mlb realignment

...and we're back, after that time off. now that the summer is here, i'm back into the blogging mood. the next series i'm going to touch on is realignment - whether through relocation, expansion, or just shifting the divisions around. the first sport to get the treatment is baseball. the last time mlb expanded was 1998 when the devil rays and diamondbacks entered the league. let's assume that the league looks to reach new markets through relocation in 8 years (unlikely, but more realistic than next year). expansion right now in MLB does not make sense -- while teams aren't losing too much cash and attendance is going up, the need for 32 teams is not there and the market may not be able to sustain 2 more (fledgling) franchises.

first off, let's take a look at the current location of baseball teams:

now we will add three "buffers" around each baseball city: 50, 100 and 150 miles (red, orange and yellow).

now when we look at potential cities, we will be able to take into account their proximity to another club. anything in the "red zone" will be eliminated - 100 miles is just too close. anything within 150 miles will also be considered as a poor candidate as well, unless that team needs to establish a regional rivalry.

now for the potential cities and the requirements we are using to be considered:

1. population of at least 250,000 people
2. recent population growth
3. interest/ability to support a major league team
4. transportation is not an issue (easy to get there, not too far from a current MLB city)
5. it is an urban area (as are the majority of the other mlb cities)
6. it is not las vegas (professional sports will get there eventually, but baseball won't be first)
7. it is a us city -- while there is talk of international expansion, basketball will most likely make the first move. (especially with the world baseball classic)

using those requirements and the greater than 100 mile threshold, we are left with (in no particular order): Indianapolis, Memphis, Portland (OR), Oklahoma City, Nashville, Omaha, San, Antonio, Charlotte, and Louisville.

if we add the requirements that the city should have at least one other sport to prove a fan base (omaha, louisville) and have a AAA franchise for baseball interest (san antonio).

of the remaining six, portland gets through due to its location (8 teams in west, rival for seattle). that leaves indianapolis, oklahoma city, nashville, memphis and charlotte.

• indianapolis provides a interesting choice. the city is home to many franchises (colts, pacers, fever) and is in a baseball-friendly midwestern location. the city, though, is located in an area surrounded by baseball teams (within 150 miles of reds, cubs, white sox and not too much further from cleveland).
• oklahoma city is another unique choice, as it has welcomed the sonics thunder and the city and team have both benefited. the situation is new, though, and it is yet to be seen how the city will do once the excitement wears off
• nashville and memphis both provide a baseball option to those in tennessee. but...do they want one?
• charlotte is an obvious choice (even though it may not be a good financial decision with the number of sports options in the city). it is the only city that does not have a neighboring state with a team, and many locals can not identify with the braves, which is the closest team

that leaves a choice between indianapolis and charlotte. based on the fact that there are not many other options for the locals, i give the nod to charlotte.

now - which teams get the boot? florida is the first choice. the marlins have been talking relocation for years and now it finally happens. a new stadium takes too long and the city tries to call the marlins bluff. they head to portland. the other team? a tough choice. i narrowed it down to those with low fan support, including toronto, kansas city, oakland, and pittsburgh. i had to go with toronto on this one as i think the fans there would care the least if the team left. the blue jays head to charlotte.

how would the new-look mlb be laid out? (changes in italics, expansion teams using AAA names)

• al east: baltimore orioles, boston red sox, charlotte knights, ny yankees, tb rays
• al central: chicago white sox, cleveland indians, detroit tigers, kc royals, minnesota twins, texas rangers
• al west: anaheim angels, oakland a's, portland beavers, seattle mariners
• nl east: atlanta braves, philadelphia phillies, pittsburgh pirates, ny mets, washington nationals
• nl central: chicago cubs, cincinnati reds, colorado rockies, houston astros, milwaukee brewers, st. louis cardinals
• nl west: arizona diamondbacks, los angeles dodgers, san diego padres, san francisco giants

the texas rangers shift to the central makes more sense geographically and the rockies are in the middle of "west" and "central", so there is no loss or gain there. the winners in this? the marlins are now in a less-competitive al west and the rangers/rockies move into a division where there always seems to be a new division leader each week. loser? the pirates, which now move from a weaker division to one of the strongest (does that make the nationals a winner?)