PDA

View Full Version : Maybe the Reds are in the wrong league



M2
03-08-2006, 03:26 PM
This just kind of popped into my head as I was reading through the Reds-Twins game thread on the other side of the board: But would it be so bad if the Reds were in the AL Central?

Just for full disclosure, I'm an NL guy. I got introduced to the game during an era of NL dominance and I despise the DH rule. I don't just like the NL better, I believe it's morally superior. I also put a lot of stock in the Reds being a franchise that can trace its history back to the 1800s and playing in a league with a bunch of other teams that can do the same.

Yet despite that, there's still a strong case to be made for the AL Central.

Heres the scenario:

Let's say the Kansas City Royals decide they've got to be in the same division as the Cardinals in order to make something out of that franchise, that they've decided 13 years in the AL Central is enough. Obviously they couldn't just saunter over to the NL. Someone would have to switch places with them.

Then you get to why the Reds might consider it.

First and foremost there's the little matter of the Reds having been in the NL Central for 13 years without a decent rivalry forming. Oh, fans pay some attention to the Cardinals and Cubs, but the Reds have never been in a meaningful race with either club and the rivalries are one-way streets at best.

Second is the matter of the GAB. I like a more athletic, less power-oriented brand of baseball. Problem is the Reds didn't build a park for that. The Reds built a park that accentuates power and as long as the club plays there it's going to have to bring a fair amount of beef to the barbecue. You can claim to be an NL team all you want, but if you play in what amounts to an AL park you're only fooling yourself.

Third, the Reds' natural rival is the Indians. You want a rivalry fans can really get caught up in? Well there it is, the annual battle for Ohio. Beyond that, you've got the Yankees, Red Sox and A's in the AL and the Reds have some relatively modern historical ties to all three of those clubs.

Fourth, apparently Edwin Encarnacion is a Twins killer.

Fifth, there's only three clubs west of the the Central time zone in the AL, which means fewer late games to broadcast.

Sixth, Jr. can DH.

Seventh, being near the Pirates and Brewers all these years has rubbed off on the club on the wrong way. It needs to start hanging around with the Twins and Indians.

Anyway, that's the case for the switch. I'm not going to tell you I like the idea because I'm not wired to like anything to do with the American League. Yet if the opportunity presented itself I think I just might be for the team switching leagues. Ultimately it might be the right thing for the Reds.

traderumor
03-08-2006, 03:29 PM
Heresy ;)

I don't like the AL, but I assume its the DH and being a Reds fan that are the only real sticking points.

Red in Chicago
03-08-2006, 03:49 PM
interesting points, but i'd rather stay where we are now, as national leaguers...here in chicago, we've got both leagues covered...i absolutely hate the cubs, wrigley field, the ivy and everything else associated with the north siders...as for the sox, i make my way over to "the cell" a handful of times each year, but can't really get into the game as much...the entire dh thing drives me crazy, and i just can't get past it...while i do have a good time there, it's mostly because of all the consumed adult beverages:beerme:

vaticanplum
03-08-2006, 03:49 PM
Well, I think that GABP itself stands as evidence that no important decision that will affect the team for decades should be based heavily on the players of the present team.

However, this


Fourth, apparently Edwin Encarnacion is a Twins killer.

is probably going to stand as my favorite argument for anything that happens in baseball in 2006. I really just kind of like the imagery of it. Edwin Encarnacion, Twins Killer! it's a superhero in the making.

RedFanAlways1966
03-08-2006, 03:52 PM
Don't know... I heard Buster Olney say on ESPN Radio this morning that the top 6-7 teams in MLB this year are AL teams. ;)

RedsManRick
03-08-2006, 03:53 PM
I think the best argument made in the entire post was that of rivalries. That said, I imagine the NL team switching would be sending Milwauke back to the AL, thus restoring their rivalry with MN, and keeping things slighly more historically consistent.

red-in-la
03-08-2006, 03:54 PM
The single thing that turns the Reds into the Pirates and the Brewers was getting JR. 12.5 million reasons to fall out of the top half. The other was (wait while I duck) firing Bowden. Yeah, throw stuff if you want but DanO was a distaster and Krivisky will only be an improvement if Castellini gives him a ton more money every year.

Bowden was enough out-of-the-box to try to invent ways to look good at least with no money. Waiting first 3 years, then 5 or more years more for the current regime to supposedly rebuild the farm system is more LUCK than planning.

Changing to the AL would just make the Reds compete with the Royals and Twins instead of the Pirates and Brewers. Now that the Sox have decent management and a ton of money, they will likely be the same as the Cards, Cubs and Houston.....trading the title around whilst the bottom feeders bottom feed.

And I never liked the Indians.

lollipopcurve
03-08-2006, 04:01 PM
I heard Buster Olney say on ESPN Radio this morning that the top 6-7 teams in MLB this year are AL teams

Yeah, here's how Busterboy does his rankings:
1. New York Yankees
2. New York Yankees
3. New York Yankees
4. New York Yankees
5. New York Yankees
6. New York Yankees
7. New York Yankees
8. League

lollipopcurve
03-08-2006, 04:02 PM
Anyway, that's the case for the switch.

I'm dyed-in-the-wool National League too, but that's one good case.

A 3-year sabbatical would work.

M2
03-08-2006, 04:12 PM
I imagine the NL team switching would be sending Milwauke back to the AL, thus restoring their rivalry with MN, and keeping things slighly more historically consistent.

The Brewers never had a rivalry with the Twins, they only played in the same division for four seasons. Milwaukee switched to the NL to be near the Cubs and I doubt they'd ever give that up now that they've got it.

Sea Ray
03-08-2006, 05:10 PM
I think the AL rules suck but that's another issue. I've always felt that the AL Central is the best division in baseball moneywise. Perfect for a market like Cincinnati. This is the only division in baseball without a big spender year in and year out. Today with the unbalanced schedules that makes a huge difference. It means 36 games a year against the Tigers/Royals and only 6 against the likes of NY, Boston, etc. I'd feel a lot better about the chances of our Reds becoming contenders again if they were in that division than the NL Central

westofyou
03-08-2006, 05:32 PM
Perfect for a market like Cincinnati

The Rust Belt division, marked by the snow birds and the faded union stickers on rusted bumpers.

All members of the beer and whiskey league or the AL or its begining the western league.

RFS62
03-08-2006, 05:34 PM
The single thing that turns the Reds into the Pirates and the Brewers was getting JR. 12.5 million reasons to fall out of the top half. The other was (wait while I duck) firing Bowden.


So, the worst thing we ever did was sign Junior. And the next worst thing we ever did was fire the guy who moved heaven and earth to get him.

Hmmmmm

westofyou
03-08-2006, 05:36 PM
Bowden was enough out-of-the-box to try to invent ways to look good at least with no money.

Yeah,he's working wonders over there in DC, the wonder has turned to blunder.

If Jr. is the worst thing to happen to the Reds then how does the guy who swung the trade and cut the contract and greased the skids get off without a black eye?

Yet gets sunshine blown up his rear like a balloon at a kids party.

KronoRed
03-08-2006, 05:37 PM
The DH and all associated with it are evil.

cincinnati chili
03-08-2006, 10:00 PM
I'm dyed-in-the-wool National League too, but that's one good case.




Agree. The DH is the dealbreaker for me, but that's a good case.

Red Heeler
03-08-2006, 10:07 PM
I'd go even farther than that, though it would not involve the Reds changing leagues. I propose radical realignment which would emphasize regional rivalries. It would require that one inter-league series be played at all times, but I really don't have a problem with that.



AL Atlantic AL Midwest AL Pacific
Boston Chi Cubs LA Dodgers
NY Mets Chi Sox Oakland
NY Yankees Kansas City OC Angels
Philadelphia Milwaukee San Francisco
Toronto St. Louis Seattle

NL Sunshine NL Great Lakes NL Southwest
Baltimore Cincinnati Arizona
Atlanta Cleveland Colorado
Florida Detroit Houston
Tampa Minnesota San Diego
Washington Pittsburg Texas

Falls City Beer
03-08-2006, 10:17 PM
I'd do anything, anything at all, for the Reds to play meaningful games beyond June 1st.

Yachtzee
03-08-2006, 10:22 PM
I'd go even farther than that, though it would not involve the Reds changing leagues. I propose radical realignment which would emphasize regional rivalries. It would require that one inter-league series be played at all times, but I really don't have a problem with that.



AL Atlantic AL Midwest AL Pacific
Boston Chi Cubs LA Dodgers
NY Mets Chi Sox Oakland
NY Yankees Kansas City OC Angels
Philadelphia Milwaukee San Francisco
Toronto St. Louis Seattle

NL Sunshine NL Great Lakes NL Southwest
Baltimore Cincinnati Arizona
Atlanta Cleveland Colorado
Florida Detroit Houston
Tampa Minnesota San Diego
Washington Pittsburg Texas


I don't think it's a good idea to put teams in the same market in the same division. In fact, some teams in the same region are better off in different leagues. For example, I think Cincinnati and Cleveland benefit more from being in different leagues, because you have people in the middle of Ohio who are free to be both Indians and Reds fans because they aren't in direct competition. Put them in the same division and you force those people to pick a team. The logic goes the same for teams in the same market.

remdog
03-09-2006, 06:59 AM
I'd go even farther than that, though it would not involve the Reds changing leagues. I propose radical realignment which would emphasize regional rivalries. It would require that one inter-league series be played at all times, but I really don't have a problem with that.



AL Atlantic AL Midwest AL Pacific
Boston Chi Cubs LA Dodgers
NY Mets Chi Sox Oakland
NY Yankees Kansas City OC Angels
Philadelphia Milwaukee San Francisco
Toronto St. Louis Seattle

NL Sunshine NL Great Lakes NL Southwest
Baltimore Cincinnati Arizona
Atlanta Cleveland Colorado
Florida Detroit Houston
Tampa Minnesota San Diego
Washington Pittsburg Texas


That would never work. It's too logical. :evil:

Rem

vaticanplum
03-09-2006, 11:02 AM
I don't think it's a good idea to put teams in the same market in the same division. In fact, some teams in the same region are better off in different leagues. For example, I think Cincinnati and Cleveland benefit more from being in different leagues, because you have people in the middle of Ohio who are free to be both Indians and Reds fans because they aren't in direct competition. Put them in the same division and you force those people to pick a team. The logic goes the same for teams in the same market.

Bingo. New York and Chicago, for example, have two stadiums to fill (and the former especially has two rather large stadiums to fill). They need to have the NL/AL variety just to keep up. If not, one team in each city would really end up suffering. Like the Angels already do (though that's for different reasons, plus they deserve it). A couple of interleague series each year is good enough for me; it keeps the rivalries existing and even kind of special without taking away the intraleague rivalries (Cubs-Cards, Yankees-Sox).

In general I'm averse to change regarding the leagues. I can't imagine Cincinnati as an AL team -- even typing it feels weird. All in favor of renaming the NL East the Sunshine League though.

penantboundreds
03-09-2006, 11:58 AM
Bowden was enough out-of-the-box to try to invent ways to look good at least with no money.



he traded for alfonso soriano before asking him if he would change positions, now look where they are

IslandRed
03-09-2006, 12:22 PM
Bingo. New York and Chicago, for example, have two stadiums to fill (and the former especially has two rather large stadiums to fill). They need to have the NL/AL variety just to keep up. If not, one team in each city would really end up suffering. Like the Angels already do (though that's for different reasons, plus they deserve it). A couple of interleague series each year is good enough for me; it keeps the rivalries existing and even kind of special without taking away the intraleague rivalries (Cubs-Cards, Yankees-Sox).

The Angels are suffering? Up until a few years ago, maybe. Not anymore.

vaticanplum
03-09-2006, 12:28 PM
The Angels are suffering? Up until a few years ago, maybe. Not anymore.

I mean in terms of fandom, not quality of the team. My impression is that they are way behind the Dodgers in terms of the number and loyalty of their fans, and that until they started doing very well it was very difficult to even get people to drive to the stadium. That's just my impression though -- I haven't looked at recent attendance records.

But I certainly think the Angels would have an even harder time getting people out to Anaheim if they were suddenly playing all the same teams as the Dodgers.

M2
03-09-2006, 12:31 PM
Red Heeler,

I'm all for a complete re-thinking of MLB's division structure, though the opportune moment for it might be after the league adds two more teams (probably within the next decade).

That's one area where I think MLB could stand to follow in the footsteps of the NFL (and the NHL before it).

In the meantime it seems to me that Kansas City would have a vested interest in switching to the NL Central and that, of all the teams currently in the NL Central, the Reds stand out as the team with the most to potentially gain by jumping to the AL.

Mind you, this is 100% theory with a 0% chance of actually happening.

IslandRed
03-09-2006, 12:45 PM
I mean in terms of fandom, not quality of the team. My impression is that they are way behind the Dodgers in terms of the number and loyalty of their fans, and that until they started doing very well it was very difficult to even get people to drive to the stadium. That's just my impression though -- I haven't looked at recent attendance records.


They've drawn over 3 million the last three years.

I definitely rolled my eyes over the whole "LA of Anaheim" thing, and you're right, historically the Angels have been a very distant second in the market. But Moreno's very aggressive about trying to capture market share, the Angels are getting it done on and off the field, and the Dodgers have been stagnant... well, I see it as striking while the iron is hot rather than being desperate.

Puffy
03-09-2006, 01:13 PM
I agree with M2 - the Reds are in the wrong league.

They would easily be the best team in Little League. Oh, and imagine how many home runs Dunn and Junior could hit in those short fields!

Chip R
03-09-2006, 01:19 PM
I agree with M2 - the Reds are in the wrong league.

They would easily be the best team in Little League. Oh, and imagine how many home runs Dunn and Junior could hit in those short fields!

Yeah, but think of all the home runs Milton would give up. :eek:

KronoRed
03-09-2006, 01:28 PM
Yeah but we can call DO OVER after each one :D

Puffy
03-09-2006, 04:00 PM
Yeah, but think of all the home runs Milton would give up. :eek:

New meaning to the word Tee Ball.

westofyou
03-09-2006, 04:09 PM
The winner of the GL and MW Divisons would meet at the end of the year for this trophy.

http://www.teamten.com/Postings/EastwardDay4/resized/Rusty%20car.jpg

gm
03-09-2006, 09:04 PM
First and foremost there's the little matter of the Reds having been in the NL Central for 13 years without a decent rivalry forming. Oh, fans pay some attention to the Cardinals and Cubs, but the Reds have never been in a meaningful race with either club and the rivalries are one-way streets at best.

Second is the matter of the GAB. I like a more athletic, less power-oriented brand of baseball. Problem is the Reds didn't build a park for that. The Reds built a park that accentuates power and as long as the club plays there it's going to have to bring a fair amount of beef to the barbecue. You can claim to be an NL team all you want, but if you play in what amounts to an AL park you're only fooling yourself.

Third, the Reds' natural rival is the Indians. You want a rivalry fans can really get caught up in? Well there it is, the annual battle for Ohio. Beyond that, you've got the Yankees, Red Sox and A's in the AL and the Reds have some relatively modern historical ties to all three of those clubs.

Fourth, apparently Edwin Encarnacion is a Twins killer.

Fifth, there's only three clubs west of the the Central time zone in the AL, which means fewer late games to broadcast.

Sixth, Jr. can DH.

Seventh, being near the Pirates and Brewers all these years has rubbed off on the club on the wrong way. It needs to start hanging around with the Twins and Indians.

Eigth, the Reds might finally play a series in Seattle?