Latest news with #MLBexpansion
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How To Get MLB Expansion Right The First Time
Apparently, our old friend Commissioner Manfred unleashed some expansion comments recently. This should not come to a surprise to any of you considering that MLB is first and foremost in the business of making money and the sport is secondary. Expansion is going to happen whether we like it or not. Are there enough major-league caliber players to support it? Who knows! The league will get their franchising fees and the players will get more jobs. It is a win-win for the league and Players Association. Expansion in major-league North American sports doesn't happen often. MLB hasn't added a new franchise (not including re-location) since 1998 when the Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Devil Rays joined the league. The Tennessee Oilers (now Titans) joined the NFL in 2002. The NBA added the Charlotte Bobcats (now Hornets) in 2004. The NHL has been the only league to add to its list of franchises in the last 20 years with the Vegas Golden Knights introduction in 2017 and Seattle Kraken in 2018. This brought their team total to 32 and you have to assume that this is the number that MLB likely has in mind to be in line with both the NHL and NFL, who also has 32 teams. Now, Stephen Nesbitt over at TheAthletic is proposing a division re-alignment along with two potential new franchises in a two-conference, four-division NFL-esque set-up. It would look something like this: What Stephen lays out is pretty and neat, there are still some major holes and lack of schedule planning. First off, Portland and Salt Lake City are awful ideas. There is no baseball culture and frankly the West doesn't need any expansion. Salt Lake City will get the same support it does as the Arizona Diamondbacks do (not great). Meanwhile, Portland doesn't have the population for a team AND it encroaches on Seattle's fanbase. I can't see it getting approved. My second thought is that new proposed NL South division. Stephen sort of addresses this, but I don't think you can brush off how bad this division would be from a growth perspective with bringing in a new franchise. Assuming you are playing your division rivals a significant amount, attendance away a proposed Nashville or NC team would likely be poor (even with a new park in Tampa). Atlanta's attendance fluctuates and still have a bit of trouble getting butts in seats when they are bad. All this honestly throws off this proposed re-alignment from the get-go. With that you are probably thinking, 'Wow Jay, you sure have a lot to say why you don't like this idea? What would be your plan, genius?' Funny you should ask! The MLB should look to the NHL for inspiration for re-alignment, not the NFL. Moving to a two-conference, four-division set-up is the way to go. Along with the new divisions, I'm also proposing adding games, a new playoff format and more. Are you mad yet? Did it destroy your conventional and conservative views on what rivalries should and shouldn't be? Good. It's time for baseball to take a big leap into redefining itself and I feel like this 're-brand' has it on the right track. Is it perfect? Of course not, I hate that the Nationals are in the 'South' Division. I couldn't think of any other logical place to put them and they were the Southern-most team in the 'East'. But don't worry, they will still play each other because Interleague play is meaningless anymore. With that, the MLB should move to a 170 game schedule and eliminate Spring Training games. Will the players like it? Probably not! Owners will love that extra cash though. In this new format, you will play your division foes 14 times a season and play each team in every other division once a season (you can alternate home-away every year). I did like Stephen's idea of new teams in Nashville and North Carolina. Nashville is a growing city and a passionate fanbase for their existing teams the Titans and Predators. It has a deep history with baseball and the Negro Leagues (hence, the Stars). Charlotte and North Carolina is steeped in baseball culture, supporting minor-league baseball and competitive NCAA baseball programs. There is no better place to make an MLB team work. Another big leap I'm taking is expanding the playoff format. You may groan, but this is more fun and helps grow the game. While the NHL doesn't get the playoffs right at the current moment, they did have an excellent format previously. I'm proposing a 16-team 1-8 seeded tournament where the Top-2 teams in each division make the 1-4 seeds and the rest being filled by wildcards. The first round would be a Best-of-Four game series, with the remaining rounds and World Series being Best-of-Seven. Each conference would look something like this:
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
How MLB's regional realignment could end historic rivalries
The American League and National League have been institutions in baseball for more than 120 years. If MLB has expansion in the coming years, it's expected those leagues could be totally reimagined to break up baseball's league and division infrastructure as we know it going forward. The New York Yankees and Mets could be in the same division. Same goes for the Chicago Cubs and White Sox. With the universal DH now well-established, radical realignment is likely coming to MLB over the next decade. Baseball insiders have whispered about the possibility of regional-based realignment for a few years. MLB commissioner Rob Mandred was asked directly about it on Sunday night during an ESPN broadcast, and didn't shy away from his next bold rules change. Manfred said expansion and realignment are intertwined, and offered the biggest insight yet into what baseball could look like in the future. 'I think if we expand, it provides us with an opportunity to geographically realign. I think we could save a lot of wear and tear on our players in terms of travel. And I think our postseason format would be even more appealing for entities like ESPN because you'd be playing out of the east and out of the west. And now that 10 o'clock time slot, where we sometimes get Boston-Anaheim, it would be two West Coast teams in that 10 o'clock slot.' 'I think the owners realize that there is demand for Major League Baseball in a lot of great cities, and we have an opportunity to do something good around that expansion process.' Nashville and North Carolina have been the hottest candidates for expansion, but it's not rumored to happen until 2028 or 2029. Expansion still seems pretty far away at this point with nothing concrete about potential new markets, but if MLB has it their way, it will trigger widespread divisional realignment. Imagine MLB's divisions look something like this: East: Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Phillies North: Blue Jays, Tigers, Guardians, Pirates Mid-Atlantic: Orioles, Nationals, Braves, North Carolina team South: Rangers, Astros, Rays, Marlins Great Lakes: Cubs, White Sox, Brewers, Twins Midwest: Royals, Cardinals, Reds, Nashville Southwest: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Diamondbacks West: Rockies, A's, Giants Mariners This isn't exactly perfect and is more of a rough draft. Manfred has already instituted a couple radical ideas in his time as commissioner. The pitch clock has been an unmitigated success, and feels like one of the best sports rule changes in a while. Opinions may very on baseball's decision to put a runner at second base in extra innings, make the bases bigger (and easier to steal), and expand the playoffs. At first blush, I don't like the look of realignment at all. It would be wrong to break up the Cubs and Cardinals from the same division, for example. Maybe the AL and NL don't really mean anything anymore now that everyone plays with the DH, but this change still feels too radical for my taste. Still, the pitch clock was such a good idea that it proves big changes can work in baseball. Change is likely coming to baseball again, like it or not. This really feels like Manfred's boldest plan yet.
New York Times
2 days ago
- Sport
- New York Times
Projecting what MLB realignment might look like with expansion on the horizon
From a broadcast booth in Williamsport, Pa., MLB commissioner Rob Manfred stoked the flames of expansion talk Sunday night by saying adding two teams would give the league 'an opportunity to geographically realign.' That's news when the commissioner says it publicly, but impending realignment has not been a closely guarded secret. Expanding to 32 clubs would necessitate some reshuffling, the most likely of which would be moving to eight divisions of four teams apiece. Advertisement When The Athletic's Jim Bowden redrew division lines in 2023, he imagined Manfred ditching the American and National League labels altogether and adopting Eastern and Western Conferences. In that version, the most geographically proximate teams became division rivals: Yankees and Mets, Dodgers and Angels, Cubs and White Sox, Royals and Cardinals, Marlins and Rays, Orioles and Nationals. But I think there's a simpler way to realign divisions without changing league names or disrupting traditional rivalries, like Cubs-Cardinals and Dodgers-Giants, in the name of shaving off a few airline miles. Before you pull up a map and start sketching your own divisions, understand that it's entirely normal to spiral on this topic. When re-aligning to eight four-team divisions in 2002, the NFL announced seven possible realignment scenarios. The one ultimately chosen made the league's footprint more sensible without moving many teams. Jacksonville, Tennessee, Houston, Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans and Tampa Bay were assigned to the newly created South divisions. (That Indianapolis also moved to the AFC South, because Miami refused, is a reminder that no realignment will make complete sense.) Only one team, the Seattle Seahawks, changed conferences. So that's the approach I used in realigning MLB's eight divisions. Keep the American and National leagues. Protect division rivalries. Tidy things up geographically while moving as few teams as necessary. Here's how it shook out. Baltimore Orioles Boston Red Sox New York Yankees Toronto Blue Jays Las Vegas Athletics Los Angeles Angels Salt Lake City or Portland*** Seattle Mariners Chicago White Sox Cleveland Guardians Detroit Tigers Minnesota Twins Colorado Rockies** Houston Astros* Kansas City Royals* Texas Rangers* *changed division **changed league ***expansion team Advertisement While removing the Tampa-based Rays from the AL East and the west-of-the-Mississippi Royals from the AL North (formerly Central), we leave those divisions otherwise intact. The East keeps the thunder of the big-market giants without all the flights to Florida. The North has four teams located in cities that make you think: Yeah, that's definitely north. The Astros and Rangers escape the AL West together to form the new AL South alongside the Royals and Colorado Rockies. The Rays could replace the Rockies if MLB preferred that no teams switch leagues, but I much prefer the look of this AL South with four teams in the middle of the country. While we're still making only educated guesses about expansion candidates, Salt Lake City or Portland would fit the AL West footprint, becoming the closest geographic partner to Seattle. This map would turn topsy-turvy if MLB chose Austin or Mexico City as expansion cities — or chose no expansion cities out west, and two in the east. But Utah and Oregon are the most likely landing spots at this point. New York Mets Philadelphia Phillies Pittsburgh Pirates* Washington Nationals Arizona Diamondbacks Los Angeles Dodgers San Diego Padres San Francisco Giants Chicago Cubs Cincinnati Reds Milwaukee Brewers St. Louis Cardinals Atlanta Braves* Miami Marlins* Nashville or Raleigh*** Tampa Bay Rays** *changed division **changed league ***expansion team Sure, we could have put the Angels in the NL West for peak geographic proximity, but why mess with what may be the most riveting division in baseball? It remains intact, except for the Rockies leaving the NL. Based on recent history, it's a shame that the NL East would lose the Atlanta Braves, but at least this option keeps the Phillies and Mets together while giving the new NL South a headliner in Atlanta. Meanwhile, the Pirates return to the East and reunite with the Mets, ExposNationals and their intra-commonwealth rivals, the Phillies. It's like 1993 all over again. Advertisement The South is … a concern. While fan support in the expansion market will surge in the initial honeymoon period, that could cool over time. And if that division also has Tampa Bay and Miami, two historically weak MLB markets, that's a potential problem — unless you're the Braves. If MLB kept the Florida teams in separate leagues, the Rockies or Royals would be options to fill out the NL South. But this way means less travel. Another factor to consider: For franchises such as Seattle and Atlanta that may soon have expansion teams encroaching on their territory, would they prefer not to share a division with those teams? At this point, it's unclear. We'll have a better idea of how those ownership groups will feel when MLB formally opens the expansion process in the coming years. All there is to do for now, as The Athletic's Jayson Stark wrote on this topic in 2018, is 'close your eyes and try to picture all of this. [T]his is no Rob Manfred pipe dream. This is going to happen. This isn't a matter of if. It's a matter of filling in the year — and then filling in all the brave-new-world details that are guaranteed to follow.' It was only after concluding this realignment exercise that I realized mine exactly matched one of Stark's from seven years ago. So it must be right. The only difference was when Stark guessed these changes would all come about. It's right there in his first sentence. Manfred's expansion dreams would come true, Stark wrote, in 'the year 2025.' Well, we're still waiting. And we're still spiraling. (Photo of Coors Field: Justin Edmonds / Getty Images) Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle
