also likely why attendance and television ratings for basketball and football are higher – more competitive balance, as Cousineau mentions in his piece.

All in all, I think the plan that Cousineau provides would be a significant improvement over what we currently have in MLB now. Whether MLB would ever seriously entertain it, that’s the $64K question, but we can certainly hope that someone comes to his senses that baseball is getting ruined by this notion that we have competitive balance when all the stats regarding playoff appearances, attendance and television ratings, and interest in baseball suggest otherwise. Something clearly needs to be done if we really want baseball to be as good of a game as it once was, when fans could identify players on specific teams (Ripken with Baltimore, Gwynn with San Diego, Puckett with Minnesota, etc.) and could have legitimate hope that their team could really win it all in a given year, not hope that one year they may be able to do it if everything goes right, then have to tear it down soon afterwards due to baseball economics. This is not the case in NY and Boston – that’s how it should be throughout MLB, and that’s why a plan like this, in my opinion, is needed and should be acted upon.

Just my 2.2 cents!

Well, I guess I meant that the only similarity would be the movement between leagues.

You can’t let the junior league play for the championship, given the crapshoot nature of post-season baseball. It almost gives an advantage to teams who play in via a weaker schedule. I envision the Marlins winning something like five consecutive World Series.

Well, of the 12 members that are associated with a team, 7 will never get put with the Yankees and Red Sox, and 2 others have a chance to get out of the AL East. It’s possible that it could improve competitive balance, except for the 5 teams that might suddenly get thrown into the AL East.

I like that George Will is on there. They should also add Joe Sheehan and Alyssa Milano.

Yeah, of course, that’s a very broad swipe, not factoring in your division.

It’s a business! As long as there is a positive correlation between payroll and fan interest, baseball has no incentive to change the system.

I don’t see what role there is for politics and/or politicians in sports, in any situation.

I agree with this. The owners do want a cap, but they have to get it at the bargaining table with the Players Association.

I’d bet some owners do.

Again, as long as the floor included minor leaguers and amateur signings, and as long as it was based on a three-year average, I think quite a few owners would go for that.

I’d be fine with a cap of like 115 million.