Now, you're showing your ignorance. The Astros had a fierce rivalry with the Cardinals stemming from the 2001 pennant race and the postseasons of 2004 and 2005. Likewise, the Braves were an intense rival (at least from Houston's perspective) after postseason battles in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004 and 2005. The Cubs had also risen in rivalry status after the Hurricane Ike fiasco in 2008 that Selig had a hand in.
Houston also had simmering feuds with the Mets (expansion twins in 1962 and LCS opponents in 1986) and the Dodgers (from those NL West wars of the 1980s).
We were forced to give all that up for 14 teams that mean nothing to us although the flacks on Selig's payroll told us how wonderful it would be to play the Rangers, Red Sox and Yankees every year. The dirty truth is that Rangers/Astros games never sold out when they had fewer dates.
For now, Astros fans are so turned off by the move and the losing that those games have more Rangers, Red Sox and Yankee fans at the park than they do Astros fans. And the other 11 AL teams can't attract flies. Attendance is down 60% from what it was six years ago and tv ratings are worse than MSNBC's.
But other than the Reds - the Braves, Dodgers, Giants & Padres were all bigger rivals for the Astros than any NL Central team.
I stand by that statement, as amended.
I think we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a rivalry. I don't view 2 playoff series 26 years apart as a rivalry. I don't view being forced to play a make-up game played on a neutral field as a rivalry.
Rivalries require reciprocity of animosity or respect - on the field, in the stands or at neighborhood taverns. Rivalries can also be based upon geographic proximity (like the remaining NL Central) or long-term familiarity (like the Reds vs. Astros).
BUT if your closest divisional opponent is more than a 10 hour car ride away, it's hard to call that team a rival. If the players and fans of the other team are ambivalent about your squad or fans, you don't have a rivalry.
As I said, it's unfortunate that the Lords of Baseball compelled the Astros to move to the AL. Personally, I would have moved the Rockies to the AL West and returned the Astros to the NL West. The Rockies' style of play is better suited to the AL, the travel to/from Seattle would have made more sense and the Rockies don't have a lengthy NL history.
But while that scenario would have kept Houston in the NL, it would have left Phoenix as the Astros' nearest divisional destination - a mere 1,200 miles away. Maybe that's why the MLB owners chose to move the Astros - to give them at least one nearby rival.
Baseball ownership is a good old boys network. Mr. Crane simply came late to the party. Someday that could change. Who knows what the future holds for the Rays in Tampa Bay?