Meh. I think the argument changes yearly. For example, our 06 team won the AL Central where the 3rd place team, the reigning WS champs, won 90 games. The 4th place team had a pyth 89 wins. We won .593 of our games overall, but .629 against the east. Toronto, who finished second in the east, would have been fourth. In 07, we won at a .488 clip but played .500 against the east. It's cyclical. For instance, the 02 West was loaded - third place team won 93 games, same number as Boston and one fewer than us. Twins went 19-17 against the west, winning all series except the Oakland one (we got that in the postseason though). Twins were 16 up during the season and had a bad little road trip to Balt/Bost (1-5), dropping them to only 13 games up. In 2000, the Yanks won the East with 87 wins, which would have finished 3rd in the central. The early part of this decade, the best teams were in the AL West, the Central took over for a few years 05-07 or so (In those four years only KC (every year) and Det (04) and Chi (07) had losing records against the East). With the Rays emergence in 08, East went on top. (And the NL was significantly worse than the AL) It seems to me that this idea that the Twins wouldn't be competitive in the east is a made up complaint to minimize actual successes this team has had. The Twins were constructed to compete against the central. If Ryan et al were building us to compete against NY, Bos, TB and Balt (assuming Toronto gets kicked out), the team would have been built differently. They probably would've loaded up on RH bats b/c of how they play in Fenway, Yankee field and Camden. Probably would've focused more on LH pitching then they have. Probably would have been even stronger advocates for revenue sharing. But that's not what's happened. We can play 'what if' games all the time. What if every team was forced to have the same payroll? Seems to me that's a bigger impact than scheduling.