Baseball Expansion discussion, 2025 edition

[Motor City Sonics]

7 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

I would think Nashville and N Carolina are the two most logical places.

With Salt Lake City not far behind.

I wonder if the Albuquerque area would support a team.  I have never been to New Mexico so I am not sure what it is even like.

I lived in ABQ for a year.   Granted, it was in the 90s, but I don't think it's big enough for MLB.  

 

4 hours ago, RedRamage said:

I think you'd need an indoor stadium there too, which will be more expensive. When three of months of the season average in triple digits you're not gonna get a lot of fans hanging out outdoors.

Night games.  No rain delays in the Summer and Summer nights in Vegas are more comfortable than Summer nights here.   

[CMRivdogs]

The Athletic has an article on realignment following the commissioner's interview during the Little League World Series this past weekend.  Their writers have come up with a couple of plausible  scenarios.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6560635/2025/08/19/mlb-expansion-realignment-leagues-projection/?source=athletic_pulsenewsletter&campaign=14564600&userId=213687

One would be two leagues with four divisions 

AL East

Baltimore, Boston, NY Yankees, Toronto

AL West

Las Vegas, LA Angels, Expansion (Salt Lake or Portland) Seattle

AL North

White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota

AL South

Colorado, Houston,  Kansas City, Texas ( The Rockies change leagues)

NL East

Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

NL West

Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco

NL North

Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St Louis

NL South

Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, Expansion (Nashville, North Carolina) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chasfh]

If I'm reading between the lines of Manfred's comments correctly, I'm thinking he wants the whole American/National League distinction to go away completely and teams to be placed in convenient geographically-driven divisions within convenient geographically-driven conferences and leagues, which would help northeast and Midwest teams and hurt teams out west. There will be a fight about that, I assume, with western teams resenting northeast teams getting cushy travel situations such as NYY, NYM, BOS, and PHI all in the same four-team division.

What they should probably do is create divisions that has the most equitable travel arrangement possible for all teams. It will never be even steven, unless they move Seattle, Washington to another part of the country. But they could put, say, NYY and TBR in the same division and have them travel to each other more as division rivals.

If Manfred were to get his way, though, and geography with a dash of division rivalry wins out, it could look something like this:

League 1 (East)

Conference A
    Division 1: NYY, NYM, BOS, PHI
    Division 2: WAS, BAL, PIT, TOR
Conference B
    Division 3: MIA, TBR, ATL, Nashville
    Division 4: DET, CLE, CIN, CHW

League 2 (West)

Conference C
    Division 5: CHC, MIL, MIN, STL
    Division 6: HOU, TEX, COL, KCR
Conference D
    Division 7: Vegas, ARI, LAA, Salt Lake
    Division 8: LAD, SFG, SDP, SEA

This is what it would look like on a map:

Yes, this would suck for west coast teams, especially Seattle, but just about any realignment in the wake of expansion will suck for west coast teams, especially Seattle. As things stand, it already does suck for west coast teams, especially Seattle, right now. (And also for Miami, although they've managed to win a couple rings down there anyway.)

However, one of the things this solution would solve is the time zone issues where Texas and Houston now have to play so many more 9pm Pacific coast games within their division than other Central teams do, which, as a lawyer chasing the money, Manfred definitely has a hard-on to fix. In this solution, no divisional rival is  more than one time zone away.

I am doubtful they will go to an eight-team divisional setup, because no owner wants to have to try to sell an eighth- (or seventh- or even sixth-) place team to their target market in August and September.

The only certain thing I would bet money on is that they will find a way to reduce the season to exactly 154 games, even if it results in a schedule that's unbalanced even within one's own division. The players desperately want it; the owners will accept it in exchange for a richer playoff schedule; and the fans will think it's way super old school cool. Win-win-win.

Edited Tuesday at 09:09 PM by chasfh

[Tiger337]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

If I'm reading between the lines of Manfred's comments correctly, I'm thinking he wants the whole American/National League distinction to go away completely and teams to be placed in convenient geographically-driven divisions within convenient geographically-driven conferences and leagues, which would help northeast and Midwest teams and hurt teams out west. There will be a fight about that, I assume, with western teams resenting northeast teams getting cushy travel situations such as NYY, NYM, BOS, and PHI all in the same four-team division.

What they should probably do is create divisions that has the most equitable travel arrangement possible for all teams. It will never be even steven, unless they move Seattle, Washington to another part of the country. But they could put, say, NYY and TBR in the same division and have them travel to each other more as division rivals.

If Manfred were to get his way, though, and geography with a dash of division rivalry wins out, it could look something like this:

League 1 (East)

Conference A
    Division 1: NYY, NYM, BOS, PHI
    Division 2: WAS, BAL, PIT, TOR
Conference B
    Division 3: MIA, TBR, ATL, Nashville
    Division 4: DET, CLE, CIN, CHW

League 2 (West)

Conference C
    Division 5: CHC, MIL, MIN, STL
    Division 6: HOU, TEX, COL, KCR
Conference D
    Division 7: Vegas, ARI, LAA, Salt Lake
    Division 8: LAD, SFG, SDP, SEA

This is what it would look like on a map:

Yes, this would suck for west coast teams, especially Seattle, but just about any realignment in the wake of expansion will suck for west coast teams, especially Seattle. As things stand, it already does suck for west coast teams, especially Seattle, right now. (And also for Miami, although they've managed to win a couple rings down there anyway.)

However, one of the things this solution would solve is the time zone issues where Texas and Houston now have to play so many more 9pm Pacific coast games within their division than other Central teams do, which, as a lawyer chasing the money, Manfred definitely has a hard-on to fix. In this solution, no divisional rival is  more than one time zone away.

I am doubtful they will go to an eight-team divisional setup, because no owner wants to have to try to sell an eighth- (or seventh- or even sixth-) place team to their target market in August and September.

The only certain thing I would bet money on is that they will find a way to reduce the season to exactly 154 games, even if it results in a schedule that's unbalanced even within one's own division. The players desperately want it; the owners will accept it in exchange for a richer playoff schedule; and the fans will think it's way super old school cool. Win-win-win.

Even with Manfred's lack of appreciation of MLB history, I don't think the realignment will be that drastic.  Houston fans went ape**** when they were moved to the American League.  I can't see them blowing it all up...then again I don't want to underestimate Manfred's shallowness.  

[IdahoBert]

6 hours ago, chasfh said:

The only certain thing I would bet money on is that they will find a way to reduce the season to exactly 154 games, even if it results in a schedule that's unbalanced even within one's own division. The players desperately want it; the owners will accept it in exchange for a richer playoff schedule; and the fans will think it's way super old school cool. Win-win-win.

I think 154 games is a rational thing for a variety of reasons. But I’m 73 years old and I am only familiar with a 162 games schedule from when I started astutely following box scores in 1961. I’m not sure how much nostalgia there is for a 154 games other than in nursing homes.

I think the health and well-being of players would improve with a 154 games schedule. I always breathe a sigh of relief when the Tigers have a day off just because the bullpen gets a rest.

I can use the day off too, although my skin is actually crawling for a game to follow on off days because I’m an addict.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, IdahoBert said:

I think 154 games is a rational thing for a variety of reasons. But I’m 73 years old and I am only familiar with a 162 games schedule from when I started astutely following box scores in 1961. I’m not sure how much nostalgia there is for a 154 games other than in nursing homes.

 

I'm not sure Manfred even knows that there used to be 154-game seasons.  

[IdahoBert]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I'm not sure Manfred even knows that there used to be 154-game seasons.  

People who rise to the top of organizations are frequently aggressive operators, and not “men of the cloth” with a love for the textures and history of the of the institutions they have conquered. 

[tiger2022]

No way will they ever cut games off the schedule.  They aren't going to lose the revenue from those games.  Plus I'm sure TV contracts probably require so many dates. 

I cant believe there would be a realignment like that.  Having Boston, both NY teams, and Philly in same division would be disastrous.  The league loves it when all those teams are in the playoffs and this would assure probably 2 of those teams would not make it.

Manfred doesnt really make any decisions.  The owners make the decisions and they arent going to radically change the nl/al alignment and I cant believe they would cut 4 games off the schedule. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:25 AM by tiger2022

[tiger2022]

Cut 4 home games off the schedule

Edited Wednesday at 10:09 AM by tiger2022

[casimir]

I used to doubt they would reduce the length of the regular season schedule.  Now I'm not as convinced.  They won't lose revenue, they'll find a way to make the $hrinkflation model work for them.

[casimir]

14 hours ago, chasfh said:

 

You put the White Sox in north side and the Cubs on the south side?  Fail.

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

I think 154 games is a rational thing for a variety of reasons. But I’m 73 years old and I am only familiar with a 162 games schedule from when I started astutely following box scores in 1961. I’m not sure how much nostalgia there is for a 154 games other than in nursing homes.

I think the health and well-being of players would improve with a 154 games schedule. I always breathe a sigh of relief when the Tigers have a day off just because the bullpen gets a rest.

I can use the day off too, although my skin is actually crawling for a game to follow on off days because I’m an addict.

I think it's more a nostalgia for a romanticized past than a nostalgia for lived experience. None of the people agitating for the change to exactly 154 games—not 156, not 152, but 154—lived through the 154-game season, of which the last was the 1961 NL.

But players want more in-season days off, and who can blame them? The push-pull between Players and Baseball winter after next might be whether to re-express those additional days as days off for players, versus more days for playoffs.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, casimir said:

You put the White Sox in north side and the Cubs on the south side?  Fail.

Not my map.

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

No way will they ever cut games off the schedule.  They aren't going to lose the revenue from those games.  Plus I'm sure TV contracts probably require so many dates. 

I cant believe there would be a realignment like that.  Having Boston, both NY teams, and Philly in same division would be disastrous.  The league loves it when all those teams are in the playoffs and this would assure probably 2 of those teams would not make it.

Manfred doesnt really make any decisions.  The owners make the decisions and they arent going to radically change the nl/al alignment and I cant believe they would cut 4 games off the schedule. 

I think there will be a negotiated settlement between Baseball and Players on reduction of regular season games versus increase in playoff games.

You make a good point about this realignment's effect on playoffs, though. Baseball would prefer both New York teams and Boston (as well as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the Cubs) to be in the playoffs every season. These are the teams that reliably generate the most national interest, and thus revenue.

Manfred and the owners speak from one position. He works for them, so they work together, and so if Manfred is saying this stuff publicly, that means he and the owners have already agreed on it privately. As a lawyer, he is careful with his proclamations and would never say anything that would catch his constituents unawares. And say what you want about Manfred, but he is nothing if not careful about what he says publicly as it relates to his owners' wishes.

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, casimir said:

I used to doubt they would reduce the length of the regular season schedule.  Now I'm not as convinced.  They won't lose revenue, they'll find a way to make the $hrinkflation model work for them.

Baseball's antitrust exemption explicitly allows them as an industry to willfully reduce output, even if most of the owners do not want that.

[CMRivdogs]

Jason Stark has a new article in The Athletic on expansion possibilities. One takeaway 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6566172/2025/08/21/mlb-expansion-realignment-162-game-schedule/?campaign=14564710&source=athletic_thewindup_newsletter&userId=213687

Quote

One club official we spoke with this week casually referred to baseball’s current 162-game slog as “an endangered species.” Another longtime club executive, also granted anonymity so he could speak freely, was even more emphatic.

“Expansion,” he said, “means the end of 162.”

Quote

So if there are 32 teams, it seems more likely that the season will last 156 games — or possibly 154 — than 162. Math is a factor. History is a factor. Health is a factor. Money is a factor.

Quote

12 games apiece versus the other three teams inside the division. That’s 36 games.

Six games apiece versus the other 12 teams in your league. That’s 72 games.

Are you adding along at home? No need. That gets us to 108 games. Where do the last 48 games come from?

Three games apiece versus the 16 teams in the other league. Now we’re at 156. Bingo.

There is one other reason that 156 games would work. There’s a basic scheduling principle to keep in mind.

The ideal schedule is arguably two series a week for 26 weeks, so 52 total. And if there are 32 teams, that creates perfect 156-game schedule math, of 52 times three. (In other words, that’s two three-game series a week.)

 

[papalawrence]

My calculations confirm via chisanbop mathematics 

[gehringer_2]

6 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Jason Stark has a new article in The Athletic on expansion possibilities. One takeaway 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6566172/2025/08/21/mlb-expansion-realignment-162-game-schedule/?campaign=14564710&source=athletic_thewindup_newsletter&userId=213687

 

Correct. The exact number of games should follow from making the most rational schedule - that is if any assumptions of rationality can be taken with Manfred's regime.

[Tiger337]

11 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Correct. The exact number of games should follow from making the most rational schedule - that is if any assumptions of rationality can be taken with Manfred's regime.

We all know the exact number of games will be determined by the maximum profit making level which the owners can achieve in their negotiations with players.  Logic will play very little role.  If logic mattered, they would not have four team divisions.

Edited Thursday at 08:30 PM by Tiger337

[monkeytargets39]

Nobody ever mentions Indianapolis as an expansion spot.  
 

They already have an NFL and NBA franchise, along with the worlds most recognizable race track and the Big Ten Championship game.  
 

They’re a fairly well tested market as far as supporting teams and the surrounding infrastructure.  

[RedRamage]

12 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Nobody ever mentions Indianapolis as an expansion spot.  
 

They already have an NFL and NBA franchise, along with the worlds most recognizable race track and the Big Ten Championship game.  
 

They’re a fairly well tested market as far as supporting teams and the surrounding infrastructure.  

I think the issue with Indy is that close by neighbor's would object. Cubs and White Sox are < 200 miles away. Cardinals are 250, and Cincinnati is just 120. Even Detroit and Cleveland (~300 miles) aren't too far away. 

Now personally... I won't mind it too much. Add Indy as an NL team, move the Brewers back to the AL, then we can have the AL Central North of Chicago, Milwaukee, Minnesota, and Detroit. That way I can hate on the same cities in baseball that I hate in football.

But again I think there's gonna be too many neighbors complaining about losing fans, especially when there are other viable options out there.

[CMRivdogs]

Is the ESPN/MLB.TV deal going to mess up the sweet deal I have with T-Mobile?

[lordstanley]

1 hour ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Nobody ever mentions Indianapolis as an expansion spot.  
 

They already have an NFL and NBA franchise, along with the worlds most recognizable race track and the Big Ten Championship game.  
 

They’re a fairly well tested market as far as supporting teams and the surrounding infrastructure.  

And within driving distance of several markets that might travel for road games.

[Tiger337]

13 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Is the ESPN/MLB.TV deal going to mess up the sweet deal I have with T-Mobile?

 

I don't know about t-mobile, but it sounds like you would have to purchase both mlb.tv and ESPN in order to watch the games.  In other words, you'd have to pay more.  That's how I read it anyway.  

[CMRivdogs]

15 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

 

I don't know about t-mobile, but it sounds like you would have to purchase both mlb.tv and ESPN in order to watch the games.  In other words, you'd have to pay more.  That's how I read it anyway.  

First of all, I didn't mean to place this question in the expansion thread. 
Anyway, the past three seasons at least T-Mobile has offered customers free MLB.TV if the sign up at the beginning of the season. They make the offer during the first week of the season usually.

That means free Tiger baseball since I'm outside the market. Includes minor league games as well. I am blacked out from the two "in market" teams. It's a real sweet deal. I'd hate to lose it

Edited Thursday at 10:18 PM by CMRivdogs