(05-11-2021 01:41 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Personally, I kind of doubt that Las Vegas can support an MLB team on top of the NFL and NHL. It's the most expensive franchise to have and requires the most corporate financial support. I'd tend to think Portland is easily the best available market. Behind that, Montreal is obviously a player, and then I'd assume Austin and Charlotte are the next best US markets.

I have barely heard Montreal mentioned at all with Oakland. All of their traction has been with Tampa Bay. Montreal would in theory have the same issue with both cities...no viable stadium. They might be able to get one built, but there isn't anything concrete on the table yet.

(05-13-2021 08:38 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-11-2021 01:41 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Personally, I kind of doubt that Las Vegas can support an MLB team on top of the NFL and NHL. It's the most expensive franchise to have and requires the most corporate financial support. I'd tend to think Portland is easily the best available market. Behind that, Montreal is obviously a player, and then I'd assume Austin and Charlotte are the next best US markets.

I have barely heard Montreal mentioned at all with Oakland. All of their traction has been with Tampa Bay. Montreal would in theory have the same issue with both cities...no viable stadium. They might be able to get one built, but there isn't anything concrete on the table yet.

Tampa Bay to Montreal is more feasible than Oakland to Montreal because the former move wouldn't require any realignment. Montreal is no different than any of the other proposed expansion/relocation sites in that pretty much all of the sites would need a new stadium built. There are very few unoccupied MLB-sized baseball stadiums.

None of the places that might hope for MLB expansion or relocation even have a ballpark that an MLB team could play in today, even temporarily, and it would take a few years after a team moves to get an MLB ballpark built.

Expect that a relocated A's or Rays team would have to play at least three seasons in a temporary facility before a new MLB ballpark was open -- unless they announce their move and then play a couple of lame-duck seasons in their current ballpark before moving. Newer AAA ballparks like Sacramento or Las Vegas could probably add 10,000 seats and larger locker room and training facilities with 6 to 12 months' advance notice.

But what does that mean money-wise? Ownership would be looking at probably 3 years with max attendance of 20,000 in a AAA ballpark that lacks the premium seating and other things necessary to sell lots of tickets at MLB-sized ticket prices. (Especially because nearly all those added seats will be bleachers in the outfield.) If a sellout is 20,000 in that ballpark, the average is going to be much lower, probably on the order of average attendance in Tampa Bay (14,734 in 2019) or Miami (10,016 in 2019). MLB claims that about 40% of a club's typical revenue in a year comes from ticket sales and other game-day revenue, so those first few years in an AAA ballpark will be really rough on a relocated club's finances.

(05-12-2021 02:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Owners want to expand when they want a quick injection of cash for each existing franchise. They will want two more teams at some point.

Fisher wants to move the A's, or sell to someone who would move, and MLB is giving him cover by issuing a statement that makes it sound like that's what MLB wants.

The A's proposal for a new Oakland ballpark is a sham. When it was unveiled I said they would never build it. Too impractical, too many difficulties with the site regardless of who pays for it. At the time I thought it was a ploy to get the city to pay for a new ballpark at the Coliseum site, but now it's clear the waterfront ballpark plan is a charade used to pretend Fisher wanted to try to keep the team in Oakland.

Selling to a new owner who wants to relocate the A's would net the most money, because someone whose ambition is to get a team for "their" city, whatever city it is, will pay more than market value for the opportunity. (As an aside: That's also why the Minnesota Timberwolves owner will never get as much money as he's hoping to get, unless he sells to someone who would move the team to Seattle or wherever.) That's the way to go, *if* Fisher finds a group from another city that actually has the money rather than someone who has more hope than money.

Actually, the A's have been wanting the Howard Terminal site for ages, because they want the ballpark to be more accessible to fans. The Coliseum is not very accessible to the average baseball fan, and the current trend for MLB teams is to build a stadium downtown, Atlanta being the rare exception to the rule (the Braves play in a suburb of Atlanta). As someone who has followed the A's stadium problems for a long time, I assure you that the waterfront ballpark is no sham. As for the mixed development, they are actually wanting to put that on the Coliseum site, and I even have problems with that because you are giving up a lot of land to the A's and Oakland wouldn't be able to use it to lure in a floundering NFL team like the Jaguars in the future.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Portland seems to want a team really bad. I just don't know if there's really a potential fan base here. The Blazers are in the playoffs and nobody really talks about them. I've been to sports pubs and they didn't know the Timbers were playing. This town seems more prime for watching NFL games, but the fans here are mostly transplants from out east. Even the Ducks and Beavers don't get much love here.

if you were going to try to go to 32 and regionalize a bit, So long as none of the expansion teams are out west, here’s what I’d do:

Switch the A’s, Mariners, and Angels to the NL

Switch the Marlins and Braves to the AL, and add both expansion teams to the AL.

Align with the 4 divisions of 8. The NL would look like this:

NL West: Seattle, Oakland, SF, LAA, LAD, SD, Arizona, Colorado
NL East: St Louis, Milwaukee, CHI Cubs, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, NYM

AL Central: Minnesota, CWS, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, NYY, Boston, Baltimore
AL South: KC, Texas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Expansion #1, Expansion #2

It’s a blend of traditional and regional.

(06-06-2021 01:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  if you were going to try to go to 32 and regionalize a bit, So long as none of the expansion teams are out west, here’s what I’d do:

Switch the A’s, Mariners, and Angels to the NL

Switch the Marlins and Braves to the AL, and add both expansion teams to the AL.

Align with the 4 divisions of 8. The NL would look like this:

NL West: Seattle, Oakland, SF, LAA, LAD, SD, Arizona, Colorado
NL East: St Louis, Milwaukee, CHI Cubs, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, NYM

AL Central: Minnesota, CWS, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, NYY, Boston, Baltimore
AL South: KC, Texas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Expansion #1, Expansion #2

It’s a blend of traditional and regional.

Half-measures are rather pointless. You're still separating key geographic rivals (Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Reds/Indians, Nationals/Orioles, Brewers/Twins, Cards/Royals).

(06-06-2021 03:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 01:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  if you were going to try to go to 32 and regionalize a bit, So long as none of the expansion teams are out west, here’s what I’d do:

Switch the A’s, Mariners, and Angels to the NL

Switch the Marlins and Braves to the AL, and add both expansion teams to the AL.

Align with the 4 divisions of 8. The NL would look like this:

NL West: Seattle, Oakland, SF, LAA, LAD, SD, Arizona, Colorado
NL East: St Louis, Milwaukee, CHI Cubs, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, NYM

AL Central: Minnesota, CWS, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, NYY, Boston, Baltimore
AL South: KC, Texas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Expansion #1, Expansion #2

It’s a blend of traditional and regional.

Half-measures are rather pointless. You're still separating key geographic rivals (Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Reds/Indians, Nationals/Orioles, Brewers/Twins, Cards/Royals).

At least one of the two teams in each of those pairs don't want to be in the same division.

The all-western division makes sense because the western teams have always had far more travel than the rest of MLB and an all-western division would cut that down as much as possible.

As for the rest? Selig pushed the idea of realigning by time zones 10 or 15 years ago -- two eastern divisions, one central, one pacific/mountain. In addition to helping the western teams cut down on travel, Bud's idea was to have each team play more games in its own time zone to make their local TV deals more valuable.

But today, local TV rights on RSNs are dying because so many TV providers have dropped the RSNs. The next model for MLB TV rights might be something like selling a third of each team's games to local free TV so that local fans can watch more games, and putting the rest on MLB.TV with a reasonable per-month or per-season price for fans who only want to watch their local team.

So if there's no big monetary windfall on offer, then you're left with the question of how to convince teams to switch leagues, given that a team can only be switched with its approval. The three AL West teams would agree, and I think the Marlins would agree if you put them in the AL East with the Red Sox and Yankees. I don't know if the Braves or another NL team would agree. And I don't know how MLB owners feel about the 8-team divisions, either. I like the idea, and 8-team divisions are better for competitiveness and scheduling, but some of the usual bottom-feeder clubs might oppose it because they'd rather finish 4th or 5th in a division instead of 7th or 8th.

Part of me has always wanted 32 teams in MLB, but I don't see it coming anytime soon. The appetite for baseball has decreased overall.

That and there are really no slam dunk markets out there. Baseball is a game that demands more money overall to operate. They did a study years ago to confirm the the type of economy a market needed to truly support a franchise. Think about how major markets like Miami and Tampa struggle with financials and it becomes ever more clear.

The double edged sword there is all the obvious markets are taken. It's not like the NFL with a darling market like LA sitting there for several years.

When DC got a team back, that was the last major market to go. Everything else is debatable as far as feasibility.

Truly, the best market out there is probably Montreal. They just need to be managed well this time and it would probably work. Nonetheless, the A's want to move and the Rays would likely rather move as well.

(06-06-2021 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 03:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 01:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  if you were going to try to go to 32 and regionalize a bit, So long as none of the expansion teams are out west, here’s what I’d do:

Switch the A’s, Mariners, and Angels to the NL

Switch the Marlins and Braves to the AL, and add both expansion teams to the AL.

Align with the 4 divisions of 8. The NL would look like this:

NL West: Seattle, Oakland, SF, LAA, LAD, SD, Arizona, Colorado
NL East: St Louis, Milwaukee, CHI Cubs, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, NYM

AL Central: Minnesota, CWS, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, NYY, Boston, Baltimore
AL South: KC, Texas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Expansion #1, Expansion #2

It’s a blend of traditional and regional.

Half-measures are rather pointless. You're still separating key geographic rivals (Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Reds/Indians, Nationals/Orioles, Brewers/Twins, Cards/Royals).

At least one of the two teams in each of those pairs don't want to be in the same division.

The all-western division makes sense because the western teams have always had far more travel than the rest of MLB and an all-western division would cut that down as much as possible.

As for the rest? Selig pushed the idea of realigning by time zones 10 or 15 years ago -- two eastern divisions, one central, one pacific/mountain. In addition to helping the western teams cut down on travel, Bud's idea was to have each team play more games in its own time zone to make their local TV deals more valuable.

But today, local TV rights on RSNs are dying because so many TV providers have dropped the RSNs. The next model for MLB TV rights might be something like selling a third of each team's games to local free TV so that local fans can watch more games, and putting the rest on MLB.TV with a reasonable per-month or per-season price for fans who only want to watch their local team.

So if there's no big monetary windfall on offer, then you're left with the question of how to convince teams to switch leagues, given that a team can only be switched with its approval. The three AL West teams would agree, and I think the Marlins would agree if you put them in the AL East with the Red Sox and Yankees. I don't know if the Braves or another NL team would agree. And I don't know how MLB owners feel about the 8-team divisions, either. I like the idea, and 8-team divisions are better for competitiveness and scheduling, but some of the usual bottom-feeder clubs might oppose it because they'd rather finish 4th or 5th in a division instead of 7th or 8th.

I'd be shocked if the Braves had any desire to leave the NL.

Fun fact...the Braves and the Cubs are the only two remaining charter members of the NL.

(06-06-2021 08:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 03:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 01:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  if you were going to try to go to 32 and regionalize a bit, So long as none of the expansion teams are out west, here’s what I’d do:

Switch the A’s, Mariners, and Angels to the NL

Switch the Marlins and Braves to the AL, and add both expansion teams to the AL.

Align with the 4 divisions of 8. The NL would look like this:

NL West: Seattle, Oakland, SF, LAA, LAD, SD, Arizona, Colorado
NL East: St Louis, Milwaukee, CHI Cubs, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, NYM

AL Central: Minnesota, CWS, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, NYY, Boston, Baltimore
AL South: KC, Texas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Expansion #1, Expansion #2

It’s a blend of traditional and regional.

Half-measures are rather pointless. You're still separating key geographic rivals (Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Reds/Indians, Nationals/Orioles, Brewers/Twins, Cards/Royals).

At least one of the two teams in each of those pairs don't want to be in the same division.

The all-western division makes sense because the western teams have always had far more travel than the rest of MLB and an all-western division would cut that down as much as possible.

As for the rest? Selig pushed the idea of realigning by time zones 10 or 15 years ago -- two eastern divisions, one central, one pacific/mountain. In addition to helping the western teams cut down on travel, Bud's idea was to have each team play more games in its own time zone to make their local TV deals more valuable.

But today, local TV rights on RSNs are dying because so many TV providers have dropped the RSNs. The next model for MLB TV rights might be something like selling a third of each team's games to local free TV so that local fans can watch more games, and putting the rest on MLB.TV with a reasonable per-month or per-season price for fans who only want to watch their local team.

So if there's no big monetary windfall on offer, then you're left with the question of how to convince teams to switch leagues, given that a team can only be switched with its approval. The three AL West teams would agree, and I think the Marlins would agree if you put them in the AL East with the Red Sox and Yankees. I don't know if the Braves or another NL team would agree. And I don't know how MLB owners feel about the 8-team divisions, either. I like the idea, and 8-team divisions are better for competitiveness and scheduling, but some of the usual bottom-feeder clubs might oppose it because they'd rather finish 4th or 5th in a division instead of 7th or 8th.

I'd be shocked if the Braves had any desire to leave the NL.

Fun fact...the Braves and the Cubs are the only two remaining charter members of the NL.

Same here, but I would have thought that the Giants, Dodgers, Reds, and the Pirates would be NL charter members as well.

(06-06-2021 10:05 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 08:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 03:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 01:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  if you were going to try to go to 32 and regionalize a bit, So long as none of the expansion teams are out west, here’s what I’d do:

Switch the A’s, Mariners, and Angels to the NL

Switch the Marlins and Braves to the AL, and add both expansion teams to the AL.

Align with the 4 divisions of 8. The NL would look like this:

NL West: Seattle, Oakland, SF, LAA, LAD, SD, Arizona, Colorado
NL East: St Louis, Milwaukee, CHI Cubs, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, NYM

AL Central: Minnesota, CWS, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, NYY, Boston, Baltimore
AL South: KC, Texas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Expansion #1, Expansion #2

It’s a blend of traditional and regional.

Half-measures are rather pointless. You're still separating key geographic rivals (Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Reds/Indians, Nationals/Orioles, Brewers/Twins, Cards/Royals).

At least one of the two teams in each of those pairs don't want to be in the same division.

The all-western division makes sense because the western teams have always had far more travel than the rest of MLB and an all-western division would cut that down as much as possible.

As for the rest? Selig pushed the idea of realigning by time zones 10 or 15 years ago -- two eastern divisions, one central, one pacific/mountain. In addition to helping the western teams cut down on travel, Bud's idea was to have each team play more games in its own time zone to make their local TV deals more valuable.

But today, local TV rights on RSNs are dying because so many TV providers have dropped the RSNs. The next model for MLB TV rights might be something like selling a third of each team's games to local free TV so that local fans can watch more games, and putting the rest on MLB.TV with a reasonable per-month or per-season price for fans who only want to watch their local team.

So if there's no big monetary windfall on offer, then you're left with the question of how to convince teams to switch leagues, given that a team can only be switched with its approval. The three AL West teams would agree, and I think the Marlins would agree if you put them in the AL East with the Red Sox and Yankees. I don't know if the Braves or another NL team would agree. And I don't know how MLB owners feel about the 8-team divisions, either. I like the idea, and 8-team divisions are better for competitiveness and scheduling, but some of the usual bottom-feeder clubs might oppose it because they'd rather finish 4th or 5th in a division instead of 7th or 8th.

I'd be shocked if the Braves had any desire to leave the NL.

Fun fact...the Braves and the Cubs are the only two remaining charter members of the NL.

Same here, but I would have thought that the Giants, Dodgers, Reds, and the Pirates would be NL charter members as well.

Braves and Cubs are indeed charter members, joining the NL in its first season, 1876. The Giants and Phillies joined in 1883, the Pirates in 1887, the Dodgers and Reds in 1890, and the Cardinals in 1892.

Going to east/west format would likely destroy what is left of MLB Fanhood. Unfortunately the traditionalist fans are what's left. The MLB really needs something to help bring more younger fans into the game. I don't see many viable baseball markets without a team. Charlotte has some potential, I guess. Montreal is a traditional city. What about a place like Vancouver in Canada.

(06-06-2021 08:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'd be shocked if the Braves had any desire to leave the NL.

Probably not. If there was any justice in the sport, the Brewers would have to move back to the AL, but we know that's not happening either.

Actually, the Brewers requested to move to the NL. However, it should not have been at the Astros expense.

(06-07-2021 07:56 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Actually, the Brewers requested to move to the NL. However, it should not have been at the Astros expense.

Selig manipulated AL/NL alignment to move the Brewers to the NL in 1998. Then, when the owners and the players decided they wanted each league and division to have the same number of teams, requiring one team to move from the NL to the AL, Selig forced the Astros to move to the AL in 2013 so that the Brewers didn't have to move back.

(06-07-2021 10:04 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 07:56 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Actually, the Brewers requested to move to the NL. However, it should not have been at the Astros expense.

Selig manipulated AL/NL alignment to move the Brewers to the NL in 1998. Then, when the owners and the players decided they wanted each league and division to have the same number of teams, requiring one team to move from the NL to the AL, Selig forced the Astros to move to the AL in 2013 so that the Brewers didn't have to move back.

The 90s were a strange time.

If they wanted the Brewers in the NL so bad, which made some sense, then why not just place both the Diamondbacks and the Rays in the AL?

(06-08-2021 02:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:04 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 07:56 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Actually, the Brewers requested to move to the NL. However, it should not have been at the Astros expense.

Selig manipulated AL/NL alignment to move the Brewers to the NL in 1998. Then, when the owners and the players decided they wanted each league and division to have the same number of teams, requiring one team to move from the NL to the AL, Selig forced the Astros to move to the AL in 2013 so that the Brewers didn't have to move back.

The 90s were a strange time.

If they wanted the Brewers in the NL so bad, which made some sense, then why not just place both the Diamondbacks and the Rays in the AL?

Would have made sense to put Arizona in the AL and have 4 western teams in each league, and with Tampa Bay also in the AL, one Florida team in each league.

Maybe the clubs had already decided that each league should get one expansion team, and because the D-backs and Rays were added before there was interleague play they wanted an even number of teams in each league, and Selig saw his opportunity/excuse to move his team into the NL to make it 14 in the AL and 16 in the NL.

The way that Selig forced the Astros to switch leagues was sleazy.

IIRC, the Astros were about to be sold, and switching leagues was a condition of buying the team.

(06-08-2021 01:05 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  IIRC, the Astros were about to be sold, and switching leagues was a condition of buying the team.

Yes. Selig screwed the Astros by refusing to hold a vote on approving the team's sale until they consented to moving to the AL.