Here's How MLB Realignment Should Look After Expansion

Rob Manfred knows how to give a non-answer, so people took notice last week when MLB's commissioner actually sounded semi-candid during an interview. Of course, he didn't make a bold statement, but it did qualify as a rare unguarded moment.

And it's now the jumping-off point for what follows here. 

Quick setup: Manfred stopped by the WFAN Radio/Audacy studios in New York on Thursday for a sitdown with Craig Carton and Chris McMonigle. About two-thirds of the way through the 35-minute session, the conversation shifted to expansion and realignment. First, the commissioner reiterated his hope that MLB will go to 32 clubs around the time he retires in 2029. 

Then came the moment. 

Manfred wants his expanded league to be divided into eight, four-team divisions based on geography. McMonigle, perhaps recalling commissioner emeritus Bud Selig's "radical realignment" dream from the '90s, asked whether that meant the Mets and Yankees, or any of the teams that share a market, would share a division.

"I think you would try to keep the two-team cities separate," Manfred replied. "That would be my thinking. (But) a lot of water's got to go over that dam."

Well, that was new and, well, newsworthy.

But if New York, Chicago, greater Los Angeles, and DC/Baltimore aren't going to be together, then how would they and the rest of the league line up? Manfred, of course, didn't provide details.

Fortunately, others (read: yours truly) are free to share their thoughts on what should happen, so here's one fan's attempt to fill in the blanks.

First, Manfred defines "geographically" as an Eastern Conference and a Western Conference, similar to the NBA and NHL. That gives us the base for our plan. In our world, the conferences would be set up in such a way that disruption is limited and a sliver of baseball tradition is preserved.

POTENTIAL MLB DIVISIONAL FORMAT

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Atlantic Division: Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Toronto Blue Jays
Central Division: Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Guardians, Detroit Tigers
Northeast Division: New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, Washington Nationals
Southeast Division: Atlanta Braves, Miami Marlins, Tampa Bay Rays, Carolina or Nashville (expansion club; sorry, Expos fans)

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Continental Division: Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers
Midwest Division: Chicago Cubs, Kansas City Royals, Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals
Pacific Division: Arizona Diamondbacks, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants
Western Division: Las Vegas Athletics, Los Angeles Angels, Seattle Mariners, Portland or Utah (expansion club; sorry, Oakland fans)

Why it works: This plan keeps some American League and National League rivalries together, even though a geographic split would kill the AL and NL for good. More importantly, these new divisions would reduce travel by at least a small amount. That's a big Manfred selling point. East Coast teams would play just 27 or 28 games outside their time zone if MLB expands to Raleigh. In 2026, they'll play between 33 and 47 games outside their time zone. A team like the Mariners, who have one of the heaviest travel burdens in baseball every year, would go from 99 games in the Pacific time zone to 112 if MLB expands to Portland. This setup should also reduce the number of incoherent three-city trips, but there might still be the odd Phoenix-San Diego-Chicago jaunt, like the one the Marlins will have to endure in late September. 

POTENTIAL MLB SCHEDULE BREAKDOWN (EAST AND WEST)

36 games against division opponents (3 clubs x 12 games each)
78 games against the rest of the conference (6 clubs x 6 games, 6 clubs x 7 games)
48 interconference games (16 clubs x 3 games)

162 games total

Why it works: Mostly, it works because the simple math keeps the season at 162 games. Talk in recent years about going down to 154 games hasn't been well-received. Clubs aren't giving up home gates, not when overall attendance is high.

POTENTIAL STANDINGS CHANGE

It would be cool if a realigned MLB emphasized conference standings the way the NBA does. Like pro basketball, baseball's divisions would stay around for scheduling purposes, but only the teams with the best records would advance to the postseason. Division champs would not be guaranteed playoff berths, so no Carolina Panthers situations.

To illustrate how conference standings in a realigned MLB would look, here is the top seven in the East and West based on 2025 records. For this exercise, the tiebreakers went this way: 

MLB EAST

MLB WEST

POTENTIAL MLB POSTSEASON CHANGE

As to those playoffs, MLB could both expand the field by two (more October games = more October cash) and streamline TV scheduling under this plan. The latter is another Manfred priority.

Baseball would expand to seven playoff teams in each conference, matching the NFL, and base seeding on the conference standings, like in the NBA. However, there would be no NBA-style play-in tournament.

As in the NFL, only the conference champion would receive a first-round bye, with the six remaining clubs squaring off in the Wild Card Series. Based once again on 2025 records (see above), these would be the matchups:

East: Philadelphia bye; Cincinnati at Toronto, Detroit at Yankees, Cleveland at Boston.
West: Milwaukee bye; Kansas City at Dodgers, Houston at Cubs, San Diego at Seattle.

Bye-bye to Boston vs. "Anaheim," the hypothetical series Manfred always cites when pitching realignment.

The Wild Card winners would advance to the Division Series (maybe renamed the Conference Semifinals), with the lowest remaining seed taking on the top seed and the middle seeds meeting (bye-bye, bracket). The League Championship Series would become the Conference Finals, and the World Series would ... well, it would remain the World Series. It would just be East vs. West instead of American vs. National.

In your mind, would any of this still be baseball? The game on the field wouldn't change, but the business would look a lot more like the leagues that are more popular (the NFL) or have long threatened to become more popular (the NBA). It makes sense to follow the leaders, but baseball's uniqueness would continue to fade. That feels like a bad thing.