MLB considering expansion to Mexico, Montreal

[MNBrew]

I think of the NBA, NFL and MLB the only league that should expand right now is NBA.

The NBA's TV contract is ridiculous, but I think over the last 10 years there's far more hype & media attention (ESPN!!!!!!) than overall fan interest on a national basis outside of the handful of top winning teams and hottest-name player or two.

 

Responding to other thoughts in the thread so far...

 

- Like Portland as noted earlier, in the late '80s, Buffalo built a new AAA stadium that was made with the intent of being expanded into an MLB stadium. But I recall hearing that there was more money behind FL ownership (COL was long viewed as the next obvious MLB city), so the better actual baseball option (over FL) lost out because the then-26 owners were all about the money in FL. I'm not sure Buffalo would ultimately have been the best market, but it sure was the darling of that thought process for quite a while (I still remember a major Sporting News article on it at the time -- back when it was a good magazine).

 

- 2 of the 4 most recent expansion teams point out the folly in expanding to areas based on money and not on thoroughly sound baseball thinking. 1) Other than when they win big -- and not always even then -- the Marlins have a miserable time drawing fans. And 2) the since-they-started problem with Tampa Bay isn't the team or ownership, but that that stupid stadium had already been built in St. Pete (remember possible moves of the Giants & ChiSox?), which was the dumbest idea for a location because St. Pete's more of a quieter locale. The city of Tampa itself is nuts in general & about its sports teams -- even the A-ball Tampa Yankees -- and is where the Rays should be playing. . . . At least the Rays are in the right market, only hideously located and unfortunately kinda stuck on the wrong end of the causeway for at least the time being until logic, circumstances, & money finally fortuitously align. On the other hand, the Marlins theoretically should draw well but never do and, to my thinking, should be the next franchise to be moved (more on that in a minute).

 

- Re: Mexico City, the lesson in the Miami expansion is that I'd fear the same logic building up the market would be based on promise & not as grounded in realistic possibilities (very much like the NHL's sun-belt expansion & moves in the '90s, which is a huge gamble that has never fully worked or proven sustainable in full).

 

- In part based on the above, though I'm not totally sure why overall, Mexico City doesn't feel right as an expansion option. That idea has absolutely no appeal to me. And for all the stereotypical/historical reasons, I really dislike the idea of the MLB in Las Vegas. Baseball, more overtly than any other sport since 1900, has fought against the influence of gambling, whether that influence has been real (especially in the early days of the 1900s) or just perceived as potential.

 

- I'm all for NL pitchers continuing to hit -- I hate the DH -- and think 4 8-team divisions presents the ideal alignment.

 

- I think the idea presented earlier about Montreal not deserving a team because they lost one a decade ago holds no water -- not to mention the fact that Washington, where the Expos landed, lost not one but TWO previous franchises in just over a decade. (Technically Milwaukee also lost two MLB franchises -- the 1901 Brewers moved to St. Louis to become the Browns in '02, plus of course the Braves.) Of course, there's also the Philly/KC/Oakland franchise that now is stuck in a lousy ballpark situation and could someday move to its 4th major league city (San Jose, at least at one point in the discussion).

 

- In the 4 8-team division scenario, you simply keep the present playoff qualifying arrangement -- in each league, 5 teams like this: 2 division-winners and the next three best records all make it, with the two lowest-seeded non-division-winners in a one-game play-in. It works now and wouldn't have to change a lick. The 2 division winners have home-field advantage in the divisional series. . . . Honestly, while I love the competition & trade activity the 5-playoff-teams deal engenders, I still prefer the more "purist" version of only 4 teams making the playoffs. However, there's no way MLB goes backward to that. . . . NOTE: Keep in mind that under this sort of playoff situation, the '87 Brewers would've made the playoffs because even though they finished 4th in the AL East (91-71), they still had a better record than the AL West-winning Twins (85-77), and thus would've earned the final Wild Card spot.

 

- My 3 picks for new MLB cities would be:

 

Montreal

Portland

Charlotte

 

... In my ideal world, two of those teams would be expansion teams & the 3rd would be the new home of the Miami Marlins. Keep in mind that Jeffrey Loria used to own the Expos and in some really convoluted 3-team horse-trading, he ended up owning the Marlins instead (the Red Sox were the 3rd team in the ownership carousel -- John Henry & Co.) and essentially moved the Expos' entire organization to Miami. (For articles on Loria & his influence on the destruction of the Expos, check out these two links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Loria and http://bleacherreport.com/articles/275561-how-jeffrey-loria-destroyed-the-montreal-exposwashington-nationals.) They've never been a consistent draw and certainly deserve to land on more baseball-fertile ground than Miami has proven to be.

[MrTPlush]

I don't really like the idea of expansion because we already have some garbage cities that can't draw fans. I would rather move the Marlins, Rays, Cleveland, Oakland etc. if they wanted to give a new city a baseball team.

 

Why expand when we can't support the teams we have now?

[MNBrew]

^^This sounds like a sound-byte type answer. On the surface, it makes sense. But to my thinking it's not that simple at all.

 

To use your wording, some of the so-called garbage cities aren't garbage cities at all, just cities whose team's legit competitiveness is cyclical & thus "window"-based. For 15 or so years once Jacobs Field (or whatever it's now called) opened, Cleveland sold out games forever and the Indians were an upper-tier team.

 

At the same time, while baseball's economics were killing franchises like Milwaukee, Minnesota, & Montreal, there was talk of payroll-elite (read: big-market) leagues or divisions and then "lesser" franchises. It's basically the same idea as yours, just differently dressed. IMO, either is an inherently problematic & therefore flawed idea.

[MrTPlush]

^^This sounds like a sound-byte type answer. On the surface, it makes sense. But to my thinking it's not that simple at all.

 

To use your wording, some of the so-called garbage cities aren't garbage cities at all, just cities whose team's legit competitiveness is cyclical & thus "window"-based. For 15 or so years once Jacobs Field (or whatever it's now called) opened, Cleveland sold out games forever and the Indians were an upper-tier team.

 

At the same time, while baseball's economics were killing franchises like Milwaukee, Minnesota, & Montreal, there was talk of payroll-elite (read: big-market) leagues or divisions and then "lesser" franchises. It's basically the same idea as yours, just differently dressed. IMO, either is an inherently problematic & therefore flawed idea.

 

 

They are all failing baseball cities for one reason or another. Bad teams? Maybe, but many have teams that aren't building new stadiums or just not great cities in general.

 

Miami has a world of problems, Tampa Bay has a horrible stadium and I just don't think there is solid support anyway, and a place like Cleveland is questionable itself. You need more than support in September and in the postseason if you get there. A team like the Rays can't have 1.2 attendance when they aren't competing...that is miserable.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I guess I hadn't realized how horrible the attendance has gotten in Cleveland. The last 3 years they've won 92, 85, and 81 games, and they're still drawing less than 18 thousand fans per game. You can't live off of the attendance from the mid 90's forever.

[pacopete4]

Another thing to consider with expansion is diluted talent pool. There are already plenty of players who are just, not that good, in the major leagues. Adding two more teams brings even more of those types of players into the league. More chances for guys like Logan Schaffer and so forth. This would be a big reason why I'm against it. The game(s) would be better if you had the supreme talent on the field and expanding does not do that.

 

I think NHL-NBA when I think this. The more teams they've added, the worse their product has become.

[MrTPlush]

I guess I hadn't realized how horrible the attendance has gotten in Cleveland. The last 3 years they've won 92, 85, and 81 games, and they're still drawing less than 18 thousand fans per game. You can't live off of the attendance from the mid 90's forever.

 

In 2013 only 1.5 games out of the AL Wild Card the Indians had a record low 9,000 fans show up to a game. If that doesn't show that fans don't care I don't know what does. A 90+ win team in the thick of things only getting 9,000 people to come...wow.

 

Cleveland might be the team most deserving of a move. I think their attendance way back when was fueled by a new stadium, a historical run of success, and the lack of a football team. Now the Browns have returned, they are back down to earth, and the stadium has aged. Now sits a team that can't get more than 2.2mil fans when they win 90+ games. In their last run at 90+ wins they couldn't even get 1.6mil to come out.

[tmwiese55]

For all the reasons listed I don't any reason for expansion right now. combine it with what seems like a general decline in interest from young people (bad sign for the future) and the shift of TV in the works and I don't see why they should overextend themselves.

 

This is basically why I previously said NBA is the only one it would make sense (and still would be considered a stretch). They are the only sport drastically trending UP right now. It's also much more popular among youth and is basically made for the internet era. It's now the 2nd most popular sport in the world. With the NFL primed for a decline at some point in the next 10 years (health issues, QB play, general overextending itself, every piece of info we learn seems to prove the NFL is just evil) they should be there ready to pounce.

[jerichoholicninja]

The Marlins should not move for at least 20 years. Yes, their fans suck but they just spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars on a stadium. To have that hardly even paid for stadium sit there empty would be a slap in the face to the citizens and I would assume lead to lawsuits against MLB, Loria, and probably even the city council.

 

Obviously a problem with expansion is diluted talent but it would probably also lesson the amount of top prospects that are held down because of service time because they would be more beneficial to the organization by playing in the majors than some 5A guy.

[pacopete4]

The Marlins should not move for at least 20 years. Yes, their fans suck but they just spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars on a stadium. To have that hardly even paid for stadium sit there empty would be a slap in the face to the citizens and I would assume lead to lawsuits against MLB, Loria, and probably even the city council.

 

Obviously a problem with expansion is diluted talent but it would probably also lesson the amount of top prospects that are held down because of service time because they would be more beneficial to the organization by playing in the majors than some 5A guy.

 

 

Or we could just fix the service time problems to be able to get our best players up in the majors and have teams control them for longer deals. Maybe make their first deals larger.

[tmwiese55]

If anything I think it would go the other direction, in the players favor. They're already controlled for longer than any other sport with no ways out. Compounded with how drastically underpaid they are in the pre-arby years and if anything the shift will be to limit team control. Not let them to be controlled until their 33+ making it difficult to get a big contract

[1992casey]

FWIW, the Indians are tied to their current lease through 2023, and the Rays are tied through 2027. It appears that the Marlins are tied to Miami for nearly four decades. I think the A's are near the beginning of a 10-year lease, but it can be broken with 2 years notice if the team pays the remaining rent. Additionally, the Indians and Marlins are part owners of their facilities.

 

Of these teams, we've seen Cleveland draw 3 million six times, and we've seen the Marlins draw 3 million once. The A's have drawn 2.9 million once, but if you skip 1994 and 1995 (the strike-shortened years), they've drawn 2 million or more every year since 1988. The Rays have drawn 2 million only once (2.5 million in their inaugural season), and in the 21st century, their highest attendance has been 1.369 million.

 

With the A's, I'd say they have stadium problems rather than attendance problems. Tampa's whole situation sucks, but I don't necessarily blame the fans. Their stadium is lousy, and it's in a remote location in comparison to the bulk of the Tampa Bay population.

 

As it looks to be impossible for the Marlins to go anywhere, I think that Miami's best hope is new ownership that fans can trust. Multiple fire sales that didn't make any baseball sense have turned off fans. It also doesn't help that there's a perception that ownership is turning a substantial profit despite what it claims. I think we have to hope that there's a fan base that'll turn out under decent circumstances.

 

Cleveland's situation totally befuddles me, and googling for information doesn't really shed light. Drastic payroll cuts on the heels of the six 3-million seasons certainly didn't help. And trading players like Sabathia didn't help. But other teams have cut payroll and traded stars and bounced back at the gate. One article speculates that dynamic pricing has turned fans off, but I think it's way down the list… if it's even valid. The stadium is 20 years old, but it's also undergone recent renovations. The most important aspects of stadiums built since Camden Yards — good seating and amenities — are still there, and new stadiums haven't changed considerably in that regard since then. Given that the stadium is recently renovated, it ought to be up to date and a nice place to see a game.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I know the Jake is 20 years old, but that can't be the problem. It's a nice park and a decent location. (As mentioned) it's been recently renovated, and it has plenty of amenities. It's what........ 6 years older than Miller Park?

 

Kind of sad if we're getting to a point where these structures are only good for 20-30 years now. Turner field was used for what.......20 seasons?

 

I know it's a completely different sport, but the Bradley Center was built in 88, and has been obsolete for quite a while already.

[1992casey]

Turner Field was value engineered. The result of that approach is that sooner than later, necessary repairs and upgrades become costly enough that it makes sense to explore a new facility.

 

The Bradley Center was built just before the time that extensive fan amenities became a de facto requirement, making it obsolete early on. SkyDome (now the Rogers Centre), which opened in 1989, started the amenity thing, and facilities for all sports soon followed.

[1992casey]

Here are a couple of 2015 articles by Chris Mitchell of Hardball Times:

 

• Examining Potential MLB Expansion Cities, Part 1
  
• Examining Potential MLB Expansion Cities, Part 2

 

Chris applies a statistical model which includes demographics. He fairly points out where his model falls short. For instance, while his study ranks Sacramento fourth on the list of potential US expansion possibilities, the model doesn't "know" that Sacramento is less than 100 miles from San Francisco.

 

His study doesn't include international cities, but he addresses them separately in Part 2. He suggests that Vancouver's demographics are a better baseball fit than Montreal. As far as Mexico goes, he points out that Mexico City has an economy that's approximately the size of Dallas. Guadalajara and Monterrey have economies that fall in line with Milwaukee and Kansas City.

[jerichoholicninja]

How does the expansion process begin? Does an ownership group need to apply for a franchise or does MLB just decide it wants more teams and then send out for bids?

[MNBrew]

A friend of mine has taught in AZ for over a decade & a large portion of his class every year is of Mexican heritage and/or are kids of immigrants. I sent him some of my thoughts on expansion to get his reaction & to see what his thoughts were both on mine ideas & in general. Here's part of his reaction (and if his observations & opinions are indeed accurate, and if MLB's seriously intent about expansion in these couple places, these also seem like the sorts of observations they could well totally ignore or gloss over):

 

No way to Mexico City! Many Mexicans don't want to go anywhere near there. SO SO dangerous and corrupt (think: kidnapped players like Ugueth Urbina's clan). . . Baseball's just not that popular in Mexico. I might have one student each year that finds baseball somewhat bearable - but they hate baseball A LOT! You can't change a culture just by plopping down a franchise in the biggest city. . . . Floating around the internet somewhere are some horror stories of that NFL game in Mexico City a few years back. I know the AZ Cardinals were one of the teams. If I remember correctly, the players were basically on lockdown in their hotel and had to keep their blinds drawn. I believe the team bus was stripped or somehow vandalized despite being in a supposedly safe part of town. I also think the NFL had to hire some local security force to be stationed outside the hotel with machine guns.

 

Las Vegas is also a terrible idea. Arizona has bad attendance because no is really from here. 90% of the population is from somewhere else in America or Mexico. Las Vegas is the same way. They could never support an MLB team. There is so much to do in Vegas that the locals always have something else to spend their disposable income on. The vibe around Vegas is so different from any other big city. It almost feels like a different planet. A 15,000 seat NBA team "might" work there. But, despite all the money and bigwigs flowing in Las Vegas, UNLV has a crappy football stadium like 10-15 miles off campus. For the 10 years we have been going to Vegas, there has been proposal after proposal for a new UNLV stadium but nothing ever happens. There's just not a lot of momentum for any kind of sports there.

 

(My side note: It's worth noting the NHL feels differently about Las Vegas because Vegas (along with Quebec City) is apparently in strong contention for an NHL expansion team and their arena is deep into its construction and their season ticket drive (done to test the interest & then show the NHL) netted over 13,000 deposits -- real cash.)

[DHonks]

I don't agree at all with the Vegas thoughts. Vegas folks are like AZ folks in that due to the transient nature, nobody is from there. However, Vegas folks have NOTHING to do. They don't gamble. They just work. The knock against Vegas is that the 2008 Economic meltdown slowed its growth. While it was on pace to be a viable city, it may not be there yet.

 

I refer back to the Mitchell Report that stated that the top 3 markets for expansion by population are New York City, New York City, and Los Angeles. However, I don't see them being successful. I definitely feel Vegas, Portland, Charlotte, San Antonio, et al could be viable. The first issue though is getting the A's to San Jose.

[tmwiese55]

I'm heavy Vegas regular and I think the only sport that would work is NBA. I know the NHL is almost a done deal to get a team there but I think it will have the same problems as PHX and other warm weather places have had and just overall NHL isn't as popular as NBA to average people who are visiting. Baseball is supposed to be an outdoor sport and it's just too hot there. The game is just too slow and boring for Vegas and I don't think you could really put a baseball stadium on the strip the way the NBA/NHL can. The arena is right on the strip and I would expect them to sell out most weekend games. It's an uptempo thing that lasts 2 hours and will be like any other show on the strip that costs $100-120. Even if you're not from there but OKC (or whatever big time team) is in town while you are, you'll at least look into going. It would also be a free agent destination so if they get a good team there locally, it will be huge, just like the old UNLV teams were. And that was 25 years ago when the city wasn't anywhere near what it is now.

 

Well I suppose NFL too because that could work most anywhere these days, people are so nuts about the NFL.

[bucks2281]

Cleveland's attendance boom came during the window when the Browns were gone and the Cavaliers were lousy. Now that the Browns are back and the Cavaliers sell out every game, how much discretionary sports $ is left in that market for the Indians to have solid attendance?

[DHonks]

tmwiese55, last time I checked, NBA games take almost as long as MLB games, which take almost as long as NFL games. No idea on NHL games. I've met a few in AZ that love the Coyotes, but the challenge is just how spread out Phoenix is.

[torts]

NHL games are close to NBA in time-length, but are considerably shorter than MLB/NFL games. A quick google found:

 

NBA - 2 hours, 20 minutes

NHL - 2 hours, 30 minutes

MLB - 2 hours, 50 minutes

NFL - 3 hours, 15 minutes

[tmwiese55]

Yes they try to keep an NBA in a 2 hour TV timeframe and they usually slightly go over. I thought I saw MLB this year with the new emphasis on speed only got the times down 2:55ish.

 

For the NHL, people that are into it are really into it. And of course live hockey is amazing. On average though it is the least popular of the big 4 sports by a large margin, which explains whey they can't even get playoff games on major network TV and I think only the weekend Finals games, could be wrong on that though and the Finals are all on major. Almost no regular season games on major networks.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I understand the want for MLB to try and shorten the time length of their games - but at the end of the day it's the one sport of the 4 major ones that doesn't have a clock tell you when the game's over. If anything, people should be astounded that it takes the NFL well over 3 hours on average to complete a game with a 1 hour clock, particularly when over half of each game minute is spent with teams in a huddle or setting up the next play. I think there's more time during an NFL game spent reviewing scores, turnovers, coaching challenges, referee penalty discussions, and staring at injured players laying on the field than actual game action.

 

With essentially 17 built-in 5 minute lulls in action between 1/2 innings and innings from 1 through the top of the 9th, baseball should have ample time for commercial breaks. That's about 1.5 hours of time right there, not to mention pitching changes. The fact that baseball can get through a 9 inning game in 3 hours on average is actually pretty good considering the logistics of the game, and the fact that every game has to end with at least one team getting 27 untimed outs to win.

[tmwiese55]

Chorizo, I agree. When someone rips on MLB to me and I know they love the NFL (as everyone does) I always say that back. The difference I see is that most NFL plays can be instant replayed no matter what happens. A routine pitch down the middle without a swing, or a low outside ball, etc, have no replay value.

 

Length of game here was only brought up in terms of how each league would fit in Vegas. Not an overall discussion on which is better or anything. Essentially, there's a ton of shows in Vegas that are ballpark 2 hours. 3-4 hours, not so much and MLB would need to be played well off strip. A 2 hour basketball show right on the strip should work like any other show.