A few days ago, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred floated the idea of expansion and geographical realignment coming to baseball in the near future. People went nuts, but it’s really a natural progression of the game that was bound to come anyway. After all, the NFL has 32 teams and MLB has been at 30 since 1998. It’s time. As you would expect, people have their theories on how this should go. I am here to make sense of them all and propose some ideas that will absolutely not be considered.
Expansion Cities
Before we get to realignment, we have to consider where the two new teams might be located. According to MLB Insider Jeff Passan, Nashville, TN is the leader in the clubhouse to get one of the two bids. He mentions Salt Lake City as the other possibility, but I am not buying that one. After 32 years, the Colorado Rockies still have not solved their mile high problem of thin air ruining pitchers’ lives. Well, SLC isn’t that much lower than Denver at 4226 feet above sea level. I know it’s all about politics, but why make the same mistake twice?
Other candidates are Portland, Montreal, Charlotte, Raleigh, Vancouver, and another team in Texas either in Austin or San Antonio. Assuming Nashville gets one bid, MLB isn’t likely to give the other bid to another east coast city. Sorry Montreal, Charlotte, and Raleigh, maybe next time. While Austin and San Antonio are two rapidly increasing markets with only one Big 4 professional team amongst them, MLB owners are not one for sharing their markets. Just look at how the Giants refused to let the Athletics move to San Jose and how the Orioles and Nationals have been fighting since 2012. Considering it is called the Lonestar State, they probably think a team in Houston and Dallas is already one too many.1 However, Seattle is all alone up in the Pacific Northwest and the locals seem to love a good geographic rival. MLS moved into Vancouver and Portland and tapped a vastly underrated vein of competitiveness that was lost when the Sonics left the area. Portland is my bet to join Nashville as the 31st and 32nd MLB franchises.
Geographic Realignment
Two years ago, Jim Bowden of The Athletic wrote up his own plans for purely geographic realignment that ignored Leagues and rivalries. This idea made the rounds on Monday and caused mass hysteria, mostly because the Cubs would not be playing the Cardinals and the Phillies, Mets, Red Sox, and Yankees would be huddled together in one giant ball of toxic anxiety. This construction would give me a brain aneurysm by June. Take a look (he picked Charlotte and Nashville as explansion franchises):
| East | North | Mid-Atlantic | Southeast |
| Phillies | Blue Jays | Nationals | Braves |
| Mets | Guardians | Orioles | Marlins |
| Red Sox | Reds | Pirates | Rays |
| Yankees | Tigers | Charlotte | Nashville |
| Midwest | Southwest | Pacific Coast | West |
| Brewers | Astros | Athletics | Angels |
| Cubs | Cardinals | Giants | Diamondbacks |
| Twins | Rangers | Mariners | Dodgers |
| White Sox | Royals | Rockies | Padres |
As much as this would cut down on travel, this is simply not good for the fans. Almost all of the good rivalries are destroyed except for those in the East which have been spiked with geographical steroids. We would no longer have Cardinals-Cubs-Reds, Dodgers-Giants-Padres, Yankees-Orioles, and even Phillies-Nationals (which should be more of a thing). Yes the media would eat up the East, but it sacrifices the rest of baseball. Big NO. Rob Manfred couldn’t be this tone deaf, could he? Oh, dang.
Common Sense Realignment
Yesterday, Stephen Nesbitt also of The Athletic came up with the best version of realignment possible where leagues, rivalries, and location were all considered. I attempted to improve it, but any changes I made just wound up gimmicky (those are next). Here it is:
| NL East | NL North | NL South | NL West |
| Phillies | Brewers | Braves | Diamondbacks |
| Mets | Cardinals | Marlins | Dodgers |
| Nationals | Cubs | Rays | Giants |
| Pirates | Reds | Nashville/Raleigh | Padres |
| AL East | AL North | AL South | AL West |
| Blue Jays | Guardians | Astros | Angels |
| Orioles | Tigers | Rangers | Athletics |
| Red Sox | Twins | Rockies | Mariners |
| Yankees | White Sox | Royals | SLC or Portland |
Who in their right mind wouldn’t want this? The only franchise that is a big loser in this is the Braves. They go from having the Mets and Phillies to the Rays and an expansion team. Unfortunately, they are just out of place where they are (sorry Nick and Danny). The other loser is me and any other NJ/Philly/NYC transplants living in Miami. We are losing the 7 home away from home-games we get a year against the Marlins. I would take one for the team to have this setup.
Moneyball Realignment
Now let’s have some fun. What would a league based on the Haves and Have-Nots look like? There would have to be some practical tweaks done in real life, but basing divisions on the previous year’s spending would theoretically give low revenue teams the same chance as high revenue teams to make the World Series. All teams would still play in the regular season, but the playoffs would be divided based on the top 3 finishers in each division of each league, with the winner of the Haves facing the winner of the Have-Nots in the World Series. Let’s give the leagues better names though:
| Steinbrenners | Billy Beanies | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| East | West | East | West |
| Phillies | Dodgers | Orioles | Rockies |
| Mets | Padres | Rays | Athletics |
| Yankees | Diamondbacks | Marlins | Twins |
| Blue Jays | Angels | Pirates | White Sox |
| Red Sox | Giants | Nationals | Guardians |
| Braves | Mariners | Reds | Tigers |
| Royals | Rangers | Cardinals | Brewers |
| Cubs | Astros | East Expansion | West Expansion |
Would this make owners finally shut up about a salary cap? Maybe it would even make teams like the A’s spend a little more just to have a better chance to compete in a more financially proportionate atmosphere of competitiveness? Changing leagues could even come down to late season player releases or final minute trades. In the end though, every World Series would have the potential for a David vs Goliath matchup that would be easy marketing for MLB. It would probably generate more interest too. Every team would still play every other team, but maybe just a 3-game series per season. A cousin of this idea would be to separate divisions by market size. This would be spending power instead of actual spending. I don’t know those numbers though. The model is a lot better than you originally thought right?
Relegation Realignment
There is not a competitive sports fan out there that isn’t somewhat intrigued by the idea of a bad team getting punished for being bad and a good team being rewarded for being good. Even bad teams would like the idea of their team’s owner getting shamed into being more competitive. After all, wouldn’t a competitive team be more valuable? No longer would teams like the Marlins and Pirates be able to peddle false optimism to their fans when going into the season they would already be without a chance. Plus, it would give a young, exciting team something to shoot for assuming the playoffs are not in the cards. Speaking of the Marlins, they currently have the 9th worst record in the league and are not going to make the playoffs. How fun would it be if they were fighting for promotion instead of just playing meaningless games in an empty stadium?
There are a few ways to do this. The easiest way is a straight 20/12 model where the two worst of the 20 are relegated at the end of the season to the bottom 12 while the two best are promoted. Based on last year’s standings, that would mean that the Toronto Blue Jays, who currently have the 3rd best record in baseball, would not be eligible for the playoffs this year because they had the 7th worst record last year. Also, the Atlanta Braves would be very much in danger of playing themselves out of a 2026 playoff spot. Crazy right?
If the league is hell bent on divisions though, we could still split things into American and National Leagues. The bottom team in each league would get relegated while the top team of each League’s second tier gets promoted. This season would have looked something like this (plus expansion teams):
| National League | American League | NL Relegation | AL Relegation |
| Dodgers | Yankees | Reds | Rangers |
| Phillies | Guardians | Pirates | Blue Jays |
| Brewers | Orioles | Nationals | Athletics |
| Padres | Astros | Marlins | Angels |
| Braves | Royals | Rockies | White Sox |
| Mets | Tigers | Expansion | Expansion |
| Diamondbacks | Mariners | ||
| Cardinals | Twins | ||
| Cubs | Red Sox | ||
| Giants | Rays |
Assuming there is some type of advantage to staying in the top league other than just having a chance, teams are more likely to try to stay competitive throughout the year rather than just taking the year off. This could lead to a more fertile ground for free agents as well, as teams won’t be simply fine with having holes on their rosters for gap years. Finally, imagine how good a series would be at the end of a season if two teams are fighting to stay out of a relegation spot or to be promoted?
The relegation model would be fun as all hell! Instead of the whole regular season coming down to a few playoff races and possibly which team gets the #1 draft pick, you would have 4 additional races to watch as teams fight for next season. Who wouldn’t love this?
- Airheads: “Well, there’s three of you. You’re not exactly lone. Shouldn’t you be the Three Rangers?” ↩︎
Philly Front Office 
Leave a comment