Jun 14, 2011, 4:30 PM EDT
I’ve read several articles in which writers are at least somewhat positive and accepting of the recent realignment idea that has been floated. Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote the first meaty counterargument today, and it’s a pretty comprehensive one.
I’m not sold on every argument of course — I really don’t care if teams can’t put up “wild card champion” banners in parks and can’t make finishing out of the playoff race sound good by calling it “third place” – but it’s an intellectual response to the idea as opposed to some emotional traditionalist claptrap you might be expected to hear whenever the idea of change is floated.
But even if I disagree with some of Goold’s criticisms, he makes a great point when it comes to how the idea of constant interleague series — as two 15-team leagues would require — would mess with team rosters due to the fact that clubs would have to switch between the DH game and the non-DH game far more often than they do now for the more sporadic interleague play. And after detailing the issues with that, he reaches a conclusion that no one has really talked about it yet:
So let’s call this discussion, this talk of realignment, this Trojan horse what it really seems to be: an attempt to force the DH on the NL.
Whether that’s the main idea or merely a side effect, it does seem to be an eminently possible result of two fifteen team leagues. An alternative: loosening roster rules to deal with the changes, but that wouldn’t be ideal and wouldn’t necessarily placate a union that may truly want 16 extra designated hitters in order to sign off on such a plan.
In light of that, are you still cool with realignment?