MLB Expansion Issues

Major League Baseball isn't in a hurry to expand.  That doesn't stop people from asking Rob Manfred about it, though.  At his All*Star Game press conference, the commissioner was once again asked about it, and he once again reiterated his position.  MLB won't consider expansion until the A's and Rays get their stadium situations figured out.  Progress has already started on the A's new ballpark in Las Vegas, but the Rays backed out of their plans for a new stadium because of the damage to Tropicana Field, so they're very much in limbo.

With all that in mind, expansion won't be on the agenda until Manfred's tenure as commissioner is over.  Will MLB eventually go to 32 teams, though?  Most likely.  Will that happen sometime in the 2030s?  Probably.  Even though expansion seems inevitable, figuring out how to work it isn't as easy as it sounds.

Let's start with "where?", which is obviously the most pressing question.  Nashville has been making a big push and would have to be considered a favorite to get one of the two expansion teams.  As for who gets the other one, Montreal is the obvious sentimental favorite.  Or do you put another team on the West Coast?  Portland would make sense as a geographic rival for Seattle.

Here's where our first problem comes in, however.  You'd have to figure that they'd go to four divisions of four in each league, so there would have to be some sort of realignment.  Portland could easily fit into the AL West.  Montreal could go back where the Expos were in the NL East.  Nashville could go into either league's newly-created South division, but that's where things get complicated.  Because who's moving divisions?  And will it be reluctantly?

For argument's sake, let's put the new teams in Montreal and Portland.  With Montreal in the NL East and Portland in the AL West, here's what the divisions might look like: AL East-Baltimore, Boston, Yankees, Toronto; AL North-White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota; AL South-Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas; AL West-Athletics, Angels, Portland, Seattle; NL East-Montreal, Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh; NL North-Cubs, Colorado, Milwaukee, St. Louis; NL South-Atlanta, Cincinnati, Miami, Washington; NL West-Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco.

As you can see, some of those divisions are somewhat awkward.  This is the same sport that had Atlanta in the NL West for 25 years, though, so it's not like they aren't used to that.  And I have Cincinnati in the NL South instead of St. Louis because there's no way the Cubs and Cardinals would agree to any divisional alignment where they aren't together.

Now let's try Montreal and Nashville, which makes things a bit trickier.  Because in this scenario, the eight westernmost teams are split 5/3.  As a result, one of the NL West teams has to shift to the AL.  Should that happen, I think the most likely candidate would be Arizona, which would then put both expansion teams in the National League and give us divisions that look like this: AL East-Baltimore, Boston, Yankees, Toronto; AL North-White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota; AL South-Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas; AL West-Arizona, Athletics, Angels, Seattle; NL East-Montreal, Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh; NL North-Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis; NL South-Atlanta, Miami, Nashville, Washington; NL West-Colorado, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco.

On paper, those divisions make the most sense.  Far more than the Montreal/Portland alignment and far more than the Nashville/Portland alignment you're about to see.  In this scenario, we've got Portland in the AL West and Nashville in the NL South: AL East-Baltimore, Boston, Yankees, Toronto; AL North-White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota; AL South-Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas; AL West-Athletics, Angels, Portland, Seattle; NL East-Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington; NL North-Cubs, Colorado, Milwaukee, St. Louis; NL South-Atlanta, Cincinnati, Miami, Nashville; NL West-Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco.

You'll notice that the divisions, by and large, are the same regardless of which two cities get the expansion teams.  And they're mostly staying as true as possible to the current divisional alignment.  So, I don't really foresee that being much of an issue no matter where the new teams play or how they figure out the divisions.  That's not really as much of a problem as the schedule. 

We're in the third season of the current schedule format where each team plays at least one series against everyone else in the Majors.  They tweaked it slightly this season so that you play six games against your interleague partner--three at home, three away--instead of four (two and two).  However, the math doesn't work to have the home & home with your interleague partner if two expansion teams are added, which I can see being an issue.  Because no team will want to lose the three guaranteed sellouts that come with hosting their interleague rival.

The math is otherwise pretty straightforward.  It basically keeps the current format with slight modifications: 4 series/13 games against your division opponents (12 series/39 games), 2 series/6 or 7 games against the remaining teams in your league (12 series/75 games).  That leaves 48 games left for interleague play, which divides perfectly into 16 three-game series.  However, that only accounts for one series against your rival, not two.

If teams only play six games against each non-division team in their own league, they'd only be at 159 games.  Those three games could, theoretically, be used for a second series against your interleague partner.  That's not as easy as it sounds, though.  Teams need to play a certain number of four-game series because they only have a set number of off days.  Turning three four-game series into an extra three-game series doesn't just add three off days, it pushes the season back (or up) three days because everybody's playing one additional series.  Again, easier said than done since they'd need the MLBPA's sign-off to extend the length of the season. 

Could it be done?  Yes.  But there would be pushback either way.  If you want to drop one of the two series against your interleague rival, the owners (especially those of certain teams) won't be happy.  If you want to extend the season, the players have to agree.  Some might appreciate the extra off days, but would they want the trade-off of playing more regular season games in late March/early October?  And, if the added games were tacked onto the end of the season, that pushes the playoffs and World Series back, potentially into November, which MLB doesn't like.

Is either of these things a big enough issue for MLB to not consider expansion?  Of course not!  They shouldn't be in a rush, either, though.  Because they're things that will need to be figured out when the time comes.  And that time isn't now.  Not when the current division alignment and schedule format is working out perfectly!