The Old Switcheroo?

There have been initial talks about switching a National League team to the American League, finally balancing out the 16 NL teams and 14 AL teams to an even 15. This would in turn lead to 5 playoff spots in each league during the postseason as opposed to the 4, with a one-game playoff between the two wild card teams seemingly inevitable should this all come to pass.

While many players, managers and fans may not agree with this, giving both leagues the same number of teams might bring a parity to the game that hasn't really existed since the expansion teams of the 90s and the creation of the Central division. The question is, what team makes the switch? And does it geographically make sense for a team to do so? If we here at TBF had to guess, we would say that a team from the NL Central (only division in the game with 6 teams) would make the jump to the AL West (only division in the game with 4 teams). There have been rumors that the Houston Astros could make the switch, thereby instituting a slightly more interesting rivalry with the Texas Rangers. However, being in the same division or league might make the matchup a little less interesting (who cares about watching a Phillies-Pirates matchup? Exactly). Then there's the idea of maybe moving one of the NL teams to make more geographical sense for switching to the AL. Take the Astros and move them to Nevada? The Las Vegas Gamblers? Hey, stranger things have happened (the Montreal Expos?). Hell, the city of Milwaukee has had both of these things happen to it: the Braves left for Atlanta in the 60s, and then the Brewers, who started out as an AL team, made the switch to the NL in 1998. Or, they could always move a team from the AL Central to the AL West, then switch an NL Central team over to the AL Central. But, again, which team makes the switch? The team closest to being in the West would be the Royals, and they're in the heartland of the Central geographically. Or, even more ridiculously, they could simply create 2 more teams in the AL, one in the West and one in the Central to match the NL counterparts. The Oklahoma Plains? The Utah Salts? All right, if it happened, the teams would have better names, but we're just speculating here.

Now, it wouldn't necessarily be prudent or even sensible to make this kind of move. Baseball fans and everyone involved in the sport haven't seemed to mind the imbalance in the number of teams, and the playoff structure has been such that an equal number of teams make it to the postseason despite there being 2 extra teams in the NL. However, if the plans to add a second wild card in both leagues gets accepted (which all indications are pointing to it coming to pass after this or next season), it would only make sense to have 15 teams in both leagues. 5 teams in each division, 1 winner in each division then 2 open spots for any 2 teams that didn't win their respective divisions, 1 game playoff between the two wild cards, and on from there. Not only does it spice up the postseason, it gives a better sense of balance and fairness: in the NL, 2 more teams lose out on a chance at the playoffs every year than in the AL, whereas if they had the same number of teams, there would be a slightly fairer chance for every team (aside from the Cubs, let's face it). As far as this extra wild card idea goes, it's also becoming a polarizing issue amongst fans: does a sudden-death, one-game, single-elimination playoff matchup detract from the spirit and integrity of the playoffs? By allowing an extra team to just hop on the October-bound train only to have a higher chance at getting thrown under the tracks, it takes away a little of the magic, knowing that a team that worked so hard to get into the playoffs can either easily get knocked out, or even worse, knock out another team with high aspirations. But that's just how the game is: everyone can't win all the time. Except for the Yankees.

While we're at all this relocation and switching, why don't we just get rid of the Boston Red Sox? I would be more than fine with that.