OPs point is ridiculous.
It is also ridiculous to think the rivalry cannot be very very exciting again. A 7 game series that goes 7 with two very good teams who fought like heck for first place...a fight or two on the field during the regular season...a couple of aces with a tendency to plunk team favorite players. It really won't take more than that. The problem is that ESPN and the MLB will jump all over that to the point where actual fans of the teams would rather fast forward the broadcast to find out who wins.
I mean, the latter happened in the 2003-2004 plot arc, with the loathsome Joe Buck and Tim McCarver doing all the commentating (except when we were blessed with Joe Morgan), and it really didn't ruin the drama and excitement at all.
The commentators are, with apologies to @Conigliaro's Potential
, somewhat superfluous to the enjoyment of the game. If the contest has no stakes or is boring, there's little that the coverage can do to revive that, and if the contest is nail-biting then even poor coverage can't fully ruin it. It makes a difference, but it's an amplifier, not a determinant.
As for the OP's point - no, I don't want to go through that again. Once was enough. For those who went through 1986 or 1978 or even 1967, I'm sure that was enough for them too, after 2004. And while he could have framed it in a less sports-talk-radio manner, I think the fact that dozens of us so far have felt like it's worth our time to read the thread and then post about how much we disagree with him, suggests that the thread was at least worthwhile in the first place.