Seeing reports that MLB is at least open to expansion after the stadium issues in Oakland and Tampa Bay are resolved I took a stab at what 8 four team divisions would look like presuming the addition of Montreal and Mexico City. These cities were picked based on the momentum Montreal has had and the desire of MLB to go international. There is also a desire to keep divisions in a single time zone as much as possible. Other cities like Austin / San Antonio or Charlotte or Nashville could make a case as well
--AL East
Boston
New York Yankees
Baltimore
Tampa Bay
--AL North
Minnesota
Detroit
Cleveland
Toronto
--AL Central
Chicago White Sox
Kansas City
Texas
Houston
--AL West
Seattle
Oakland
LA Angels
Mexico City

--NL South
Philadelphia
Washington
Atlanta
Miami
--NL East
Montreal
NY Mets
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
--NL Central
Milwaukee
Chicago Cubs
St Louis
Colorado
--NL West
San Francisco
LA Dodgers
San Diego
Arizona

Pretty sure no one would object to me saying this belongs in the MLB realignment thread, right?

Scheduling formula concept
3 teams in division 20 games for total of 60
12 teams in league 7 games for total of 84
Rotating Interleague division 4 teams for 3 games for total of 12
6 games vs interleague rival

Total = 162 games

Getting the Texas teams out of the "West" divisions is a must, when MLB next realigns in any way. So that's a good start. Also, I don't think MLB is going to put a franchise in Mexico, but if they did... Mexico City is in the central time zone. You would want to move them into a division with CT teams - maybe switch Colorado and Mexico City in your hypothetical.

The biggest obstacle to MLB expanding is that there are no unoccupied can't-miss markets. No doubt the owners of the A's and Rays, among other teams, have looked into every single one of those possibilities over the last 5-10 years. The A's have a lousy stadium situation but have still concluded that holding out hope for an eventual ballpark in the Bay Area will be more profitable in the long term than any of the available alternatives.

What are the largest U.S. TV markets that are more than 100 miles away from an existing MLB franchise? The top 18 markets all have at least one MLB franchise. #19 and 20 (Orlando and Sacramento) are not expansion markets because they are within 100 miles of existing franchises. That leaves only 4 markets that have at least 1 million TV homes and are more than 100 miles from an existing franchise:

Charlotte - 1.17 million TV homes - probably the best of this lot, but still marginal compared to the most prosperous MLB franchises.

Portland - 1.14 million TV homes, and Raleigh-Durham - 1.13 million TV homes - To sell season tickets and tickets to weeknight games, there has to be a reasonably concentrated, high-population urban center. Portland and Raleigh are iffy in that regard.

Indianapolis - 1.07 million TV homes - Indy is just barely more than 100 miles from Cincinnati. The Reds won't permit an MLB team in Indy. The Chicago teams might also object or demand compensation for a new team moving within 200 miles of Chicago.

I heard the commish of the MLB on the radio awhile back and he like a mexico team for expansion to build a path to latin america. Montreal Expos should come back for team 32. Tampa bay and oakland stadium issues probably got a lot of work left. Also, new jersey probably would be the best spot but the yankees and mets would go ape.

The issues in Oakland and Tampa/St. Pete. should underscore why there shouldn't be expansion but instead there should be contraction. Pro sports would be way better if the talent pool was smaller. If it's pro sports, the talent should be top notch, exploding off the field, I could watch high school sports if I wanted to see average or above average.

Not that it will happen but as much as I promote having multiple teams in major markets, the duplicates should be scrapped and teams that can barely stay afloat should go away. All the leagues would be better with 16-22 teams. Look at the NFL...are there even 20 good starting QB's that, barring injury or old age, don't have to be replaced within 5 years? How many showstoppers in the NBA at any given time? Maybe 10-15. Look at the Sixers.

Leave the average players to the minors and college sports, every metro with 2 million people doesn't need a pro team other than to just blow up the population's collective heads and status.

And Wedge, as for Indy, the Pacers don't even turn a profit. Indy is not getting an MLB team any time soon.

The "duplicates" are profitable, and all of the franchises are worth too much money to be bought and contracted. When Bud Selig wanted to contract the Twins (which, not coincidentally, would have helped the Brewers), they were talking about paying around $200 million to buy the team and fold it. Forbes' guesstimate of the Twins' current value is almost $900 million.

Miami is the weakest franchise, by overall value, because they have a brand-new ballpark and still have the 29th highest value out of 30. The value of the A's, Rays, and Royals would each increase a few hundred million with a new ballpark (as the Twins' value did), but there's no hope for a big bump in the Marlins' franchise value.

Yeah, I'm speaking strictly in theory here. I know teams aren't being contracted and I usually advocate duplicate teams in major markets. The talent level would be higher. It's not unheard of for major cities to have minor league teams.

One way or another, there certainly doesn't need to be more teams. IDK, maybe instead of contraction, some teams can be pushed to the minors, especially those with stadium issues.

North Carolina should have a MLB team if we already have NHL, NBA, and MLB. The team would either be in Charlotte or RDU/Triangle area. I think the either/or part would be due if a MLS team becomes available as well because it seems like RDU would be more for MLS.

I don't dislike that idea of the Expos/Montreal making a come back.

I just don't see it with North Carolina. The TV market overall is there (though it's diehard Braves mostly) but there's not a single individual market that could support a team imo.

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/which...ion-022816

This was the article I saw, talks Vancouver as well

Honestly, I think adding Charlotte and Mexico City makes the most sense...

NL East:
Pittsburgh
NY Mets
Philly
Cincinnati

NL South
Washington
Florida
Atlanta
Charlotte

That makes soooo much more sense than the NL East & NL South that was proposed in the OP.

I likee the idea of adding Montreal and Charlotte, and re-aligning into 8 team divisions based on time zones.

West
SD, LAA, LAD, SF, Oak, Sea, Ariz, Den

Central
Tex, Hou, KC, STL, Minn, Mil, ChC, ChWS

American East
NYY, Bos, Balt, Tor, Cle, Det, Tam, Charlotte

National East
NYM, Philly, Wash, Pitt, Cincy, Atl, Mia, Montreal

No more National and American Leagues. Play each team in your division 12 times. Play 22 of the other teams 3 times each. Play 2 of the other teams 6 times each.

8 teams make the playoffs. 4 division winners plus 4 wild cards.

Based on these two things happening, and then expanding with two more teams:
1. The A's remain in Oakland, or if they do move, they stay on the West Coast (San Jose, Portland, Las Vegas, Vancouver, etc)
2. The Rays remain in Florida (remaining in Tampa or move to Orlando, etc) or relocate to an available 'Expansion 1' area.

Expansion 1: Nashville, Charlotte, or Virginia Beach/Norfolk area
Expansion 2: Austin, San Antonio, or Oklahoma City (Possible Nashville if still available, possible long shot of Mexico City or Monterrey could also work)

Realignment into 4 team divisions requires moving two teams between the leagues for best geographical divisions.

NL:
East: New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
North (Old Central): Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St Louis
South: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa Bay, Expansion 1
West: Colorado, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco

AL:
East: Baltimore, Boston, New York, Toronto
North (Old Central): Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota
South: Houston, Kansas City, Texas, Expansion 2
West: Arizona, Los Angeles of Anaheim, Oakland, Seattle

Teams in Italics moved divisions, teams in Bold moved leagues

I moved Tampa to the new NL South as the Marlins and Braves are far closer than any team in the AL.
I had to move a current NL West team to the AL to balance, I chose Arizona as they were originally supposed to be an AL franchise (AL was supposed to expand by two, instead only remained even with new addition of Tampa Bay but with Milwaukee moving to NL)

I'd love to see baseball return to Montreal, but the above scenario is much more fan friendly with the geographic divisions. I just couldn't fit Montreal in, as there are so many teams in the North compared to the South and West.

And I say, for the sake of the quality of play, contract and demote teams. I realize most of the franchises I'm looking to demote are very historic, which is why i'm hoping to preserve them. Demote/contract 10-12 of these teams:

Chicago White Sox= Triple A team on the West Side
Minnesota Twins= Triple A team or perhaps moved into that league with the St. Paul Saints
Cleveland Indians= Triple A team
Cincinnati Reds= ditto
Milwaukee Brewers= ditto
Tampa Bay Rays=Contract or minor league, perhaps to the Florida League, their franchise doesn't seem to be working out.
Florida Marlins= See above
Kansas City Royals=Yes, even the defending champs and 2 time champs of the AL down to Triple A
Houston Astros=I'll volunteer them for Triple A so as not to appear to be a homer
Washington Nationals=New fanbase and redundant in their market. Triple A
Colorado Rockies=Of course if i'm not being a homer, baseball wasn't meant to be played at such a high altitude. Triple A
Arizona Diamondbacks=Another option
Oakland A's=With no stadium and small attentive market, why not?

Perhaps, since it's a different day and age, maybe the MLB can move away from a closed franchise system and go toward a promotion and relegation system. Unlike the other major sports, the infrastructure is already there. That way those teams could move back to the majors. The good this does is that it improves the quality of play and doesn't eradicate numerous historic franchises. Plus, the minors have some franchises that have been been around for decades and are historic in their own right. It'd be cool to see one make the World Series.

We'll never have promotion/relegation in U.S. pro sports, even in soccer, because of the astronomical value of the major league franchises.

There is an outside possibility of someday restructuring MLS for it, because of the way ownership is structured in that league, but realistically even if it was limited pro/rel as in Liga MX (one team relegated each year, based on the aggregate of the last three years' of results), with nine-figure franchise values there is probably too much money at stake for U.S. franchise owners to tolerate any risk of relegation.

No to the Expos.

My choices:

New Orleans Cotton

Charlotte Continentals

(03-08-2016 11:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  We'll never have promotion/relegation in U.S. pro sports, even in soccer, because of the astronomical value of the major league franchises.

There is an outside possibility of someday restructuring MLS for it, because of the way ownership is structured in that league, but realistically even if it was limited pro/rel as in Liga MX (one team relegated each year, based on the aggregate of the last three years' of results), with nine-figure franchise values there is probably too much money at stake for U.S. franchise owners to tolerate any risk of relegation.

Yeah, I'm not realistically suggesting it, I know the odds are against it but if anything pro sports needs to decrease teams, not expand. Do that and the quality of play skyrockets. And maybe some MLB teams' revenues would decrease substantially if revenue sharing went away and franchises operated more on the open market instead of with each other. Salaries may also go down if players know they have fewer options.

(03-04-2016 03:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Miami is the weakest franchise, by overall value, because they have a brand-new ballpark and still have the 29th highest value out of 30. The value of the A's, Rays, and Royals would each increase a few hundred million with a new ballpark (as the Twins' value did), but there's no hope for a big bump in the Marlins' franchise value.

The Royals basically have a new ballpark. Theirs was remodeled in 2010. The cost doesn't stand out as mind popping like you see at other stadiums, but that was because they built theirs right the first time, and it didn't cost as much to bring to modern standards.

I wonder if the Rays would do better in Orlando? I don't know one or the other, just wonder.

I think the A's situation will work itself out if/when the Raiders move.

I don't really think expansion is needed, but if it happens I do think Mexico City would bring the most value to the league, even if the team itself is not a major box office hit right away. No other city jumps out as a major coup, so any number of the other cities listed might work. But Mexico City has an upside no other US city, currently without a team in the region, can offer.