Kuzul

So now Bud Selig wants to expand replay in MLB.

As reported by USA Today‘s Bob Nightengale on Thursday (Nov. 15), baseball’s commissioner announced that he will review the blockbuster trade between the Miami Marlins and Toronto Blue Jays.

Presumably, Selig will try to determine if anything unethical took place with this deal in an attempt to appease Marlins fans outraged by owner Jeffrey Loria’s latest salary dump. Virtually every Marlins player worth watching—including Jose Reyes and Mark Buehrle, who signed with the team as free agents—was sent to Toronto in the trade. 

The weapon that Marlins fans—and fans throughout baseball—hope that Selig will use is the “best interests of baseball” clause that gives the commissioner power to make whatever changes are deemed necessary to maintain competitive integrity in MLB.

But can the commish really hit the reset button on this trade? 

Selig has used those “best interests” powers in recent years to influence the sales of the Texas Rangers and Los Angeles Dodgers. But when it comes to how individual owners run their teams, he’s let each franchise conduct its own business.

“The notion of an almighty commissioner directing the business of baseball is incorrect,” he said to The New York Times in 1994. 

Given his actions with the aforementioned ownership situations, it’s clear that Selig’s view has changed since then. Steering the Houston Astros and new owner Jim Crane to move to the American League—and making the move a condition for Crane buying the team—also seems to indicate that Selig is willing to use those “best interests” powers to facilitate what MLB needs to be done.

However, stepping in to tell a team how it should put together a roster and spend its money is a different circumstance. This is where Selig has appeared to draw the line. 

But the Marlins’ situation has apparently raised the commissioner’s eyebrow. Building a new ballpark with local taxpayer funds, paying big money for top free agents and hiring a star manager certainly conveyed the impression that this was a new era for baseball in South Beach.

Instead, Loria showed it was business as usual with the Marlins. The team performed far below expectations and by midseason, players like Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez were traded away for prospects. When Miami finished the season last in the NL East with 69 wins, Loria decided to pull the plug on his baseball revival and had his most expensive players dealt away to Toronto.

That left Marlins fans feeling jilted and suckered for funding Loria’s charade and believing that the team was serious about putting together a perennial contender that would compete with the other top teams in MLB.

“I am aware of the anger,” Selig said to Nightengale. “I am. I’m also aware that in Toronto they’re very happy.”

There’s the dilemma for Selig.

The Blue Jays made a great trade to better themselves and assemble an AL East contender with this trade. And though it appeared unseemly to dump off its most expensive players, the Marlins received excellent prospects in return. It’s just that the team running a fire sale has no benefit of the doubt with baseball fans.

This was actually a good baseball trade. According to MLB.com’s Paul Hagen, Selig consulted two independent baseball people who informed him that Miami “in terms of young players, did very well.”

How can Selig reverse a trade under those circumstances? A gesture of good faith to the city of Miami and its fans would be a slap in the face to the people of Toronto and the Blue Jays organization? Then the commissioner has to placate another community and fanbase. Where does the cycle end?

This isn’t like Oakland Athletics owner Charlie Finley literally trying to sell Vida Blue, Joe Rudi and Rollie Fingers off for nothing but money in 1976. The commissioner at the time, Bowie Kuhn, stepped in and killed the transactions, invoking his “best interests” powers. 

Kuhn might have vetoed this Marlins-Blue Jays trade, too. And he almost certainly wouldn’t have cared for Loria’s way of doing business.

Another comparable situation is NBA commissioner David Stern rejecting the trade of Chris Paul from the New Orleans Hornets to the Los Angeles Lakers. But one key difference in that scenario is that the league owned the Hornets and didn’t want to see its best player used to help the Lakers continue its dominance. Additionally, the belief was that trading Paul could hurt attendance and the value of the franchise.

Selig utilizes his authority differently, ostensibly attempting not to influence competitive integrity. Finley claimed he needed the money that would have come from selling Blue, Rudi and Fingers to help compete financially. Selig likely would have encouraged him to sell his team. 

Loria isn’t crying poverty. He doesn’t like that he spent so much money for a last-place team and tried to recoup his expense. When asked by CBS Sports’ Jon Heyman if he would sell the team, Loria called that “stupidity.”

While the way Loria runs the Marlins is unsatisfactory to virtually everyone who follows or is involved in baseball, he’s not using the team as a personal bank account, like Frank McCourt did with the Dodgers. Loria hasn’t plunged the team into bankruptcy. He just built a new ballpark for his team. Business is going well. 

To veto this trade would set a terrible precedent for MLB. Would teams no longer have the right to dump off big contracts to create payroll flexibility or financial profitability? If Selig killed the Marlins-Blue Jays deal, shouldn’t he have to go back and squash the Dodgers-Red Sox trade in which Boston unloaded $260 million of salary? 

Clubs with bad records and high-priced veterans consistently trade those players to playoff contenders and hopefuls for prospects as a way of rebuilding with young, cheaper talent. The Marlins arguably did the same thing here, though on an obviously much larger scale. 

In such trades, both teams are presumably trying to get better, just on different timetables. 

This is why Selig drew the line that he did. The slope gets too slippery. Where would it end? Overturning the Marlins-Blue Jays trade would fundamentally change the way baseball teams run themselves. That’s why he can’t—and won’t—do it.

Follow @iancass on Twitter.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

The tone of this article would’ve taken on a whole new meaning had one of the umpires at the Atlanta Braves vs. St. Louis Cardinals game been injured because of the controversial infield fly rule. Look, I get that the call was an emotional one for Braves fans. But if something flying out of the stands had seriously injured one of the umps, America’s Favorite Pastime would have suffered another black eye.

I don’t care how much you love your team, it doesn’t give you the right to hurl something from your seat. You don’t have the right to possibly injure an official.  That ump you’re throwing things at? He may be someone’s father or husband. He’s doing his job and deserves some respect, whether he blew the call or not.

Now, before all of Fulton County begins pressing “send” with a pointed response to this article, understand it’s about more than a few beer cans tossed from the stands at Turner Field. It’s about the behavior of some sports fans across the country involving every sport you can think of.

If I’m at a Braves game with my six-year-old son, do I tell him it’s okay to throw something from the stands when you disagree with a call? Obviously not. But kids are watching what we do. Some will grow up thinking it’s okay to attack the game official if they don’t like the call.

Our behavior at professional sporting events has become reprehensible. It’s embarrassing. It’s criminal. More than anything, it’s stupid. It’s a game, people. Life will go on tomorrow whether your favorite team wins or loses.

We all remember the Oakland Raiders vs. San Francisco 49ers game last year when mayhem erupted in the stands. Guys throwing punches MMA-style. It was a free-for-all. Young men punching each other in the face with no regard for the outcome. Seriously? Has it come to this?

There’s a young man in California who can no longer care for himself because he was attacked outside of Dodger Stadium for being a San Francisco Giants fan. He was beaten into submission. A few months ago, he finally came out of a coma and now lives in a wheelchair. Why?

Oh, I know. The Braves incident was minor, right? It only took the grounds crew a few minutes to gather the beer cans and other debris. The game resumed. No problem. It’s all good in the ATL. If I’m the owners of the Braves or the mayor of Atlanta, I’m embarrassed. The entire country was watching, and your fans looked like a bunch of sore losers. 

Are we that wrapped up in our team’s fate that we have to resort to violence to express ourselves? And it’s not just Major League Baseball. It’s the NFL, NBA and NHL. Fans everywhere are acting like complete idiots when things don’t go their way.

It almost feels like some fans are bringing personal problems to the stadium. Things aren’t going right for me personally, so I’ll go to the game and curse out the referee or slap the guy sitting next to me because he’s wearing the opposing team’s jersey. I had a bad day, so I’ll unleash my aggression at the game tonight. Whoever is in my way better look out!

I’ve seen parents with a look of horror on their faces when attending the game with a son or daughter and the drunken fans around them begun cursing and screaming. Not much those parents can do, except whisper in their kid’s ear that this is the wrong way to express yourself at the game.

Now, I understand it’s your right to scream at the ref or ump if you disagree with a call. That’s fine. But do you really have to curse him out? Do you really have to use four-letter words to express yourself? Have you noticed that 6-year-old girl sitting nearby who’s looking at you and wondering why you’re acting this way? Probably not, because you’re on your ninth beer and counting.

Stadium security is a joke and we all know it. Sure, they’ll eject the guy who gets into a drunken fight with another fan. But they’ll miss the other 15 fights in the stands. We can’t blame stadium security. Blame the owner for hiring only a handful of men and women who wear bright yellow jackets with “Security” splashed across the back. Blame the owner for only hiring a few off-duty city police officers to patrol the arena.

I often wonder what the owner is thinking when he’s sitting on his throne in the owner’s box and the fans begin chanting an expletive that sweeps across the stadium or arena like a tsunami. Is he proud that some fans are spewing expletives that are being broadcast nationally by CBS, NBC, ABC, TNT, TBS or Fox Sports? Good time to be an owner?  Probably not.

We all have the right to yell at the ref or ump. We paid the admission fee and should be allowed to voice our disapproval. We don’t have the right to use offensive language. We don’t have the right to throw things from the stands.

Before you begin trashing me, understand I’m not directing this column at all sports fans across the country and around the world. By and large, most of us respect the games and those who are seated around us. A lot of us care about what youngsters hear at the games. A lot of us simply want to cheer and boo in a respectful manner.

You think I’m overreacting? Maybe. Maybe not. Critics might say nothing happened as a result of the fans showering debris onto Turner Field. They might say the umps weren’t injured. No harm. No problem. Well, that’s the easy way out.

One day, we’ll have to deal with the escalating problem of unruly fans at sporting events. One day, we’ll have to develop a strong solution to the knuckleheads who think they’re above the law when they come to games. One day, we’ll have to address the issue of drunken fans who offend everyone in sight at the game. One day, we’ll act more civil towards each other and game officials. Hopefully.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Those baseball teams that end the regular season tied for a division lead or a wild-card playoff spot better get all the sleep they can. Loading up on some Red Bull and/or 5-Hour Energy might not be a bad idea either.

(Are those considered performance enhancers? Are they on the list of banned substances? Team trainers and medical staff should check now.) 

MLB released its postseason schedule on Thursday, Aug. 9, revealing that the playoffs will begin with the one-game wild-card playoff on Friday, Oct. 5. Baseball’s regular season ends on Wednesday, Oct. 3. That leaves one day for a tiebreaker to be played for a division title or a wild-card playoff spot. 

What if two teams are tied for first place at the end of the regular season yet both have qualified for the playoffs?

A tiebreaker will still need to be played because, as clarified by Fox Sports’ Jon Paul Morosi, the division champion will automatically be in the division series while the runner-up has to play in the Wild Card playoff. Best to have that determined on the field, rather than by head-to-head record, division record or nicer uniforms. 

Meanwhile, the division winner with the league’s best record will wait until Sunday, Oct. 7 before playing the first game of their division series. Will three days of rest be an advantage or a detriment? That team might need Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy or a few espressos for different reasons.

What if three teams end up tied for the two wild-card spots?

If you think that’s an outlandish scenario, that was exactly the case with the American League Wild Card standings on Aug. 9. As of Aug. 11, there’s basically a five-team cluster you-know-what at the top of the AL wild-card race. This thing could very well happen.

So in that case, the two teams with the best head-to-head records against one another would play a tiebreaker.

The winner of that game gets one wild-card spot. The loser of that game plays the team with the worst head-to-head record for the second wild-card spot.

Then the two Wild Cards would play their one-game playoff to determine who plays in the division series. 

Did that make sense? Because I’m the one who typed it out and presumably proofread and fact-checked it and I’m still not sure I got it right. I suppose we can just follow along with the games that will be played if there’s a three-way tie for the AL Wild Card.

Oh, and remember this: The Wild Card gets to host the division winner with the league’s best record for the first two games of their division series.

This scheduling quirk only occurs this season, however, because there was no room for an extra travel day before a potential Game 5. This is because MLB had already made the regular-season schedule before the postseason schedule was agreed upon. Next year, order will be restored with a 2-2-1 series format. 

Are you still following along? I am, but I’m typing this out. 

ESPN’s Jayson Stark pointed out another quirk of the 2012 postseason schedule with this tweet:

MLB finally announced 2012 postseason sked. NO off day between ALDS Game 5 & ALCS Game 1 even though the ALCS site depends on ALDS outcome!

— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) August 9, 2012

Haven’t we always been told one reason that home-field advantage in the World Series isn’t determined by which team has the best record because travel schedules, hotel accommodations and so forth have to be planned in advance?

That’s typically the rationale from MLB and commissioner Bud Selig, usually when defending the rule that the winner of the All-Star Game now determines home-field advantage in the World Series. 

Did anyone stop to consider that if the division series between the top seed and Wild Card team goes to a Game 5, no one will know where Game 1 of the ALCS will be played until that Game 5 is completed? 

Apparently travel schedules, hotel accommodations and the variety of other logistical concerns don’t matter when it comes to the ALCS. 

I realize that Selig isn’t entirely responsible for this potential postseason mess, despite what the title of this article might indicate. He wasn’t locked in his office, working tirelessly into the late night and early morning, perhaps sleeping on his office couch and not seeing his family for days while pounding out this schedule. 

Well, maybe he was for all I know. But a staff of several people probably put this thing together, looking for any open day to cram postseason games into. And maybe there was some somewhat maniacal, sleep-deprived laughter if or when someone asked, “What about the players? Can they do this?”

However, this postseason schedule falls at Selig’s feet, just as the 2002 All-Star Game debacle and the home-field incentive that it spawned is on him.

This is why Selig’s detractors continue to say he doesn’t get it, that he does things like expand the playoff schedule when a regular-season schedule is already set. And he doesn’t expand instant replay while umpires continue to blow calls and the technology to review such matters is already on hand in every ballpark in the majors. 

But maybe this will all work out.

Maybe there won’t be any ties for division titles or in the Wild Card standings. Maybe a team with a better regular-season record won’t lose a playoff series after having to play the first two games on the road. Maybe the ALDS featuring the league’s best team and a Wild Card won’t go to five games. 

In that case, Selig might exhale, wipe his brow and smile the smile of a relieved man. But he’ll probably just have the same pained look on his face that he always does. That’s our baseball commissioner, you guys. 

Follow @iancass on Twitter.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

When it first counted, it did seem a decent idea.

Major League Baseball had a terrible way to award home-field advantage for the World Series. MLB simply alternated home-field advantage between the National League and American League every year. 

The NFL is again the leader of the sporting leagues with their neutral-site Super Bowl showcasing one American city a year. The NBA and the NHL play in a playoff-series format, just like the MLBs, so neutral sites would not work over seven games. In the NBA and NHL, the team with the better regular season record gets the home-site advantage.

That is what Major League Baseball needs to do: make World Series home-field advantage about regular-season records. You guys play 162 of them; shouldn’t those count for something?

It is always about ulterior motives, and the national pastime, under the reign of Bud Selig, has become riddled with hidden agendas. Fox wants to have the ratings the MLB All-Star Game had back in the day of only three channels. Each of the big channels hates the advent of cable, satellite and the Internet because they have all helped their ratings plunge when compared to previous eras.

Selig can never catch a break, either. The team he owns—er—used to own, the Milwaukee Brewers, were the host ballpark for the 2002 All-Star extravaganza . The game was competitive, and after twelve tied innings, with all of the pitchers exhausted, Selig called the game a tie.

It was not well received.

Panic usually causes the worst decisions. Fox panicked about the ratings, Bud panicked about the TV deal, and, suddenly, the All-Star Game’s winning league had home-field advantage in the World Series.

Some things seem so obvious that only hidden agendas could keep them from coming to reality. College football’s playoff system used to be the most glaring, but even that sport’s glacial movement toward modern times has increased.

The MLB All-Star Game will never have the passion of Pete Rose obliterating Ray Fosse. We will never see a Cal Ripken play all fourteen innings of a mid-summer classic. In trying to rekindle that passion, a horrible choice has been made to make the All-Star Game count for something. 

In retrospect, this is a minor issue for 28 teams, but I bet you that the Texas Rangers would have liked home-field advantage last year.

They earned it in my mind since they had a better record than the St. Louis Cardinals. The Cardinals were a Wild Card team as well, and they still were able to host four World Series games over the division champion Rangers.

The MLB All-Star Game should just go back to being a fun exhibition game. Making it count for something has not been a good idea. Regular-season records should determine home-field advantage.

Every regular-season game has the chance of something special happening, and those games should be the reason that one team hosts Game 1 of the World Series.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

What a slow and boring past three years it has been for the Oakland Athletics organization regarding its interest in moving to the Silicon Valley.

Three bogus years of contrived interest in solving the issue of the Athletics’ owner Lew Wolff’s desire to move the team down to San Jose. Three years later, and there’s still no resolution. Not even close.

It’s almost as if nothing has happened.

In March of 2009, MLB commissioner Bud Selig appointed a committee to explore options for providing the A’s with a new ballpark—be it in Oakland or in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area.

The hope was that a consensus would be found for what would be the most feasible solution given Wolff’s desire to move to San Jose. Or at least one would assume that some movement would be made in one particular direction—either I-880 North or I-880 South.

But, sorrowfully, seemingly nothing has been decided.

Fast-forward to May 2012, and this relocation issue remains a cold case. Selig’s detectives have come no closer to solving this problem. Though Selig did his first direct comments about the Athletics’ future in quite some time last Thursday, at MLB’s quarterly owners meeting, according to the commissioner, “there’s no timetable” for a judgment on this matter.

Which is the complete opposite of what he should be saying. The A’s need desperately to find a resolution to this problem. This dilly-dallying has completely taken its toll on the franchise as a whole, the team itself and, most importantly, the rabid fans—both the dedicated Oakland fanbase as well as the excited prospect South Bay fans.

Everyone knows about the territorial rights over the city of San Jose that belong to the San Francisco Giants. That has been a poignant factor from the get-go. The Giants have repeatedly affirmed they will not relinquish San Jose to the Athletics. At least, likely, not without some compensation.

But this is where Selig needs to step in and lay down the gauntlet and take a stand one way or the other about this humongous territorial roadblock. That’s what commissioners do—they make the hard decisions, swiftly, with conviction and confidence.

Could you imagine NBA commissioner David Stern dragging his feet in the sand regarding a franchise relocation possibility? No way.

The Seattle SuperSonics disappeared from the Pacific Northwest in the time it takes to finish an NBA postseason schedule—which as we all know is excruciatingly long. Just like that, they were relocated. No waffling. No debate.

And just last season, the Sacramento Kings petitioned to keep their franchise in California’s state capital, a move that Stern approved with uninhibited celerity. Closer to home, on Tuesday, the Golden State Warriors announced plans to relocate to San Francisco, a decision that went from desired rumor to stark reality in seemingly no time.

Yes, the NBA seems to have a firm grasp on how to properly handle relocation issues. No politicking. No preservation of feelings. Just going about the business as if the NBA is—a business.

Go figure.

Meanwhile, business as usual for Selig and MLB is blatant procrastination of a firm decision. On Thursday, Selig basically shrugged his shoulders, contending that Wolff could in essence consider alternative site options anywhere else outside of the Bay Area.

In fact, Selig suggested that Wolff had the authority to move the A’s anywhere, saying, “They could be all over the world, for that matter.”

That ambiguity is often ascribed to Selig’s longtime relationship with his college bud, Wolff. Selig certainly doesn’t want to deny his friend’s ambitions. Which is why the commissioner hasn’t completely shut the door despite the Giants’ territorial rights.

But he also knows not to offend an Oakland fanbase that has loyally stood by the A’s for more than 40 years, creating a support system for six American League pennants, four World Series titles and numerous superstar accolades.

How can Selig unconsciously exile the Athletics, a team with such a storied history? In an area—the East Bay—that has produced such rich talent (local baseball products include Hall-of-Famers Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan and Rickey Henderson).

Selig knows he can’t unemotionally move the A’s to San Jose. He has chosen to be diplomatic about the entire idea, keeping one foot in Oakland with one of baseball’s more successful franchises (the Athletics rank third all-time with nine World Series titles) and one foot with his homeboy Lew Wolff.

But it’s that game of footsie that has turned out to be a big tease for the city of San Jose and its fans who await a ruling. Wolff, himself, is ultimately losing this battle of attrition with MLB. Will he patiently wait longer? Will he grow tired of reiterated parroting from Selig?

Absolutely not. But Selig’s decision not to decide makes things murkier than they already are—if that’s possible. He needs to put his foot down, be firm and take a stance—either denying the Athletics’ move due to the Giants’ ownership of San Jose or overturning those rights and allowing the A’s to relocate.

Selig and MLB need to take a page out of the NBA’s relocation playbook, taking a gander at the Athletics’ roommates, the Warriors. If the Dubs can be so decisive with their move to San Francisco, why can’t the A’s as well?

A settlement to this drawn-out ordeal has to be made. But that will happen only if Selig steps up to the plate.

Until then, this story will just become an incredibly beaten dead horse.

Follow me on Twitter: @nathanieljue

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

You know those amazing final days of the regular season when multiple teams still had their playoff dreams alive? Well expect more of that from here until eternity.

Traditionalists can weep into their handkerchiefs, because the game that moves like molasses is about to switch things up. That is the hope at least. 

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig was tickled hopeful that expanded playoffs could start as early as this season. 

Bud Selig spoke with reporters on the state of baseball and issued that the upcoming playoff changes could come sooner rather than later. Via Yahoo Sports. 

I really believe we’ll have the wild card for 2012, this year. Clubs really want it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an issue that the clubs want more than to have the extra wild card this year. We’re working on dates right now. That’ll all take place. It looks to me like we’ll have it because I’ve told everybody we have to have it. It’ll be exciting. One-game playoff, it will start the playoffs in a very exciting manner. 

The changes don’t just affect the wild card race, first-place ties will now be settled automatically with a play-in game. 

Head-to-head record was the tiebreaker in the past, but as the Yahoo Sports report states, “the difference between first place and a wild-card berth is too important to decide with a formula and a tiebreaker game would be played.”

That means a whole bunch of playoff baseball could be on the way this coming fall. If it takes effect in 2012, the two teams with the best record that do not win the division will be the wild cards and play in a one-game playoff. 

I have to agree with Selig that this is an amazing way to begin the postseason. We only have to look to the end of the 2011 season to illustrate the point that the more is really the merrier. 

Wild Card Wednesday is now what the last day of the 2011 regular season is known as. Where four teams were vying four two spots, merely by chance and fate. 

Now that kind of excitement could be brought to the playoffs each and every year. We get the “anything can happen” aspect of a one-game playoff, and the added emotion of more teams vying for the postseason. 

Major League Baseball is proving they can change things up in a big way, and that will guarantee the fall belongs to baseball once again. 

Follow @gabezal

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

2011 was a season that Minnesota Twins fans have not endured in nearly a decade.

From the beginning of the season to the end, the hits kept coming…and they were not during the course of a game. Injuries riddled the Twins lineup and kept players like Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Tsuyoshi Nishioka, Denard Span, Glen Perkins and Delmon Young on the bench. As the slide continued, the bullpen blew leads, the starters struggled and the team could not seem to get a run across the plate.

By nearly every account, the Twins season was horrendous. The Twins managed to score a mere 619 runs; the lowest amount in a non-strike shortened season since their inception. Their 63 wins tied for the lowest in franchise history and the team allowed the most runs (804) since 2000.

For a team that has been used to regular season success (the postseason being a glaring exception), such a depressing season hits hard. Over the last 10 seasons, the team produced five 90-win seasons and six postseason appearances with players winning batting titles and MVP awards. Despite lack of success in the playoffs, the Twins received a new ballpark and has now generated the second-highest attendance total in the American League.

But past successes don’t make the 2011 failures any easier to cope with for Twins fans, especially considering that there is not much in the way of hope on the horizon. However, despite the stats, injuries and poor play, this is hardly the most depressing offseason the Twins have faced in their history. Ten years ago, the Twins faced an offseason with more uncertainty and with more at stake.

In November, 2001, a Minnesota judge ordered the Twins to honor their Metrodome lease as MLB Commissioner and then-Twins owner Carl Pohlad worked towards contracting the Twins. For Twins fans, the offseason between 2001 and 2002 was filled with the understanding that after the coming season, the Minnesota Twins would cease to exist. The team finished the 2001 season with 85 wins, the highest since 1992—the year after the team won the World Series and the team had a promising core of young players.

With the fourth lowest payroll in baseball ($40 million), no one expected massive free-agent signings, especially with contraction imminent. Baseball owners from Seattle to Atlanta supported the plan that would have removed the Expos and Twins from the baseball map. Selig went to Congress stating that without a new ballpark, the Twins could not compete. Things looked bleak for the Twins and it was a long offseason.

But the saving grace came from the play of a virtual group of “nobodies” that kept playing while the Titanic was sinking. Their play in 2002 made it impossible for Commissioner Selig to contract the team and their success in the following years brought them a brand-new stadium, now lauded by the league.

Of course, the Twins that take the field now bring different expectations of success. Many fans saw the elimination of the Twins in 2002 as inevitable and therefore only hoped for one last hurrah to stick it to Bud Selig and an owner that they thought had betrayed them.

This year, with a beautiful new ballpark and huge contracts to superstar players, expectations are justifiably high. Offseason chatter has turned to speculating on moves the Twins need to make to turn the team around, and there are a lot of holes to fill.

This is not to say that Twins fans should just be grateful to have a professional baseball team but more of a positive way of looking at a season that by all accounts was lost before the end of the first series. The Twins need to prove to the state that the recent investments have been worth it and the front office must find a way to finally win in the postseason.

What the Twins have that many other clubs have do not is the fact that while the last season was a debacle, the organization has faced worse. Yes, the expectations are different and we as Twins fans are warranted in our high expectations; getting to the playoffs is no longer enough to consider a season a success as it was ten years ago. But if any organization can face these challenges, it would be the Twins. 

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Baseball’s home-field advantage is the only one among the major North American sports literally written into the rules: The home team bats last. It would follow that this advantage would be the most judiciously and discriminately dispensed in all of sports.

Not so.

Rather, prior to 2003, baseball had simply alternated home-field in the World Series between the American and National leagues. Following the tied All-Star game in 2002, Selig and the owners opted, inexplicably, to award the advantage to the game’s winner.

This proposition was extended in 2005 and made permanent in 2006. The intent was to create an incentive to win, but as with most of Selig’s decisions, this one was ill-conceived and rushed to the bargaining table.

Because the tie came when both sides had run out of pitchers, the prudent action would have been to simply expand the rosters and gently remind the managers to hold back a few players just in case the unthinkable happened. Yet as it stands today, the rosters have not increased, the managers are still advised to hold back players, and there isn’t even the mildest guarantee that a tie won’t happen again.

Instead of fixing the cause of the problem (not enough players), Selig opted to create a whole new one. And his new collective bargaining agreement, signed into effect this week, proves that he hasn’t learned a thing from his mistakes.

Now, players selected to the All-Star game are mandated to appear unless injured or otherwise excused by the league. (Cue the sound of a half-dozen veterans sidelined two days before the game by those pesky, nagging calf injuries they’ve had for so long but never mentioned before.)

It would be bad enough if these amendments to the All-Star game were for their own sake. I could live with a well-meaning Bud Selig, whose idiosyncrasies lead to fun and experimental changes to the game. (I still pine for the first game in which a sensor behind home plate calls balls and strikes.)

Alas, that is not the Bud I know. This version, the terribly and frighteningly real version, does these things in the name of traditionalism and in the process, drags the game back to its parochial, illiterate roots.

All-Star games once had mass appeal because the viewing audience was resigned to local coverage—save for the World Series—and rarely had the chance to see the game’s stars. But today, with 24-hour coverage by ESPN and several all-inclusive Internet and television viewing packages, there are no stars we haven’t seen.

Because of this, All-Star games have lost their cultural significance. And for other sports, that’s just fine.

The NBA, in fact, no longer trades on the name of its midseason exhibition; instead, they sell their event as All-Star Weekend, featuring music, skills competitions and the Rookie-Sophomore Challenge as attractions every bit as watchable as the main event.

This retooling of the festivities has resulted in the NBA having perhaps the most culturally-significant All-Star-related event in sports. Notice, however, that almost none of this stems from the All-Star game itself, which is an afterthought in most seasons. (Last year was an exception, mostly due to the rare inclusion of a New York Knick in the starting lineup and Carmelo Anthony’s ongoing trade drama. Or, perhaps melodrama is the better term, though you’d have to forgive the pun.) 

The NFL finds itself in an unusual dichotomy of being our nation’s most popular sport and least-interesting All-Star contest. The Pro Bowl is a game only in the loosest sense, with none of the participants giving what could be called their best effort.

This is not unique among exhibitions, but it’s especially striking in football. Physicality is the backbone of the game, and without it, you’re left with an overly fancy game of catch.

But, the NFL doesn’t necessarily fight this, seemingly content to let the Pro Bowl be what it is due to the fact that it will draw ratings simply because it bears the NFL shield. The decision was made recently to stage the game the week before the Super Bowl, which does little but ensure that players from the Super Bowl teams will not participate. (They rarely participated anyway, but even so.)

Perhaps coolest of all, the NHL instituted an All-Star draft last season, in which team captains select their rosters from a pool of All-Stars selected by fans and a league committee. I don’t know how much this will raise ratings for the lowest-rated major sport in the country, but the draft alone is a load of fun and worth watching, even if you don’t plan on watching the game itself.

MLB has gone the other way, opting to manufacture the awe and wonderment of yore through bully tactics and the misappropriation of the World Series. This will not bode well for the game, and the effects can already be felt, as pundits have begun bemoaning a lower-seeded team holding home-field advantage.

It should be noted that the All-Star game is rarely decided by those who will actually play in the relevant series (with the notable “half-exception” of this past season in which Texas’ C.J. Wilson allowed the eventual game-winning home run to Prince Fielder), which defeats any possible purpose this stipulation might have served.

Mets 3B David Wright came perilously close to pitching in the All-Star game two years ago and would have had the game gone an inning longer, opening the door to the very real possibility of the winning run coming off of a position player’s 60 mph “fastball” offering. Surely, a tie is preferable to that.

The other salient issue is that of the rosters themselves. Considering the prize, I find it counterintuitive that the teams would be constructed by the fans. To no one’s surprise, the starting lineup for the AL last season was almost exclusively from Boston or New York, and that trend isn’t likely to stop.

So yes, in a game that will decide home-field advantage in the World Series, and perhaps decide the series itself, the teams will be fielded based on fan popularity and Selig’s edict that each team is represented by at least one player.

It makes no sense, but that was to be expected from the man who brought professional baseball to Florida and avoided instant replay until its absence negatively affected the game’s most lauded interleague series. What troubles me is that Selig isn’t yet satisfied.

Thankfully, this is set to be Selig’s final CBA, so there’s hope that someone with better sense will spend the first years of his or her (and never doubt that it could very well be a her—a change in perspective we should all welcome) administration undoing all of Bud’s dastardly deeds.

But deep down, I know that won’t be the case. This is baseball, after all, and one lousy commissioner is far from its only problem.

In the meantime, let’s just hope there aren’t any more calamities for Selig and the owners to have knee-jerk reactions to, lest we find ourselves watching an All-Star series or something similarly horrifying.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Let me begin by saying…it ain’t broke.

But for some reason, Bud Selig still wants to try to fix the Major League Baseball playoffs.

So Mr. Selig, here’s my humble suggestion on the most interesting and (perhaps more important) financially beneficial way to improve baseball’s playoffs.

Now, there have been a few ideas thrown around, such as adding teams to expand the playoffs to 10 teams rather the current system which employs eight.

Forget about all that.

Put everyone in.  Every single team…including Pittsburgh but, with certain ground rules in place.

Hockey has its Game 7’s.  We hear all about them from the waning days of April until early June.  Baseball can capture that atmosphere by putting the remaining teams in each division into a single elimination playoff for the AL and NL Wild Cards.

First, the major leagues need to keep the current three division format.  The three division winners in each league automatically qualify for the postseason playoffs.  For all their hard work, they’re rewarded with a week off from games to rest, recuperate and really, really enjoy a week of riveting, do-or-die, March Madness style playoff baseball the likes of which we’ve rarely ever seen.

Using last season’s final standings, here’s a look at how the playoff matchups that would’ve been.

With 13 teams remaining in the National League, play would begin on the Monday after the regular season ends.  Last year, the first-round matchups would have been as follows.

No. 9 Houston at No. 8 Milwaukee, with the winner travelling to Atlanta to play Tuesday. The winners of No. 13 Pittsburgh at No. 4 Colorado and No. 12 Arizona at No. 5 Los Angeles meeting at the highest remaining seed’s home park on Tuesday. No. 11 Washington at No. 6 Florida (winner travels to No. 3 St. Louis on Tuesday), and No.10 Chicago at No. 7 New York (winner travels to No. 2 San Diego on Tuesday).

In the American League there would be 11 teams vying for the Wild Card, which means only three play-in games, all played on Tuesday. No.11 Seattle at No. 6 Detroit (winner travels to No.1 New York on Wednesday). No. 10 Baltimore at No. 7 Los Angeles (winner travels to No. 3 Chicago on Wednesday), and No. 9 Kansas City at No. 8 Cleveland (winner travels to No. 2 Boston on Wednesday).  No. 5 Oakland would play at No. 4 Toronto on Wednesday.

From there, it’s essentially a Game 7 every day, with the winner in each league’s Wild Card getting a few days rest before the playoffs begin on Tuesday and Wednesday of the following week. 

There, pros outweigh the cons.  There’s extra revenue for the host teams, ridiculous ratings for ESPN, MLB Network and TBS.  The only major flaw is the extra exposure to the broadcasting talents (or lack thereof) of Chip Caray, who likes to proclaim base hits on line drives that are eventually caught.

Think about the pitching matchups.  Or the possible tanking down the stretch of the last week in hopes of getting a more favorable first-round draw (a la the Memphis Grizzlies in the NBA who actually wanted to play top seeded San Antonio in the first round). 

Think of the gambling possibilities.  A long shot with terrible odds of winning on Opening Day suddenly has a legitimate shot at paying off in October.

Of course, all this is depends on the man in charge doing something in an effort to make things better for baseball.  Under his watch, we’ve had a cancelled World Series and an ugly player strike, a MAJOR steroids scandal that has tarnished the game and left us all doubting players like Jose Bautista, who is probably doing things the right way, but because of people like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire and yes, even Alex Rodriguez, will always do so with at least a shadow of a doubt.

Selig has done some good things too. 

He’s curbed expansion, brought us Interleague Play and added instant replay to home run calls.  And contrary to popular opinion, baseball is actually thriving. 

But as I said before, the playoffs ain’t broke. 

So, why is Bud Selig trying to fix them at all?

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Bud Selig recently noted that Major League baseball is considering expanding the playoffs to 10 teams in 2012.

The proposed plan would have two wild cards selected from each league. Those two teams would play each other in a one game playoff or a best of three series with the winner advancing to the divisional series which would continue in the same manner as it does today.

Opinions around the league have been varied. Smaller market teams seem to be in favor of the move. The Minnesota Twins manager Ron Gardenhire has stated he is in favor of expansion as long as it doesn’t expand the overall length of the playoffs. Both the Tampa Bay Rays and Cleveland Indians have voiced their support for the proposed plan.

If the plan were to include a three game series it would likely need to be played Monday through Wednesday the week following the end of the regular season. The division series would need to be pushed back to start on Friday.

There are some opponents to the proposed changes. The Giants’ Tim Lincecum and the Yankees’ Mark Teixeira have both voiced concern over the fairness of the proposed changes. Although I’m trying to read between the lines, it seems the two most recent World Series champions don’t want other teams to be able to steal a championship because of the inflated size of the playoff pool.

Baseball is America’s pastime, but also the toughest schedule. After playing a grueling 162 game schedule only eight teams make the playoffs. If more were to be allowed ,would it increase or decrease the value and prestige of competing in the postseason?

At some point some change will be made to the MLB postseason. But will this be the change? And will it happen by next year?

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com