C's

Cincinnati has been an NL city since 1890. Atlanta has only been one since 1966. The Reds franchise has 5 World Series titles. The Braves franchise in their existence 3. Also, Cincy would also likely date back to 1876 if not for the original organization being kicked out of the league because the quest for respectability among the other owners prompted them to ban beer sales at their stadiums and the NL's Cincinnati organization refused to comply.

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.

I also don't understand the trimming from 30 teams to 24. I think, if anything, a perfect number for a league is 32. Then, you can have half the teams (16) in a tournament style playoff. The only leagues yhat do that are the NHL and NBA, but their 7th-8th seeds are usually below 500. Not every year, but most years.

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.

Feel free to back up your logic.

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.

(and adding 2 new teams to NBA)

What are you, high?

No.

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.