• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

MLB Realignment/Expansion Thread

Nerdlinger

New Member
Herein we discuss all things related to MLB expansion, realignment, relocation, and other such franchise and league-structure topics.

To start us off, here's what I think MLB should look like ASAP:

American League
Northeast Division: Boston Red Sox, Montreal Expos, New York Yankees, Toronto Blue Jays
Atlantic Division: Baltimore Orioles, Cleveland Spiders, Detroit Tigers, Tampa Bay Rays
Central Division: Chicago White Sox, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers
Pacific Division: Arizona Diamondbacks, "California" Athletics, Los Angeles Angels, Seattle Mariners

National League
Northeast Division: New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, Washington Senators
Atlantic Division: Atlanta Infernos, Carolina Cougars, Cincinnati Reds, Miami Marlins
Central Division: Chicago Cubs, Houston Astros, Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals
Pacific Division: Colorado Rockies, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants

Montreal and Carolina (Durham) are the expansion teams. Arizona and Houston swapped leagues for geographic reasons. I also changed a few team names. I call them the "California" Athletics because I don't care where they land -- Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, whatever, just land. Oh, and I dropped the ridiculous "of Anaheim" from the Angels' name.

I'm not dead set on Montreal or Durham for expansion sites. They just work best for the realignment here. Other suitable locations include Austin and Portland.

Schedule: No more interleague play. A team plays 18 games against each of the other 3 teams in its division (54 games) and 9 games against each of the other 12 teams in the league (108 games), keeping the total at 162.

Postseason: I'm inclined to limit it to just the division champs, but realistically, I think there would be a setup similar to what the NFL has now. In each league, 2 wild cards would play the 2 lowest-seeded division champs in a best-of-3 Wild Card Series, all played at the home stadium of the division champ. The 2 highest-seeded division champs get a bye. Then a best-of-5 League Division Series, a best-of-7 League Championship Series, and a best-of-7 World Series, as we have now. The only difference I'd make with those rounds is to change the LCS to a 2-2-3 setup, wherein the higher-seeded team gets up to 5 home games. (And yes, this can all fit between April 1 and October 31.)
 
Ah Mr. Nerdlinger, what a pleasant surprise!

League structuring isn't my sort of thing, but I would advocate for a team in Indianapolis. In keeping with the retro names, I would replace Atlanta "Infernos" with the Atlanta Wolverines, Grays, Maroons, or Pilots.
 

Nerdlinger

New Member
Tyrus4189Cobb said:
Ah Mr. Nerdlinger, what a pleasant surprise!

League structuring isn't my sort of thing, but I would advocate for a team in Indianapolis. In keeping with the retro names, I would replace Atlanta "Infernos" with the Atlanta Wolverines, Grays, Maroons, or Pilots.
And a pleasure to meet you here, Mr. Cobb.

Indianapolis is problematic because it's too crowded in the Midwest. You'd get (at least somewhat legitimate) objections from the Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals, and Reds for sure, and possibly a few other teams as well.

If the people of Atlanta were OK with the name "Flames" (harkening back to when Sherman burned the whole damn city down), I'd think they'd be OK with "Infernos." Wolverines is more appropriate for either Michigan or a place where wolverines actually live; Grays is dull; Maroons is rather self-deprecating; Pilots might work, but it seems more of a Seattle name to me. How about Thrashers? The NHL isn't using that anymore.
 
Nerdlinger said:
Tyrus4189Cobb said:
If the people of Atlanta were OK with the name "Flames" (harkening back to when Sherman burned the whole damn city down), I'd think they'd be OK with "Infernos." Wolverines is more appropriate for either Michigan or a place where wolverines actually live; Grays is dull; Maroons is rather self-deprecating; Pilots might work, but it seems more of a Seattle name to me. How about Thrashers? The NHL isn't using that anymore.
That's the inspiration for the name "Flames?" A tad odd if you ask me.

I've always wanted a team named the Alphas. Just fits for me.

The Atlanta Slimy Salamanders has a nice ring to it :D

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/...hibians/slimy-salamander-plethodon-glutinosus
 

DarrylMHB

New Member
I came up with a big realignment idea about a year ago...

No expansion. 30 teams. 3 divisions.

The divisions change every year based on the previous year's performance. The 2 World Series teams and the next 8 best are in the "Top Division". The next 10 are in the "Middle Division" and the worst 10 are in the "Bottom Division" (I am saving the creativity for later).

A team would play 10 games against each team in their own division. They play 72 games against the other two divisions (36 each: 3-4 per team).

The best 4 teams in the "Top", best 3 teams in the "Middle" and the best team in the "Bottom" make the playoffs.

That's how far I've got right now.
 

Nerdlinger

New Member
DarrylMHB said:
I came up with a big realignment idea about a year ago...

No expansion. 30 teams. 3 divisions.

The divisions change every year based on the previous year's performance. The 2 World Series teams and the next 8 best are in the "Top Division". The next 10 are in the "Middle Division" and the worst 10 are in the "Bottom Division" (I am saving the creativity for later).

A team would play 10 games against each team in their own division. They play 72 games against the other two divisions (36 each: 3-4 per team).

The best 4 teams in the "Top", best 3 teams in the "Middle" and the best team in the "Bottom" make the playoffs.

That's how far I've got right now.
Promotion and relegation in MLB is an interesting concept. One practical problem I foresee is travel. You could have a division consisting of teams as far apart as Miami and Seattle. P-R works better in sports which have few travel concerns, like football and soccer. Although you do mitigate the problem by scheduling all those games outside the division.
 
I actually like Darryl's proposition but to be honest, I don't think this would really fly with every team in MLB. As for traveling issues, I'm sure there can be a way to reduce the travelling issues while doing the schedule, depending on which team plays in which division.
 

Nerdlinger

New Member
EdgeHead said:
I actually like Darryl's proposition but to be honest, I don't think this would really fly with every team in MLB. As for traveling issues, I'm sure there can be a way to reduce the travelling issues while doing the schedule, depending on which team plays in which division.
By reducing the traveling issues, do you mean an unbalanced schedule? If the whole idea behind the realignment is competitive balance, then it would be most logical to have a balanced schedule within each division.
 

willge87

Registered Member
Nerdlinger said:
Herein we discuss all things related to MLB expansion, realignment, relocation, and other such franchise and league-structure topics.

To start us off, here's how I think MLB should look like ASAP:

American League
North Division: Boston Red Sox, Montreal Expos, New York Yankees, Toronto Blue Jays
East Division: Baltimore Orioles, Cleveland Spiders, Detroit Tigers, Tampa Bay Rays
Central Division: Chicago White Sox, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers
West Division: Arizona Diamondbacks, "California" Athletics, Los Angeles Angels, Seattle Mariners

National League
North Division: New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, Washington Senators
East Division: Atlanta Infernos, Carolina Cougars, Cincinnati Reds, Miami Marlins
Central Division: Chicago Cubs, Houston Astros, Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals
West Division: Colorado Rockies, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants

Montreal and Carolina (Durham) are the expansion teams. Arizona and Houston swapped leagues for geographic reasons. I also changed a few team names. I call them the "California" Athletics because I don't care where they land -- Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, whatever, just land. Oh, and I dropped the ridiculous "of Anaheim" from the Angels' name.

I'm not dead set on Montreal or Durham for expansion sites. They just work best for the realignment here. Other suitable locations include Austin and Portland.

Schedule: No more interleague play. A team plays 18 games against each of the other 3 teams in its division (54 games) and 9 games against each of the other 12 teams in the league (108 games), keeping the total at 162.

Postseason: I'm inclined to limit it to just the division champs, but realistically, I think there would be a setup similar to what the NFL has now. In each league, 2 wild cards would play the 2 lowest-seeded division champs in a best-of-3 Wild Card Series, all played at the home stadium of the division champ. The 2 highest-seeded division champs get a bye. Then a best-of-5 Division Championship Series, a best-of-7 League Championship Series, and a best-of-7 World Series, as we have now. The only difference I'd make with those rounds is to change the LCS to a 2-2-3 setup, wherein the higher-seeded team gets up to 5 home games. (And yes, this can all fit between April 1 and October 31.)
Why do the Jays still have to play in a division with Boston and New York? :(
 
Top