MLB Realignment Lookback

[McCall]

True. It's not like fans in Philadelphia are going to drive to Pittsburgh to see AL games.

If anything, I would think an intrastate rivalry would be great for both clubs. That's why it boggles my mind that the Royals turned down a chance at all those games with the Cardinals.

I don't even get that. The state line thing is so overrated and just creates contrived rivalries ("the Battle for Ohio!"). OMG we have the same governer so we're rivals! I suppose every case is different, but I would imagine that in a lot of cases, the team from the other end of the state is just another city, as opposed to a true rival.

Exactly. The Phillies and Pirates have not been rivals for a long time. Even the Flyers and Penguins haven't always been great rivals (except for the present).

I still don't see why the Pirates aren't in the NL East (Just move the friggin Braves or Marlins to the Central)

Better yet, kill off the NL and AL Central and go back to 4 divisions:

AL East

Baltimore Orioles

Boston Red Sox

Cleveland Indians

Detroit Tigers

New York Yankees

Tampa Bay Rays

Toronto Blue Jays

AL West

Chicago White Sox

Houston Astros

Kansas City Royals

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

Minnesota Twins

Oakland Athletics

Seattle Mariners

Texas Rangers

NL East

Atlanta Braves

Cincinnati Reds

Miami Marlins

New York Mets

Philadelphia Phillies

Pittsburgh Pirates

Washington Nationals

NL West

Arizona Diamondbacks

Chicago Cubs

Colorado Rockies

Los Angeles Dodgers

Milwaukee Brewers

St. Louis Cardinals

San Diego Padres

San Francisco Giants

I actually don't mind this idea. Swap St. Louis and Cincinnati in the NL and make a few changes here and there in the AL (Indians trade spots with the Twins, you might as well leave Hohston in the west too) and that's almost exactly the breakdown during Spring Training. Split the Cactus League and Grapefruit League into AL and NL and there are your divisions. It would also give these teams another crack at one another exclusively during Spring Training.

Splitting teams simply to match Spring Training wouldn't make sense since there is far more traveling to do in the regular season in their actual locations than with their ST sites.

The whole reason for Houston switching leagues was to balance out all the divisions. Going back to four with 30 teams would basically make that switch completely pointless as you're back to an unbalanced alignment.

And absolutely no to same rules. The DH is not coming to the NL. It was repeatedly said last year that it never even comes up for discussion and all 15 NL owners would vote against it anyway.

[PhantomDreamer]

No, because that would undoubtedly mean the DH in both leagues and I don't want to see that.

Before or after 2020 that both leagues have the DH?

[waltere]

I rather like the way divisions are aligned now. At least having the three in each league. Along with the wild card, which I opposed but was totally wrong about, MLB has an almost-perfect postseason format.

*Had.

It was perfect until they brought in the stupid second wild card.

[BBTV]

Splitting teams simply to match Spring Training wouldn't make sense since there is far more traveling to do in the regular season in their actual locations than with their ST sites.

The whole reason for Houston switching leagues was to balance out all the divisions. Going back to four with 30 teams would basically make that switch completely pointless as you're back to an unbalanced alignment.

And absolutely no to same rules. The DH is not coming to the NL. It was repeatedly said last year that it never even comes up for discussion and all 15 NL owners would vote against it anyway.

I used to think that way, but I'm not so sure anymore.

First, I used to think that the owners cared about the integrity and tradition of the league. I no longer think that's the case.

Second, while I would think that owners would be against the DH because it would probably add to payroll because you'd be replacing a cheap bench guy with a potentially high-salaried slugger, I think that it's becoming clear that the NL is starting to have problems competing with the AL for free agents due to the DH. The NL teams simply can't offer the outrageously-long contracts that AL teams can, because the AL teams have the luxury of moving the guy to DH once he becomes too old and slow to play in the field. Also, a big slugger in the NL knows that he will probably have to sit out at least a few games during the year to rest (which would hurt his stats), while in the AL he can just DH on his off days.

I also think that it's a disadvantage in the WS, even though the AL vs NL winners don't necessarily back that up.

[Gothamite]

I rather like the way divisions are aligned now. At least having the three in each league. Along with the wild card, which I opposed but was totally wrong about, MLB has an almost-perfect postseason format.

*Had.

It was perfect until they brought in the stupid second wild card.

No. I like the second wild card. In part because it makes advancing that much harder, with an extra game, and in part because it gives us more meaningful games in the final weeks of the season without devaluing the division titles.

[Gothamite]

No, because that would undoubtedly mean the DH in both leagues and I don't want to see that.

Before or after 2020 that both leagues have the DH?

After. Way after.

There is real opposition from National League owners. You'd need a significant turnover in those owners, and MLB would have to make the DH as a condition of sale in each instance, as it did with the Astros' move to the AL.

Twenty years? Possible. But six? No chance.

[rams80]

Splitting teams simply to match Spring Training wouldn't make sense since there is far more traveling to do in the regular season in their actual locations than with their ST sites.

The whole reason for Houston switching leagues was to balance out all the divisions. Going back to four with 30 teams would basically make that switch completely pointless as you're back to an unbalanced alignment.

And absolutely no to same rules. The DH is not coming to the NL. It was repeatedly said last year that it never even comes up for discussion and all 15 NL owners would vote against it anyway.

I used to think that way, but I'm not so sure anymore.

First, I used to think that the owners cared about the integrity and tradition of the league. I no longer think that's the case.

Second, while I would think that owners would be against the DH because it would probably add to payroll because you'd be replacing a cheap bench guy with a potentially high-salaried slugger, I think that it's becoming clear that the NL is starting to have problems competing with the AL for free agents due to the DH. The NL teams simply can't offer the outrageously-long contracts that AL teams can, because the AL teams have the luxury of moving the guy to DH once he becomes too old and slow to play in the field. Also, a big slugger in the NL knows that he will probably have to sit out at least a few games during the year to rest (which would hurt his stats), while in the AL he can just DH on his off days.

I also think that it's a disadvantage in the WS, even though the AL vs NL winners don't necessarily back that up.

Missing out on free agents who are in their 30s is less of a disadvantage than you'd think. Look at the net result of the Angels' offseason shopping sprees-back-to-back 3rd place finishes. Hell, Texas missed the playoffs last year.

[McCall]

How many legit, full-time DHs are there even anymore? David Ortiz, Billy Butler and maybe Victor Martinez. And V-Mart just started as one last year due to injuries. Kendrys Morales would maybe be considered one if he ever finds a team. But otherwise, most AL teams have began to use it as a revolving door of resting older or injury-prone players without having to actually take them out of the line-up. The Orioles DH seemed to have been the 9th place hitter more often not last year.

And my comment on all NL owners being against it came from a couple of in-game chatter (yes, Cardinals games included), in which they've spoken to GMs and owners about the subject and they have said there is no push whatsoever to bring it to the Senior Circuit and that it would unanimously be voted against.

[FGM13]

There are pseudo-full time DHs like Adam Lind and Luke Scott who play in the field sometimes but are DHs more often than not.

[Gothamite]

With the advance of sports medicine (legit and otherwise) you don't have quite the same need to extend an older player's career with a couple years DHing.

[BBTV]

The signings obv haven't paid off for the angels, but would even a dumb NL team have been able to offer pujols 10 years (thefts what it was, right)?

Even if he blows towards the end, a signing team may get huge returns and win titles in the first half of the contract. I can't argue how much or how little the DH option for older guys is needed anymore, but as long as it's there, AL teams will have that advantage.

[PhantomDreamer]

How many legit, full-time DHs are there even anymore? David Ortiz, Billy Butler and maybe Victor Martinez. And V-Mart just started as one last year due to injuries. Kendrys Morales would maybe be considered one if he ever finds a team. But otherwise, most AL teams have began to use it as a revolving door of resting older or injury-prone players without having to actually take them out of the line-up. The Orioles DH seemed to have been the 9th place hitter more often not last year.

And my comment on all NL owners being against it came from a couple of in-game chatter (yes, Cardinals games included), in which they've spoken to GMs and owners about the subject and they have said there is no push whatsoever to bring it to the Senior Circuit and that it would unanimously be voted against.

Morales is a DH. He physically can't play 1B 2 or 3 days in a row before his back or legs stiffen up.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I rather like the way divisions are aligned now. At least having the three in each league. Along with the wild card, which I opposed but was totally wrong about, MLB has an almost-perfect postseason format.

*Had.

It was perfect until they brought in the stupid second wild card.

No. I like the second wild card. In part because it makes advancing that much harder, with an extra game, and in part because it gives us more meaningful games in the final weeks of the season without devaluing the division titles.

Agreed. I love the postseason setup now. Having the wild card game be one and done is perfect and makes the division more important and an advantage.

[McCall]

The signings obv haven't paid off for the angels, but would even a dumb NL team have been able to offer pujols 10 years (thefts what it was, right)?

Even if he blows towards the end, a signing team may get huge returns and win titles in the first half of the contract. I can't argue how much or how little the DH option for older guys is needed anymore, but as long as it's there, AL teams will have that advantage.

Yes that's why the NL has won 4 of the last 6 World Series including 3 in a row before last year, in addition to the 3 consecutive ASG won before last year as well. I wouldn't really say one season (2013) means a distinct and unbeatable advantage.

[JackieMoon]

The MLB was a lot better when it had only four divisions. Although some of the alignments didn't make sense (Cincinnati and Atlanta in the NL West, Chicago and St. Louis in the NL East). Games had a lot more meaning back then, and rivals were a lot bigger than they are now. They had it right when Colorado and Florida joined up. Then for some reason, the next season they wanted to look more like the NFL.

In my opinion, the only of the Major 4 that should have went above 28 is the NFL.

[TheOldRoman]

In my opinion, the only of the Major 4 that should have went above 28 is the NFL.

Maybe, but obviously we aren't going back to that. I am blindly hopeful that Montreal can get (and support) an Expos reboot. That leaves one more market that baseball needs to find. I don't know what city would be able to build up enough and distinguish themselves to warrant a baseball team. But I REALLY hope that somehow, baseball can place two teams in viable markets to get to 32 teams within the next 15-20 years. There was absolutely no point in putting 15 teams in each league, and year-round interleague play is not a good thing. Interleague play was tolerable when it was just six series in June and July, but it happening every day of the season sucks. Unfortunately, it's probably a precursor to either eliminating the leagues altogether or bastardizing them to the point where they have no significance at all. It's a shame, too, because a big part of baseball is its tradition.

[Gothamite]

Agreed completely.

Although it could be argued that the NFL has also over-expanded.

[Gold Pinstripes]

Because the NL Central is (now) a pretty geographically-contained division. Florida? No thanks.

Maybe Pennsylvania isn't the same, but it doesn't surprise me when cities compete for influence within a state. I do know that Cleveland and Cincinnati have a natural rivalry just as cities (or at least they used to), and there's LA and SF in California. Does Houston ever chafe at the attention Dallas gets?

Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are nothing alike, geographically, economically, even culturally. They simply aren't rivals (at least out here - I know the thought of Philadelphia gets some blood boiling out west - probably a "big brother" kind of thing) due to the size (Philadelphia is more rivals with Boston, NY, NJ, DC both in sports, and business wise when it comes to luring companies to move etc). (No, I'm not delusional and saying it's in the same category as NY, but then again nothing really is... though the NY Times called it the 6th burrough due to the number of commuters both ways.) Most people in Pittsburgh will at some point in their lives have to come to Philadelphia, while most people in Philadelphia would never think of Pittsburgh if not for their sports teams. None of that is meant to sound derogatory (even though I know it does), it's just fact. .

Maybe Ohio is different since their geographically both kinda in the same region (I know they are in different parts of the state, but not like PA where one city is clearly on the coast and part of the I95 corridor while the other is closer to the Ohio / Great Lakes region) and I guess relatively same size.

I realize that it's not fair to compare Pittsburgh to Buffalo or Phila to NYC, but do Rangers fans get pumped up for the matchups with Buffalo? My guess would be only if the two teams are competing for a playoff spot or actually in the playoffs against each other, and even then, they're just "opponents".

I agree with much of what you've said, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are very different. But it's this difference which fans and residents of the area appreciate. I've known a ton of Pittsburgh area fans, and I've never, ever, heard a word of envy about Philadelphia. They know that area is much larger, and has advantages and disadvantages(just like Pittsburgh has). In fact, even when a Pittsburgh team has played a New York or Los Angeles, I don't hear any envy or "big brother" approach. If Pittsburgh didn't have the level of sports success it has, I could see the situation developing, but it just hasn't happened.

Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were fierce rivals in baseball from the mid 70s to early 80s, but the NFL rivalry hasn't developed, partially because the Eagles are in a different conference. The NHL rivalry has been strong fairly consistently since the late 1980s, but that's it for pro sports. And there's been nothing significant in terms of college sports, either.

[The_Admiral]

I am blindly hopeful that Montreal can get (and support) an Expos reboot. That leaves one more market that baseball needs to find. I don't know what city would be able to build up enough and distinguish themselves to warrant a baseball team. But I REALLY hope that somehow, baseball can place two teams in viable markets to get to 32 teams within the next 15-20 years.

Portland and San Antonio would be my choices, kicking Houston back to the National League, but I don't know where the minor leagues would expand to accommodate them.

[PhantomDreamer]

I am blindly hopeful that Montreal can get (and support) an Expos reboot. That leaves one more market that baseball needs to find. I don't know what city would be able to build up enough and distinguish themselves to warrant a baseball team. But I REALLY hope that somehow, baseball can place two teams in viable markets to get to 32 teams within the next 15-20 years.

Portland and San Antonio would be my choices, kicking Houston back to the National League, but I don't know where the minor leagues would expand to accommodate them.

Portland and San Antonio aren't getting big league teams anytime soon.