ESPN MLB

Question of the day: Would you rather have Bud Selig at $22 million or Vernon Wells at $24.6 million?

OK, I guess I'm supposed to be outraged that Selig will be offered a two-year extension, with compensation at more than $22 million annually, as Buster Olney reported. We're not supposed to like commissioners and be criticial of their decisions. Is $22 million a fair salary? Ridiculous? Hey, the MLB owners are the ones paying it, and they are happy enough with Selig that they keep asking him to remain in the job. Getting 30 owners with a wide range of goals to agree on anything isn't easy, but Selig's skills in this regard have been a key element of baseball's financial success the past decade.

Consider this:

• In recent years, baseball's revenue has grown from $5.5 billion in 2007 to $6.6 billion in 2009 to a projected $7 billion-plus for 2011.
• In fact, while the media loves to criticize World Series TV ratings, MLB revenue has grown from $1.4 billion in 1995 in large part due to local and regional TV deals.
• Selig has brokered a reasonable peace between the players, big-market owners and small-market owners, no easy task. Yes, both Red Sox owner John Henry and Yankees owner Hank Steinbrenner have criticized MLB's revenue-sharing plan ... which tells you Selig has been effective in fighting for the smaller teams. In 2009, revenue sharing totaled $433 million; in 2010, $404 million. In 2011, the Yankees paid out $200 million in luxury tax bills, according to Maury Brown of the Biz of Baseball site.
• Parity -- once Selig's rallying cry -- has been improved. Since 2001, nine different teams have won the World Series in 11 seasons and 14 different organizations have reached the World Series (nearly half the league). Three of the teams that haven't reached the World Series since 2001 are the big-market Dodgers, Mets and Cubs.
• Despite the bad economy of recent years and increasing stay-at-home entertainment options, MLB attendance has remained strong -- 72.9 million in 2011, a slight increase over 2010 and nearly 13 million more than 1996, the first full season following the 1994 strike.

Has Selig made some mistakes? Sure. He (and everyone else) turned a blind eye during the steroids era and it took too long to implement a drug-testing program. There was the All-Star Game tie fiasco (and the insistence on making the All-Star Game determine World Series home-field advantage). I haven't liked the way he's attempted to cap bonuses on draft picks. And there was a World Series cancelled under his watch. But baseball is thriving on the field -- where I believe the product is better than ever. And its thriving off the field like never before.

So, yes, $22 million and a private jet is it a lot to pay a commissioner. But at least he hasn't blocked any trades.

The Astros’ eventual move to the AL West was something we all knew was in the works. Now it’s set for 2013, the latest move in Bud Selig’s long, successful and reliably Machiavellian stewardship of the game. You can wonder if it would have happened had the move not held up the sale of the team, but another 30-0 vote in favor provides history with Selig’s latest consensus-building triumph.

It’s appropriate that this went down in Milwaukee. If any city demonstrates baseball’s impermanence, it's Beertown. Milwaukee has been home to three different major league teams: The original Brewers of 1901 (who became the Browns in St. Louis a season later); the transient Braves, drifting from Boston on their way to Atlanta; and finally the former Seattle Pilots, who became Bud Selig’s Brewers in 1970.

The Brewers’ history since then has been as baseball’s geographic flywheel. They skipped from their initial placement in the old AL West to the AL East, trading places with the newly minted Texas Rangers after team owner Bob Short abandoned Washington, D.C., in 1972, before landing in the AL Central in 1994. Next they moved over to the National League Central as part of the 1998 expansion. That’s four divisions inside of three decades. So yes, of course Bud Selig was game for realignment, because when he was an owner, there wasn’t a realignment he wasn’t ready to accept.

What this means for scheduling remains to be seen. Maybe Jim Crane can plead for home-and-home matchups with as many of the Astros’ old NL Central rivals as possible. But as is, interleague play across the regular season’s six months should mean 30 games -- a fifth of every team’s schedule -- being played against the other league. The scheduling inequities of the present, with teams playing different interleague schedules against different interleague opponents of varying quality and playing an unbalanced intradivision schedule, seem likely to persist in some form after the Astros move to the AL West. That’s been a problem for determining the wild card all along.

Now, think on that, and keep in mind Bud Selig’s commitment to expanding the playoffs with a one-game wild-card play-in. On the one hand, you can see where his argument that this would be “more exciting” comes from. I suppose one benefit would be that the AL East division title would suddenly mean something for a change, because do you think for a moment that the Red Sox, Yankees or Rays want their seasons reduced to a one-game play-in? There’s also the chance that the presence of a weak Astros club in the AL West, playing an unbalanced schedule, could propel the Rangers and Angels towards 100-win seasons, at least in the short term.

For my two cents, it’s far more problematic than just that. Counting spring training, the expansion of the postseason slate would mean that two teams will spend eight months navigating an unfair schedule (thanks to year-round interleague play) and have it all reduced to little more than a coin toss, metaphorically. That makes for another big advantage to winning your division, certainly, since the two wild-card teams will probably have to use their best starter in that play-in game.

This is not to take too much away from getting to the new 15/15 league split. Achieving baseball’s new alignment is the latest feat of Bud Selig’s diplomacy, something for which he deserves to be congratulated. It’s an imperfect solution, although you could argue that it wouldn’t be baseball if some party wasn't left frustrated. The number of mandates the lords of the game had to reconcile -- interleague play, playoff expansion, realignment -- was guaranteed to leave more than a few unhappy. New Astros owner Jim Crane may be first in line after grudgingly accepting the move to the AL West, but once the 2013 schedule gets set, you can bet that he won’t be standing alone.

Christina Kahrl covers baseball for ESPN.com. You can follow her on Twitter.

Today’s BBWAA luncheon was a chance to listen in to what first Commissioner Bud Selig and then subsequently what MLBPA head Michael Weiner had to say on the subject of the state of negotiations on the current CBA, realignment, expanded playoffs, playoff scheduling, and more. Something of a tradition for Bud, this marked the second time in a row that the new union chief addressed the writers, where Weiner was repeating the exercise for the second time.

As it did last year, the exercise reflected something of the two men themselves. Selig was as avuncular as ever, a man with an obvious love of baseball, and a reasonable amount of pride in what has been achieved on his watch. As he tried to impress upon the writers, the game’s gross revenues, attendance and ratings have been great, especially in historical terms. Weiner was thoughtful and precise, balancing on a fine line between lawyerly and conversational, but eliminating any possibility that you might misunderstand what the players are for and against.

The fact that the game has enjoyed an unprecedented era of labor peace since the horror of ’94 is a credit to the abilities of both the owners and the players to resolve these issues in a way that doesn’t take the product off the field. That reflects the virtue of the union’s strength as well as Selig’s cultivation of a group of owners he can get to act somewhat collectively -- the two sides engage each other as equals and have managed to achieve results that seem equitable. Serious labor issues demand serious negotiation.

Learning about what the sides agree and disagree about was the mission today, and several things stood out. First, on the subject of slotting as far as compensation for draft picks, Selig loves it, Weiner and the players, not so much. And internationalizing the draft? Same problem.

While obviously taking up a position that would save owners money, Selig points out his faith in both ideas is born of experience, noting, “I believe in the draft, and I believe in slotting. When (owners) went to the draft in 1965 (it) was to level the playing field. … It was fair. That’s what I like about the international draft, to make it fair.” Weiner prefaced his comments with noting, “We’ve agreed not to discuss the substance of the (new) CBA,” but also pointedly noted that the union’s reliably against restraints upon a player’s freedom.

However, that idealistic position is balanced against a certain amount of pragmatism -- when asked if that meant he might seek to get back the year of Rule 5 eligibility surrendered in the last CBA, making more non-union minor leaguers eligible, he pointed out that surrender was coupled to gaining better compensation for minor leaguers on the 40-man roster, and that reflected the give and take of invariably complicated negotiations.

Beyond that, there were a few interesting points brought up:

• Asked whether teams might play more double headers to create more off days and shorten the schedule, Bud’s answer was an uncomplicated, “No. I’m telling you, fans don’t want them.”
• Selig took up the cause of Derek Jeter and the other absent All-Stars, stating that the only completely absent players are Jeter, plus Alex Rodriguez and Chipper Jones -- the latter pair because both are in the hospital, recovering from surgeries. What I found interesting about this wasn’t that Selig offered a great defense of what has happened -- he didn’t really -- but that he’s an ex-owner and the owners’ commissioner, and rather than bang on players, he stood up for them. In baseball, that represents a form of progress.
• The commissioner was as oblique as ever on the subject of the stadium situations in the Bay Area and Tampa/St. Pete. Regarding Oakland, he repeated his mantra, “I have a committee, it’s a complicated situation,” but adding, “I have my own thoughts, but it would be premature to air them.” Regarding the Rays’ lot and their plummeting attendance while contending, Selig asserted, “The demographics are good. They’re a great organization. I agree with Stu Sternberg, we have to be concerned.” In a constructive comparison, he noted that in Washington’s case, “That took a long time, but it’s worked out well. There were a lot of lessons learned.”

That doesn’t sound reassuring for A’s or Rays fans, but Selig shot down any notion of contraction being on the table. And you can expect this to play out one way or another on Bud’s watch, because there was almost no credulity lent to the commissioner’s assertion that he’ll be leaving office once his term runs out in 18 months.

On the All-Star Game and how it has been played since the embarrassing tie of 2002, Selig stated “I like the way the games have been played since 2003. … People do play hard.”

While the expanded postseason was the more significant development to come from the commissioner Thursday, Bud Selig’s pragmatic and unrepentant declaration on Barry Bonds’ place in history was also important for three reasons.

First, it’s the acceptance of a simple fact: Bonds holds the single-season and career records for home runs. Moping about the circumstances or pettily assigning asterisks Ford Frick-style isn’t going to fly. The so-called “steroids era” is a historical fact, and a reflection of what we’ll politely call an unusual time in the game’s history. Bonds is accused of having used steroids at a time when plenty of people were using.

We’ll never know how much of an effect it had on the record book. While all of the focus is on home run tallies, plenty of pitchers are suspected of using steroids as well. Bonds never hit a homer off Roger Clemens, for example, having to settle for five walks (three intentional) and a beaning from the Rocket in eight plate appearances. What are we supposed to make of that? That no amount of juice could get one to pitch to the other? Professional courtesy? Bonds never homered off Andy Pettitte either, for that matter. If Bonds had homered off of any PED user, would that mean more, less, or would it be just what it was -- a home run?

The second takeaway from Selig’s latest pragmatic sanction is that it reflects a similarly pragmatic position taken by the industry as a whole where steroids in the sport was concerned. There was no real mystery that this was happening as it was happening -- Tom Boswell was publicly calling out Jose Canseco a dozen years before Rick Reilly asked Sammy Sosa for a sample. Yet at the same time, you had reporters commenting with nary a note of doubt over the latest player coming into camp with “30 pounds of muscle” added via “winter workouts.” As it was within the industry itself, the media simultaneously had its heroes, and also its quiet get-along, go-along group.

The problem for the industry, though, was that in the face of steroid abuse, you couldn't just order the problem away by issuing an edict. If you’re conspiracy-minded, toleration might have been profitable, especially in the wake of the strike of ’94. But it was also a necessity, because this was subject to collective bargaining. Eradication of steroids from the sport, like the decades-old tolerance of amphetamine use in every major-league clubhouse -- was something that could only happen through cooperation between players and owners. That it took time to negotiate certainly didn’t satisfy the Veruca Salt sensibilities of most observers or fans, but wanting something now doesn’t make it happen now. That the sport finally did adopt standards on steroids, and addressed amphetamine abuse as well, was progress achieved through negotiated compromise.

In the meantime, there was a lot of baseball, and a lot of players doing things that involved using steroids, or not, and using amphetamines, or not. In the absence of rules against their use, you can’t hold the players solely accountable. Although the players are the ones who will be sparring with John Law for years to come and they're the ones who be held responsible -- even when that responsibility should fall on the industry as a whole. The players are also the ones who, as Tim Kurkjian noted, will have to deal with their lot in history, as their generation’s greats become eligible for the Hall of Fame.

Which brings us to the third element of Selig’s public acknowledgment: the record book. Admittedly, I worry a lot less about this than my peers (and betters) in the sabermetric community, because I figure the record book is already a shabby historical compromise of sorts. Some might choose to hallow the records set by Hank Aaron and Pete Rose -- at a time when amphetamine use wasn’t just tolerated, it was condoned. You might be especially committed to the records set by Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb -- at a time when the game’s competitive balance was often laughable, when baseballs were doctored in some seasons, when there were plenty of major league-caliber players preferring to take their paydays playing in the independent “minors,” and when baseball, like the society it reflected, denied itself the talents of so many of the best because of race.

Now, you might hold such records in high regard, and decry those of more recent vintage. Me, I figure they’re all simply facts. They are like disappointments anyone can have with the game, past or present. You can know the stats, and associate something positive with 60 or 61 or 73, with 755 or 762, but inevitably you end up having to know about the time they came from.

The records are really only sanctified by us, if we choose. I’m in the odd position of saying I’m with Bud on this subject, because the past happened. Invariably, it will be judged -- by baseball men and women, past, present, and future, by voters for the Hall of Fame, and by you and me. But it does not alter the facts of what happened, and when, and why.

Christina Kahrl helped found Baseball Prospectus in 1996, is a member of the BBWAA and covers baseball for ESPN.com. You can follow her on Twitter here.

Bud Selig wants to expand the number of playoff teams, and -- pending eventual approval from the MLB Players Association -- we'll have more playoff teams in 2012.

"I would say we're moving to expanding the playoffs, but there's a myriad of details to work out," Selig said Thursday. "Ten is a fair number."

The details include the possible scenarios and issues for a new system:

• Would the two wild-card teams play each other? A one-game playoff is the popular suggestion.
• Would it be fair to have a 95-win wild card play an 84-win wild card in a one-game elimination?
• Should the two wild-card teams play a best-of-three series? But that means four off days for the other playoff teams.
• Should the best overall record get a "bye" while the other four teams play each other? But again, that means a bunch of off days.

Aside from the logistics, there are three important issues to be answered:

1. The sanctity and excitement of the regular season must be maintained.

The regular season in baseball matters. You have to play well over 162 games to make the playoffs. You don't want an NBA scenario, in which teams can coast and the only interesting playoff battles are for an eighth seed that is going to lose in the playoffs anyway. If the regular season is cheapened, you risk losing fans.

2. The playoffs must remain important enough for fans to care.

World Series and playoff TV ratings haven't fared well in the past decade. Do you risk losing more viewers by adding playoff games or making a championship seem less relevant due to the randomness of the baseball playoffs?

3. A new system should be fair to the players and teams.

I hope the commissioner's office factors this in.

Before we answer those questions, here's a look back at the past five seasons. We'll list the actual wild-card team first (with wins in parentheses) followed by the team that would have been the second wild card and then the next-best record after that. Let's assume the one-game wild-card scenario.

2010
American League: Yankees (95) versus Red Sox (89). Next best: White Sox (88).
National League: Braves (91) versus Padres (90). Next best: Cardinals (86).

What we gain: Red Sox-White Sox wild-card race.
What we lose: NL West race between Giants and Padres becomes irrelevant.

2009
American League: Red Sox (95) versus Rangers (87). Next best: Tigers (86).
National League: Rockies (92) versus Giants (88). Next best: Marlins (87).

What we gain: Giants-Marlins-Braves (86) three-team wild-card race.
What we lose: Nothing. Twins-Tigers AL Central tiebreaker would have still existed.

2008
American League: Red Sox (95) versus Yankees (89). Next best: Twins (88).
National League: Brewers (90) versus Mets (87). Next best: Astros (86).

What we gain: White Sox-Twins division race becomes a 3-for-2 playoff race with Yankees.
What we lose: Phillies-Mets NL East race (and Mets' collapse).

2007
American League: Yankees (94) versus Tigers/Mariners (88).
National League: Rockies (90) versus Padres (89). Next best: Mets (88).

What we gain: Yankees-Red Sox battle for AL East now becomes relevant; Tigers-Mariners wild-card race.
What we lose: Rockies-Padres one-game playoff that the Rockies won.

2006
American League: Tigers (95) versus White Sox (90). Next best: Angels (89).
National League: Dodgers (88) versus Phillies (85). Next best: Astros (82).

What we gain: Padres (88) and Dodgers both made playoffs, but would be fighting for a more important division title now. Same with Twins (96) and Tigers. White Sox-Angels-Blue Jays (87) wild-card race.
What we lose: Nothing.

Back to our questions

1. The sanctity and excitement of the regular season must be maintained.

I have to admit: I don't think you lose anything here. Yes, in some seasons -- like last year's NL West race -- you'll lose the excitement of a pennant race because both teams will be assured playoff berths. On the other hand, the one-game playoff scenario places a bigger reward on winning the division, so in theory you create exciting division races.

Except ... imagine this scenario. The Rays and Yankees are tied for the division lead entering the final day of the season. David Price and CC Sabathia are both rested. Do you start them in hopes of winning the division title? If you win the division title, you move on to the best-of-five division series. But if you lose that game and the division title, you have one game to advance in the playoffs ... and you've burned your best pitcher. Is it fair to play 161 games and then put teams in that scenario? One thing I know: Managers would vote 30 to zero against having a one-game wild-card playoff.

MLB officials would argue that allowing two more playoff teams creates additional September excitement because more teams have a shot at the playoffs. I believe that's true, although you're really adding only two or three teams a year to this scenario and I think the attendance effect would be minimal.

2. The playoffs must remain important enough for fans to care.

I don't think one additional playoff game will really do anything to boost the TV ratings. You might get a little bump for that one game -- especially if it's the Red Sox or Yankees -- but adding two more playoff teams won't increase your World Series ratings. (Other than potentially putting more big-market teams in the playoffs to have a chance at reaching the World Series, which also means it could hurt World Series ratings by allowing more small-market teams in the playoffs that could reach the World Series.)

3. A new system should be fair to the players and teams.

This is the biggest issue I have with a one-game playoff: How can you ask players to grind it out for 162 games and then have their season come down to a one-game playoff? Joe Maddon has expressed that he thinks this is unfair, and I agree. Baseball, of course, isn't really thinking of the players here, but trying to create more excitement (and thus generate more revenue).

So what to do? Look, the traditionalists who want only the best teams to make the playoffs so a championship means more are pining for a past that doesn't exist anymore. Wild-card teams have won the World Series many times. The best regular-season team rarely wins the World Series. The St. Louis Cardinals won in 2006 despite finishing with the 13th-best record. The sport didn't collapse.

So, with all that, I have to say I like a second wild-card team even if I believe the overall impact is fairly minor, but this would be my scenario:

1. Have the two wild-card teams play a three-game series. I think making the other teams have the extra days off isn't that major a factor compared to the one-game do-or-die scenario.

2. No off days in the playoffs, except for two days before the World Series. This gives an advantage to the deeper teams and keeps baseball from playing World Series games in mid-November.

3. And if the Florida Marlins sneak into the playoffs with 83 wins and go on to win another World Series ... well, there will always be next year.

Last week, Joe Aiello discussed a few of his ideas were he named "Commissioner for a Day." On Monday, Bill Baer followed it with some of his own. Today is my chance to don the commissioner's cloak of power and wield a mighty sword.

Aiello touched on a few things about the All-Star Game that he'd like to improve, but his ideas are more about scheduling and the logistical challenges faced with so many other events involved. My suggestions target the root causes of some of the All-Star Game grievances I've seen and heard over the past few years.

Let's start with the basic question: What's the point of the All-Star Game, anyway? A few of the obvious answers include:

1. To promote the game, in general.
2. To promote the game's best players.
3. To promote this year's best players.
4. To promote the most popular players.

The game should never be about determining home-field advantage in the World Series. That's a gimmick that was doomed from the beginning. Yes, the concept was grounded in a desire to make the game more "meaningful" after the 2002 debacle. However, affixing a prize on the game's great exhibition was faulty logic.

At the core of this dichotomy is the selection process. As it currently stands, the starters are selected by us, the fans. I know many of us, you, we, them do our best to pick the best guys each year, but it will forever be a popularity contest and deserving guys will not be selected as starters and the managers will have to use up roster spots to rectify fans' snubs. (And if you think poor fan selections are endemic to baseball, look no further than the out-for-the-season Yao Ming being selected a starter in the 2011 NBA all star game.)

There's also a rule that was created and relevant/important 30 years ago: mandatory representation. Every team must have a player selected and that, naturally, leads to further problems as some times, a team doesn't have a player worthy of making the team.

Again, the manager must select someone from every team, and this, too, eats up precious roster spots. Thankfully, MLB recently expanded the All-Star rosters to accommodate this growing problem, but the mandatory representation rule is a problem, in a kinda-sorta way.

Additionally, the trend of using the starting pitcher for only two innings and giving an inning to every other arm you've got, minus a few for "just in case," is not how you manage a game in which you are trying to win. Why? Because this should be an exhibition! The selection process, the mandatory representation rule, the Little League-esque style of "everyone plays" all works just fine if this was an exhibition. Except it's not. This game counts. See the problem?

Everything about the game flies right in the face of the game counting for something as important as home-field advantage in the World Series. So what to do? Glad you asked. Here are my suggestions on to fix this problem:

1. The game is an exhibition, period. The home-field advantage in the World Series can be determined by the head-to-head record in Interleague games. I think this works because it will remain intact and is one of Bud Selig's pets. And if you don't like that idea, how about the league which won the World Series the prior year keeps home-field advantage? Winner stays on.
2. Mandatory representation remains intact. Bring on Mark Redman, 2006!
3. The game lasts nine innings. No extra innings. No worry about a tie because it's an exhibition. Play the game, go home. Get back to the games that matter and reduce the risk of injuries over an exhibition. Take that, Ray Fosse.
4. DH's for both teams, regardless of the host city's league affiliation. It's an exhibition; no one wants to see a pitcher bunt.
5. Want something new? How about this Manny Ramirez-inspired doozy: Any player testing positive for PEDs cannot play in an All-Star Game within the next 12 months after the conclusion of their suspension. That covers players who get caught in the second half of a season so they can’t be selected for the following All-Star Game.
6. Because I'm a stickler: Unless you are on the DL at the time of the game, if selected as a starter, you must show up. No phantom injuries so you can enjoy a long weekend in the Caribbean. Play an inning so your fans who voted you onto the team can see you take the field and maybe an at-bat. If you fail to do so, you are ineligible for selection the following year. You, the players, work for us, the fans. Don't forget it.

You simply cannot continue to have a game that counts with a selection process that is fit for an exhibition.

Jason Rosenberg is the founder and lead writer of "It's About The Money, Stupid," a SweetSpot Network member. IIATMS can be found on Facebook and on Twitter. Larry Behrendt contributed to this article and can be followed on Twitter.

Uh-oh. Looks like commissioner Bud's got some interesting ideas kicking around in there ...

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig gave his strongest indication yet that two extra wild-card teams will be added to the playoffs for 2012.“I like it enough, so we’ll seriously consider it,” he said Sunday night before Game 4 of the World Series. “Is eight out of 30 enough? Is that fair? And that’s the basic question here, at least for me.”

Asked his opinion of 10 playoff teams, Selig responded: “It’s more fair than eight.”

By that "logic," isn't 12 playoff teams more than 10? And 14 more fair than 12? No major professional sport in history -- not in recent history, anyway -- has been concerned with fairness. Not when it comes to playoffs. The No. 1 consideration is money, the No. 2 consideration is appeasing the unions and everything else is tied for a nonexistent No. 3. When somebody who works for a league uses the word "fair," he's trying to justify a decision that's motivated almost completely by money.

Any change in the playoff format would be subject to agreement with the players’ association, and union head Michael Weiner said last week players were open to considering a larger postseason. Selig said his staff will start examining more wild-card teams in mid-November and wasn’t sure there was time to get a plan in place to expand the postseason for 2011.He also said the 162-game regular season will not change. Clubs do not want to lose ticket money and broadcast revenue from regular-season games.

Nobody, and I mean nobody wants fewer than 162 games. The owners don't want to give up the revenues, and the players don't want the owners to have an easy excuse for installing some sort of drag on salaries.

If each league had two wild cards, they could meet in either a one-game or best-of-three playoff to advance to the division series. There is sentiment against a one-game playoff, but Selig is worried about the postseason extending toward Thanksgiving.“I’ve had some managers tell me we can’t play 162 games, wind up in a playoff for one game,” Selig said. “So you’re going to get both sides of the argument, and they’re very strong in that opinion, by the way.”

And we're supposed to care about the managers why, exactly? Major League Baseball is already beholden to the television people, the accountants, and whoever's running the Players Association ... now the commissioner is worried about what the managers think?

Give me a break. The wild card managers should just be thrilled to be there, one game or five.

The advantages of a one-game playoff are manifest. You do add another playoff team in each league, but you make it a little tougher on the wild-card teams -- thereby rewarding the teams that actually win their divisions -- and you don't have to lengthen the postseason schedule at all.

Selig did not sound as if he favored expanding the division series from best-of-five to best-of-seven.“There’s something about a five-game as opposed to seven, where there’s more tension. There’s more drama,” he said.

Well, again ... by Selig's logic, doesn't it follow that we would have more drama in the League Championship Series if they were best-of-five? What about the World Series? Think how dramatic Games 1 and 2 would be, if you needed to win only three games!

I do believe that every game played before the World Series tends to lessen the drama of the World Series. The more days you have between the last day of the regular season and the beginning of the World Series, the more casual fans simply lose track of the proceedings.

I happen to think that's a fair tradeoff, TV ratings be damned. But I don't know that there's enough to be gained from adding another three or four days to the postseason schedule.

What's disconcerting is that we just keep hearing the same old things. What the TV people want. What the union wants. What some anonymous advisers are "telling" the commissioner and what seems "fair" to him.

I suspect that there are some really bright minds working at Major League Baseball, and sifting through the various ideas with some degree of sophistication. I just wish some evidence of their work would occasionally pass the commissioner's lips when he's making his public pronouncements.

As I've said many times -- well, on the rare occasions when it's come up -- when the commissioner does something unblemished by selfishness or commercialism or rank public relations, he deserves credit for it. Like (via Bob Nightengale):

Major League Baseball, trying to avoid having long underwear as part of its players' postseason apparel, is planning to start the 2011 season in earnest on Friday, April 1 - three days earlier than the traditional Monday opener.

It would be the first time a majority of teams start the season on a Friday since 1905, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.

The regular season would end Wednesday, Sept. 28 with playoffs opening on Sept. 30 or Oct. 1. The World Series is to start Wednesday, Oct. 19, a week earlier than the past two years. It would virtually assure the World Series would not be played in November.

"Anything we could do to finish in October,'' commissioner Bud Selig told USA TODAY, "is what I wanted to do. It shows how serious we are in doing this. I feel very good about it, and am pleased at everybody's reaction.''

Says Michael Weiner, executive director of the Major League Players Association: "Starting the season midweek, as we understand it, will allow for a much better postseason schedule than if we had the season begin on a Sunday night. We think that's a positive step.''Is it unkind to wonder, if this is such an excellent idea -- which it is -- why it took them so long? Yes, it is. Not to mention pointless. At least until someone's able to get all the parties to explain themselves.

This is a good thing.

It's not a great thing. The difference between the weather on November 4 and the weather on October 27 is not, generally speaking, going to be a whole lot different, and there's a reasonable chance it will actually be better on the 4th.

It's not the best thing, either. Essentially, they're trading potentially lousy weather in a few postseason games for potentially lousy weather in a few dozen regular-season games. The measurable benefit of this trade is negligible and perhaps non-existent. The best thing would a shorter season, with fewer games or more doubleheaders or (ideally) both. But that's a non-starter because it means a significant loss of revenue. In case you haven't noticed, neither Major League Baseball nor the Major League Baseball Players Association is in the habit of voluntarily losing revenue.

It's a good thing, though. Baseball's not meant to played in November, in the snow and the sleet and everything else that letter carriers don't notice but baseball players do. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In the wake of the news about commissioner Bud Selig's "special committee," Thomas Boswell's got a number of suggestions -- 10 of them, in fact. Let's go through each of them (and I'll paraphrase for brevity's sake), with my comments in italics ...

* Ban mound visits by managers and coaches.

Definitely worth considering. Nobody pays their money to watch middle-aged men waddling to the mound for rote, usually pointless conversations.

* Enforce a time-limit on mid-inning pitching changes.

Of course.

* No more "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch.

Easiest fix of all. One ode to patriotism per game is plenty, especially now that we're eight years removed from 9/11.

* Give the hitter his intentional walk without having to actually throw four balls.

I would just as soon eliminate the intentional walk entirely, but if we have to have them, let's at least save a bit of time.

* Require every relief pitcher to face at least two hitters.

Yes, it seems sacrilegious. So was the designated hitter, and we've come to accept that (well, most of us have, anyway).

* Don't award home field in the World Series to the league that wins the All-Star Game.

Sorry, but I don't see the problem here. Home field is a small thing, competition-wise, but really does make the All-Star Game more interesting.

* No more World Series games in November. Don't delay the beginning of the season to accommodate the World Baseball Classic, build fewer off days into the postseason (the way it used to be), and schedule the occasional split doubleheader.

Yes, yes, and yes one more time. Oh, I don't mind starting the season a week late. I enjoy the WBC as much as the next guy. But if they're going to take away a week in April, they simply have to compensate somehow.

* Expand the use of video review, at least in the postseason.

Obviously. There simply isn't any justification for the continuing presence of manifest mistakes by the umpires on the sport's biggest stage.

Boswell's big finish:

With its new committee and Selig's wide "best interests of the game" powers, the sport can take a broad and deep look at itself. Other constituencies, especially the union, will have their proper say in time. But for the first time in baseball, a group of the most respected people in the sport is looking squarely at the game's biggest problems. And they have the commissioner behind them.

Well, we'll see about that. My gut tells me that all those respected people will have a real tough time coming to any sort of consensus on most of the issues. And, of course, coming to some sort of consensus is just the first step. Then you have to consider the commissioner, and then he has to convince most of the owners, and then everyone has to convince the players.

But it's harder than that, even. It's one thing to convince the players; it's quite another to convince them to agree to do something. That falls under the heading of "everything's a negotiation," regardless of how much everyone might agree about it.

So, we'll see. Boswell would like to see sweeping changes. So would I. But we should probably be thrilled with a few baby steps.

Phil Rogers goes straight for the gut:

Is the designated hitter rule finally on its way out with Major League Baseball?

To be fair, it's premature to ask such a potentially provocative question. But thanks to Commissioner Bud Selig's decision to turn recommendations for on-field matters over to a newly created version of the NFL's Competition Committee, the DH rule could face its first real threat since the American League accepted it permanently for the 1976 season, after a three-year experiment that began as a way to create run scoring and increase attendance.

--snip--

Selig said he will "be guided by what this committee comes up with" on matters including "scheduling, postseason format, umpiring, pace of play and instant replay." The commissioner did not mention the DH rule, but Cardinals manager Tony La Russa and longtime Braves executive John Schuerholz, who joined Selig on a conference call, both listed it as the one thing they potentially would change if they could.

--snip--

Forced to build deeper rosters because of the DH rule, the AL has had an upper hand against the NL in recent years -- a trend borne out in results from the All-Star Game, the World Series and in interleague play. AL teams have been bigger spenders than their NL counterparts.

I'm always amused by the suggestion that the American League is vastly superior to the National League because of the designated hitter. If so, can someone explain to me why it took 30-odd years for this "DH Effect" to show up on the field? The DH does a number of things -- it makes the game more exciting, and it allows a few sluggardly sluggers to extend their careers -- but there's no reason to think it affects the balance of power between the leagues.

Anyway, the DH isn't going anywhere. The American League owners don't want it gone, and neither does the Players Association (because the MLBPA is run by the veterans, and the rule benefits veterans most of all).

Selig's been criticized for the composition of the committee: "four current managers, four current or former general managers and four ownership representatives, along with MLB official Frank Robinson and journalist/baseball fan George Will" ... but not a single current player, which seems odd when you consider that very little can be done without the assent of the players.

I'm inclined to cut Selig a little slack on this one. I don't know that many veteran players would have been interested in participating -- they tend to have busy winters, with hunting trips and vacations to Shangri-La and whatnot -- and without veterans ... Well, you just can't throw Evan Longoria and Justin Upton into a room with Tony La Russa and John Schuerholz.

Anyway, it's not like this committee's going to do anything. Major League Baseball -- and by extension, Commissioner Bud -- took some withering criticism this fall about postseason scheduling, lousy umpiring, and the lack of video review in big games. So, Selig turned to every politician's favorite crutch: the committee. And the result will probably be the usual result of a committee's work: nothing.

We can only hope that the committee's work is made public, so we'll at least have something to talk about.

Hey, it turns out that Mike Scioscia wasn't the only baseball man who thought this year's postseason schedule was screwy. Bud Selig does, too!

"We're going to change it," Selig said. "I don't disagree with Mike Scioscia. I think he was right, so we're going to try and tighten that up."

--snip--

Selig said he's still working on details for the new postseason format.

"When you plan the playoff schedule, you don't know how many games the first round would go. So it's difficult," he explained. "There were clubs that sat around. Some were necessary, but some were not."

Starting in 2007, baseball added four extra days off during the postseason at the request of its television partners, shifting the World Series opener to Wednesday from Saturday, usually the lowest-rated night of the week.

Well, you can consider me guardedly optimistic. You can't change anything without commissioner Bud's enthusiastic approval, so this would seem to be a lovely first step. But I will note for the record that: a) Selig has promised to do things before that didn't get done; and 2) don't the TV networks call the shots on this one?

At least one of the current TV contracts runs through 2013. Is Selig saying he'll change it five years from now, when he's 80? Or is he saying that he'll slap Fox and TBS, and they'll take it and like it? Stay tuned ...

Before launching into a long and loving ode to the myriad of blown calls in this year's Division Series, Kevin Hench takes a moment for a little trip to the woodshed with the Commish ...

So let's be clear. Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig does not want a team to lose a game or, Heaven forbid, a championship on an umpire's correctable gaffe on a home run call.

But he's still fine with a team losing on any other kind of blown call.

That's right, Cardinals fans, 24 years worth of advances in high-definition replay after Todd Worrell's foot beat Jorge Orta's to the bag and Selig would still rather have the wrong team win the World Series than expand the use of replay.

"I'm quite satisfied the way things are," the Commish told FOXSports.com. "We need to do a little work, clean up some things. But do I think we need more replay? No. Baseball is not the kind of game that can have interminable delays."

Uh, yes it is. It's precisely that kind of game. The whole sport is sort of an interminable delay interrupted by spasms of thrilling action.

In fairness to the commish, there are legitimate concerns about time management, in the event of expanded use of video review. I believe those concerns can be reasonably and effectively addressed, but they should not be dismissed out of hand.

I'm bringing this subject up (again) for one reason: to explain why we're not going to see more video review in the foreseeable future. We're not going to see it because nothing happens in Major League Baseball without the commish's assent, and the commish is finished with this one.

Bud Selig has been described as a revolutionary, but of course today's revolutionary is tomorrow's reactionary. Realignment and wild cards; interleague play; expansion; franchise movement; "this time it counts"; video review ... what do all these things have in common? All have happened on commissioner Selig's watch, and nearly all have not been revisited since, even in the face of obvious deficiencies. Do we really want to see the Royals playing the Pirates in June? Are all 30 franchises perfectly placed? Is 30 the perfect number of franchises? Is the All-Star Game the best way to determine the home team in the World Series.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. My point is that these discussions are essentially irrelevant as long as Bud Selig is commissioner. I promise you that the moment a new commissioner is in place, the offices at Major League Baseball and within the 30 franchises around the nation (plus Toronto) will be buzzing with talk about addressing these and other core issues.

Today, though? The commissioner has done what he's wanted to do. Why do something else now?

Bill Madden thinks he saw a glimmer of hope for Pete Rose in Cooperstown last weekend.

The tip-off that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball's all-time hit king was Hank Aaron's seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters in the lobby of the Otesaga Hotel on Saturday. In declaring for the first time that he would want an asterisk put on the achievements of any steroid cheats elected to the Hall of Fame, Aaron brought up Rose, who, in August of 1989, was given a lifetime ban for gambling on baseball, saying: "I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there."

It is no secret that Selig considers Aaron one of his closest friends and values his opinions over perhaps all others. It was also learned by the Daily News that in a meeting of the Hall of Fame's board of directors at the Otesaga later on Saturday, two of Rose's former teammates on the board, vice chairman Joe Morgan and Frank Robinson, also expressed their hope that Selig would see fit to reinstate Rose.

--snip--

Nevertheless, it is beginning to look as if Rose will at least finally get Hall of Fame consideration, at the same time the Hall of Famers are taking an even harder stance on all the steroids cheats. "Believe me," said Reggie Jackson, to a couple of writers, "that little session Hank had with you guys was anything but impromptu. He wanted to get that out there. It was time."

I'm sorry, but this seems to me a massive leap of speculation.

Henry Aaron wants Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

Bud Selig considers Aaron a close friend.

ergo, Bud Selig is going to remove Pete Rose from Major League Baseball's permanently ineligible list?

Really?

My personal and professional opinion is that Bud Selig has essentially finished his work, and that he's happy with it. He's got interleague play and the postseason format exactly where he wants them. He's got the All-Star Game exactly how he wants it. And he's got Pete Rose exactly where he wants him.

My personal and professional opinion is that all of these things could and should be changed, for one reason or another. But I believe we'll have to wait for the next commissioner.

Well, it's now completely official: Major League Baseball has co-opted Jackie Robinson ...

By request of Commissioner Bud Selig, as Major League Baseball celebrates the 62nd anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking its color barrier on Wednesday, all big league players and uniformed personnel have been asked to wear the late Hall of Famer's famous No. 42 on the field when the 30 teams celebrate the occasion.

The past two years, as the momentum to wear Robinson's number steamrolled through Major League clubhouses, Selig asked, but the act of wearing it was voluntary. Not so this year.

"April 15, 1947, is a day that resonates with history throughout Major League Baseball," Selig said. "With all Major League players, coaches and umpires wearing Jackie's No. 42, we hope to demonstrate the magnitude of his impact on the game of baseball. Major League Baseball will never forget the contributions that Jackie made both on and off the field."

--snip--

The idea of "un-retiring" Robinson's number for a day belongs to Ken Griffey Jr., who is back with the Mariners this season. Two years ago, Griffey personally petitioned the Commissioner for the opportunity to wear it. He didn't know what he was starting.

"It's just my way of giving that man his due respect," Griffey said at the time. "I just called Bud and asked him if I could do it. He made a couple of phone calls and said, 'Yeah.' We had a good conversation. It was about me wearing it on that day, and only that day."

Selig enjoyed the feel of it so much he now wants to blanket big league fields with all those No. 42s dancing across America.

"I think it's great," the Commissioner said. "Just their understanding of history and what that man did for so many people is so important. Believe me, it makes me very happy."

Never underestimate the ability of the commissioner to take a pretty sweet idea and just drive it into the ground until it's dead.

Maybe that's too harsh. But every single player in every single game, wearing the same number?

You know what really bothers me about all this? Major League Baseball is apparently bound and determined to turn Jackie Robinson from a man -- a man with all his glorious virtues and oh-so-human flaws -- into some sort of god, and gods are incredibly less interesting than men. Gods are infallible. Or if they're not, it's still considered poor form to discuss their fallibility. Which makes us all the poorer.

Bill Shaikin on baseball and the economy and the kids (who are, as you might have heard, our future):

The Dodgers now offer a small bottle of water for $3.75, not just a large bottle for $5.75. The Angels sell kids' tickets for $3 for some games, $5 for others, with $7 caps for every fan, every day.

The Houston Astros sell kids' tickets for $1. The Atlanta Braves and Milwaukee Brewers sell $1 tickets for all. The Colorado Rockies sell tickets for $4; the Cincinnati Reds, Detroit Tigers and Kansas City Royals for $5.

A tip of the cap, for these programs and many others. Yet baseball ought not go back to its overpriced ways when the economy rebounds.

This should not be a recession-based initiative. This should be a fan-based initiative.

"I think we can make a lot of this permanent," Selig said. "I'm fairly optimistic."

Selig paused for a breath, shed his caution and added an air of determination to his voice.

"We will make a lot of this permanent," he said.

He said the right thing, and now he was rolling.

"It's something we should do anyway," he said. "We've got to mean what we say. We really have to be the cheapest form of entertainment."

Baseball lost that commitment, losing its way while celebrating each billion in record revenues. We spend far too much time fretting over whether the late starting times for the World Series keep kids from watching baseball on television, far too little time figuring out how to get kids into the ballpark, embrace the game in person, get hooked for life.

It's too expensive for too many. A family of four should not have to pay $200 for a day at the ballpark.

And yet, according to Team Marketing Report, the cost of four tickets at the average price, four hot dogs, four sodas, two beers, two caps and parking comes to $196.79 at the average major league park this season.

I'm so sick of the annual Team Marketing Report that every time I see it -- and I see it every spring right around this time -- I want to vomit my four hot dogs and my four sodas and my two beers and my two caps and my overpriced parking spot.

Two caps? Really? Four hot dogs and four sodas and two beers? I'm not saying our hypothetical nuclear family wouldn't enjoy all of those lovely items ... but can't a good time at the ol' ballpark be had without them? Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe that a family of four can enjoy a baseball game for well short of $100. Outside of New York or Boston, anyway (and maybe there, too).

There's one thing I do agree with, though: Major League Baseball does spend far too little time figuring out how to get kids hooked for life. This should not be a surprise. That payoff doesn't come for some years, and the people who run the game -- reasonably enough -- don't generally care about the long-term future, because by then they'll have sold their teams and be off fooling around with some other toy.

So, cheaper tickets and bottles of water and caps forever? I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not absolutely 100 percent convinced by the commissioner's optimism.