Bigger, Not Better

I must’ve been out of the room back in October when Baseball America ran a story on MLB realignment, predicated on two expansion teams (say, Portland and Montreal) increasing the franchise total to 32.

In that case, BA contributor Tracy Ringolsby proposed four eight-team divisions based on points of the compass, more or less—north, east, west and midwest.  (I hope people in the South won’t be too offended at not getting a division of their own).  For added measure, a Trib columnist this week suggested the DH rule be added to the changes, so the Cubs could hang onto Kyle Schwarber.

Allow me a few observations here.  First, it would be nice if the Tribune sports’ section stopped shilling for the North Side baseball team; newspaper and franchise are no longer owned by the same entity.  It’s OK to think on your own now, guys, not like when Sammy Sosa juiced up with nary a word of comment.

Second, playing the other divisions is a terrible idea, an NFL idea, if you will.  What’s the greatest Super Bowl game of all time?  Arguably, III, when Joe Namath and his distinctively AFL Jets’ team beat a distinctively NFL Colts’ team that had Johnny Unitas on it (though he didn’t start).  All this realignment does is take interleague play to its logical—and destructive—end.  Let the NL have the pitcher hit; I don’t care.  Let the Cubs and Cards have their own division separate from the Sox and Tigers; on that I do care.  Just don’t homogenize baseball more than it is.

Finally—two more teams.  Think about it.  That means fifty more major-league roster spots on top of 150 minor-league ones (not counting rookie-level), plus coaches and scouts.  How many of those spots would go to women, do you think?  How many blowhards out there would rather complain about how the new 32-team setup further dilutes weak pitching rather than consider the possibility that a female or two might be able to get the job done?  Just wondering.