MLB considering expansion to Mexico, Montreal

[1992casey]

Mexico City would definitely need a ballpark with a retractable roof, partly because of pollution and partly because of daily late afternoon rainfall during the summer months.

 

It's amazing how much the pollution lifts, though, when cars are off the road. You'll see that in the evenings and on Sundays.

 

It'd be interesting to see how construction of a ballpark would pan out. Many building projects take longer than anticipated because work will start and it's found that an archaeological dig has to occur.

[SuddenRedScare]

Not to mention that Mexico City sits at almost 7,400 feet above sea level. That place would be a launch pad that rivals Cape Canaveral.

[Polish Falcons]

Not to mention that Mexico City sits at almost 7,400 feet above sea level. That place would be a launch pad that rivals Cape Canaveral.

 

 

Wow really? By comparison colors field is 5,200 feet above sea level.

[homer]

I'd rather they test the waters with a AAA team in Mexico City first. Montreal actually has a rich baseball history going back to the 40's. Jackie Robinson played minor league ball there. I think they'd support a team if they got a new stadium. Same argument about support could have been lobbied against a number of franchises in the 80's and 90's - Milwaukee, Seattle, Cleveland to name a few.

[paul253]

Yeah but a new stadium in Miami certainly hasn't helped with their attendance. People will only go to see the stadium so many times. Eventually you need to find real fans. I have no idea if Montreals problem was the terrible stadium or not a big enough fan base but they need to be sure before they give them another team.

[logan82]

New Jersey and LA. We aren't going to ever get a salary cap. The best we cna hope for is to drain some money out of the Yankees and Dodger's pockets.

[DHonks]

while the Canadian dollar has dropped lately, it's recent strength reversed one of the conditions that led to the Expos leaving and--at least temporarily--threatened the Jays.

 

I've long wanted Portland, Las Vegas, and Montreal. Not sure if Mexico City can compete economically, but it would be interesting to add another team to the southwest. I wanted to do this expansion years ago, with Portland and Las Vegas as my favorites. 8 4-team divisions makes simply too much sense. Not sure if you'd continue with a wildcard round of sorts, though

[1992casey]

I'd rather they test the waters with a AAA team in Mexico City first.

 

The current Mexican League team, Los Diablos Rojos del México (Mexico City Red Devils), is AAA and is part of Minor League Baseball. I don't know if affiliation with a Major League team would be considered an upgrade or downgrade by fans.

 

It's hard to gauge the Red Devils' recent success based on attendance. This year, they averaged 2,787 fans per game in a 5,200 seat temporary facility. Previously, they played in a stadium that apparently wasn't suitable for baseball. They're getting a new 13,000 seat facility in 2017 that looks gorgeous:

 

• Mexico Creates a Temple of Sports
  
• Baseball stadium for Mexico's Red Devils to feature a three-pronged roof
  
• JAHN and ADG Unveil Mexico City’s Newest Baseball Stadium

 

paul253, keep in mind that the Marlins have the same crummy owner that the Expos did.

[MrTPlush]

Mexico City would support it, but I just don't see it being a viable option. I feel like there are too many barriers that it would just be too difficult to make happen.

 

An expansion in general sounds like a big of a pipe dream for now.

[JohnBriggs12]

I've been to Mexico City. Believe me, the people with money there live very, very well. There is definitely a bigger contrast between the abject poverty and the well to do, and there's less of a middle class existence like we have in the U.S. but I'm sure wealthy baseball players will thrive there.

[dacbrewers]

Commissioner said he likes differences between nl and al...He won't change what's in place...so no dh in NL.

[1992casey]

Plush, I think the barriers to expansion apply most everywhere, and most involve the ability of a team to generate revenue. Mexico City would benefit from a national TV contract, but it would still have the peso to deal with. As Briggs said, it certainly has enough population that can afford Major League prices and can fill a ballpark. And I'm sure that there'd be private and/or public money to build a park.

 

Mexico City's more unique barriers can possibly be overcome with proper planning to take the edge off of the things that those used to living in the States would find inconvenient. The team or MLB could provide a liaison that could help players find proper housing and assist when they need services (like getting a plumber when the toilet stops working, finding a doctor when a family member is sick, etc.). Maybe a per diem could be provided to cover cab rides and such that wouldn't be so necessary in the US and Canada.

 

I think that there are several locations both in and out of the States that could draw enough to fill a ballpark. But as we see with the Brewers, that isn't enough. Adding franchises that find themselves in the same financial position as the Brewers, Reds, Royals, etc. doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If revenue sharing were increased, which is something that would help the majority of teams, then I think it would make sense to talk expansion.

 

When the Expos left Canada, I thought that Montreal was done with Major League Baseball. But in recent months I've seen enough people argue for its viability that I think it probably could succeed if things are done right. The Expos were successful for a lot of years despite the fact that Olympic Stadium never really worked out. Good ownership and a proper facility could go a long way toward having a viable team there.

[tmwiese55]

while the Canadian dollar has dropped lately, it's recent strength reversed one of the conditions that led to the Expos leaving and--at least temporarily--threatened the Jays.

 

I've long wanted Portland, Las Vegas, and Montreal. Not sure if Mexico City can compete economically, but it would be interesting to add another team to the southwest. I wanted to do this expansion years ago, with Portland and Las Vegas as my favorites. 8 4-team divisions makes simply too much sense. Not sure if you'd continue with a wildcard round of sorts, though

 

I think I'd rather go with 4 8-team divisions so that you can have wild cards if the best teams are in the same division.

 

I think Portland should be choice #1, they support the Blazers so well they should probably be given another and see how it goes. Would probably pick Austin as the second unless Montreal has things worked out. Charlotte in consideration too.

 

Please just add the DH to the NL already, this makes no senses to have different rules.

[pacopete4]

4-8 team divisions? No thank you. DH in both leagues? Yes, please.

 

I'll take 8-4 team divisions though. Top two teams get a bye series while the next two division winners host two wild card teams in a 3 game series in which the division winner hosts all 3 games (if necessary). Next series can be either 5 or 7 games, then 7 games to get to the WS and 7 games to win the WS.

 

 

ROUND #1 (Division winners #1 & #2 Bye) Division Winner #3 vs. Wildcard #2 & Division Winner #4 vs. Wildcard #1

ROUND #2: Division Winner #1 vs. Lowest Remaining Seed, Division Winner #2 vs. Highest Remaining Seed

[IndyCrew]

Indianapolis and Portland would be my choices. I'm a bit biased.

[tmwiese55]

If you went to 4 team divisions you'd need wildcards and I don't see them wanting to go with a 16 team playoff as that would require shortening the regular season. So you're left with going to 6 and then having the top two teams sitting for a week, which no one wants either.

 

There's already complaining this year about the setup due to the divisions being emphasized too much, going to 4 team divisions would only increase that problem. Have two division winners, 3 wild cards each league. Bottom two wild cards have to do the 1 game thing like now (or find a way to make it a 3 gamer).

[brewmann04]

Hopefully they will say no to Mexico

[Bombers]

If you went to 4 team divisions you'd need wildcards and I don't see them wanting to go with a 16 team playoff as that would require shortening the regular season. So you're left with going to 6 and then having the top two teams sitting for a week, which no one wants either.

There's already complaining this year about the setup due to the divisions being emphasized too much, going to 4 team divisions would only increase that problem. Have two division winners, 3 wild cards each league. Bottom two wild cards have to do the 1 game thing like now (or find a way to make it a 3 gamer).

The top 3 teams already sit from a day game on Sunday and don't play until Friday. So they have 4 full days off. (5 if you count the hours.) I know I said it before but when (not an if) they go to 32 teams, and re-align to 8x4, I would be in favor of a 6 team playoff with the top 2 seeds sitting. I would then play a 3 game series, with the better team getting games 2 & 3. The games would be played during the same time frame, I just wouldn't have all these "travel" days. Teams go weeks without a "travel" day. There is no reason that with having all 2:00 CST starts on the last Sunday of the year, that series can't start on Monday. The other two can start on Tuesday. So for the NL wild card week would go.

Game 1 - Monday.

Game 2 - Wednesday

Game 3 - Thursday

 

NLDS

Game 1 - Saturday

 

With this format, you are adding 1 day as the NLDS is scheduled to start on Friday this week.

[Baldkin]

If you went to 4 team divisions you'd need wildcards and I don't see them wanting to go with a 16 team playoff as that would require shortening the regular season. So you're left with going to 6 and then having the top two teams sitting for a week, which no one wants either.

There's already complaining this year about the setup due to the divisions being emphasized too much, going to 4 team divisions would only increase that problem. Have two division winners, 3 wild cards each league. Bottom two wild cards have to do the 1 game thing like now (or find a way to make it a 3 gamer).

The top 3 teams already sit from a day game on Sunday and don't play until Friday. So they have 4 full days off. (5 if you count the hours.) I know I said it before but when (not an if) they go to 32 teams, and re-align to 8x4, I would be in favor of a 6 team playoff with the top 2 seeds sitting. I would then play a 3 game series, with the better team getting games 2 & 3. The games would be played during the same time frame, I just wouldn't have all these "travel" days. Teams go weeks without a "travel" day. There is no reason that with having all 2:00 CST starts on the last Sunday of the year, that series can't start on Monday. The other two can start on Tuesday. So for the NL wild card week would go.

Game 1 - Monday.

Game 2 - Wednesday

Game 3 - Thursday

 

NLDS

Game 1 - Saturday

 

With this format, you are adding 1 day as the NLDS is scheduled to start on Friday this week.

 

They'd have to wait until Tuesday, at least, in case there are 1-game playoffs in both leagues to determine the WC representatives or division winners.

[tmwiese55]

Yes they currently wait two days in case of tie-breaker needs. That would still need to be in place. Now add in 2 more games and at least one travel day and those top seeds are sitting until Monday/Tuesday or even Wednesday instead of Friday. There is already complaining that sitting this long is too much, now we're going to double it. That's what I'm saying I think they're very reluctant to do (obviously, or they would have done it initially).

 

That being said, they might just say: whatever, we're doing it because it generates so much more money and tell the top seeds to deal with it in exchange for the increased revenue. Or to really maximize the revenue go all the way to 8 teams but try to reduce travel days somehow to speed up the post season a bit.

[jerichoholicninja]

Days off in baseball in not always a good thing. I don't think a bye for teams would be great for them.

[1992casey]

They'd have to wait until Tuesday, at least, in case there are 1-game playoffs in both leagues to determine the WC representatives or division winners.

 

There's also the issue of rain, either in the form of a rainout or a long rain delay. As an example, back in 1999, the final game of the Brewers season started around 9:00 PM after being delayed from its scheduled mid-afternoon start. After beating the Brewers, the Reds had to head home for a one game playoff vs. the Mets.

 

I'm a little wary of byes simply because they have the potential to undermine the natural rhythm of playing regularly. On the other side of the coin, when teams finish a postseason series early, they seem to like being able to reset their starting rotations.

 

In the not so distant past, there weren't always built-in travel days, and the participants weren't pleased. Figure that flights can potentially be longer than they might typically be during the regular season. And there are oddball game times to accommodate both TV and fans attending at the park. And of course, there's always the possibility of postponements.

[DHonks]

Portland already has a stadium. The AAA stadium was built/planned with plans for expansion that can increase size and capacity to MLB-quality.

[dlk9s]

I'd probably look at Atlanta for expansion, since they're losing their team.

[Bombers]

Yes they currently wait two days in case of tie-breaker needs. That would still need to be in place. Now add in 2 more games and at least one travel day and those top seeds are sitting until Monday/Tuesday or even Wednesday instead of Friday. There is already complaining that sitting this long is too much, now we're going to double it. That's what I'm saying I think they're very reluctant to do (obviously, or they would have done it initially).

 

That being said, they might just say: whatever, we're doing it because it generates so much more money and tell the top seeds to deal with it in exchange for the increased revenue. Or to really maximize the revenue go all the way to 8 teams but try to reduce travel days somehow to speed up the post season a bit.

Yep, that is right. I forgot about the need to wait for possible tie breaker games. However, you could always get rid of the tie breaker games and have tie breaker rules like they do in the NFL. I do find it funny that you can sweep a team for the whole season, end up tied with them and still have to play a play in game. I still think 6 teams in the playoffs is doable but you wouldn't be able to allow for the travel days. So it would be just like the regular season when they go weeks without a travel day.