What MLB Expansion, Realignment Could Mean for Minnesota Twins

[Matthew Taylor]

Image courtesy of © David Banks-Imagn Images

When Rob Manfred appeared on ESPN’s broadcast of the Little League Classic in Williamsport, he was asked about the future of Major League Baseball expansion. His answer raised eyebrows across the league:

“I think if we expand it provides us with an opportunity to geographically realign. I think we could save a lot of wear and tear on our players in terms of travel. I think our postseason format would be even more appealing," he said. "You’d be playing [brackets made up of short series] out of the East, out of the West … That 10 o’clock slot that’s a problem for us sometimes becomes a real opportunity for our West Coast audience.”

Manfred didn’t give specifics, but the implication is clear. If MLB expands to 32 teams, the American and National Leagues as we know them may be dismantled, in favor of geographically defined conferences. A couple of years ago, The Athletic’s Jim Bowden speculated on what this might look like, dropping the Twins into a division with the Cubs, White Sox, and Brewers. While purely hypothetical, it’s fun to imagine what this could mean for Minnesota.

For fans, one of the biggest perks would be accessibility. Right now, divisional matchups with Kansas City, Cleveland, or Detroit aren’t exactly “must-travel” events. But if the Twins were regularly squaring off with Milwaukee, Chicago’s North Side, and the South Side, you’d suddenly have several drivable destinations for weekend baseball trips. It’s never made sense that the Twins and Brewers, just a few hours apart, weren’t in the same division. This setup would fix that, and supercharge local rivalries. A Cubs-Twins divisional matchup several times each season would sell tickets no matter the standings, and Brewers-Twins games could evolve into true border-war matchups. Beyond the gates, it could also boost the Twins’ national relevance. More high-profile games with big-name opponents would mean more chances to appear in primetime slots, something Twins fans rarely see outside of the postseason.

Of course, realignment would also come with downsides. Since the 1990s, the AL Central has quietly been the most forgiving division in baseball. Division winners regularly finish with the lowest win totals of any group, and payrolls are generally in the bottom third. That reality has often played to the Twins’ benefit. Leaving behind that structure, especially in an era when the Twins project as one of the lower-spending franchises, could mean a tougher path to October. Instead of battling the Guardians and Royals (teams with modest payrolls), you could be swapping out Kansas City’s shoestring budget for the deep pockets of the Cubs. That change would immediately tilt the competitive balance, making life a lot tougher for Minnesota.

There’s also the matter of tradition. Baseball is as much about history as it is about box scores. The Twins have built decades of identity in the American League, from their early days battling the Yankees and Athletics to more recent clashes with the Guardians and Tigers. Think of the unforgettable 2009 tiebreaker with Detroit or the endless duels with Cleveland pitching staffs. A geographic reshuffle would wipe away much of that history, replacing familiar foes with new faces. For long-time fans, the sense of identity tied to the “American League Minnesota Twins” would be diminished.

Division realignment is an intriguing thought experiment, and there’s no doubt it comes with some fan-friendly perks. More accessible road trips, livelier rivalries, and national attention could all be positives for Minnesota. On the flip side, the Twins would lose the cushy AL Central setup and the deep traditions that come with decades of shared history. Personally, I’m against division realignment. Baseball’s two-league system has a rich history woven into its very fabric, and it feels unnecessary to rip that apart. Modern travel isn’t the grueling burden it once was; chartered flights and advanced recovery make cross-country trips far less of an obstacle. For me, the trade-offs aren’t worth erasing baseball’s heritage.

---

What do you think? Would you welcome the Twins into a new division with the Cubs, Brewers, and White Sox? Or do you want to see the franchise remain rooted in the American League Central? Let’s hear your take in the comments.

View full article

[EGFTShaw]

This, also on The Athletic, (Projecting what MLB realignment might look like with expansion on the horizon - The Athletic) has a better alignment with expansion.

Twins stay with Clev, Tigers, ChiSox with KC moving to a division with Houston, Texas and Rockies switching leagues.

AL East: NYY, BlueJays, Boston, Bal
AL South: Houston, Colorado, Texas, KC
AL North: MN, Det, Chi, Cle
AL West: LV, LAA, Seattle and Expansion Team

NL East: NYM, Nats, Philly and Pitt
NL South: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa(league switch) and Expansion team
NL North: Cubs, Reds, Mil and StL
NL West: LAD, SD, SF and AZ

[DJL44]

Putting two teams from the same geographic area together in the same division is a very stupid idea. It guarantees one team wins the market and the other becomes an afterthought. Why would MLB want to have only one of the Yankees or Mets in the playoffs when they could have both the Yankees and Mets in the playoffs instead?

I think we will see geographic realignment to 4-team divisions, but we don't need to blow up the American and National Leagues.

[JBK]

13 minutes ago, EGFTShaw said:

This, also on The Athletic, (Projecting what MLB realignment might look like with expansion on the horizon - The Athletic) has a better alignment with expansion.

Twins stay with Clev, Tigers, ChiSox with KC moving to a division with Houston, Texas and Rockies switching leagues.

AL East: NYY, BlueJays, Boston, Bal
AL South: Houston, Colorado, Texas, KC
AL North: MN, Det, Chi, Cle
AL West: LV, LAA, Seattle and Expansion Team

NL East: NYM, Nats, Philly and Pitt
NL South: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa(league switch) and Expansion team
NL North: Cubs, Reds, Mil and StL
NL West: LAD, SD, SF and AZ

.........assuming Portland and Nashville get the expansion franchises.  I didn't know Portland was a hotbed for MLB baseball.

[luckylager]

I am a fan of not having a slew of games that don't finish until after 11PM Central Time. With the acceptance of the DH in the NL, and increased inter-league play, there really is no reason for separate leagues anymore. Regular coast-to-coast travel is costly both financially and physically. Divisions based on region make much more sense. 

[Craig Arko]

If they’re still around, I’d expect them to parallel the NFL alignment as closely as they can.

[The Great Hambino]

I don't like the assumption that we're heading to 4 4-team divisions regardless of how realignment shakes out.  That just exacerbates the issue we've experienced with weak champions getting produced by a 3-division setup.  I suppose this could be mitigated by re-seeding (it makes no sense that the #1 seed faces one of the top two wild cards while the #2 seed gets either the worst division winner or the worst wild card), but that's getting a little off-topic.

It makes for a playoff bracket that's more fair and more reflective of the regular season if they had 2 8-team divisions in each league.  Your two division winners get the byes, top 2 wild card teams host the bottom 2.  That weak champ from the 4-division setup is now in the wild card mix (or left out entirely) and doesn't get preferential seed treatment by virtue of just happening to be grouped with 3 other weak teams

 

[Vanimal46]

10 years later, and we still don’t have a stadium solution for both the Rays and A’s. Expansion doesn’t make sense until the existing 30 teams are in good shape. 

[Vanimal46]

26 minutes ago, JBK said:

.........assuming Portland and Nashville get the expansion franchises.  I didn't know Portland was a hotbed for MLB baseball.

If they’re seeking a city on the west coast for balance, Salt Lake City or Vancouver are much better options than Portland. 

[NYCTK]

14 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Why would MLB want to have only one of the Yankees or Mets in the playoffs when they could have both the Yankees and Mets in the playoffs instead?

Just because only one of the Mets/Yankees/Red Sox/Phillies could win that hypothetical division doesn't mean the others can't still make the playoffs. Wild cards wouldn't disappear, the playoffs won't shrink as much as I might want that.

However, MLB could go from 6 Mets/Yankees games a year to 14. And 14 Phillies/Yankees and 14 Mets/Red Sox. 

The hope is more regionally driven rivalries could give a big boost to the league, not to mention a radical realignment creating intrigue to the more passive fans.

I think this sort of shake up is a great idea. The Twins have no historically significant rivalries and I don't fear missing out on competing with anyone inside the current AL Central. They can easily preserve the rivalries deemed important (NYY/BOS, CHC/STL, LAD/SFG) and amplify some more (NYY/NYM, CHC/CHW, LAA/LAD, MIN/MIL) while creating new ones in the process. 
 

 

 

[DJL44]

4 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

However, MLB could go from 6 Mets/Yankees games a year to 14. And 14 Phillies/Yankees and 14 Mets/Red Sox. 

Making those games commonplace and boring instead of rare and unique. The Twins can't sell tickets in Minneapolis right now. Do you think Brewers fans are going to drive to Minneapolis for 14 games a year?

17 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

10 years later, and we still don’t have a stadium solution for both the Rays and A’s.

The A's are headed to Vegas. They broke ground in June. The Rays will get a new stadium in Florida by playing Tampa, St. Pete and Orlando against each other.

Since you brought up stadiums, that's the leading indicator of where the expansion teams will end up. I think it's far more likely that San Antonio gets a team than Portland, OR. Texan politicians love to spend their tax revenues on sports stadiums. Nashville is possible, but not Vancouver. Charlotte is another possibility, but not Montreal.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, EGFTShaw said:

AL East: NYY, BlueJays, Boston, Bal
AL South: Houston, Colorado, Texas, KC
AL North: MN, Det, Chi, Cle
AL West: LV, LAA, Seattle and Expansion Team

NL East: NYM, Nats, Philly and Pitt
NL South: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa(league switch) and Expansion team
NL North: Cubs, Reds, Mil and StL
NL West: LAD, SD, SF and AZ

AL South: Houston, Rangers, SAN ANTONIO, KC
AL West: LAA, LVA, SEA, COL

NL South: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, NASHVILLE or CHARLOTTE

 

[NYCTK]

8 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Do you think Brewers fans are going to drive to Minneapolis for 14 games a year?

No. I can't imagine they'd be interested enough in Twins baseball enough to travel there for 7 games that the Brewers aren't playing. 

[Doctor Gast]

I like the idea of eliminating West Coast regular games in the future. I'd like more games in the south in early spring but that's not happening where they stand now. So a change won't make that much difference.

[UpstateNewYorker]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Making those games commonplace and boring instead of rare and unique. The Twins can't sell tickets in Minneapolis right now. Do you think Brewers fans are going to drive to Minneapolis for 14 games a year?

The A's are headed to Vegas. They broke ground in June. The Rays will get a new stadium in Florida by playing Tampa, St. Pete and Orlando against each other.

Since you brought up stadiums, that's the leading indicator of where the expansion teams will end up. I think it's far more likely that San Antonio gets a team than Portland, OR. Texan politicians love to spend their tax revenues on sports stadiums. Nashville is possible, but not Vancouver. Charlotte is another possibility, but not Montreal.

Supposedly Nashville and Salt Lake City are the leaders in the clubhouse to get the expansion teams -- one "eastern" team and one "western" team to balance things out. 

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

If they’re seeking a city on the west coast for balance, Salt Lake City or Vancouver are much better options than Portland. 

I'd rather go see a game in Vancouver then Portland and Portland over Salt Lake.

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Making those games commonplace and boring instead of rare and unique. The Twins can't sell tickets in Minneapolis right now. Do you think Brewers fans are going to drive to Minneapolis for 14 games a year?

The A's are headed to Vegas. They broke ground in June. The Rays will get a new stadium in Florida by playing Tampa, St. Pete and Orlando against each other.

Since you brought up stadiums, that's the leading indicator of where the expansion teams will end up. I think it's far more likely that San Antonio gets a team than Portland, OR. Texan politicians love to spend their tax revenues on sports stadiums. Nashville is possible, but not Vancouver. Charlotte is another possibility, but not Montreal.

TX politicians live to shovel taxpayer $$$$ to their billionaire benefactors.

[DJL44]

56 minutes ago, UpstateNewYorker said:

Supposedly Nashville and Salt Lake City are the leaders in the clubhouse to get the expansion teams -- one "eastern" team and one "western" team to balance things out. 

I could see SLC using public money to build a stadium. They spent big to get the Olympics.

One other fun part with expansion is it means adding 3 minor league teams and 2 spring training complex teams for each MLB team. I am expecting Oakland will get AAA baseball soon.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Parfigliano said:

I'd rather go see a game in Vancouver then Portland and Portland over Salt Lake.

San Antonio over all of them. You can visit Pee-Wee's bicycle in the basement of the Alamo.

All kidding aside, San Antonio + Austin = 5+ million people within driving distance. No other site has numbers like that.

Ranking by potential media market

San Antonio + Austin (similar to Phoenix, Atlanta)

Charlotte, Portland, Nashville (St Louis, Pittsburgh, San Diego)

Salt Lake City (Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cincinnati)

I doubt MLB will want to bring in another revenue sharing recipient in SLC. Charlotte and Nashville would be revenue neutral. Charlotte would capture all of North Carolina's attention (11M people) and Nashville would get all of Tennessee (7.3M). Those numbers are significantly higher than Oregon (4.3M) or Utah (3.5M).

[NYCTK]

45 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

San Antonio over all of them. You can visit Pee-Wee's bicycle in the basement of the Alamo.

All kidding aside, San Antonio + Austin = 5+ million people within driving distance. No other site has numbers like that.

Ranking by potential media market

San Antonio + Austin (similar to Phoenix, Atlanta)

Charlotte, Portland, Nashville (St Louis, Pittsburgh, San Diego)

Salt Lake City (Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cincinnati)

I doubt MLB will want to bring in another revenue sharing recipient in SLC. Charlotte and Nashville would be revenue neutral. Charlotte would capture all of North Carolina's attention (11M people) and Nashville would get all of Tennessee (7.3M). Those numbers are significantly higher than Oregon (4.3M) or Utah (3.5M).

The only advantage to SLC is the proximity to Denver, creating a regional pair...and I guess the general beauty of SLC and the inhabitants therein. 

[NYCTK]

Trevor Plouffe's Realignment Proposal - 

EAST - 

Northeast: NYY, NYM, BOS, TOR
Atlantic: PHI, WSN, PIT, BAL  
Midwest: CIN, CLE, DET, STL
Southeast: MIA, TBR, ATL, NSH

WEST - 

Pacific: LAD, SDP, SFG, LAA
Southwest: ARI, TEX, HOU, KCR
Great Lakes: MIN, MIL, CHC, CHW
Mountain: COL, SEA, LVA, (por/slc/van)
 

 

[Vanimal46]

48 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

San Antonio + Austin = 5+ million people within driving distance. No other site has numbers like that.

While that’s true, the traffic to get to and from both cities is awful. You’re not going to get a lot of commuters driving up from San Antonio for a Tuesday night game in Austin, or vice versa. I-35 is the main highway and that’s a parking lot 24 hours a day. One of the big reasons why I moved out of Austin… 

[LA Vikes Fan]

5 hours ago, EGFTShaw said:

This, also on The Athletic, (Projecting what MLB realignment might look like with expansion on the horizon - The Athletic) has a better alignment with expansion.

Twins stay with Clev, Tigers, ChiSox with KC moving to a division with Houston, Texas and Rockies switching leagues.

AL East: NYY, BlueJays, Boston, Bal
AL South: Houston, Colorado, Texas, KC
AL North: MN, Det, Chi, Cle
AL West: LV, LAA, Seattle and Expansion Team

NL East: NYM, Nats, Philly and Pitt
NL South: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa(league switch) and Expansion team
NL North: Cubs, Reds, Mil and StL
NL West: LAD, SD, SF and AZ

I like this much better than what's in the article. It preserves the league identity and keeps cities with two teams having one in each league. It does however leave a really bad division in the NL South but the rest of it looks good

[Western SD Fan]

I don't see how you get away from 9PM CT starts.  Just call me ignorant, I guess.  In most of the realigned division proposals, the Twins are in the Western Conference, much like they are in the NBA or NHL.  Those respective teams still have to play late games on the west coast.  The Twins could actually play MORE late games than they currently do if you apply the MLB scheduling formula as so:

3 game series vs other Conference = 48 games (most games are a 6PM CT start)

13 games within division = 39 games (all games would be a 7PM CT start, CHC exception since they love their day games)

6 games vs remainder of conference = 72 games (other than COL, everyone else will be at or near a 9PM CT start)

1 - 3 game series vs an old rivalry that was split up in realignment (this is more for teams like ATL/NYM, NYM/PHI, not necessarily for MIN, although people who love the rivalry from DET/MIN or CLE/MIN could potentially see a revival here, similar to the MIL/MIN home and home we see now)

Currently we see at most 15-21 games with the late west coast times.  3 teams from the AL West and up to 3 teams from the NL West.  Under a new realignment proposal (using Plouffe's since it's easy to reference), you would see 24 games with a near 9PM CT start (LAD, SDP, SFG, LAA, ARI, SEA, LVA, (por/slc/van)).  Note:  You'd subtract three9PM CT starts if SLC was given the expansion team.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Making those games commonplace and boring instead of rare and unique. The Twins can't sell tickets in Minneapolis right now. Do you think Brewers fans are going to drive to Minneapolis for 14 games a year?

The A's are headed to Vegas. They broke ground in June. The Rays will get a new stadium in Florida by playing Tampa, St. Pete and Orlando against each other.

Since you brought up stadiums, that's the leading indicator of where the expansion teams will end up. I think it's far more likely that San Antonio gets a team than Portland, OR. Texan politicians love to spend their tax revenues on sports stadiums. Nashville is possible, but not Vancouver. Charlotte is another possibility, but not Montreal.

The A's to Vegas thing has been a total clown show.

MLB should not be expanding, but they likely will.

[TheLeviathan]

Personally - Salt Lake City isn't a pro town.  It just isn't.  I'm not sure Portland should be either.

If they expand I'd like to see it be Charlotte and Nashville and go with this format:

AL Central:

Twins, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, Astros, Rangers, Brewers, Cardinals

AL West:

A's, Angels, Mariners, Rockies, Dodgers, D-backs, Padres, Giants

NL Central:

Tigers, Reds, Nashville, Pirates, Guardians, Rays, Blue Jays, Braves

NL East:

Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Orioles, Phillies, Nats, Marlins, Charlotte

Keep the playoff format.  Division winners get byes.  Top 4 teams from either division get re-seeded for the first round.

Someone send my resume to MLB.

[USAFChief]

The chances MLB goes back to 2  divisions per league are roughly equal to Sydney Sweeney calling me for a date.

Ain't happening. 

[Major League Ready]

10 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

The chances MLB goes back to 2  divisions per league are roughly equal to Sydney Sweeney calling me for a date.

Ain't happening. 

It works for the NBA and NHL.  What do you think would preclude MLB from following their format?

[tarheeltwinsfan]

6 hours ago, EGFTShaw said:

This, also on The Athletic, (Projecting what MLB realignment might look like with expansion on the horizon - The Athletic) has a better alignment with expansion.

Twins stay with Clev, Tigers, ChiSox with KC moving to a division with Houston, Texas and Rockies switching leagues.

AL East: NYY, BlueJays, Boston, Bal
AL South: Houston, Colorado, Texas, KC
AL North: MN, Det, Chi, Cle
AL West: LV, LAA, Seattle and Expansion Team

NL East: NYM, Nats, Philly and Pitt
NL South: Atlanta, Miami, Tampa(league switch) and Expansion team
NL North: Cubs, Reds, Mil and StL
NL West: LAD, SD, SF and AZ

I hope Raleigh/Durham or Charlotte gets an expansion team in the NL South, since I live in North Carolina.

[TheLeviathan]

Here's what I know....whatever they decide to do: The last @*&*ing thing I want to hear is about "tradition" or "the way it always was"

MLB needs to drag anyone attached to that notion kicking and screaming out of the room that makes decisions.

MLB needs to be radical.