Jump to content

Cuba Expansion


scOtt

Recommended Posts

MSK made me think of this thread with this portion of his plan as laid out on the main page.

3) Aggressively pursue international player development in China, Cuba (once Cuba is opened for real) and Venezuela.

This is all pure speculation because who knows what will happen in Cuba. IF Cuba opens up, and Manfred keeps pushing for expansion, what do you all think of say, Havana being viable for an expansion team.

Some pros I can see:

1. RABID interest in baseball.

2. It's close, only 90 miles farther than Miami.

3. In population, area and pop. density it's about the same as Pennsylvania. (And we have 2 ML teams)

Some cons:

1. It's a poor country. Like has been said about Mexico, the population might not be able to afford "the Major League experience." It might not be economically feasible as Bud and Manfred see it.

2. Even if the country is opened up, it likely would still be a passport and visa nightmare.

So what are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a AAA team in Havana in the 50s. Teams trained there in the spring. But that ceased when Castro took over, the Sugar Kings moved to Jersey City in mid-season 1960.

I think the team would draw well, but make the end-stage Expos seem like a cash cow. I don't think they have a stadium up to MLB standards. Teams make a very large part of their overall revenues on local TV deals, I'm not even sure most Cubans have TV and certainly can't pay $5 a person a month for an RSN. And it's hard to see the Havana team charging even a small fraction of a typical MLB team's ticket prices.

Never say never, but I'd guess it's decades before a Major League team in Cuba is viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a AAA team in Havana in the 50s. Teams trained there in the spring. But that ceased when Castro took over, the Sugar Kings moved to Jersey City in mid-season 1960.

I think the team would draw well, but make the end-stage Expos seem like a cash cow. I don't think they have a stadium up to MLB standards. Teams make a very large part of their overall revenues on local TV deals, I'm not even sure most Cubans have TV and certainly can't pay $5 a person a month for an RSN. And it's hard to see the Havana team charging even a small fraction of a typical MLB team's ticket prices.

Never say never, but I'd guess it's decades before a Major League team in Cuba is viable.

There's an army of young, capable, entrepreneurial Cuban-Americans in south Florida salivating over the thought of the Castro's dying, which shouldn't be too much longer. My guess is a decade at most before a major league team in Havana is viable should Cuba's brand of socialism go the way of the rest of the dinosaurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an army of young, capable, entrepreneurial Cuban-Americans in south Florida salivating over the thought of the Castro's dying, which shouldn't be too much longer. My guess is a decade at most before a major league team in Havana is viable should Cuba's brand of socialism go the way of the rest of the dinosaurs.

There's a big gap between $50(?) a month, and an average wage that could competitively support a MLB team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a big gap between $50(?) a month, and an average wage that could competitively support a MLB team.

No question that there are significant obstacles, most of them political IMO. If post-Castro Cuba quickly abandons socialism (I believe that it will) then I think the economic turnaround will be nothing short of staggering. I hope I live long enough to see it play out.

A major league team in Havana in ten years may not be likely, but it is most certainly possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • Oh, I don't know. I thought when accusing someone of wild malpractice over possibly, maybe, slightly speeding up highlights that kind of opened the door to a little goofy exaggeration.
    • I was going to post something about this after reading about that on MLBTR this morning. That gives me a lot of hope for Bradish if this kid can come back from a UCL sprain and throw 103. Obviously, reliever vs. starter so who knows. But uplifting to read nonetheless. 
    • Hollocher hit almost exclusively 2nd in the order. The Cubs' 3rd hitters (and it was the Cubs, not the Indians as I previously stated) were mostly Marty Krug, Zeb Terry, and John Kelleher. Krug was awful for a 1922 3rd-place hitter, with an 83 OPS+ in his only season as a MLB regular, but he only struck out 43 times in 524 PAs. Terry was worse, OPS+ing 74, but with just 16 Ks in 571 PAs. And Kelleher was the worst of the bunch, OPS+ing 60, while striking out 14 times in 222 PAs. Cubs manager Reindeer Bill Killefer stuck hard and fast to the old rule of thumb that the catcher should bat 8th, even if it's Bob O'Farrell and he hit .324 with an .880 OPS. Ray Grimes had a 1.014 OPS and batted cleanup. But Hack Miller and his .899 OPS batted mostly 6th. Statz wasn't a terrible leadoff hitter, was one of only a couple players who had a SB% higher than 50%, but was 6th among their regulars in OBP. That's as bad a bunch of #3 hitters as I've seen in a while, yet the Cubs finished 80-74-2. Just goes to show you batting order doesn't really matter. Anyway, back to the main point... yes, I'm sure some of Hollocher's CS were busted hit-and-runs. But nobody that regularly batted behind him struck out in even 7% of PAs so they shoulda been putting the ball in play the vast majority of the time.    
    • Bobby needs to git gud. 
    • How many people actually said they were one of the greatest teams ever?   They did hit the snot out of the ball the first 9 games of the year, mostly in a 6 game series in a very hitter-friendly ball park against a bad pitching staff.  That said, they’re still second in the league in runs per game.  Their pitching has been problematic, yielding 6.50 runs per game.  
    • Gunnar’s base running is in the 99th percentile.  That mess is in the 98th percentile.
    • Yeah, the highlighted section here is really why I agree that the O's will look to minimize losing players to waivers just yet. Things could blow up on them pretty quick. There's a ton of risk with these moves, but they have to find out. The best way to do that is to utilize the options for Akin and Tate, IMO. We'll see! 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...