I guess I should have been clearer: modern rivalries not forged in the early, formative years of the sport that have stood for more than a century, require teams to be on some degree of equal footing, success-wise. I notice we don't have much a rivalry with the Pirates or Brewers or even the Reds, who we actually did share a division with previously. The Cubs are easy to hate universally. But our far and away two biggest rivals - Atlanta and St. Louis - are absolutely, positively a component of the teams recently being very good at the same time and competing against one another. It has nothing to do with close proximity to the cities or a shared history or.... Sure, sure - I'm not trying to blindly dismiss what is *our* history. I would just argue that it hasn't necessarily been a very distinctive 50 years and that whatever we love about it likely doesn't resonate much beyond Harris County. I doubt Cub or Cardinal or Brave fans are upset they'll be losing one of their great rivals, for instance. The Braves don't even have fans. I felt the same ambivalence about retaining the Oiler name, btw, so maybe I'm just not very sentimental. Sure, I grew up loving them. But when I took a step back, that franchise was mostly terrible and other than the nostalgic kick (and an obvious desire to not lose a franchise), it never meant much to me once they left - I moved on and was fine with the new team having a new identity. I would have hated, hated, hated an Oiler redo. I just think the sentimentality is overwhelming the perspective. The Astros have mostly been a non-descript team with limited success and minimal national exposure. This isn't ripping the Red Sox out of the AL East or the Cowboys out of the NFC East, much as it seems people are sure trying to pretend it is. All the "rivalries" we generated in the NL will be easily replicable in the AL once we're good again.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/base...cle_e4aa2846-deec-5b26-af03-880918a431c5.html One leading option reportedly moves the Arizona Diamondbacks from the NL West to the four-team AL West. The Houston Astros, in turn, would move from the six-team NL Central into the NL West. This would create six five-team divisions and two 15-team leagues requiring at least one interleague game to be played at all times. Cardinals second baseman Skip Schumaker is among those who believe it inherently unfair for a team in the NL Central to have to outlast five rivals when no other division includes more than five teams. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/15231593/realignment-worth-talk-but-too-confusing-for-fruition Let's see, if baseball sold the Dodgers and Mets for parts, paid off those astronomical debts, then sent Frank McCourt and Fred Wilpon to Pluto on the next Space Shuttle, that would leave ... 14 teams in each league, and no need for interleague play every day of the season. Failing that. ... Look, realignment is a discussion worth having because, among many other reasons, it is patently unfair that an AL West team must finish ahead of only three others during the 162-game slog, while an NL Central club jockeys to finish ahead of five others. Ask Pittsburgh. Best thing about realignment, a recycled idea that has again popped up this week, is this: As owners and players get deeper into negotiations on a new labor deal, we're not assessing potential collateral damage of a bitter Cold War, like the old days. Instead, we're talking about whether FedEx or UPS would be best to move the Astros or Diamondbacks to the American League. In the back of an Arizona press box this spring, Commissioner Bud Selig scanned the NFL lockout horizon, listened to echoes of the NBA labor war, and acknowledged they brought painful memories of the rancor of 1994 and 1995. Baseball has done so much since then -- interleague play, wild-card slots, its own website -- to move out of the Flintstones age. Yet there is a fine line between moving forward and selling out. And while the idea of an equal number of teams in each league generally is appealing, one byproduct not receiving nearly enough attention is that it will lead to interleague play every ... single ... day ... of ... the ... season. Let's not forget that, or allow anyone to shove it over in the corner behind the coffee table. Because as long as the leagues play under different rules that directly affect competitive balance, it is a colossally big deal. Any implementation of season-long interleague play (distasteful at best, wretched at worse) must come with a sidebar rule that either dumps the designated hitter (preferable, though always a non-starter with the players' union) or makes it universal in both leagues (blech). Otherwise, while attempting to install fairness, you create serious inequities elsewhere. Say the White Sox finish the season at St. Louis while sprinting down the stretch with, say, Minnesota and Detroit. Now, in the final series, because the game is in an NL park, the White Sox lose their DH. After signing Adam Dunn to that four-year, $56 million deal. While the Twins are merrily playing the Athletics with Jim Thome as DH, and the Tigers are facing Baltimore with DH Victor Martinez happily swinging away. How do you think the White Sox would enjoy that? It would be outrageous, is what it would be. Then there's the notion of drawing up two 15-team leagues without divisions, in which the top five clubs would advance to the playoffs. Clearly, that is an idea that is most appealing to the three AL East clubs that must battle the gigantic payrolls in New York and Boston every year. This might be the only avenue for the Blue Jays and Orioles -- and, to a lesser extent -- the Rays to escape the hamster wheel to nowhere and enter camp with legitimate hope each spring. Agreed, the poor Blue Jays, Orioles and Rays deserve a more level playing field. But a 15-team league format with no divisions also could erase the Rust Belt/Midwestern clubs from October. Under the game's current lopsided economic model, with much of the financial muscle concentrated in the east around the Yankees/Red Sox bloc, theoretically, you could have some Octobers that include the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Blue Jays and, say, Rangers or Angels in the AL, and the Phillies, Mets, Braves, Giants or Dodgers and Cardinals in the NL. Alarmist? Admittedly. C'mon, the Mets and the Dodgers in the same October? But you get the point. Another point: A 15-team, no-division league would winnow the list of annual winners to the point where only teams playing in the World Series would have bragging rights. Division title flags -- a point of pride for fans -- would go the way of Charley Finley's mule. Not that baseball should veer toward a kiddie-style, Everyone Gets A Trophy program. But one of the great accomplishments of recent times was Atlanta winning 14 consecutive division titles (the strike-shortened '94 crown notwithstanding). And it isn't only the Braves. "We like divisional play," says Twins president Dave St. Peter, whose club has six of the past nine AL Central crowns. Others are open. One executive I spoke with Tuesday who declined to comment on the record said he trusts there are enough smart people figuring this out -- labor negotiators, Selig's special committee for on-field matters, the players' union -- that the game will be in a good place come the new labor agreement. "I'm confident that whatever new prescription is negotiated will be viewed as the best option," the executive said. Diamondbacks president Derrick Hall says baseball has not discussed a potential league change with his club, "and I've had no indication they plan on it, or that they will." Furthermore, Hall added, "I'd be surprised if we were approached." This stuff isn't just emerging from thin air, of course. Somebody is floating trial balloons. Yet that doesn't mean those balloons won't simply be carried away again by the breeze and disappear. Bottom line is, there are enough complicated moving parts that, despite all the talk, realignment probably will not occur. "I don't think so," another executive said Tuesday. "The only thing that makes sense is to tie realignment in with Houston's sale if the league really wants it, but Drayton [McLane, outgoing Astros' owner] has made it clear that he wants the team to stay in the National League." Which is still the far better option than six solid months of interleague play.
1. I hear ya on time creating rivalries...but that arguments works AGAINST not FOR the idea of switching leagues. 50 years of history vs. the NL is still more than 0 years of history vs. the AL. I have no illusion that the Astros have great rivalries...but aside from Cardinals/Cubs; Red Sox/Yankees; and Giants/Dodgers there aren't any notable rivalries that resonate beyond the particular cities the clubs play in. So what you're saying of the Astros would be equally true of the D-Backs, Angels, Mariners, Marlins, Braves, Reds, Brewers, Rangers, Rays, Orioles, Blue Jays, Phillies, Mets, Indians, Tigers, White Sox, Pirates, Royals, A's, and Nationals. Some of those franchises have been around longer...some have been around shorter. But outside of their respective cities, there's no rivalry that pops instantly in your mind associated with any of them. 2. Honestly, I do not care what resonates beyond Harris County with respect to how I feel about other teams as a fan of the Houston Astros. Is that sentimentality?? Of course it is. I'm a fan. None of that is or should be rational. There's nothing rational about the loathing hatred for the Yankees shared by Red Sox fans...it's a silly game. But it's there, nonetheless...out of sentimentality. There's nothing rational about how much I dislike the Cubs...at how much pleasure I took out of the Bartman incident. There's nothing rational about my kid saying a prayer that he wouldn't be drafted by a little league team called the Cardinals. I'm just not anxious to erase all historical ties of this city and my favorite sports franchise with the league it's called home for 50 years.
I would love for you to start a poll and ask people here if they legitimately know anything about Spec Richardson without cheating. I’m nearly 40, have been an Astro fan for as long as I can remember, and I know the name only in passing – kind of proving my point. Gun to my head, I’d be at a loss to tell you why I should throw up in my mouth at the mere mention of his name. This sounds pretty personal, msn – which is fine but it can often obscure the bigger picture. I mean, doesn’t a start time being one of your enduring memories kind of speak to the emptiness of the “rivalry”? WADR, I think you’re being overly dramatic, msn. Look, I sincerely respect “our” history and where you’re coming from, and I respect your desire to keep status quo and why. But…….. come on. You’re not going to watch them if they change leagues? I’m going to guess you’re not a fan because the team is in the NL; you’re a fan because the team is in Houston. That’s not going to change. Very little, other than laundry, is going to change, as a matter of fact. It’ll still be the Astros. In Minute Maid Park. With all its history intact…. So then you’re OK with this change? I mean, inherently, what are we talking about here if it’s not *change*? A change that you’re vehemently opposing. msn…. Come on. Eddie Matthews? Quick – where did Gary Sheffield hit his 500th HR? And who was he playing for? Yes, any team that’s been in existence for 50 years is going to have memorable moments. (I distinctly remember those only 2 playoff appearances during our first 34 years of existence - I was at game 4 of the ’80 series and can probably recount what I did after every pitch of the ’86 series). I don’t think I ever claimed otherwise. I’m just struggling with this seeming perspective that we’re dealing with one of baseball’s more storied franchises, which is how too many in this discussion are acting, IMO. And, again, those memories are going *nowhere*; they’ll survive, just as they did when they moved out of the NL West, when they instituted the wildcard and bastardized the playoffs, and then shutdown the Dome.
I'm not arguing with you on this point. It's just, for me, beside the point. In the grand scheme of things, the Dodgers and Cardinals and Phillies and Reds are much more "valuable" historically to the NL than the Astros. But the Rockies, Diamondbacks, and Marlins aren't. :grin::grin: I'm with you here, too. Who's pretending that? Perhaps your perspective of our sentimentality is what is skewed, Ric. Houston is an NL town. It's been an NL town, believe it or not, since the first half of the 20th century, when Houstonians got to watch the likes of Dizzy Dean and other Cardinals greats on their way to the big leagues. As a guy who, 15 years later, *still* misses playing the Giants, Dodgers, Braves, and Padres 18 times a year, I don't agree. I'm not calling those "rivalries" as you insist on doing, but playing the Royals and Twins over and over again just so we can watch the Yankees two or three times in Houston every other year, all the while putting up with the sick joke that is the "DH".
This guy. So... you're an Astro fan because of their opponent? Do you not root for them during interleague play? I don't understand why, if you're passionate about the Astros, that hatred for playing [insert NL opponent here] wouldn't translate to the AL? Did you hate the White Sox in '05? I mean... who we play is really irrelevant if what we really like doesn't change, right? When the Texans returned, a lot of people wanted Houston back with the old AFC Central crowd. But in the 10 years since, haven't we learned to hate the Colts and Titans with equal vigor (not quite *as* equal because, you know, the Texans have sucked and all, but....)? I just think these things work themselves out and the train keeps a-chuggin'.
There is no reason to move a franchise with a 50 year history when the Padres, Nats, Marlins and Dbacks have all been around less long. We aren't on either coast so we don't get national media fawning over our "storied history" but we aren't chopped liver either.
I don't think a rivalry between the Titans and Texans was ever in doubt. I'd imagine most Texans fans would pick the Titans and Cowboys as the two teams they most enjoy beating.
It was an example. Replace that with "John McMullen", then. And, I don't think you're being completely honest. why do you insist calling anything a "rivalry"???? I certainly haven't. WADR, I think you're being narrow-minded, Ric. (Not really; just pointing out how empty "WADR" is.) Status quo, not so much. I would welcome a move to the NL West. I embraced the WC and Interleague Play (though in its current form I'm bored with it). I just don't want to see the team in the AL. You're right. I'll still watch, for the reasons you list. Oh, I'd be royally pissed about it for a long time, but I wouldn't pick up my toys and leave. Too hooked. false dichotomy. Come on, Ric. Being OK with the change and being afraid of it are the only two options?? Opposing the change is equal to fearing it?? You're smarter than that, Ric. I'm not "afraid" of it. That was condescending BS, and you know it. It's extremely simple. Many of us don't want the Astros to move to the AL. - because we enjoy seeing the teams we've been watching for 50 years. - because the AL style of baseball is less appealing (to some folks; I understand not everyone sees it this way) Is that so hard and unreasonable? Why should I care? It wasn't in Houston. That's how you're choosing to perceive it. That's how you're choosing to respond. Nothing I can do about it. Well of course; I even said as much earlier. ah. well, they're not rivalries. But 50 years of playing the Giants, Braves, et. al. means something. Can we live without it? Sure. Do we want to? Well, I don't. So sue me. You had earlier said, "instantly." Now you said, "easily". I'm sorry, but 50+ years of competition doesn't transfer to such storied, formidable foes as the Royals, Twins, White Sox, and Tigers "immediately". Of course we would gain some competitive history over time. I don't like AL ball. I don't like most AL teams. I don't want to see my team move there. It's my preference. That simple.
Nope, not a clue. Just looked him up on Wikipedia, though, so... And, again - McMullen is a figure that probably doesn't resonate as much, either. If not a rivalry, what would you prefer we call these can't-live-without yearly competitions among familiar opponents? You're getting lost in the minutiae - fear, dislike, opposed to... take your pick. I'm not trying to direct the discussion is any specific way. No; that's why I've been careful to articulate that I understand the passion. Up to a point. But it feels a little overwrought. 50 years of playing teams certainly means something - but if the vast majority of those 50 years was spent playing non-competitive baseball and building scarce rivalries with short histories, why are we suddenly being so nostalgic for it? Apparently it does....
Not know who John McMullen is? I admit most casual fans might not know who he is, but I know that name and he pre-dated my being a fan. It really wasn't that long ago that he owned the team. I'd expect most Astros fans over 35 would be familiar with him.
If you honestly don't know who these guys are, then it's easy to see why you're not as emotionally vested in the Astros' history. Don Nottebart, Ken Johnson, Roger Metzger ring a bell? Did you know that Durocher managed a short time in Houston? (Not making light at all, mind you. To each his own.) Come on, Ric. Nobody likes being told they're "afraid" of something. That's condescending, and you won't even admit it. And yes (do you really need this spelled out??) "fear" and "opposition" are mutually exclusive. It is possible to dislike something without being afraid of it. For example, I dislike hot weather. I also dislike sauerkraut. Yet, somehow neither of these strike fear into me. "suddenly"?? Bro, I constantly drop historical Astros references. So do many others here. There is nothing "sudden" about our nostalgia. Not that I expect you or anyone else to share in it, of course. But "suddenly" is entirely inaccurate here. good one.
Yes, I know who McMullen is; his tenure happened (mostly) on my watch. Those other guys, though? No clue. Way before my time. I recognize the names but not the significance. But, again, whatever role they played is not being erased, altered or forgotten in any way. I think you're being a little overly sensitive. People fear change - it's not synonymous with being "afraid." Fear of the unknown, change - all very common and normal responses to a radical change such as this.
very much with Ric's post at the top of this page. I can't articulate it as well.. I personally dislike the AL and AL ball. But if forced into it, I think I (and the majority of fans) would learn to enjoy watching a new brand of ball and the team. If that's the case, then it's kinda what MLB is using as justification And actually, given that baseball is a sport that is best appreciated when you watch it a ton and appreciate some seriously small nuances of the game... I guess I have to give the AL that piece. I expect I would find some nuances I never knew about the AL and enjoy them.
If you don't understand that "fear" and "being afraid" are synonymous, or at least understand how easily it can be construed that way, you should go back to grade school. Presuming to know the nature of the responses of others based on your own sweeping generalizations is arrogant. There is no fear on this side of the screen, Ric.
Examples of fearing change: * Fearing losing David Carr because who knows how a new QB would do. * Fearing bringing on a HOF coach because a switch to a 3-4 might be scary. * Fearing losing Gary Kubiak because a new coach might just be worse. * Fearing trading Berkman/Oswalt because we don't know what we might get in return.
all of which smack of timidity and paralysis in the face of risk. Fear of going to the AL because of... what, are we going to to play sub-.400 ball there, too? Will the Tigers, Twins, and Royals beat us down like the freaking Pirates and Nationals do? Give me a freaking break. I've embraced more change than the average purist. This is purely a preference thing. The AL sucks. That is all.
I enjoy the National League brand of baseball so much more than the American League. Even my cursory interest in the Twins is diminished because of the style of play. I would miss the games against the Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and Braves in particular because I have so many memories during my 50 years of watching and suffering. I'm too old to have to build up another 50 years of feelings. IF the realignment occurs, I think it is more likely that Houston ends up in the NL West instead of the AL West. The only way I don't think that happens is if for whatever reason Arizona has some sort of veto power and MLB implicitly holds it over Crane's head for ownership approval.
