What might MLB expansion and realignment look like?

From a broadcast booth in Williamsport, Pa., MLB commissioner Rob Manfred stoked the flames of expansion talk Sunday night by saying adding two teams would give the league “an opportunity to geographically realign.”

That’s 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.

When The Athletic’s Jim Bowden redrew division lines 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.

But I think there’s 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.

Before you pull up a map and start sketching your own divisions, understand that it’s entirely normal to spiral on this topic. When realigning to eight four-team divisions in 2002, the NFL announced seven possible realignment scenarios. The one ultimately chosen made the league’s 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.

So that’s the approach I used in realigning MLB’s eight divisions. Keep the American and National leagues. Protect division rivalries. Tidy things up geographically while moving as few teams as necessary. Here’s how it shook out.

American League

AL East

Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Toronto Blue Jays

AL West

Las Vegas Athletics, Los Angeles Angels, Salt Lake City or Portland***, Seattle Mariners

AL North

White Sox, Cleveland Guardians, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins

AL South

Colorado Rockies**, Houston Astros*, Kansas City Royals*, Texas Rangers*

*changed division/**changed league/***expansion team

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’s definitely north.

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.

While we’re 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 — 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.

National League

NL East

New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates*, Washington Nationals

NL West

Arizona Diamondbacks, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants

NL North

Cubs, Cincinnati Reds, Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals

NL South

Atlanta Braves*, Miami Marlins*, Nashville or Raleigh***, Tampa Bay Rays**

*changed division/**changed league/***expansion team

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.

Based on recent history, it’s 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, Expos Nationals and their intra-commonwealth rivals, the Phillies. It’s like 1993 all over again.

The South is … 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’s a potential problem — unless you’re 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.

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’s unclear. We’ll have a better idea of how those ownership groups will feel when MLB formally opens the expansion process in the coming years.

All there is to do for now, as The Athletic’s Jayson Stark wrote on this topic in 2018, is “close your eyes and try to picture all of this. [T]his is no Rob Manfred pipe dream. This is going to happen. This isn’t a matter of if. It’s a matter of filling in the year — and then filling in all the brave-new-world details that are guaranteed to follow.”

It was only after concluding this realignment exercise that I realized mine exactly matched one of Stark’s from seven years ago. So it must be right. The only difference was when Stark guessed these changes would all come about. It’s right there in his first sentence. Manfred’s expansion dreams would come true, Stark wrote, in “the year 2025.”

Well, we’re still waiting. And we’re still spiraling.

© 2025 The Athletic Media Company. All Rights Reserved. Distributed by New York Times Licensing.