Why are you so dismissive of this? We're about to see a great test case: the Brooklyn Nets. And they're already generating a ton of media. Do you really believe that Brooklyn, a relatively chic city unto itself with an incredible baseball history, couldn't draw?

No, a team in Brooklyn would probably draw fine. I never said they wouldn't.

Long Island would probably be split, with the Yankees' base going to Brooklyn.

And here is where you are wrong. Far, far more likely that the new team takes Mets fans from Brooklyn and LI than Yankees fans. At least as long as the Yankees are good and especially while the entire Mets franchise is in shambles. Or course, none of it will matter since the Yankees will still have Manhattan, Bronx, northern NJ, Westchester, and western Connecticut. A team in Brooklyn will do nothing to Yankees fans in those areas. It would basically take a sustained period of shitty Yankees teams for a third team to really be a hindrance to the Yankees profits. So unless this 3rd team in Brooklyn also manages to resurrect 80's era Steinbrenner, it will be the Mets who lose fans/money.

Tokyo and Seoul. It would be interesting logistically.

I have no idea if this is realistic, but I would wonder about placing a team in Connecticut somewhere. It would probably primarily take fans from the Yankees and Red Sox (thus mostly sparing the crippled Mets). Plus, while I doubt many people would switch over initially, the idea of rooting for a team that represents your home state would probably win people over eventually, especially with there being no other teams in that state. Also, it would get some visiting crowds from Boston and New York to help sustain it initially (though I would admit that for those first few years, those "home" games against the Yankees, Red Sox, or even Mets, would be anything but that).

The economic downturns of the past four years have probably hurt the prospects for any expansion franchise anywhere. But there's no intrinsic reason why a Brooklyn team would hurt the Yankees (as most agree), or even the Mets (as many fear). During the late 1990s and the 2000s, with huge and increasing interest in baseball and an insane amount of money circulating, MLB could have had three or even four franchises in NYC – interest in each would have amplified interest in all the others. London currently has five Premier League clubs, right? I realize that there are many differences, but New York is an enormous, and enormously rich, city, even bigger and richer than London. A pro sports league that would hesitate to put a third team there just has no confidence in its product.

Now of course the reality is that the odd organization of MLB gives the Yankees and Mets a veto over such expansion, and the realities of stadium-building mean that a third MLB park there would be very difficult to organize. But three teams could certainly co-exist in NYC, and all could thrive.

If I could wave a magic wand and 1) wish away the economic collapse since 2008, 2) ensure competent, well-financed ownership, and 3) ensure decent stadium deals; I would put the 4 new franchises in:

1) Montreal - I think the city deserves another chance
2) Charlotte - it's got the money and business presence to sustain a team
3) Las Vegas - I think comps for the high rollers would fill enough luxury suites
4) Portland Ore - see #2

If I could also alter the international political situation at will, I would replace 3 & 4 with Havana & Monterrey. I do think Tokyo & Seoul would also be worth thinking about seriously.

On another note, I think even with 4 divisions in each league there should still be 2 Wild Cards. Round 1 of the playoffs would be 3 games with the top two division winners getting 3 days off. Round 2 would be 5 games and the LCS would stay at 7 (or could revert to 5). Maybe cut down on the number of off days in the middle of the postseason, with some of the getaway games scheduled as day games.

as well as for more-forced natural rivals such as the San Diego Padres and Seattle Mariners.

I don't care how forced it is; I'm still a fan of this rivalry. I realize I'm the only one.

If you're curious, I believe the current record is 44-36 in favor of the Mariners.

London currently has five Premier League clubs, right? I realize that there are many differences, but New York is an enormous, and enormously rich, city, even bigger and richer than London.

Only 3 are actually competitive though and one of those 3 only because it is the favorite toy of a Russion billionaire.

Also, I am pretty sure baseball requires a much larger population than soccer. Mostly it's the difference between 81 home games and 19.

Fair enough, but do you run out of games on a normal night? Wouldn't you be worried that expansion would lead again to more payroll discrepancy and that the Royals would be on the low end again and 'forced' to trade away their best players?

I don't see how. The two new expansion teams would probably be smaller-to-mid markets unless Brooklyn/NJ gets a team.

The Royals are always going to be a small market and will have to battle the odds to make the playoffs. I don't think adding two mid-market sized teams, even if they initially have high payrolls, will change that much.

If I could wave a magic wand and 1) wish away the economic collapse since 2008, 2) ensure competent, well-financed ownership, and 3) ensure decent stadium deals; I would put the 4 new franchises in:

I'd put one in (a) either Brooklyn or northern NJ; and (b) Portland. I probably wouldn't add four, but the next two on my list are Montreal and Charlotte.

Salt Lake City, mentioned above, would be interesting, but they're probably a ways away.

I don't see how. The two new expansion teams would probably be smaller-to-mid markets unless Brooklyn/NJ gets a team.

I don't think it matters if the new teams are big spenders - it is still 2 more teams going after talent. The Rays haven't spent, and the payroll disparity grew since their expansion.

I don't think it matters if the new teams are big spenders - it is still 2 more teams going after talent. The Rays haven't spent, and the payroll disparity grew since their expansion.

And the Royals aren't really players in going after talent. And when they do, it usually backfires.

This will probably affect the mid-sized markets like Toronto and Washington more than teams like the Royals and Pirates or Rays for that matter.

I would think you would target Mexico City at some point. Enormous metro area, plus the natural draw from the rest of the country.

If I could do four teams I'd do Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, and Sydney. That'd be enough they could play against each other, teams could do a longer road trip and play a couple series. Huge market to exploit.

My scheduling plan with 6 5-team divisions.

Division games: 18 x 4 = 72
League Games: 6 x 10 = 60
Interleague Games: 3 x 10 = 30
Total is 162.

The intercity rivalries are sort of preserved by each division playing its rival division every year. However, instead of Mets-Yankees for 6 games each year, it's 3 games in the Bronx this year, 3 games in Queens next year. This way, everybody in the same division has the same opponents.

But what the article seems to imply is that teams will still have a guaranteed series with their interleague "rival", but not a home-and-home.

That's my understanding also - the rival games are not going away, but there's no longer a guarantee of six of them every year.

Osuna's plan makes too much sense for MLB actually to adopt it :)

My scheduling plan with 6 5-team divisions.

You can also work with it if MLB wants to unbalance the schedule by one rivalry series - that is, each team plays a full division from the other league, plus a series against its rival (which makes it a home-and-home once every 3 years) as follows:

Division: 21 x 4 = 84
League: 6 x 10 = 60
Interleague: 5 x 3 = 15
Rivalry: 1 x 3 = 3

Or you can do 16 against each team in the division, and 8 against the teams in the other divisions. But it's probably tougher to schedule that option into series.

Give the rest of MLB a financial break and put franchises in Northern New Jersey and the Inland Empire.

I would love to see Baltimore get a major-league franchise.

I would love to see Baltimore get a major-league franchise.

You do realize that the O's are leading the AL East, right?

You do realize that it is May 1st, right?

Or that Baltimore is now in second place?

Or that on May 1st, 2011, Cleveland was 19-8, in first place by 4.5 games...over Kansas City, who was in second place with a 15-13 record?

Again: I would love to see Baltimore get a major-league franchise.

Why is Boston never mentioned? It is the largest Combined Statistical Area (Miami, Tampa, San Diego, and Phoenix are not considered CSA's) without two teams and it is the seventh largest TV market, with only Philly and Dallas ahead of them without two teams. I think it lost its last Fortune 500 company with the sale of Gillette, but it has the largest privately owned company and a large financial and legal sector. One thing it doesn't have is the "natural" geographic separation that cities/areas with two teams seem to have. Middlesex County in the most populous in the state, but off the top of my head I cannot think of a great location based on population concentration and easy access. A new stadium would probably have to be on the water or in Somerville near the proposed Green Line extension.

PS- I don't know how the market size measures I used are good indicators of possible support. They were just the numbers I could find.