Montreal Wants a Team?

[fansince79]

The prevailing theory is that Charlotte is the most likely city for a team if the Rays move. They seem to support the NBA and NFL just fine and could get one of the big banks for naming rights to the stadium.

[DrungoHazewood]

The prevailing theory is that Charlotte is the most likely city for a team if the Rays move. They seem to support the NBA and NFL just fine and could get one of the big banks for naming rights to the stadium.

Prevailing from what source? I'm sure Charlotte could be fine given the right owners and stadium/location. But I don't see what differentiates them from San Antonio or Portland or Montreal or Vancouver.

[OFFNY]

o

Buffalo getting a MLB team would be a dream come true.

In 1988, I remember reading an article in USA Today about the AAA-Buffalo Bisons' brand new stadium, and how it was designed in many ways to be suitable for a major league team. In fact, that was Buffalo's plan all along.

That season, the first-ever AAA All-Star Game took place at Pilot Field (the name of the stadium at that time.) At that time, the Bisons regularly drew over a million each season (even more impressive when taking into consideration that AAA-baseball has only a 142-144 game schedule, unlike the major leagues' 162-game schedule), and were seemingly on their way to being awarded a major league franchise.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/30/magazine/rich-makes-his-pitch.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

But it never happened. Denver and Miami were awarded expansion franchises in 1991, the Rockies and the Marlins began play in 1993, and to this day, the Buffalo Bisons remain a AAA team.

In 2012, Buffalo hosted the 25th AAA All-Star Game.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/07/they-built-it-mlb-never-came/2509/

The major league dreams for Buffalo have died, but their love of baseball is still there.

[DrungoHazewood]

In 1988, I remember reading an article in USA Today about the AAA-Buffalo Bisons' brand new stadium, and how it was designed in many ways to be suitable for a major league team. In fact, that was Buffalo's plan all along.

That season, the first-ever AAA All-Star Game took place at Pilot Field (the name of the stadium at that time.) At that time, the Bisons regularly drew over a million each season (even more impressive when taking into consideration that AAA-baseball has only a 142-144 game schedule, unlike the major leagues' 162-game schedule), and were seemingly on their way to being awarded a major league franchise.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/30/magazine/rich-makes-his-pitch.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

But it never happened. Denver and Miami were awarded expansion franchises in 1991, the Rockies and the Marlins began play in 1993, and to this day, the Buffalo Bisons remain a AAA team.

In 2012, Buffalo hosted the 25th AAA All-Star Game.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/07/they-built-it-mlb-never-came/2509/

The major league dreams for Buffalo have died, but their love of baseball is still there.

I remember that as a kid, and that Buffalo was really a prime candidate for expansion. Which, in retrospect, seems a little crazy. A bunch of rustbelt cities like Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo had their population peaks in the 50s, but Buffalo was always the smallest and still is with barely 250k in the city today. When your motto could be "We're 80% of Cleveland" you're probably not getting a new major sports team. My boss is from Buffalo, and there apparently was or is a real fear they'd lose the Bills leaving them with only a hockey team in the major NA sports leagues.

[mdbdotcom]

The prevailing theory is that Charlotte is the most likely city for a team if the Rays move. They seem to support the NBA and NFL just fine and could get one of the big banks for naming rights to the stadium.

To build any kind of cable network, whatsoever, they'd have to encroach on Braves or MASN (Orioles/Nationals) territory. Can't imagine MLB would be anxious for that fight.

[DrungoHazewood]

To build any kind of cable network, whatsoever, they'd have to encroach on Braves or MASN (Orioles/Nationals) territory. Can't imagine MLB would be anxious for that fight.

But MLB has carved up the entire country. There is no unclaimed territory. If you put a team in Barrow, Alaska, you'd be encroaching on the Mariners' territory. Obviously some areas are more lucrative than others. This could be a major point in Montreal's favor - they don't belong to anyone but the Jays, and the Jays are five or six hours away and only own Montreal because MLB decided they get all of Canada. Put a team in Vegas and you're cutting into the official territory of six different teams.

[Creamsicle]

The biggest issue with expanding to 32 teams is the watering down of the talent.

That is incorrect.

1916 = 6.4 million U.S. population per MLB team (16)

1962 = 9.3 million (x20)

1969 = 8.5 million (x24)

1993 = 9.3 million (x28)

1998 = 9.2 million (x30)

2014 = 318.9 million U.S. population, or still (barely) below 10 million population per team if MLB had expanded to 32 teams a year ago.

[mdbdotcom]

But MLB has carved up the entire country. There is no unclaimed territory. If you put a team in Barrow, Alaska, you'd be encroaching on the Mariners' territory. Obviously some areas are more lucrative than others. This could be a major point in Montreal's favor - they don't belong to anyone but the Jays, and the Jays are five or six hours away and only own Montreal because MLB decided they get all of Canada. Put a team in Vegas and you're cutting into the official territory of six different teams.

Portland would get a team if not for the Mariners. And the A's can't move to San Jose.

[Tx Oriole]

The biggest issue with expanding to 32 teams is the watering down of the talent.

It would water down the talent. IMO

[DrungoHazewood]

It would water down the talent. IMO

Don't take this completely at face value, but I'd guess 32 teams picked from Californians today would all be better than any MLB team from 1930.

[Rene88]

Don't take this completely at face value, but I'd guess 32 teams picked from Californians today would all be better than any MLB team from 1930.

Are you saying Big Papi is better than Babe Ruth:)?

[DrungoHazewood]

That is incorrect.

1916 = 6.4 million U.S. population per MLB team (16)

1962 = 9.3 million (x20)

1969 = 8.5 million (x24)

1993 = 9.3 million (x28)

1998 = 9.2 million (x30)

2014 = 318.9 million U.S. population, or still (barely) below 10 million population per team if MLB had expanded to 32 teams a year ago.

And that's assuming a static level of MLB talent per unit population. I think you get more quality major leaguers per population as the demand goes up. Over time MLB could support as many team as it could economically handle. The players would not be the limiting factor.

[DrungoHazewood]

Are you saying Big Papi is better than Babe Ruth:)?

Probably. If you just picked Ruth out of 1927 and put him in the majors. If you zapped his six month old self into 1980 maybe not.

[Rene88]

Probably. If you just picked Ruth out of 1927 and put him in the majors. If you zapped his six month old self into 1980 maybe not.

Does make things interesting. That's why despite Bonds and Clemens being royal jerks, it is stupid to think they shouldn't be in the HOF. Now, put Joe Jackson in there already!

[DrungoHazewood]

Does make things interesting. That's why despite Bonds and Clemens being royal jerks, it is stupid to think they shouldn't be in the HOF. Now, put Joe Jackson in there already!

You have to induct players mostly on performance relative to peers. Otherwise, I could construct a fairly convincing argument that JJ Hardy is better than roughly half of the SSs in Cooperstown.