C's

You can say whatever you want about it. Don't let me stop you. But going back and forth about street level logistics in a make-believe realignment that will never, ever happen is rather petty. At least the Braves/Reds debate is legit. What exactly is the purpose of this thread? Is every realignment idea posted here forwarded to the appropriate commissioner's office at the end of each business day? If so, sorry to waste their time and sully the website's name with my not 100% feasible make-believe layout. Tell me where your confessional is so I can repent. MOD EDIT So what? The Braves, as an NL franchise, have over ten more years of history than the Reds. If you're going to take history into account when deciding which NL team should switch leagues, then the Braves are the last franchise you give the boot to.

The Braves franchise has been an NL franchise since 1876. It has the most seasons played of any team in the sport. Series titles measures success, not history. I don't care about the reasons Cincy doesn't date back to 1876. The fact is, the Braves have more history than the Reds. You lose. What can I say, I'm a bit of an elitist when it comes to this stuff. In NBA and MLB I think the talent's spread a little thin, especially in the NBA. A few teams could be trimmed from each sport. I think the NFL's fine as is. I don't follow hockey so I can't comment on that. With regard to backing up one's logic: The Red Sox - a franchise that has called the City of Boston home for 113 seasons and has long since established itself as a civic institution - couldn't get local political leaders to sign-off on allowing team ownership to build a new ballpark in the Fenway neighborhood that the "Olde Towne Team" has been ensconced in since 1912, let alone construct such a facility on the municipality's extremely valuable waterfront property. That being the case, what logically indicates to you that a relocated Miami Marlins club would succeed in convincing city fathers where the much-beloved Red Sox failed? Because it's my make-believe realignment and I said so?

Reds have been part of the NL since 1890 Braves have been part of the NL since 1876 and have the most seasons played of any team in the majors Feel free to back up your logic. MOD EDIT

Pretty much all the eastern NL teams have history. The Phillies, Braves and Cubs have more history than the Reds, you can't split the Cubs and Cards, you need an NL team in New York for the sake of appealing, easily marketable matchups with the other cities. Someone had to go. I mean I guess you could resurrect the old NL West that included the Reds and Braves, but come on. What's wrong with the two LA teams grouped together? I like the idea of natural interleague rivalries but it doesn't do a whole lot to create real rivalries or appealing matchups, it's really just novelty. Dodgers/Angels isn't much of a rivalry as is, but if you put the two of them in the same league and division and let them keep trying to outspend each other each winter, then it could get interesting quickly, especially if one steals a key free agent from the other. They each have well-established fanbases, neither one's going to jump ship for the other. I don't see the issue.

Bored. 24 team MLB. AL EAST Boston Red Sox New York Yankees Toronto Blue Jays Montreal Expos (TB Rays, or somebody else, or expansion after contraction, whatever) Philadelphia Athletics (Oakland A's, obv) Washington Nationals AL WEST Texas Rangers Chicago White Sox Minnesota Twins Detroit Tigers Cincinnati Reds Pittsburgh Pirates NL EAST Boston Marlins (or whatever you want to call them) New York Mets Philadelphia Phillies Atlanta Braves Chicago Cubs St. Louis Cardinals NL WEST Los Angeles Dodgers San Francisco Giants Anaheim Angels San Diego Padres Seattle Mariners Colorado Rockies PLAYOFFS LDS Each division winner vs. the division runner up, division leader gets home field advantage, 5 game series. LCS Self-explanatory, unchanged World Series Self-explanatory, unchanged --------------------------------------- Sort of a mish-mash of geographical realignment and the traditional league-based alignment. More league shuffling than the traditionalists would like, but I think it's cleaner to have all the west coast teams stacked in one division. That way nobody has to make the two time zone jump three times a season for in-division games. Most of the central teams are stacked in the AL West, so they don't have to do a ridiculous amount of travel for in-division series either. -Interleague play becomes a little difficult. The northeast is a wet dream of natural rivalries, but every city west of Chicago has had that taken away. Might as well scrap it. 24 games (8 3-game series) per team in your division x 5 other teams = 120 games, leaving 42 (which is divisible by 6) for out of division games. Overkill on the in-division stuff, maybe? -Yep, Boston and Philly get additional teams. The Boston NL team gets a shiny new stadium on the ocean that allows splash homers into the water, like AT&T and that proposed Rays ballpark from a while back. Could've cut the A's, but baseball would be weird without them. Plenty of baseball fever in the northeast to go around. And ESPN splooges in their pants. Probably the worst ideas ever but there you go.

What are you, high? Thanks for cutting that mammoth post from your quote so I didn't have to scroll past it a second time.

Eh what the hell. 24 team NBA ATLANTIC Boston Celtics New York Knicks Brooklyn Nets Washington Bullets Miami Heat Orlando Magic CENTRAL Chicago Bulls Detroit Pistons Indiana Pacers Cleveland Cavaliers Toronto Raptors (or Huskies or something a little less dumb than Raptors) Philadelphia 76ers ---------------------------- MIDWEST Houston Rockets Dallas Mavericks San Antonio Spurs Memphis Grizzlies Oklahoma City Thunder Denver Nuggets PACIFIC Los Angeles Lakers Los Angeles Clippers San Francisco Warriors Phoenix Suns Portland Trail Blazers Utah Jazz -------------------- CONTRACTED Charlotte Bobcats - They're completely incompetent and irrelevant (currently and historically). Get rid of them. New Orleans - Nobody there gives a about pro basketball, this has long since been established, why the league felt the need to bend over backwards to keep the team there I do not know. Minnesota Timberwolves - See Charlotte, but slightly less historically irrelevant. Milwaukee Bucks - Hopefully those arena plans fall through. Atlanta Hawks - Kind of a tough cut because of the (ancient) historical relevance, but oh well. Sacramento Kings - Solid market... when they're winning. They better hope they strike it rich in the 2014 draft, otherwise, well... yeah. Toughest cut of the bunch for me. There you have it. Better quality basketball now that the talent pool is less diluted and some of the perennial losers have been culled. Couldn't think of a way to logically work Seattle into the picture after the cuts without expansion.