I saw you mentioned “Kenesaw Mountain Landis” which reminded me I’ve always thought that name had a trickiness to it, it would be a good name to have on your name tag and would go well with the ham sandwich, and you would never have a need for the pickle or chip.

But the “Land” part of the last name makes the name rhyme with the “Mountain” part (with a little “i” following so that is more tricky and less heavy), and somehow the “Mountain Landis” echoes back faintly so that somehow the first name, whatever it means, brings to mind the trees of the forest, does it not? Maybe the “saw?”

It’s an interesting point you raise about the farm system. If all current minor league teams were under the same umbrella – that is, if all North american pro baseball was simply different levels of “MLB” – and MLB was organized as I “proposed” in an earlier post, I could see the idea of a farm system being made obsolete.

Players would still make their way up the ladder without being “owned” by this or that organization. Teams in Division I would not concern themselves with drafts; instead, they’d probably be eyeing players in Divisions II and III. It would be teams at the low levels who would be signing the high school, college, and “amateur free agent” guys.

Scott:

I didn’t know what you related about the high school leagues in Michigan. That’s pretty cool.

The divisions (my theoretical ones) might start out in market size groupings, but that would break down over time. It might seem ridiculous to see teams like (say) Columbus and Wichita playing in Division I, and Pittsburgh and Kansas City playing in Division IV with Lakeland, until you realize what a boon to the game it would be to richly reward good baseball and good management and severely penalize the opposite.

Playoffs? At the top level, there would still be the playoffs and World Series as we know it. In the lower divisions, there really wouldn’t be any point to that. The big deal there – and it would be huge – would be finishing in a position to make the leap to the higher division the next year. Not only for the pride of acheivement, but because the money would naturally get better and better all the way up to “the bigs,” Division I. Earn that promotion, and the whole darn team gets a big raise!

It’s a pipe dream, sure, but an interesting one.

Damn, I’m out of crack again. Taxi!

Some of the high school mega leagues are set up that way here in Michigan. It does even out the playing field, but would that mean you only play teams from that Division? I could see how that might work. You’d probably have three divisions in baseball: Large, medium and small markets. How would the playoff system work? Top two teams in each Division play their own World Series?

I simply love the European system of levels and divisions. Hardcore soccer (football!) and hockey fans already know what I mean. For those that don’t, it’s like this:

Imagine an array of teams all over the place, big market, small market, huge market, tiny market. Naturally, the big markets are going to attract the big talent. So, if you considered every level of pro baseball as part of one gigantic league, you would start out with you New Yorks and Los Angeleses as elite franchises, in “Division I,” perhaps. Top level.

Here’s the beauty part. You have to play to stay. Let’s say Division I is the current 30-team MLB. What’s the incentive now to not run a franchise into the ground? Well, here’s one more. Let’s say if you finish last in your division, you drop. That’s right – next year, you’re playing in Division II. And for the teams in the lower divisons, finshing on top of your division earns you a trip upstairs to the next level. So a team from Buffalo or Erie or Kalamazoo could end up in the bigs, if they were the top-flight operation that belongs there.

No need to tell me why that doesn’t work for a sport more business than sport. But you have to admit, it’s a hell of a way to go if you’re into quaint notions like the pride of acheivement and such.

Well, you see where I’m coming from, which is good. It’s not as though I’ve thought this through completely – I just gathered a few kernels of ideas together to get thoughts and opinions from others.

I don’t, however, see rosters changing season to season any more under my “system” than they do right now. If anything, it would be less. When good compensation is more closely tied to improving/maintaining your actual performance level rather than chasing the free agent bucks over to New York, Boston, or California, a kind of sensible stability becomes more possible, I think. A good franchise in any market, rather than a rich franchise, would be more attractive. Good management would attract talent, which would attract still more talent, and yet it still couldn’t get unbalanced to the point where big money + big market = essentially endless dynasty (Yankees). It’s rather self-limited, I think, more so than things are currently. More parity and better, more competitive baseball would be by-products rather than something you’d have to induce artificially.

see Twins, Minnesota.

Really, if you run your organization well enough you can be competitive consistently. Pointing out KC and the ‘Burgh are kind of bad examples because both organizations are run with their heads firmly planted in their asses. It’s all about investing your modest resources in the right places (i.e. scouting, player development, the draft).

I like your ideas as far as player salaries. But I’m a bit lost on the idea of all players being employees of MLB … it almost sounds like you want to go to a fantasy baseball-style format where franchises would be drafting rosters each year.

I don’t think capitalism works well in baseball. I would like to see all revenues generated go into one big pot and then equally distributed to each team. Each team would be given the same budget each year for player salaries and would be required to spend within a certain percentage of that number .. say 90 or 95 percent. Extra funds manditorialy going into player development/scouting. In such a system, franchises that made the best baseball decisions (drafting, development, trades.. etc…) would be rewarded.

Under the current system (and I know the so-called revenue sharing has helped some), I still don’t believe small market teams can be competitive year in and year out. They end up being farm systems for big market teams (ie. Kansas City, Pittsburgh… and Montreal back in the day).

(Figured I might as well start sucking up now. Could help my own campaign.)