What cities should get MLB teams in expansion?
Spencer: I like the idea of Charlotte and Portland. Coastal and newer.
James: Nashville feels inevitable to me. They have an ownership group. They have a stadium deal.They have been patiently doing everything necessary to hit the ground running. If Nashville gets passed over, there are going to be an awful lot of questions needing answers. My guess is, the other team will be placed somewhere in the west. If that’s the case, either Portland or Salt Lake City make sense to me. I would probably preferPortland,
but there is something to be said for SLC getting a team. SLC, Las Vegas, and Arizona make for a nice grouping of three teams to put into a four-team conference. Given that Fisher still owns the Athletics and new teams have significant hurdles placed in their paths, I like Arizona’s chances in such a conference.
Ben: I’ll definitely shill for Nashville – although they’ve done a great job advocating for themselves already. My best friend lives there and I’ve visited enough to really like the area. It’s a surprisingly strong sports town too with good attendance for the Predators, Titans, Nashville SC from MLS, and even the Sounds regularly top MiLB attendance records. I suspect the other site would be on the western side of the country so Salt Lake City would be a strong contender as would Portland, but I’ll go outside the lines a little and ask if another Canadian city like Vancouver or Calgary would be considered given the ongoing focus on growing the game outside of the US.
1AZfan1: Agree with James that Nashville feels like a lock. Salt Lake would be my pick for the other if it comes down to needing to be a western team. I know Portland has been pushing for a team, but Salt Lake City’s push for being the temporary home of the A’s while they waited for the Las Vegas stadium to be built was pretty impressive. Portland does have a larger population than SLC and is close to Seattle, which may be a factor if reducing wear and tear on players by reducing travel distance is the main goal of divisional realignment. If MLB decides that travel distance really isn’t the priority and they don’t go to some sort of East/West conference alignment, I think Charlotte has a really good argument to be the second team added. Charlotte is larger than both Portland and SLC and they already support NFL and NBA teams. Atlanta may have strong feelings about allowing 2 teams from their geographic area into the league, though.
Makakilo: I’m not sure, and I’m giving it some thought. Perhaps it will take an offseason of thinking to decide. A preliminary observation: Of the locations in the United States, Salt Lake City is furthest from any existing MLB team’s city, while at the same time filling the gap between the Rockies, the Diamondbacks, and the Las Vegas As.
With expansion comes the potential for realignment. What do you think the team should prioritize when advocating?
Spencer: I hope they prioritize winning and therefore removal from the California teams. But if Kendrick wants to leave the team to his children, I could very easily see him wanting to keep the Dodgers, Padres and Giants as draws for filling seats with butts regularly.
James: It really depends on how many teams are placed in each division. The common theory seems to be that they will have eight, four-team conferences. If that turns out to be the case, I would want the Diamondbacks to focus on getting themselves slotted into a division away from the Dodgers. With there still being four teams remaining in California, it would make sense for California to be its own conference. But, there is something to be said for regional rivalries and travel time. I could see Arizona winding up in a conference with San Diego and maybe even the Dodgers. If I am Kendrick, I am trying to avoid that. Sure, those games might put a few more butts in seats, but the reality is that the team would be forever praying to earn a wild card berth each season. Away from the California juggernauts, Arizona has a real chance of being competitive every season.
Ben: While I’d obviously love to see the team prioritize winning when advocating, I suspect they will keep an eye out on attendance and revenue. Those competing priorities might mean that the team focuses more on being grouped with at least one of the California teams, but I could easily see them betting on the population growth of the expansion team like SLC and expecting to be the “big fish” in the smaller pond to offset the lost rivalry from the current alignment.
1AZfan1: Getting away from the juggernaut Dodgers seems to be the consensus, and I agree with that, but I’ll present a devil’s advocate view. Staying in the same division as the Padres, Giants and Dodgers (likely the other 3 teams in a theoretical 4 team division) would be really good for regular season attendance, as noted by Spencer above, which provides a more stable stream of income than hoping for playoff revenue (at least that’s what I assume). What the Diamondbacks ownership group could bang the table for if they appear to be getting pushed into this monster of a division is for MLB to add a fourth Wild Card berth. That would take the odds of being a playoff team up from the current model. As we’ve seen every year, division crowns don’t necessarily equate to playoff success, so just get to the dance by whatever means and then who knows what can happen once you’re in. Getting expanded playoff berths while keeping our current rivalries would be best of both worlds, in my opinion.
Makakilo: Grouping the Diamondbacks with Denver, Las Vegas, and Salt Lake City would be geographically close. Also, the absence of the Dodgers would feel great. That means I hope Salt Lake City gets an expansion team.
Thinking deeper, if Portland gets an expansion team, perhaps they would be grouped with California teams, making it less likely that the Diamondbacks will be grouped with the Dodgers.
Corbin Carroll is setting career highs like they are nothing this season. How many (and which ones) do you think will remain career highs for him when he’s preparing for retirement?
Spencer: I’m going to be optimistic and say none of the 2025 career highs he’s set remain so when he’s giving his Hall of Fame induction speech.
James: I think it is still possible that Carroll ends up with a 20-triple season. If he does, I could see that being a single-season highwater mark. I would not be surprised if he continues to set new marks for the next few years though.
Ben: I love Spencer’s optimism! I tend to agree with James, the number of triples he’s posted this year will be difficult to surpass. They’re just so situation-dependent while something like home runs are a little less so and can be a focus in the offseason for him.
1AZfan1: I’ll guess that this year will be his high-water mark for Outfield Assists, but who knows. I am just continually floored by the man, I’m sure he can find plenty of ways to surprise us.
Makakilo: James looks right: he will hit 4 more triples to reach 20, which will very likely be a career-high.
Gurriel looks like Schwarber in August. Does this change his decision on the player option he holds for 2026?
Spencer: I lean no, but I somewhat hope he does opt out. It would give us some more leeway on the free agent market. Assuming we stick in house with his replacement, it could open up some Reno/Amarillo playing time for the likes of Caldwell and Waldschmidt and maybe some MLB time for Lawlar.
James: I don’t think one hot month towards the end of the season is going to change his calculus much. If he stays this hot through the end of the season entirely, maybe he opts out. If he doesn’t opt out, I think he returns as the veteran presence and, despite his salary, becomes a part-time player. But that would require some prospects panning out too.
Ben: He’d have to go on a real heater over the last few weeks to warrant opting out. Given his age and track record, he’d have a difficult time beating out the $13 million his option includes on the open market given the upcoming free agent market for outfielders has alternatives at basically every price point.
Makakilo: In August, his homers per PA was 6.7% (compared to 2.8% March to July). In August, his RBIs per PA was 31.1% (compared to 11.3% March to July). Very impressive!
A broader look at the entire season shows 14 K% (89th percentile in MLB per Baseball Savant), which was much better than 18 K% projected. Two contributors were whiffs and squared-up at the 77th percentile. It is unlikely he will opt out because:
- his full season OPS is slightly less than projected.
- his homers are nearly entirely pulled (perhaps not sustainable).
- he can achieve great performance in his role as a Diamondback.
1AZfan1: Agree with James that he’s gonna need to stay close to this hot through the end of the season to make opting out a real possibility. If he ends up around 25 HR/100 RBI, there’s likely a multi-year deal waiting for him in free agency. If he’s closer to 20/85, it means he didn’t do much of anything the final month of the year and other teams would probably be wary of offering more than a single year guaranteed.
You’ve woken up and the world needs you to pick a naming structure for a whole new human solar system. What do you roll with?
Spencer: I am a well known Star Wars fan. So I’ll go with my favorite fandom and go with that. But I would want to see each solar body and decide which name fits best. Whatever planet humans settle first would be Coruscant. But if there’s a big water giant out there, Mon Calamari would be good. I’d try to focus on the lesser known planets from the lore rather than the generic single biome planets the movies tend to show.
James: I tend to be unimaginative and practical about those sorts of things. Spencer’s Forest Moon of Endor would simply be Forest Moon. Aarakis is simply called Dune. A water planet like Caladan would be Oceana, a diverse world would probably be some “clever” name that is a reference to a number, representing whatever number planet it is for the naming convention.
Ben: I’m also not creative enough for this assignment. I think the easiest method would be to find the identifying geographical or geological features of the planet and find a systematic way beyond that.
Makakilo: Instead of naming the planets after Greek Gods, I’d roll with women superheroes:
Mercury> Lightning
Venus> Wonder Woman
Earth> Electra
Mars> Black Widow
Jupiter> Thunder
Saturn> Supergirl
Uranus> The Wasp
Neptune> Elastagirl
1AZfan1: Good idea from Mak! I have zero imagination so will probably just stick with naming conventions that I’m familiar with. The planet with human existence will be Earth and I’d just go from there with the closest planets to Earth being Venus and Mars and so on. No need to change a whole bunch of names, enough has obviously changed that I don’t need to go mucking it up even more with new planet names to learn.
[Ed. note] Special thanks to Spencer for his assistance with this week’s roundtable!
