If You Could Move One Team...

[dadofandrew]

I agree with DHonks, I think it will be 32 in MLB soon.

 

Vegas and NY/NJ are by far the best options, though Portland would work in a SEA way. I think many of us will see a team in Mexico in our lifetime as well.

[MNBrew]

3 points:

 

1. MLB has historically avoided Las Vegas like the plague due to the gambling element. I don't see that changing. If it does & LV were to get an MLB team -- that is, if MLB were to lower its standards that far -- you'd almost have to induct Pete Rose into the HOF in the same year without even bothering with a BBWAA vote. (I say that with only minimal sarcasm.)

 

2. Seriously, I remember 25 years ago, there was much talk about Buffalo as a potential future MLB site. The ballpark there was built in a way that it, like Portland's, which I think was built later, could expand into an MLB-size-&-standards ballpark. Much of the thinking at that time was that Denver & Buffalo were the 2 most likely MLB expansion targets. Then Wayne Huizenga's money showed up behind the Marlins and Buffalo's pretty much been cast adrift ever since -- so much so that it was never really in the mix when Tampa's & Arizona's franchises were awarded. Too bad. Buffalo may still be a great MLB site. I hope, if expansion ever comes around again, that Buffalo gets some serious consideration. Buffalo has no problem supporting its NFL Bills & NHL Sabres. While the Marlins have had 2 WS winners, they've had mostly lousy teams and shaky fan support (as evidenced by their chronically low attendance). But MLB got Huizenga's money, which was all that really mattered.

 

3. The problem w/ the Rays' situation is grossly exacerbated by the Trop's location. Tampa's a huge & happening place. St. Pete is much quieter, largely older, and QUITE dormant -- much farther from "the action." Worse yet, there's virtually NOTHING around the area of the Trop. If they'd gotten the Trop built in Tampa, or can somehow get a new place built in Tampa, I think this becomes a whole different deal. . . . I grew up in Central Florida & still visit close family there every year. My brother went to USF in Tampa, played soccer in Tampa professionally (thus was quite plugged into the sports scene), and lived in Tampa for over 15 years. I've spent a lot of time in Tampa over the years with my brother. . . .I add that just to explain that this isn't just a "remote" or "tourist" or "media- or hearsay-based" perspective.

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm pretty sure Portland lost their AAA farm team because they are getting an MLS team instead to play in their park. I've read that many Portland baseball fans are not happy with the decision.

I lived in Portland for a couple years, and went to many Beavers games. I never got the impression that there's this huge groundswell of support for a MLB franchise. The Beavers' attendance was poor, and the fans who grew up in Portland are basically all Mariners fans (think Iowa & the Cubs). Imo it would take an owner or ownership group that would breed enthusiasm and really generate support.

[dadofandrew]

AAA attendance does not mean a thing as far as MLB attendance. Denver never drew all that well, I doubt Phoenix did either. Given recent census figures, I don't see Buffalo ever being considered.

[trwi7]

I think a team in North Carolina (most likely Charlotte) makes too much sense. Fast growing city, other good sized cities in the state for additional support, etc.

 

I think Vancouver would get a team over any other Canadian city. The majority of their players come from British Columbia due to the best climate for baseball. They have a temporary place to play until a new stadium is built (BC Place) and I can't imagine there would be a ton of anger by the Mariners because even though Mariners games are broadcast on Rogers Sportsnet Pacific, they also broadcast Blue Jays games and Seattle still has the rest of Washington and Oregon and probably parts of Idaho and Nevada as well for fans.

[bucks2281]

Toronto will never move. I don't think a lot of people realize how many people live in metro Toronto -- it's bigger than Boston, Houston, DC, Atlanta, etc. They're going to finally get their NFL team during our lifetime, too.

 

Of the teams you listed, I think it's going to be the Rays. But, I don't see where they could move.

 

North Carolina/Virginia Beach: I feel NC is over-satured; is there enough room with all of the NCAA hoops teams, plus the Big 4? Adding 81 games a year is a lot to ask from this area; Virginia Beach is too small

Vancouver: the Grizzlies move is a big negative; I don't think the area is big enough, either

Las Vegas: off-limits

Metro NY/NJ: meh...I just think the area would be over-saturated. What area would you draw new fans from? I think people are pretty much ingrained with their Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Sox, etc. fandom.

Portland: probably the best remaining option, but I have doubts about the market size

 

I do agree with Al regarding Mexican expansion, but that's a couple of decades into the future.

 

Buffalo may still be a great MLB site. I hope, if expansion ever comes around again, that Buffalo gets some serious consideration. Buffalo has no problem supporting its NFL Bills

 

The Sabres are well-supported, but the Bills have had BY FAR more blackouts than any other team. Once Ralph Wilson dies, that team is bolting up the 401 to Toronto. A sizeable number of Buffalo fans are from Ontario, too --- so, they're probably Blue Jays fans already.

[vannzee]

Theres a huge difference between supporting 8 home games a season on weekends to supporting 81 on every day of the week. Theres little comparison between Buffalo supporting the Bills and supporting a MLB team. The television deals are different too.

[paul253]

I still think Portland would be the best place. MLB would get an additional team to the West Coast and form a nice little rivalry with Seattle. I think if Selig wasn't so set on moving the Expos to DC, Portland would have been the next choice. They seemed to me like they really wanted the team and they don't have a lot of other professional teams to compete with. And despite being what would probably be considered a medium market, they draw very well for the Trailblazers. The Trailblazers are currently second in the entire league in attendance, ahead of the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, and Heat.

 

If not Portland, my next three choices would be San Antonio, Salt Lake City, and Oklahoma City. MLB is too east-coast orientated if you ask me.

[owbc]

Most of the options for expansion are too small. Only Montreal and NY/NJ are big enough to support an MLB franchise under the current financial system. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense to expand--the large markets will have to subsidize 2 more small market teams. If a salary cap is implemented, then I could see other cities like Portland, Buffalo, Indianapolis, or San Antonio as viable other options. The NFL could put a team in Nebraska and turn a profit, but the small markets in MLB need more help before expansion can be an option. Plus, there are other teams caught in perpetual losing cycles with declining fan support--Cleveland and Baltimore have leases expiring in the early 2020s and little hope of winning anything for at least the next 5 years. If the next CBA is unfavorable to the small markets and the economy stagnates, there could easily be 5+ MLB teams in trouble by the end of the decade.

[logan82]

Most of the options for expansion are too small. Only Montreal and NY/NJ are big enough to support an MLB franchise under the current financial system. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense to expand--the large markets will have to subsidize 2 more small market teams. If a salary cap is implemented, then I could see other cities like Portland, Buffalo, Indianapolis, or San Antonio as viable other options.

I don't think a salary cap is needed or desirable. I think the issue is revenue sharing. A cap isn't going to bring in any more money. All it will do is put more money in the big city owner's pockets.

[Invader3K]

Is Montreal really a viable option for another team? It seemed like MLB was more than happy to get out of that city. Is there really a groundswell of support to bring back a new version of the Expos in Montreal?

[cnycerveceros]

Seriously, I remember 25 years ago, there was much talk about Buffalo as a potential future MLB site. Buffalo may still be a great MLB site. Buffalo has no problem supporting its NFL Bills & NHL Sabres.

Buffalo is pretty rabid about the Sabres, but the NBA team in Buffalo only lasted about 10 years, and there has been talk of the Bills moving to Toronto for several years. I live in upstate NY, in the Bills TV area, and in a typical season about half the Bills home games aren't televised because they are not sold out. I think you are right about the baseball stadium being built for potential expansion, and it's a relatively nice AAA stadium, but I don't think there would be enough interest/fan money to support an MLB team there.

[BillyRed]

I agree with DHonks, I think it will be 32 in MLB soon.

 

Vegas and NY/NJ are by far the best options, though Portland would work in a SEA way. I think many of us will see a team in Mexico in our lifetime as well.

The Vegas economy is really hurting. One of the highest umemployment rates in the country. At the present time they wouldn't get any public funding for a stadium and someone would have to be willing to finance the entire thing. In Vegas that is possible, but I can't remember a completely privately financed stadium recently anywhere in the country.

 

 

[jackalope02ca]

Vancouver or somewhere close by would be a logical place to put a team. Not even sure what the population is on the lower mainland but it's plenty big enough to support a MLB team. While Basketball didn't work there Baseball would. The majority of us Canadians would rather watch a re-run of whatever than a basketball game. Seattle would have a fit though as it's in their backyard.

[RyDogg66]

I'd move the Yankees to Portland and then watch their empire crumble. MMMWAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Alexpos]

Is Montreal really a viable option for another team? It seemed like MLB was more than happy to get out of that city. Is there really a groundswell of support to bring back a new version of the Expos in Montreal?

Sadly the anwser to your question is a big no. Since they Expos left , some people in Montreal are still talking baseball and remember the good time but most of them are people in the 50 and plus. For the new generation Y people like me , almost everybody don't follow baseball.... This is one of the main reason I have now to travel 5 hours and more to see a baseball game... And for the corporation people in Montreal, the only Entreprise I can see buy a baseball team is Quebecor. And for the moment they are more occupy to try to bring back the Nordique in Quebec city in the NHL.

 

 

(fixed code http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif --1992)

[trwi7]

Vancouver or somewhere close by would be a logical place to put a team. Not even sure what the population is on the lower mainland but it's plenty big enough to support a MLB team. While Basketball didn't work there Baseball would. The majority of us Canadians would rather watch a re-run of whatever than a basketball game. Seattle would have a fit though as it's in their backyard.

It's in Seattle's backyard but Seattle splits broadcast rights with Toronto in Vancouver so I don't think it would be a huge deal and Seattle has the rest of Washington and Oregon as Mariners territory. Toronto would probably be okay with it too. As mentioned earlier their metro area is huge. They have two cities less than an hour away from Toronto that have at least 500,000 people. Mississauga, which is bigger than Milwaukee and Hamilton which has a population just over 500,000. Plus they have the rest of the Eastern part of Canada though some parts are for the Red Sox.

 

[Warning Track Power]

Most of the options for expansion are too small. Only Montreal and NY/NJ are big enough to support an MLB franchise under the current financial system. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense to expand--the large markets will have to subsidize 2 more small market teams. If a salary cap is implemented, then I could see other cities like Portland, Buffalo, Indianapolis, or San Antonio as viable other options. The NFL could put a team in Nebraska and turn a profit, but the small markets in MLB need more help before expansion can be an option. Plus, there are other teams caught in perpetual losing cycles with declining fan support--Cleveland and Baltimore have leases expiring in the early 2020s and little hope of winning anything for at least the next 5 years. If the next CBA is unfavorable to the small markets and the economy stagnates, there could easily be 5+ MLB teams in trouble by the end of the decade.

I think this is an excellent point and this might deserve it's own topic as to how and why the NFL system works versus MLB's. I keep reading about how a salary cap in MLB wouldn't work and have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why it wouldn't. How can the NFL support the Green Bays, Indianapolis and Kansas Citys of the world and MLB can't support a franchise in Indianapolis and the Kansas City is doomed to losing its decent players to the larger markets?

 

Someone who doesn't believe a salary cap in MLB would solve the Prince Fielders from leaving Milwaukee, the Adrian Gonzalez from leaving San Diego and the Carl Crawfords from leaving Tampa Bay convince me. Because by all rights, those players should never have any reason to leave those cities. MLB can't keep touting competitive balance and parity in the league when the best players always seem to end up in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago (White Sox) and L.A.

[endaround]

Because a salary cap doesn't do anything. MLB right now has a soft salary cap, that's what the luxury tax is.

[joepepsi]

I think this is an excellent point and this might deserve it's own topic as to how and why the NFL system works versus MLB's. I keep reading about how a salary cap in MLB wouldn't work and have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why it wouldn't. How can the NFL support the Green Bays, Indianapolis and Kansas Citys of the world and MLB can't support a franchise in Indianapolis and the Kansas City is doomed to losing its decent players to the larger markets?

Small market teams can do well in the NFL because all TV rights are national broadcast rights and are shared equally among all teams. The Yankees have a $500 million cable contract, the Brewers' is something like $2 million. That's the difference.

[lcbj68c]

Because a salary cap doesn't do anything. MLB right now has a soft salary cap, that's what the luxury tax is.

NoWay. I'm not saying a salary cap would or wouldn't work...but there is a huge difference in telling New York you can only spend $115M vs telling New York you can spend $180M+, but then you give the league $23M or roughly each team $750k/year. A cap is a cap and a tax is a tax. The only soft cap there is now is limited to the depth of the owners britches at that moment.

[endaround]

A tax is a soft cap. That is how the NBA runs their cap. And there is evidence that the tax has curtailed the Red Sox a bit. But you aren't going to get a $115m cap of any type. You are going to get a cap like you have right now, one that basically affects the Yankees and maybe the Red Sox. A cap does nothing without revenue sharing of local TV revenue.

[Warning Track Power]

Small market teams can do well in the NFL because all TV rights are national broadcast rights and are shared equally among all teams. The Yankees have a $500 million cable contract, the Brewers' is something like $2 million. That's the difference.

I understand this point Joe and it does make sense. However, can you extend this now further to say how a salary cap wouldn't limit the Yankees spending of this money? I know Yankee fans would hate the fact that the Steinbrenners would then theoretically be pocketing a half billion dollars but who cares.

 

Speaking to you endaround; when only two teams are pushing into the luxury tax territory it really doesn't hold much weight. If the Yankees and Red Sox are the only teams who can realistically reach the luxury tax threshold, $170ish million, it doesn't do anything. If you don't believe in a hard cap, then the threshold for this tax has to be pushed way down to something like $100 million giving teams serious pause before crossing into the $100 million payroll. According to bizofbaseball , there were 8 teams with a 2010 opening day payroll of over $100 million. Wouldn't this help the disparities more?

[logan82]

All a salary cap would do is take money out of the players' pockets and put it in the owners'. I have no problem with some teams having a spending advantage, I would prefer to cut that advantage to $50m or less. If something like 80% of all income was shared then the Brewers could keep a player or two through their whole careers while teams like the Yankees could keep 2-3 more.

[nate82]

A salary cap won't work in baseball really. You would have to pay Prince what he is making now compared to what he was making when he first initially came up. Unlike the NFL MLB has a rather big and expensive minor league system while the NFL has a very cheap minor league system (college football). So basically a team like the Brewers would lose out on cost controlled players like Prince and Weeks. The rules for the roster would have to change along with calling up a player and sending them down. Basically Prince and Weeks would have been in Milwaukee a year after they were drafted. In the long run the Brewers would be losing money while a team like the Yankees really wouldn't be impacted by this change. Free agents will still go to the highest bidder and for the most part will go to the bigger markets. You still would have had Sabathia going to New York with or without a salary cap.

 

The Gonzalez trade more than likely still happens even with a salary cap. Why? Because Gonzalez would have tested the free agent market anyways with or without a salary cap in place. If there was a salary cap you also have to take into consideration that there will be new rules on trades. Probably would be similar to that of the NBA and NFL which means no Sabathia for the Brewers which meant at that time no playoffs for the Brewers. Be careful what you wish for because what you are really wishing for is probably not what you want.