Expansion and Divisions

[UtahSox]

Expansion to 32 Teams — What I’m Hearing (all from Utah Source)

As some of you know, I’m loosely associated with some of the ownership efforts in Utah, trying to bring MLB there. Nothing official — just connecting dots from people around the process. A few things worth noting:

1. Expansion fee- The number floating around for a new franchise has been about $2 billion, but I’m now hearing it could push closer to $2.5–$2.7 billion. That wouldn’t surprise me given how franchise values have jumped.

2. Why expansion now? I think expansion becomes a major talking point for Manfred in the next labor cycle. Adding two teams means:

• 80 new MLB roster spots

• More union jobs

• A large expansion fee that current owners split

It’s a cleaner lever than a hard salary cap fight.

My friends wild guess long-term?

A low salary floor(effecting 2-3 teams max) + stronger penalties for extreme spending. He said they dont see deferrals disappearing — they’re too embedded now.

3. Expansion where? Utah feels like they’re still in the mix, but it’s competitive. I’d expect a four-city race between:

• Portland

• Nashville

• Charlotte

• Salt Lake City

I will say Utah sounded more confident a year ago than they do now — but they still believe they check important boxes.

4. Why Utah thinks it fits- There’s also real momentum around stadium funding conversations. State is fully onboard. NHL has been absolute home run from league and state perspective.

• Strong corporate growth 

• Rapid population growth

• One of the youngest median ages in the U.S.

• Western time zone inventory (which MLB wants) both from population and TV perspective. 

• High-altitude baseball market (similar to Colorado dynamic) help eliminate the excuse cycle in Rockies ownership.

 

 

[UtahSox]

Ok here is why I bring up expansion on a Red Sox Board:

Let’s assume expansion happens and MLB goes to 32 teams.

Manfred also hinted that the AL/NL distinction could go away in the next round of expansion. With universal DH and balanced scheduling, that line already feels thinner than ever.

But here’s my real question:

If MLB realigns at 32 teams, how do you structure divisions in a way that doesn’t create a permanent arms race in the Northeast?

Right now you’ve got:

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles, and Tampa Bay rays

NL East: Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Braves, and Miami Marlins

If you simply go geographic and merge these markets into one 8-team East division, you’re potentially stacking: these two divisions minus the two Florida teams that would be terrible.

that would mean Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Phillies, Braves, Blue Jays… That’s a permanent “Group of Death.”

So what’s the cleanest solution?

• 8 divisions of 4 (NFL-style pods)?

• 4 divisions of 8 and accept imbalance?

• Eliminate leagues entirely?

MLB expands, the structure decision may matter as much as the expansion cities themselves. Curious how you’d realign 32 teams in a way that keeps rivalries intact but doesn’t permanently bury half the East? 

[notin]

But MLB only expands when they lose a collusion lawsuit and need quick cash for the payment…

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, UtahSox said:

Ok here is why I bring up expansion on a Red Sox Board:

Let’s assume expansion happens and MLB goes to 32 teams.

Manfred also hinted that the AL/NL distinction could go away in the next round of expansion.

What's the point in eliminating the distinction? The NFL has the AFC and NFC and 32 franchises. Why get rid of one of the last things that ties you to MLB's history? Does Manfred even like baseball? 

[mvp 78]

I would go back to a strict AL vs NL league where the two don't meet. Build in real rivalries again. You can get rid of the divisions and have the top two AL teams skip the Wild Card round. 

[Michigan Adam2]

I think I keep the 2 leagues to help spread that out. Maybe 4 8 team divisions, with 2 in NL and 2 in AL. That makes for the natural WS between the leagues, plus allows for the NYY, and NYM split up to separate the close teams. Cww, cle, Detroit, rs, NYy, Baltimore, tor, tpa in al east, kc, minn, lv, hou, laa, sea, tex +1 exp in all west.  Cinn, Pitt, chic, nym, atl, Mia, phi, wash in nl east, stl, mil, cubs, ari, col, Dodgers, sdp, sfg, plus Utah in nl west. Pretty simple split roughly at the Mississippi, with only mil and cubs even close to any of the east teams, and that is white Sox in the other league. 

[UtahSox]

21 minutes ago, Michigan Adam2 said:

I think I keep the 2 leagues to help spread that out. Maybe 4 8 team divisions, with 2 in NL and 2 in AL. That makes for the natural WS between the leagues, plus allows for the NYY, and NYM split up to separate the close teams. Cww, cle, Detroit, rs, NYy, Baltimore, tor, tpa in al east, kc, minn, lv, hou, laa, sea, tex +1 exp in all west.  Cinn, Pitt, chic, nym, atl, Mia, phi, wash in nl east, stl, mil, cubs, ari, col, Dodgers, sdp, sfg, plus Utah in nl west. Pretty simple split roughly at the Mississippi, with only mil and cubs even close to any of the east teams, and that is white Sox in the other league. 

AL East:

Bluejays, Red Sox, Yankees, Orioles

Rays, Tigers, Guardians, White Sox

AL West:

Angels, Mariners, A's, Expansion Team (portland/Utah)

Astros, Rangers, Royals, Twins

NL East:

Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Reds

Nationals, Expansion Team ( Charlotte/Nashville), Braves Marlins

NL West

Dodgers, Padres, Giants, Diamondbacks

Rockies, Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers

 

Something like that?

 

[UtahSox]

32 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I would go back to a strict AL vs NL league where the two don't meet. Build in real rivalries again. You can get rid of the divisions and have the top two AL teams skip the Wild Card round. 

I can see both sides of this argument.

competitive balance + stat balance+ I love Red Sox coming west vs historic rivalries 2 game swings when you play AL teams more.

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

3 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

AL East:

Bluejays, Red Sox, Yankees, Orioles

Rays, Tigers, Guardians, White Sox

AL West:

Angels, Mariners, A's, Expansion Team (portland/Utah)

Astros, Rangers, Royals, Twins

NL East:

Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Reds

Nationals, Expansion Team ( Charlotte/Nashville), Braves Marlins

NL West

Dodgers, Padres, Giants, Diamondbacks

Rockies, Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers

 

Something like that?

 

As long as top four in each make the postseason. They might go for it because half the clubs get at least a taste of playoff money.

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

As long as top four in each make the postseason. They might go for it because half the clubs get at least a taste of playoff money.

Then the playoffs are expanding to 16 teams and the regular season no longer really matters TBH. 

[moonslav59]

They could go 14 team playoffs, where the top 2 teams get a rest.

[moonslav59]

Putting the Yanks and Mets in the same division/league makes sense, as does BAL w WSH, KC w STL, LAA w LAD, CWS w CHC (MIL)  and maybe a couple others like CLE w CIN (DET?), but having TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM & PHI in one division would not be fair.

[Old Red]

32 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Putting the Yanks and Mets in the same division/league makes sense, as does BAL w WSH, KC w STL, LAA w LAD, CWS w CHC (MIL)  and maybe a couple others like CLE w CIN (DET?), but having TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM & PHI in one division would not be fair.

Having Boston in that Div would be more than fair IMO. The tougher the better to me. Like I’ve been saying the last few years when the whining, and crying went on over what a tough division the Red Sox have to play in is that the Red Sox have been in the same division since the divisions came into play, and when they have been good enough they won, and moved on, and when they haven’t been good enough they haven’t. The tougher the better for me.

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Having Boston in that Div would be more than fair IMO. The tougher the better to me. Like I’ve been saying the last few years when the whining, and crying went on over what a tough division the Red Sox have to play in is that the Red Sox have been in the same division since the divisions came into play, and when they have been good enough they won, and moved on, and when they haven’t been good enough they haven’t. The tougher the better for me.

Better for you, fine, but some of what you wrote is just not true.

There were many years where an ALE team, not just the Sox, were more than "good enough" to move on, but were snake-bitten by the quirks of the playoff structure and/or scheduling unbalances.

Weaker teams make the playoffs often. To me, that's not really fair.

 

 

[Old Red]

36 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Better for you, fine, but some of what you wrote is just not true.

There were many years where an ALE team, not just the Sox, were more than "good enough" to move on, but were snake-bitten by the quirks of the playoff structure and/or scheduling unbalances.

Weaker teams make the playoffs often. To me, that's not really fair.

 

 

That’s the way it works in all sports, and always will when you have divisions. I’m fine with no divisions at all, and just take the best records, but I don’t see them ever going back to that way, so bring on the best teams, and be in the toughest divisions to see how good you are. Not once have I ever said I wish the Red Sox had been in a weaker division even in 1978.

[Old Red]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

They could go 14 team playoffs, where the top 2 teams get a rest.

I like the way they did it last year with the Yankees getting all the games in NY. Makes having the better record mean something. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Then the playoffs are expanding to 16 teams and the regular season no longer really matters TBH. 

Like the NBA and NHL?

Look at the bright side: none of us would have to watch any games until at least September... and for the really old guys out fishing or just sitting in the sunroom or on the deck, we can listen to music -- but not through ear plugs.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Old Red said:

I like the way they did it last year with the Yankees getting all the games in NY. Makes having the better record mean something. 

Getting two out of three home games means something, too, but I'm okay with all 3.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Old Red said:

That’s the way it works in all sports, and always will when you have divisions. I’m fine with no divisions at all, and just take the best records, but I don’t see them ever going back to that way, so bring on the best teams, and be in the toughest divisions to see how good you are. Not once have I ever said I wish the Red Sox had been in a weaker division even in 1978.

Yes, we've heard your point and reasoning many times.

There will always be tougher and easier divisions, but adding PHI and NYM would be too much, for me.

I'm fine with the way it is now, since they balanced the scheduling more.

[jad]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

I would go back to a strict AL vs NL league where the two don't meet. Build in real rivalries again. You can get rid of the divisions and have the top two AL teams skip the Wild Card round. 

No way!  i actually want to see ohtani, betts, dela cruz, and i'm hardly alone in this. i don't want to see extra games against baltimore  or tampa bay instead.  Getting rid of interleague play is so so 70s.  (Who was that sanctimonious a-h who vowed to spend his entire life after retirement fighting to get rid of interleague play?  ...  brett butler.)

[Old Red]

22 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, we've heard your point and reasoning many times.

There will always be tougher and easier divisions, but adding PHI and NYM would be too much, for me.

I'm fine with the way it is now, since they balanced the scheduling more.

Yes you’ve heard my point, and reasoning many times after all the times you’ve whined, and cried how the Red Sox have to play in the Big Bad AL East, so we agree on that. Kind of Chicken-little. 🤓

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, jad said:

No way!  i actually want to see ohtani, betts, dela cruz, and i'm hardly alone in this. i don't want to see extra games against baltimore  or tampa bay instead.  Getting rid of interleague play is so so 70s.  (Who was that sanctimonious a-h who vowed to spend his entire life after retirement fighting to get rid of interleague play?  ...  brett butler.)

I'd like to see 3 home and 3 away vs every team in MLB, minimum. 

6 x 29=174, so that ain't happening. 

3 H and 2A or 2H and 3A, alternating years is 5 games x 29 teams= 145, so that would allow 4H and 4A vs 4 division foes to bring it up to 157.

I'd do away with AL & NL and reginalize the league into 5 divisions of 6 or 6 divisions of 5.

Here is my 5 division set up:

EAST: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, BAL, WSH

SOUTH: ATL, TBR, MIA, CIN, HOU, TEX

NORTH: TOR, PIT, CLE, DET, CHC, CWS

CENTRAL: MIN, MIL, KCR, STL, COL, LV

WEST: AZ, SEA, SFG, LAD, LAA, SDP

6 x 5 team divisions:

East: TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI

South: BAL, WSH, ATL, TBR, MIA, 

North: PIT, CLE, CIN, DET, CWS

Central: MIN, MIL, KCR, STL, CHC

South West: HOU, TEX, COL, LV, AZ

West: SEA, SFG, LAD, LAA, SDP

[notin]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Then the playoffs are expanding to 16 teams and the regular season no longer really matters TBH. 

Plus they would go well past Thanksgiving.  
 

How many of you Boston denizens really want to attend World Series games in at Fenway Park in December?

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Yes you’ve heard my point, and reasoning many times after all the times you’ve whined, and cried how the Red Sox have to play in the Big Bad AL East, so we agree on that. Kind of Chicken-little. 🤓

Touche, but it doesn't fit the Chicken Little anaology.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Plus they would go well past Thanksgiving.  
 

How many of you Boston denizens really want to attend World Series games in at Fenway Park in December?

They could go 3 games for the first two rounds, 5 games for the championship round and 7 for the WS.

YUCK! Did I just say that?

[notin]

3 hours ago, Old Red said:

That’s the way it works in all sports, and always will when you have divisions. I’m fine with no divisions at all, and just take the best records, but I don’t see them ever going back to that way, so bring on the best teams, and be in the toughest divisions to see how good you are. Not once have I ever said I wish the Red Sox had been in a weaker division even in 1978.

MLB needs fewer divisions, not more.  Do we really need more 82-80 teams making the postseason simply because the rest of the teams in their geographic area are even worse?  Does MLB really want their version of the NFC South?

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

MLB needs fewer divisions, not more.  Do we really need more 82-80 teams making the postseason simply because the rest of the teams in their geographic area are even worse?  Does MLB really want their version of the NFC South?

How about 3 x 10 team divisions?

EAST: TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, BAL, WSH, ATL, TBR, MIA

CENTRAL: PIT, DET, CLE, CIN, CWS, CHC, MIL, MIN, STL, KCR

WEST: HOU, TEX, COL, AZ, LV, SEA, SFG, LAD, LAA, SDP

4 games vs non div teams (4 x 20=80)

9 games vs div team (9 x 9= 81)

1 game vs closest record previous season.

 

[Behindenemylines]

13 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'd like to see 3 home and 3 away vs every team in MLB, minimum. 

6 x 29=174, so that ain't happening. 

3 H and 2A or 2H and 3A, alternating years is 5 games x 29 teams= 145, so that would allow 4H and 4A vs 4 division foes to bring it up to 157.

I'd do away with AL & NL and reginalize the league into 5 divisions of 6 or 6 divisions of 5.

Here is my 5 division set up:

EAST: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, BAL, WSH

SOUTH: ATL, TBR, MIA, CIN, HOU, TEX

NORTH: TOR, PIT, CLE, DET, CHC, CWS

CENTRAL: MIN, MIL, KCR, STL, COL, LV

WEST: AZ, SEA, SFG, LAD, LAA, SDP

6 x 5 team divisions:

East: TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI

South: BAL, WSH, ATL, TBR, MIA, 

North: PIT, CLE, CIN, DET, CWS

Central: MIN, MIL, KCR, STL, CHC

South West: HOU, TEX, COL, LV, AZ

West: SEA, SFG, LAD, LAA, SDP

Not having AL and NL is a non-starter for me. Does tradition not mean anything. If you add one team to each league you can still have the traditional teams in each league. Ax

 

 

[moonslav59]

Baseball would be a better game, if they downsized.

Eliminate TBR, OAK/LV & PIT (or MIA?)

Have a nice player dispersal draft or the 120 players on those 3 teams' 40 man rosters, where the bottom 9 teams pick first round, then middle 9 teams, then bottom 9 again, then top 9, middle 9, bottom 9. Repeat. (Bottom 9 get 6 picks each, middle 9 get 4, top 9 get 2 and the rest are free agents) How to divide up their minor league players would be interesting, too.

3 divisions of 9:

TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, BAL, WSH, ATL, MIA

DET, CLE, CIN, CWS, CHC, MIL, MIN, STL, KCR

HOU, TEX, COL, AZ, SEA, SFG, LAD, LAA, SDP

Schedule:

4 games x 18 non div teams= 72 games

11 games x 8 div teams= 88 games

2 games vs ???

 

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

Not having AL and NL is a non-starter for me. Does tradition not mean anything. If you add one team to each league you can still have the traditional teams in each league. Ax

Tradition went out the window long ago.

The DH. Teams switching leagues.

2 divisions to 4 to 6.

Next, we'll be hearing about robots for umps!