MLB Expansion Should Move Kansas City Royals to Entirely New Division

3 of 4

It seems MLB expansion to 32 teams is inevitable. The decision would lead to significant realignment. If it occurs, here’s what one writer thinks should happen to the Kansas City Royals.

As Kansas City Royals fans are probably aware, there’s been speculation about impending MLB expansion for a while. It ramped up again this week when Baseball America released an article by Tracy Ringolsby discussing expansion, realignment and changes to the postseason.

The article discusses the possibility of adding two teams—one each in Montreal and Portland, Oregon—to push the number of MLB franchises to 32. It fails to mention stadium issues in Tampa Bay and Oakland, which could ultimately lead to those franchises looking to relocate. If that happens, expansion could be postponed. But the move to 32 teams seems inevitable.

As far as realignment, the article looks at the possibility of a drastic change. It explores the option of ditching the American League and National League, along with their three divisions apiece, in favor of four overall divisions of eight teams. This would lead to several worthwhile changes, including a reduction to a 156-game schedule, more off days and more regional rivalries. However, the move would undoubtedly face severe pushback from a change-averse community.

According to the article, the changes could then lead to a 12-team postseason. Four of the teams would be the division winners, while the other eight would be the remaining teams with the best records, regardless of division. The eight wild card teams would face each other with the winners advancing to face the four division winners. From that point forward, the postseason would resemble a standard one—Division Series, League Championship Series (although this would need a new name) and World Series.

Let’s take a look at how these changes would affect the Kansas City Royals and the rest of the MLB, while also posing our own alternative.

MONTREAL – SEPTEMBER 29: Montreal Expos fans hold a sign after the team’s final home game ever against the Florida Marlins at Olympic Stadium September 29, 2004 in Montreal, Canada. The Expos will play their 2005 season in Washington, DC. (Photo by Charles Laberge/Getty Images) /

Expansion

The idea of expanding MLB from 30 to 32 teams has long been in the works. Several cities have been mentioned from time to time in discussion of where the two teams would end up.

Montreal, almost from the day the Expos left for Washington, have been listed as a possible expansion city. Las Vegas, Mexico City and Charlotte, North Carolina, have garnered attention from commissioner Rob Manfred at different points, as well. Although, the new favorite to join Montreal in an expansion seems to be Portland.

For the remainder of this article, we will operate under the assumption that these will be the two cities tabbed to land new franchises. If you feel so inclined, you can also pretend the A’s move from Oakland to Las Vegas (similar to a certain football team) and the Rays head to Charlotte after leaving Tampa. Neither of those moves would affect either realignment plan.

Major League Baseball has not seen expansion since Arizona and Tampa Bay joined the league in 1998. That came just five years after Florida (now Miami) and Colorado expanded MLB to 28 teams. One of the biggest positives of reaching 32 teams would be that it would appear to be the maximum number MLB could support.

Now, we’ll take a look at how realignment could look with 32 teams. Needless to say, we differ with the Baseball America article on the best way go about that.

KANSAS CITY, MO – AUGUST 23: Trevor Story /

Realignment

We already mentioned the basic premise of the four-division, no-league format that Baseball America laid out, but now we’ll show you that proposal in practice. Here’s how Ringoslby had the divisions looking:

East: Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Washington. North: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, both New York franchises and Toronto. Midwest: Both Chicago franchises, Colorado, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, St. Louis and Texas. West: Anaheim, Arizona, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

It’s a stark contrast to the current setup. Personally, I can’t see MLB making such a drastic move right off the bat. It could possibly come to this down the road, but I think a more standard NFL-style format is more likely—at least initially.

By that, I mean sticking with the AL and NL while moving from six divisions of five teams to eight divisions of four teams. The AL West had four teams as recently as 2012, and the world somehow kept spinning during that time. For those worried about a team with a losing record winning a division title, it never happened during the almost 20 years of a four-team AL West. I’m not saying it would never happen, but it likely wouldn’t be an every year occurrence.

My Proposal

AL Northeast: Baltimore, Boston, New York Yankees and Toronto
AL Central: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit and Minnesota
AL Midwest: Colorado, Houston, Kansas City Royals and Texas
AL West: Los Angeles Angels, Oakland, Portland and Seattle
NL Northeast: Montreal, New York Mets, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
NL Southeast: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa Bay and Washington
NL Central: Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and St. Louis
NL West: Arizona, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego and San Francisco

If it were up to me, I would put one expansion team in each league, while forcing just two current teams, Colorado and Tampa Bay—ironically, two of the franchises that came in the 1990s—to flop leagues.

A few of the divisions (AL Northeast, AL Central, NL Central and NL West) would remain unchanged—save for losing one team. Another two divisions (AL West and NL Southeast) would feature three teams from the same current divisions. That would leave just two hodge-podge divisions (AL Midwest and NL Northeast). That’s a lot less change than the four-division format.

The Kansas City Royals would face one the biggest changes, ditching division rivals Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and Minnesota for Colorado, Houston and Texas. It’s one of the more spread-out proposed divisions, but it would keep the Kansas City Royals in the AL.

That leads to us looking at how the playoffs would look in both scenarios with 32 teams. Spoiler alert: The Kansas City Royals still wouldn’t have made the 2017 postseason.

KANSAS CITY, MO – OCTOBER 13: A view of a weather tarp covering the infield as rain falls to postpone Game Three of the American League Championship Series between the Baltimore Orioles and the Kansas City Royals at Kauffman Stadium on October 13, 2014 in Kansas City, Missouri. (Photo by Kyle Rivas/Getty Images) /

Postseason Changes

Firstly, we’ll look at how the 2017 postseason would have looked under the plan Ringolsby detailed. With the obvious caveat that team records would be much different under this format—and with the expansion teams not being considered, the four division winners would have been Washington, Cleveland, Houston and the Los Angeles Dodgers—the teams with the four best records in real life 2017.

The eight wild card teams would have been the Red Sox, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Yankees, Rockies, Brewers, Twins and Cardinals. That means in 2017 all the teams with a winning record would have made the postseason.

Under my proposed format, there are also several possible approaches to the playoffs. We’ll stick with the NFL-style setup and a non-drastic change to six postseason teams per league—the four division winners and two wild card teams.

In 2017, it would have put the following 12 teams in the playoffs:

AL Northeast: Boston
AL Central: Cleveland
AL Midwest: Houston
AL West: Los Angeles Angels
AL Wild Card: New York Yankees and Colorado
NL Northeast: Pittsburgh
NL Southeast: Washington
NL Central: Chicago Cubs
NL West: Los Angeles Dodgers
NL Wild Card: Arizona and Milwaukee

The NL Northeast would have been easily the worst division in baseball this season. Of those teams, Pittsburgh had the best record during the 2017 regular season at just 75-87. However, they played in arguably the toughest real life division in baseball—the NL Central—and would undoubtedly have finished well above .500 in the revamped division. It can also be reasonably assumed the Angels, who are the only other losing team on the above list, would have bumped up to a winning record in their new division.

More from Kings of Kauffman

Depending on how MLB would want to approach things, they could either choose to protect division winners or stick with the NFL approach.

The former could entail the two wild card teams facing each other with the winner facing the fourth best division champion. The winner would move on to face the top seed, while the division winners with the second and third best records face each other in the Division Series. The latter would see the first wild card team (No. 5 seed) face the fourth division champion (No. 4 seed), while the second wild card team (No. 6 seed) would play the third division champion (No. 3 seed). The winners would then face the top two seeds in each league.

Either option gives more protection to the best teams, something Cleveland would have loved to see this year. The changes to the postseason would have also likely seen the Kansas City Royals finish well off the pace in 2017 with two of the better teams in their division.

Next: How 2017 Became a Down Year

What do you think of the proposed changes? Let us know in the comments and on social media.

Home / KC Royals News