{"id":160923,"date":"2025-08-20T11:02:13","date_gmt":"2025-08-20T11:02:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/160923\/"},"modified":"2025-08-20T11:02:13","modified_gmt":"2025-08-20T11:02:13","slug":"projecting-what-mlb-realignment-might-look-like-with-expansion-on-the-horizon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/160923\/","title":{"rendered":"Projecting what MLB realignment might look like with expansion on the horizon"},"content":{"rendered":"

From a broadcast booth in Williamsport, Pa., MLB commissioner Rob Manfred stoked the flames of expansion talk<\/a> Sunday night by saying adding two teams would give the league \u201can opportunity to geographically realign.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s news when the commissioner says it publicly, but impending realignment has not been a closely guarded secret. Expanding to 32 clubs would necessitate some reshuffling, the most likely of which would be moving to eight divisions of four teams apiece.<\/p>\n

When The Athletic\u2019s Jim Bowden redrew division lines<\/a> in 2023, he imagined Manfred ditching the American and National League labels altogether and adopting Eastern and Western Conferences. In that version, the most geographically proximate teams became division rivals: Yankees and Mets, Dodgers and Angels, Cubs and White Sox, Royals and Cardinals, Marlins and Rays, Orioles and Nationals.<\/p>\n

But I think there\u2019s a simpler way to realign divisions without changing league names or disrupting traditional rivalries, like Cubs-Cardinals and Dodgers-Giants, in the name of shaving off a few airline miles.<\/p>\n

Before you pull up a map and start sketching your own divisions, understand that it\u2019s entirely normal to spiral on this topic. When re-aligning to eight four-team divisions in 2002, the NFL announced seven possible realignment scenarios<\/a>. The one ultimately chosen made the league\u2019s footprint more sensible without moving many teams. Jacksonville, Tennessee, Houston, Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans and Tampa Bay were assigned to the newly created South divisions. (That Indianapolis also moved to the AFC South, because Miami refused, is a reminder that no realignment will make complete sense.) Only one team, the Seattle Seahawks, changed conferences.<\/p>\n

So that\u2019s the approach I used in realigning MLB\u2019s eight divisions. Keep the American and National leagues. Protect division rivalries. Tidy things up geographically while moving as few teams as necessary. Here\u2019s how it shook out.<\/p>\n

American League\"\"<\/p>\n

(Drew Jordan \/ The Athletic)AL East<\/p>\n

Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Toronto Blue Jays<\/p>\n

AL West<\/p>\n

Las Vegas Athletics
Los Angeles Angels
Salt Lake City or Portland***
Seattle Mariners<\/p>\n

AL North<\/p>\n

Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Guardians
Detroit Tigers
Minnesota Twins<\/p>\n

AL South<\/p>\n

Colorado Rockies**
Houston Astros*
Kansas City Royals*
Texas Rangers*<\/p>\n

*changed division
**changed league
***expansion team<\/p>\n

While removing the Tampa-based Rays from the AL East and the west-of-the-Mississippi Royals from the AL North (formerly Central), we leave those divisions otherwise intact. The East keeps the thunder of the big-market giants without all the flights to Florida. The North has four teams located in cities that make you think: Yeah, that\u2019s definitely north.<\/p>\n

The Astros and Rangers escape the AL West together to form the new AL South alongside the Royals and Colorado Rockies. The Rays could replace the Rockies if MLB preferred that no teams switch leagues, but I much prefer the look of this AL South with four teams in the middle of the country.<\/p>\n

While we\u2019re still making only educated guesses about expansion candidates, Salt Lake City or Portland would fit the AL West footprint, becoming the closest geographic partner to Seattle. This map would turn topsy-turvy if MLB chose Austin or Mexico City as expansion cities \u2014 or chose no expansion cities out west, and two in the east. But Utah and Oregon are the most likely landing spots at this point.<\/p>\n

National League\"\"<\/p>\n

(Drew Jordan \/ The Athletic)NL East<\/p>\n

New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates*
Washington Nationals<\/p>\n

NL West<\/p>\n

Arizona Diamondbacks
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants<\/p>\n

NL North<\/p>\n

Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Milwaukee Brewers
St. Louis Cardinals<\/p>\n

NL South<\/p>\n

Atlanta Braves*
Miami Marlins*
Nashville or Raleigh***
Tampa Bay Rays**<\/p>\n

*changed division
**changed league
***expansion team<\/p>\n

Sure, we could have put the Angels in the NL West for peak geographic proximity, but why mess with what may be the most riveting division in baseball? It remains intact, except for the Rockies leaving the NL.<\/p>\n

Based on recent history, it\u2019s a shame that the NL East would lose the Atlanta Braves, but at least this option keeps the Phillies and Mets together while giving the new NL South a headliner in Atlanta. Meanwhile, the Pirates return to the East and reunite with the Mets, ExposNationals and their intra-commonwealth rivals, the Phillies. It\u2019s like 1993 all over again.<\/p>\n

The South is \u2026 a concern. While fan support in the expansion market will surge in the initial honeymoon period, that could cool over time. And if that division also has Tampa Bay and Miami, two historically weak MLB markets, that\u2019s a potential problem \u2014 unless you\u2019re the Braves. If MLB kept the Florida teams in separate leagues, the Rockies or Royals would be options to fill out the NL South. But this way means less travel.<\/p>\n

Another factor to consider: For franchises such as Seattle and Atlanta that may soon have expansion teams encroaching on their territory, would they prefer not to share a division with those teams? At this point, it\u2019s unclear. We\u2019ll have a better idea of how those ownership groups will feel when MLB formally opens the expansion process in the coming years.<\/p>\n

All there is to do for now, as The Athletic\u2019s Jayson Stark wrote on this topic<\/a> in 2018, is \u201cclose your eyes and try to picture all of this. [T]his is no Rob Manfred pipe dream. This is going to happen. This isn\u2019t a matter of if. It\u2019s a matter of filling in the year \u2014 and then filling in all the brave-new-world details that are guaranteed to follow.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was only after concluding this realignment exercise that I realized mine exactly matched one of Stark\u2019s from seven years ago. So it must be right. The only difference was when Stark guessed these changes would all come about. It\u2019s right there in his first sentence. Manfred\u2019s expansion dreams would come true, Stark wrote, in \u201cthe year 2025.\u201d<\/p>\n

Well, we\u2019re still waiting. And we\u2019re still spiraling.<\/p>\n

(Photo of Coors Field: Justin Edmonds \/ Getty Images)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"From a broadcast booth in Williamsport, Pa., MLB commissioner Rob Manfred stoked the flames of expansion talk Sunday…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":160924,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[1279,1280,1276,1281,1271,1274,5048,1282,1283,1885,2382,1284,1285,2502,1286,4247,1287,1266,1305,2228,5055,2083,1886,1306,1275,1288,62,222,3692,1289,1278,1290,67,132,68,1291],"class_list":{"0":"post-160923","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-mlb","8":"tag-arizona-diamondbacks","9":"tag-atlanta-braves","10":"tag-baltimore-orioles","11":"tag-boston-red-sox","12":"tag-chicago-cubs","13":"tag-chicago-white-sox","14":"tag-cincinnati-reds","15":"tag-cleveland-guardians","16":"tag-colorado-rockies","17":"tag-detroit-tigers","18":"tag-houston-astros","19":"tag-kansas-city-royals","20":"tag-los-angeles-angels","21":"tag-los-angeles-dodgers","22":"tag-miami-marlins","23":"tag-milwaukee-brewers","24":"tag-minnesota-twins","25":"tag-mlb","26":"tag-new-york-mets","27":"tag-new-york-yankees","28":"tag-oakland-athletics","29":"tag-philadelphia-phillies","30":"tag-pittsburgh-pirates","31":"tag-san-diego-padres","32":"tag-san-francisco-giants","33":"tag-seattle-mariners","34":"tag-sports","35":"tag-sports-business","36":"tag-st-louis-cardinals","37":"tag-tampa-bay-rays","38":"tag-texas-rangers","39":"tag-toronto-blue-jays","40":"tag-united-states","41":"tag-unitedstates","42":"tag-us","43":"tag-washington-nationals"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":"Validation failed: Text character limit of 500 exceeded"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160923","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=160923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160923\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/160924"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}