(12-06-2019 05:15 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 04:57 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 09:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The wrong team joined the Rams, the Raiders would be killing it. Dumb decision making by all parties involved.

I don’t see how with the overwhelming opposition owners and even the city had to the idea of the Raiders returning. While I agree with you that fans would have came out for the Silver and Black, i don’t think anyone wants to see Mark Davis succeed.

He's right from a popularity standpoint - there is no question the fanbase is there. Hell, they've sold about $100MM more in SSLs in Vegas than they expected. Of course, what that really indicates isn't so much that LA is a hotbed but that Raiders fans, wherever they are in CA, will travel to Raiders games.

But your point is the relevant one to the argument: Neither the NFL nor LA (and this applies to pretty much every LA metro area city except Carson) wanted the Raiders. Al screwed the City of LA, he ripped off Irwindale, and he sued everybody. I think they'll be happy to have a new market in Las Vegas but I don't think they're particularly happy it's Mark Davis who is benefiting.

NFL owners are stupid. They let their personal differences get in the way of the better interests of the league. I mean the better interests of the league would be Las Vegas and the Chargers staying in San Diego rather than moving to a market that doesn't want them. You can't really move the Jets now but why have two teams in a market rather than have more markets? The Raiders supposedly had a deal in the 1990's for a new stadium in LA but the NFL demanded they share with an expansion team so Al Davis left for Oakland. Davis was stupid returning to the Bay Area right when the 49ers were in the midst of their dynasty but the NFL should have never chased the Raiders away. There's a reason why the Rams left. John Madden once said when you have two quarterbacks you really have no quarterbacks. The same holds true for Los Angeles NFL teams. If the NFL had half a brain, they would try Los Angeles as a single NFL team city/market for a change.

(12-06-2019 02:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 02:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I always felt Montreal and Nashville were the frontrunners for relocation. Vegas is just a non-starter IMO. Too many games, too little corporate money and the team would need a dome.

Agree that Nashville is a possibility. The snag at this point is the mayor publicly saying: No public funding for a ballpark. But that could easily change with a new mayor and/or if it looked like public money was the only thing standing in the way of the Rays moving there.

From the Rays' owner's point of view, why not basically have an open auction with all of these cities. He's not going to pay for a new ballpark himself.

Nashville is way too small.

There aren't many acceptable markets. Besides Montreal, maybe Portland and Charlotte. There are only 5 teams in MSAs smaller than 2.8 million and they are considered small market teams that have mostly struggled in the free agent era-Milwaukee, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Cleveland. And the latter two are over 3 million when you include close by Dayton and Akron.

Orlando is 2.6 and is too close to Tampa. Sacramento is 2.3 and is too close to Oakland. San Antonio is 2.5 but doesn't have a lot of corporate money.

MSA populations:
21. Baltimore 2.802 million
22. Orlando 2.573
23. Charlotte 2.569
24. San Antonio 2.518
25. Portland 2.478
26. Sacramento 2.345
27. Pittsburgh 2.324
28. Las Vegas 2.232
29. Cincinnati 2.190
30. Austin 2.168
31. Kansas City 2.144
32. Columbus 2.107
33. Cleveland 2.057
34. Indianapolis 2.049
35. San Jose 1.999
36. Nashville 1.931
37. Virginia Beach-Norfolk 1.729
38. Providence 1.621
39 Milwaukee 1.576

I don't know how Nashville is way too small if it is still above MIL. Plus I'm sure they would count all of TN and southern KY as some of their potential viewers as well.

I do lean towards Wedge's statement that the Braves would block a Nashville move which is why I think MTL is the ultimate home for the Rays. But if that is the case, MLB has to find a way to buy out the Rays stadium deal.

I have a feeling the Braves might take this approach...

Moving the Rays to Nashville wouldn't be that bad as long as the Braves are compensated by greater access to North and Central Florida. In other words, no team in Orlando under any circumstances. Before the Marlins showed up, the Braves were very popular across Florida for much the same reason they are popular in several other Southern states. TBS was broadcasting the games nationally and those markets didn't have a local team.

If you subtract the Rays from Florida and allow them into Nashville then the Braves haven't really lost any territory. For one, Nashville and everything in West Tennessee isn't really strong Braves territory anyway. The Reds are pretty popular and the Cardinals are pretty popular the closer you get to Memphis.

I imagine MLB would be counting on a regional fan base if they located in Nashville...fans from Memphis, Huntsville(AL), and East TN markets like Chattanooga, and Knoxville. They won't completely get their wish as much of East TN is Braves territory.

Now the situation would be very different if we were talking about the Rays moving to Charlotte. The Braves would pitch a fit over that.

Nonetheless, the Braves would rather the Rays move to Montreal so they get the best of both worlds. If that's not an option then Nashville is probably the 2nd best scenario as long as there's no subsequent expansion into Orlando.

The Braves would then hate my expansion proposal ... Charlotte AND Nashville!

https://www.thegoodphight.com/2016/6/22/...eball-2016

How many MLB teams are in the South? We need some more. Plus, if every team is able to block every team where is MLB supposed to expand to, China?

I can deal with Portland instead of Nashville (Colorado moves to the AL South) but I want no part of Montreal returning. I don't want any more Canadian teams, especially if they join the Phillies in the NL East. My dream NL East is the Pirates returning where they belong.

(02-28-2020 12:34 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 02:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 02:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Agree that Nashville is a possibility. The snag at this point is the mayor publicly saying: No public funding for a ballpark. But that could easily change with a new mayor and/or if it looked like public money was the only thing standing in the way of the Rays moving there.

From the Rays' owner's point of view, why not basically have an open auction with all of these cities. He's not going to pay for a new ballpark himself.

Nashville is way too small.

There aren't many acceptable markets. Besides Montreal, maybe Portland and Charlotte. There are only 5 teams in MSAs smaller than 2.8 million and they are considered small market teams that have mostly struggled in the free agent era-Milwaukee, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Cleveland. And the latter two are over 3 million when you include close by Dayton and Akron.

Orlando is 2.6 and is too close to Tampa. Sacramento is 2.3 and is too close to Oakland. San Antonio is 2.5 but doesn't have a lot of corporate money.

MSA populations:
21. Baltimore 2.802 million
22. Orlando 2.573
23. Charlotte 2.569
24. San Antonio 2.518
25. Portland 2.478
26. Sacramento 2.345
27. Pittsburgh 2.324
28. Las Vegas 2.232
29. Cincinnati 2.190
30. Austin 2.168
31. Kansas City 2.144
32. Columbus 2.107
33. Cleveland 2.057
34. Indianapolis 2.049
35. San Jose 1.999
36. Nashville 1.931
37. Virginia Beach-Norfolk 1.729
38. Providence 1.621
39 Milwaukee 1.576

I don't know how Nashville is way too small if it is still above MIL. Plus I'm sure they would count all of TN and southern KY as some of their potential viewers as well.

I do lean towards Wedge's statement that the Braves would block a Nashville move which is why I think MTL is the ultimate home for the Rays. But if that is the case, MLB has to find a way to buy out the Rays stadium deal.

I have a feeling the Braves might take this approach...

Moving the Rays to Nashville wouldn't be that bad as long as the Braves are compensated by greater access to North and Central Florida. In other words, no team in Orlando under any circumstances. Before the Marlins showed up, the Braves were very popular across Florida for much the same reason they are popular in several other Southern states. TBS was broadcasting the games nationally and those markets didn't have a local team.

If you subtract the Rays from Florida and allow them into Nashville then the Braves haven't really lost any territory. For one, Nashville and everything in West Tennessee isn't really strong Braves territory anyway. The Reds are pretty popular and the Cardinals are pretty popular the closer you get to Memphis.

I imagine MLB would be counting on a regional fan base if they located in Nashville...fans from Memphis, Huntsville(AL), and East TN markets like Chattanooga, and Knoxville. They won't completely get their wish as much of East TN is Braves territory.

Now the situation would be very different if we were talking about the Rays moving to Charlotte. The Braves would pitch a fit over that.

Nonetheless, the Braves would rather the Rays move to Montreal so they get the best of both worlds. If that's not an option then Nashville is probably the 2nd best scenario as long as there's no subsequent expansion into Orlando.

The Braves would then hate my expansion proposal ... Charlotte AND Nashville!

https://www.thegoodphight.com/2016/6/22/...eball-2016

How many MLB teams are in the South? We need some more. Plus, if every team is able to block every team where is MLB supposed to expand to, China?

I can deal with Portland instead of Nashville (Colorado moves to the AL South) but I want no part of Montreal returning. I don't want any more Canadian teams, especially if they join the Phillies in the NL East. My dream NL East is the Pirates returning where they belong.

There's really nowhere else for MLB to expand within US borders.

All of our debates center around which American market could potentially support a franchise if everything goes just right or which one would be least disruptive.

The only good options in the long term are foreign. Montreal is good. Monterrey or Mexico City maybe.

How about expanding to San Juan, Puerto Rico? It's part of the United States.

I'll now duck from the rotten tomatoes thrown my way.

Puerto Rico has bigger priorities to deal with than major pro sports with all of their major natural disasters in recent years.

(02-28-2020 06:37 PM)AZcats Wrote:  How about expanding to San Juan, Puerto Rico? It's part of the United States.

I'll now duck from the rotten tomatoes thrown my way.

It's not a terrible idea, but PR only has about 4 million people on the whole island. A lot of them are not high income either so it's not really a good MLB market.

The experiment with the Expos kind of proved fans won't show up night after night even when the number of games you have in your market are limited.

Puerto Rico for AA or AAA wouldn’t be bad. For major sports, it would be very difficult.

Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

(03-01-2020 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

(03-02-2020 12:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

The taxpayers in those areas shouldn't be forced to pay anything for a MLB ballpark, that's for sure.

The Braves' new ballpark cost about $672 million. Other recent new ballparks cost about that much, or even more.

Team owners should bear the cost. For an expansion franchise, that means paying the ballpark construction cost plus an expansion fee that could be around a billion dollars.

That's probably why you don't hear about MLB teams threatening to relocate, either. An existing team owner might only have to find a way to pay for a new ballpark (but might get charged a relocation fee like the NFL did for the last three team moves). Someone buying a team to relocate it is in the same boat as a potential expansion team owner, in that they have to pay for both the team and the new ballpark.

(03-02-2020 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

The taxpayers in those areas shouldn't be forced to pay anything for a MLB ballpark, that's for sure.

The Braves' new ballpark cost about $672 million. Other recent new ballparks cost about that much, or even more.

Team owners should bear the cost. For an expansion franchise, that means paying the ballpark construction cost plus an expansion fee that could be around a billion dollars.

That's probably why you don't hear about MLB teams threatening to relocate, either. An existing team owner might only have to find a way to pay for a new ballpark (but might get charged a relocation fee like the NFL did for the last three team moves). Someone buying a team to relocate it is in the same boat as a potential expansion team owner, in that they have to pay for both the team and the new ballpark.

Agreed that taxpayers, unless they specifically vote to tax themselves, shouldn't pay for sports stadiums.

(03-02-2020 12:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

Because baseball IMO doesn't want to further dilute an already shirking fanbase

(03-03-2020 03:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

Because baseball IMO doesn't want to further dilute an already shirking fanbase

Having their own teams would increase the fan base.

(03-04-2020 11:53 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

Because baseball IMO doesn't want to further dilute an already shirking fanbase

Having their own teams would increase the fan base.

Having teams that contend for playoff spots increases fan interest. Increasing the number of teams that just tank for high draft picks won't help MLB at all (except that the current owners would get a quick hit of cash from expansion fees).

Dis-incentivizing tanking should be a much higher priority than expanding MLB.

(03-04-2020 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 11:53 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

Because baseball IMO doesn't want to further dilute an already shirking fanbase

Having their own teams would increase the fan base.

Having teams that contend for playoff spots increases fan interest. Increasing the number of teams that just tank for high draft picks won't help MLB at all (except that the current owners would get a quick hit of cash from expansion fees).

Dis-incentivizing tanking should be a much higher priority than expanding MLB.

Basically, you can't tie the ability to acquire talent to past performance.

The draft would have to be totally random. No rewards for losing free agents. No punishments for signing free agents. There are probably other measures.

The inverse would be tying the ability to acquire talent to good performance. Of course, that means the rich get richer, but that would be better than incentivizing poor performance. The old saying goes...you'll get more of what you subsidize.

At that point, you either need a hard salary cap or a way to share media revenue across the board like a college conference.

(03-04-2020 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 11:53 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

Because baseball IMO doesn't want to further dilute an already shirking fanbase

Having their own teams would increase the fan base.

Having teams that contend for playoff spots increases fan interest. Increasing the number of teams that just tank for high draft picks won't help MLB at all (except that the current owners would get a quick hit of cash from expansion fees).

Dis-incentivizing tanking should be a much higher priority than expanding MLB.

Basically, you can't tie the ability to acquire talent to past performance.

The draft would have to be totally random. No rewards for losing free agents. No punishments for signing free agents. There are probably other measures.

Punish the worst teams each year in some way. Maybe have a random draft order but the worst 4 teams in the most recent season have to forfeit their 1st and 2nd round draft choices.

Better yet: Each of the worst 4 teams in any season have to forfeit their team's share of league TV revenue for that season. Or, rank all teams in order of record from first to worst, giving the most TV money to the best team and decreasing the share for each team down the list until the worst team is getting about one-fourth as much TV money as the best team. Hit ownership in the language they understand: Money.

(03-04-2020 06:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 11:53 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Because baseball IMO doesn't want to further dilute an already shirking fanbase

Having their own teams would increase the fan base.

Having teams that contend for playoff spots increases fan interest. Increasing the number of teams that just tank for high draft picks won't help MLB at all (except that the current owners would get a quick hit of cash from expansion fees).

Dis-incentivizing tanking should be a much higher priority than expanding MLB.

Basically, you can't tie the ability to acquire talent to past performance.

The draft would have to be totally random. No rewards for losing free agents. No punishments for signing free agents. There are probably other measures.

Punish the worst teams each year in some way. Maybe have a random draft order but the worst 4 teams in the most recent season have to forfeit their 1st and 2nd round draft choices.

Better yet: Each of the worst 4 teams in any season have to forfeit their team's share of league TV revenue for that season. Or, rank all teams in order of record from first to worst, giving the most TV money to the best team and decreasing the share for each team down the list until the worst team is getting about one-fourth as much TV money as the best team. Hit ownership in the language they understand: Money.

You couldn't guarantee that some teams get stripped of money altogether simply because someone has to be last irrespective of whether they're trying or not. The owners would never go for that.

I do like weighting the money though based on where you finish. I think you could do something like this:

Everyone gets a baseline share. After that, division winners get a fairly significant bonus while wildcard teams get a lesser bonus. Every team that doesn't finish last in their division gets a bonus slightly below that of the wildcard teams.

At that point, you'd have 6 teams that get nothing more than the baseline share. A better mathematician than me will have to figure out what that figure is. Everyone else gets a little something and the playoff teams get the most. Basically, the higher you finish the more you get and it's tied to divisional performance so it's a little more apples to apples.

i don't get why tanking is a relatively recent phenomena. seems like the prudent move. that is unless you're notoriously tanking miami. miami should be one of the best baseball cities in the country but prissy city people want their air conditioning. the gateway to latin america; how could it fail?

(03-04-2020 11:53 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Braves rule the South, man. Works best for all. Nashv and western Tenn belongs to the Cards. Rays need to move out and leave one team only down in Miami to have a go at it--bring back the FLA marlins.

But why should they?

When the south had a smaller population, it made sense. But why should Tennessee, North Carolina, etc be forced to support a far away Georgia team just because they were there first?

Because baseball IMO doesn't want to further dilute an already shirking fanbase

Having their own teams would increase the fan base.

Exactly.

Consider the Southeast (south of DC and East of the Mississippi, New Orleans counts). MLB has Atlanta, Miami, and Tampa Bay, 3 teams. The NBA has Orlando, Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Charlotte, and Memphis, twice as many. The NFL has 7 teams, Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, and Tennessee. We're not even counting the SEC, home of college football, and the ACC, home of men's college basketball. MLB has a much smaller presence than the NFL/NBA and college sports.

Atlanta is 245 miles from Charlotte and 248 miles from Nashville. If the Yankees could block every team within a 248 mile radius, forget no Mets, say goodbye to the Phillies, Orioles, Nationals, and even the Red Sox (Boston is 220 miles from the Big Apple).

MLB seems to care more about pleasing the Atlanta Braves than doing what's in the best interests of baseball. If there's a MLB team in Charlotte, MLB would gain many more fans in Charlotte than the Atlanta Braves would lose in Charlotte/the Carolinas. Same with Nashville. To a lesser degree, how about the A's and San Jose? San Jose has twice as many people as Oakland and you also have Santa Clara and a lot of the South Bay. The A's play in a sewage dump ... literally. But the A's playing in San Jose is bad for the Giants and they can block it because they have territorial rights. When owners are greedy, the fans (or potential fans) lose.

(03-05-2020 01:26 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 06:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 11:53 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Having their own teams would increase the fan base.

Having teams that contend for playoff spots increases fan interest. Increasing the number of teams that just tank for high draft picks won't help MLB at all (except that the current owners would get a quick hit of cash from expansion fees).

Dis-incentivizing tanking should be a much higher priority than expanding MLB.

Basically, you can't tie the ability to acquire talent to past performance.

The draft would have to be totally random. No rewards for losing free agents. No punishments for signing free agents. There are probably other measures.

Punish the worst teams each year in some way. Maybe have a random draft order but the worst 4 teams in the most recent season have to forfeit their 1st and 2nd round draft choices.

Better yet: Each of the worst 4 teams in any season have to forfeit their team's share of league TV revenue for that season. Or, rank all teams in order of record from first to worst, giving the most TV money to the best team and decreasing the share for each team down the list until the worst team is getting about one-fourth as much TV money as the best team. Hit ownership in the language they understand: Money.

You couldn't guarantee that some teams get stripped of money altogether simply because someone has to be last irrespective of whether they're trying or not. The owners would never go for that.

I do like weighting the money though based on where you finish. I think you could do something like this:

Everyone gets a baseline share. After that, division winners get a fairly significant bonus while wildcard teams get a lesser bonus. Every team that doesn't finish last in their division gets a bonus slightly below that of the wildcard teams.

At that point, you'd have 6 teams that get nothing more than the baseline share. A better mathematician than me will have to figure out what that figure is. Everyone else gets a little something and the playoff teams get the most. Basically, the higher you finish the more you get and it's tied to divisional performance so it's a little more apples to apples.

The Premier League takes half its media money and gives each team an equal share of that, uses a quarter to compensate teams for the use of their "broadcast facilities", and distributes the other quarter un-equally based on position in the standings. Most other top soccer leagues weight the distribution of media money less equally. Of course, those leagues have relegation as the most powerful incentive to not tank, and don't have a player draft. Because US sports leagues don't have those aspects, they should have stronger monetary incentives against tanking.

MLB, for example, gets roughly $2 billion/year from national media contracts. MLB could divide half of that equally among all 30 teams, and divide the other half based on performance, heavily weighted in favor of playoff teams and heavily weighted against the three worst teams by W-L record in each league. In the Premier League, for example, the "merit payment" given to the best team in the standings is nearly 20 times the amount given to the worst team.