Colorado Rockies: What relegation could look like in MLB

A common thought experiment in MLB is that of relegation, the ultimate anti-tanking measure. People often throw it around as an excuse to make teams like the Colorado Rockies or Baltimore Orioles clean up their act. What could that actually look like in the MLB?

I have spent a considerable amount of time looking into this, figuring out the economics, logistics, and hey, we are in a lockout between the players and owners. This is one of the few times this could ever be implemented, so why not have a semi-serious conversation about it? Let’s get into it.

How would relegation work to make teams, like the Colorado Rockies, clean up their act?

While not a full system, the way MLB currently works is through a profit-sharing network, where teams keep 52 percent of their profits and they redistribute the rest throughout the league.

So, for example, with this structure in 2018, the remaining 48 percent of profits were pooled together and split 30 ways (3.3 percent per team). That amounted to $118 million for every MLB team, including the Colorado Rockies.

The first step to figuring out if relegation is possible is to figure out a system where the owners do not lose money in allowing these new competitors. Even if they are making billions off of these teams, they won’t be giving up millions to let Des Moines, Iowa have a team, even if it means short-term expansion fee benefits. It’s all about the money they could make, not the money they are making.

The new MLB layout with teams is below. Teams were chosen based on both geography and market and will comprise top markets within the region.

Class A (current MLB): 3 Leagues, 2 Divisions per League, 30 Teams, 10 Teams per league

American League:

North- Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates

South- Baltimore Orioles, Washington Nationals, Atlanta Braves, Tampa Bay Rays, Miami Marlins

American Association:

East- Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Guardians, Detroit Tigers, Toronto Blue Jays, Chicago White Sox

West- Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins

National League:

East- Colorado Rockies, Texas Rangers, Houston Astros, Arizona Diamondbacks, Seattle Mariners

West- San Francisco Giants, Oakland Athletics, Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres

Class B: 3 Leagues, 2 pods in each league, 18 teams

Eastern League:

North Pod- Montreal Expos, Norfolk Tides, Providence Grays

South Pod- Charlotte Knights, Orlando Gulls, Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp

International League:

North Pod- Columbus Clippers, Indianapolis ABCs, Louisville Bats

South Pod- Nashville Sounds, Memphis Redbirds, New Orleans Kings

Pacific Coast League:

North Pod- Las Vegas Aviators, Vancouver Canadians, Portland Pioneers

South Pod- San Antonio Missions, Austin Express, Oklahoma City 89ers

Class C: 3 Leagues, 2 pods in each league, 18 teams

Robinson League:

North Pod- Ottawa Senators, Buffalo Bisons, Rochester Red Wings

South Pod- Raleigh Bulls, Richmond Flying Squirrels, Hartford Yard Goats

Frontier League:

North Pod- Grand Rapids Whitecaps, Omaha Storm Chasers, Winnipeg Goldeyes

South Pod- Birmingham Barons, Knoxville Smokies, Baton Rouge Red Sticks

Pioneer League:

North Pod- Sacramento River Cats, Calgary Stampeders, Edmonton Trappers

South Pod- Salt Lake Bees, Tucson Saguaros, Albuquerque Isotopes

With the teams laid out, let’s talk about scheduling.

How would MLB scheduling work?

It would be fun to work out some form of inter-level play as it would be to the boon of the lower-level clubs. Packed stadiums would come to see the New York Yankees play the Omaha Storm Chasers, but for now, we are just going to focus on keeping the schedules within each class.

For Class A, a simple revision of the current MLB layouts can be done with 76 division games, 33 games against the other division in your league, and 53 interleague games.

Class B and C will follow a similar structure, except adjusted to allow for the pod format.

Each team will play 70 games against teams in its own pod, 60 games against the other pod in its league, and 32 games of interleague play. This format helps limit travel and hopefully keep costs down while maximizing profit.

Now that we have the foundations of the new MLB, we can finally get into what I am sure you all have been waiting for: the actual regulation procedure.

Ok, so obviously playoffs are going to have to work differently in a three-league world and with the increase of “MLB” teams from 30 teams to 66. So how would the MLB playoffs look?

Relegation and MLB Playoffs

In Class A, there would be a 12-team playoff starting with Division Championships, where the top two teams in each division play each other for the title of Division Champion.

Once that is over, the two Division Champions in each league play each other for the title of League Champion. Once the Championship Series is done, the team with the best remaining record gets to go to the World Series. The other two teams play in a series to determine the other team to make the Fall Classic.

With the top of the top sorted out, what would the bottom look like?

The worst two teams in each league will play in what I call “The Survivor’s Cup.” The winners will get to stay in the league, and the losers will risk relegation.

Whichever teams lose their “Survival Cup” would then play the corresponding league champion in the level under them. If they win that game, they would stay in their respective league. If they lose, they will be relegated into the league below them.

For example, in 2021, the Survival Cups would’ve been:

• Baltimore Orioles @ Pittsburgh Pirates
• Minnesota Twins @ Chicago Cubs
• Arizona Diamondbacks @ Texas Rangers

Whoever lost those games would have to play the Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp, Nashville Sounds, and the Oklahoma City 89ers/Austin Express. The winner of each of those series, currently being called “The Golden Ticket Series,” would then join Class A for a chance to compete for the World Series.

The same scenario would play out between Class B and Class C. However, since there is no level after Class C, so what stops teams from dwelling at the bottom, ruining prospects, just taking their profit share, and doing nothing to help contribute to the league (also known as tanking)?

Well, the Class C team with the worst record over the previous five years will be automatically relegated into the minor leagues. MLB would accept new bids every five years to replace the relegated team. The relegated team can apply to rejoin MLB if they so choose during the next five-year relegation cycle.

This would be how new teams can be brought in, opening the door to teams from Mexico, other areas of Latin America, and other parts of the world. So we have the system worked out, we have the layout worked out.

But how would things change for players?

MLB Contracts and the Draft

Despite the changes that we have already made, we have a few more that we need to implement for MLB.

First, contracts would look very different in the relegation system. Something major that would be considered is the idea of “leasing” players instead of fully trading them, taken directly from European Futbol leagues. You could see lease/release demands added into certain players’ contracts for relegation to stay in the top level.

Because of that, promising late-season leases for players in the lower levels could be the difference in getting a big name onto your Class C team. Control after the draft will become critical for the teams at the lower levels, along with a robust development system that helps players improve their skillset for The Show.

That’s right, MiLB isn’t dead, but first, let’s focus on the draft.

Because relegation discourages tanking, the teams at the bottom should, in fact, be the teams that need the best draft talent to help them succeed.

What I am proposing is a nine-round pseudo-snake draft with the worst team in class C as Pick #1 and the World Series Champion as Pick #66. The second round starts with the best team in Class C at Pick #67 and ends with the worst team in Class A at Pick #132. The third round works the same as the first and the fourth works the same as the second.

The draft will have nine rounds with 396 total picks each year. So that’s how you get the players, but with nine new players each year, you can’t just put them on the roster and call it good. They need time to develop. They need the Minor Leagues.

Minor League Baseball in the age of Relegation

Despite more than doubling of teams in the league, there will still be a need for developing players to prove they are ready to make it to The Show.

My suggestion? Four levels of minor leagues, with the top three levels corresponding to the MLB Levels and the last level being a rookie level. The Rookie-level could work exactly the same as the current AZL and GCL teams that currently exist in Arizona and Florida to help young newly drafted players develop without the league making much money from their progress.

The other three levels will mirror the current state of MiLB, being called Triple-A, Double-A, and Single-A respectively.

Triple-A will have 30 teams across three leagues, Double-A will have 18 teams across three leagues, and Single-A will have 18 teams across three leagues. Another reminder that all levels in this system are technically in “MLB”, so now all three levels of the Minors are technically at what we currently call “Triple-A clubs”.

They are just divided up to where players would play the same players they would if their club remains at the same level when they are called up. A similar idea to this is what MLB is currently trying to do with their recent restructuring of the Minors.

If a team gets promoted or relegated, their affiliated team will change to match the level of ball they are playing.

So, for example, if Albuquerque was in the MLB, the closest current MiLB team to them would be the Amarillo Sod Poodles. Let’s say that Albuquerque wins the Pioneer League Championship and wins their “Golden Ticket” game to get promoted to Class B. If that happened, Amarillo would also be promoted with them from Single-A to Double-A.

This provides a guaranteed continuation of affiliation with your preferred minor league club despite promotions or relegations. This not only helps with call-ups, but provides a second market for each team to grow their influence and place a foothold in, something that the minors currently try to do.

Anyway, speaking of affiliates, let’s finish on perhaps the most important money-making part of the business: RSN contracts.

RSNs in MLB relegation

When speaking of relegation, perhaps nobody’s eyes get bigger than RSN (Regional Sports Network) owners. More teams mean more fans of your exact sport and more fans in your region.

Now, there are currently 30 MLB teams. They stream their games on various RSNs, sometimes more than one. So how would that work with 66 teams?

Well, they would make deals with the unused stations. Certain stations would most likely also strike deals to carry two clubs at once. If they want to keep it simple, they could just show the one game in its sub-region and show the other games in the other sub-region. That would most likely be the way it goes. However, it stands to reason that you want to get as many eyes on each game as possible, so scheduling considerations may be put in place between clubs that have shared RSNs.

Another option would be for RSNs to just create new networks for these clubs, but that entirely depends on the market. Bally has networks that currently only have a single basketball team playing on them. College sports could help bridge the gap. Heck, that’s one reason these networks make it is their coverage of smaller college sports.

There’s another way that MLB could make a ton with RSN’s

The other way that MLB will make a killing is not only through new RSN deals (which are often hundreds of millions of dollars) but also through its own streaming. Not only would MLB Network be on in more homes (more people actually invested in the sport), but MLB.TV would vastly increase its users.

They would have more people trying to watch their home team’s games when they wouldn’t have before (I know I would watch Round Rock Express games along with Colorado Rockies games if I wasn’t too lazy to buy MiLB.TV). Millions of potential new customers, just waiting in the wings.

On top of all of this, October ratings will skyrocket. Most likely, the Class A playoff games won’t be placed on their RSNs, or if they are, they will simulcast it with national coverage. No, the reason RSN ratings will go up is for the Survival Cup and Golden Ticket Series.

People who had stopped watching their awful team will care if there’s a chance they will lose their spot in Class A or B, and regions that have just fought through a grueling season to win their league championship will play for the chance to move up and get that much closer to a World Series.

So much would be on the line for 38 different markets every single year. If those games are not nationally televised, those RSNs would see their best ratings in months and not only for the teams whose fans stopped caring in the middle of the season.

Relegation and the Colorado Rockies

So naturally, this is a Colorado Rockies website, so let’s focus on the team’s own history for a moment.

If this system were to be put in place as is, the Colorado Rockies would have been at risk of relegation:

• 1993 vs. San Diego
• 1999 vs LA Angels
• 2001 @ Rangers
• 2005 @ Seattle
• 2006 @ Arizona
• 2012 vs Houston
• 2014 vs Arizona,
• 2015 @ Oakland.

So that’s eight seasons, around a quarter of the club’s history, that the Colorado Rockies would have had to fight to continue to play at the top level of baseball.

Are there any ‘Survivor’s Cups’ the Colorado Rockies could have reasonably lost?

In 1993, the Colorado Rockies were okay at home and the San Diego Padres were unlucky but still bad. The Rockies would probably avoid relegation there.

The 1999 team was roughly even with Angels in every regard. They were better against sub-.500 teams, so the Rockies likely would have survived their second relegation risk.

The 2001 Rockies were a much better team than their record lets on, but they were awful on the road. I think the team risks relegation here against the Rangers, though I believe the home series against the top Class B West team would be competitive.

Colorado easily loses to Seattle in 2005 to risk relegation, might even lose to the Class B champion squad at home. 2006 is too close to call, really could go either to Colorado or Arizona.

In 2012, the Colorado Rockies should have easily crushed the awful Houston Astros to stay in the top class. 2014 is much of the same. The Rockies win due to being decent at home.

Finally, 2015 is too close to call. The Rockies were better than usual on the road and were better against sub-.500 teams, the A’s were even at home and worse against sub-.500 teams. A true toss-up.

If everything was equal, the Colorado Rockies have been worse than average.

With all of that into consideration, across 29 seasons, the Colorado Rockies would have played in the Survivor’s Cup eight times, most likely winning four times, losing twice, and two of the games being too close to call.

What does that mean for the Colorado Rockies, though?

In theory, if everything was equal, every team in the MLB should be in The Survivor Cup once every five years and lose the Survivor Cup once every ten.

This means the Rockies are a slightly worse team than average, as they should have only appeared in 6 Survivor Cups in their short time in the league. They are average for losing the Survivor Cup though, only losing (most likely) twice and most likely one of the toss-ups, so we can take solace in that.

If the Colorado Rockies were to be relegated down to Class B, then 2005 would have been the year it most likely would have happened. Good thing it didn’t, I guess.

Relegation will probably never happen. Owners would see it as too much of a risk and would most likely rather eat glass than risk being relegated to a lower level. Relegation gives teams a reason to play, to try, to not lose their spot. While incremental, it would help create a more interesting and competitive sport. After all, Isn’t that what we all want? Growth and competition?

Ah well, enjoy the lockout. Hopefully, it will be over soon.

Do you like my changes? Disagree with them? I would love to hear your thoughts either below or you can call me out on Twitter @n_sunshine_55.