Should baseball expand again?

MakMan44 · Jan 30, 2014

While I agree this an interesting thought and worthy of discussion, is your argument really founded on the fact that there are still quality FA on the market? There's a ton of reasons expanding would be pretty awesome, adding a landing spot for players isn't one of them.

nvalvo · Jan 30, 2014

MakMan44 said:
While I agree this an interesting thought and worthy of discussion, is your argument really founded on the fact that there are still quality FA on the market? There's a ton of reasons expanding would be pretty awesome, adding a landing spot for players isn't one of them.

I don't think that's what he means: it's more that these FA are evidence that there is sufficient legitimate major league talent that baseball wouldn't be diluted as much as it was in previous post-expansion eras.

MakMan44 · Jan 30, 2014

nvalvo said:
I don't think that's what he means: it's more that these FA are evidence that there is sufficient legitimate major league talent that baseball wouldn't be diluted as much as it was in previous post-expansion eras.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense.

SaveBooFerriss · Jan 30, 2014

Plympton91 said:
Where to put teams? The Research Triangle in North Carolina is an obvious one; I wonder if the anti-gambling blue noses could be dying off enough to put one in Las Vegas, or you could try Montreal again or Vancouver.

If you want to put a team where the most fans are, I would put one in Brooklyn or Northern New Jersey. Of course, the Yankees and Mets would fight that.

TomRicardo · Jan 30, 2014

SaveBooFerriss said:
If you want to put a team where the most fans are, I would put one in Brooklyn or Northern New Jersey. Of course, the Yankees and Mets would fight that.

They would absolutely fight that even though it is a logical spot to put a team, the Phillies would also fight any team in Jersey with the Mets and Yankees.

The best two spots (with limited fights) would be Charlotte and Portland.

Spacemans Bong · Jan 30, 2014

Talent is never something I worry about, provided the expansion draft isn't a joke. That was the problem of most 60s-70s teams - they were just far, far too weak at their beginning, and with the reserve clause it took an age to build a good team. Unless you were the Mets, relatively speaking.

There are no teams that really are in danger of folding or that need to move out of their markets (I'm not counting the A's to somewhere else in Northern CA as one; San Jose isn't going to get an expansion franchise)

I disagree. I think the A's will eventually suck it up and move somewhere inside Northern CA, whether to Oakland or Sacramento (the San Jose thing seems to look as dead as it's looked in a decade). But Tampa was last in the majors in attendance. Sternberg has made some flattering comments towards Montreal and some equally bitchy comments about the Tampa Bay market. I don't know whether the state is interested in providing more funding for a ballpark, and Tampa has some real market disadvantages with its bluehairs, relatively poor adult population, and funky geography.

I think I've mentioned several times here my interest and belief in Montreal as a major league market, but I also don't think the anti-Vegas thing is just moralistic prohibitionists. It's just not a good major league market in anything other than population. I think most people who have spent time in Vegas would agree with that idea. First off, nobody is from there, and I think we've seen a problem in most Sun Belt markets that in the age of the Internet and satellite TV, there's really not a lot of reason for fans to give up their old team. Secondly, the people who are there are working at night. Thirdly, most of the big business in the cities are casinos - are they going to be interested in lifting a finger towards putting in entertainment competition? Fourthly, I don't think the casinos are going to let tourists spend their dollars elsewhere. I don't think that tourist model was ever going to work anyway - in Vegas there's a real disinterest in leaving the Strip, 'cause it's an expensive cab ride and it gets you away from the reason you're there. Fifthly, it's so butt-ass hot in the summer that you'd need to spend at least $600-700 million on a retractable roof stadium.

That's a lot of gambles to take.

Fred not Lynn · Jan 30, 2014

I think the main argument in favor of expansion is that a balance 32 team MLB makes more sense and schedules out better than the current imbalance. That and expansion fees...leagues love expansion fees.

As far as where they'd go, that's always a fun discussion. For one, I don't think you're going to see expansion encroach into any existing team's turf, as much as a 3rd New York team and a 2nd New England team might thrive.

As it stands going into the post-Selig era, Montreal stands out as a most major league ready market provided a stadium would be built. It was and is a great baseball market, the demise of the Expos was engineered by Selig and Loria (although the subsequent struggles of the Marlins suggest that Loria's contribution may have been incompetence over malice).

Vancouver isn't a MLB market. Just isn't. Portland (OR) has lost numerous AAA teams, and is only now finding a niche as a low minors market. I wish they'd stop pushing for MLB. The Carolina Triangle (or is it the Triad, I get those mixed up) might be good, but just which of the three cities would be best?

The Las Vegas 51s struggle at the gate, but they play at an outdated (and outdoor in Vegas in July) stadium. With a truly sexy, state of the art MLB park, a Las Vegas team could cater to locals and visitors provided it was set up to be a handy excursion from the strip (and not remove gamblers from the casinos for too long).

A dark horse might be Salt Lake City. Utah valley is one of, if not THE fastest growing regions in the US. As it stands right now, no, SLC isn't a MLB market. In 10-15 years it might be. The NFL would struggle because of the whole Sunday thing, but they play ALL their stuff on Sunday. MLB might be able to work around that a little...plus, there are plenty of SLC folk who don't care anymore.

Spacemans Bong · Jan 30, 2014

TomRicardo said:
They would absolutely fight that even though it is a logical spot to put a team, the Phillies would also fight any team in Jersey with the Mets and Yankees.

The best two spots (with limited fights) would be Charlotte and Portland.

The Montreal area has almost as many people as both metro areas combined and a pre-requisite of any team relocating to Montreal would fix the two biggest issue they had the first time around: having a shitty ballpark and shitty ownership.

mabrowndog · Jan 30, 2014

MakMan44 said:
While I agree this an interesting thought and worthy of discussion, is your argument really founded on the fact that there are still quality FA on the market? There's a ton of reasons expanding would be pretty awesome, adding a landing spot for players isn't one of them.

nvalvo said:
I don't think that's what he means: it's more that these FA are evidence that there is sufficient legitimate major league talent that baseball wouldn't be diluted as much as it was in previous post-expansion eras.

But neither of these is necessarily the case. There are numerous reasons there are "quality" free agents still unsigned. One is the presumed hierarchy of available players, where there's a "setting of the market". In an odd quirk this year, the timeline for the free agent starting pitching market was thrown into chaos by (a) the negotiations between MLB and Japan on the posting system, (b) the corresponding delay in Rakuten's decision on whether they'd post Tanaka, and (c.) the Yankees' schizophrenic budget uncertainty that was contingent on both the A-Rod resolution and the Tanaka situtation. All of these needed to be settled before the SP market hierarchy could be established.

Another reason is that a bunch of these players bring injury concerns. Yet another, in the case of Drew, Morales, Santana & Jimenez, is that they're tied to draft pick compensation. Some players have personal/family preferences for where they'd like to play (wife: "No fucking way am I moving there!"), and there may not be any suitable openings in their desired locations right now at their perceived value.

But the biggest reason is the saturation factor. The later you go in the offseason, the fewer vacancies exist and the lower the chances of the "big spenders" still having wants and needs. Many teams who might want to pursue any of the remaining free agents are willing to fall back on cheaper, lesser-quality free agents or in-house prospects unless the players' salary demands drop.

Still, I believe there are plenty of reasons to expand MLB, and plenty of places to do it. The largest metropolitan areas in the US & Canada without teams are:

14. Riverside/Ontario/San Bernardino CA (4.35M)
16. Montreal QC (3.824M)
21. Portland OR (2.993M)
22. Orlando FL (2.921M)
28. Sacramento CA (2.463M)
29. Charlotte NC (2.455M)
31. Salt Lake City UT (2.350M)
32. Columbus OH (2.348M)
33. Vancouver BC (2.313M)
34. Indianapolis IN (2.310M)
35. Las Vegas NV (2.247M)
36. San Antonio TX (2.234M)
39. Raleigh-Durham NC (1.999M)
40. Nashville TN (1.845M)
41. Austin TX (1.834M)

That's 15 of the largest 41 metro areas in both countries. I believe Riverside is the only one within a contestable rights territory (Dodgers, Angels). Perhaps Columbus as well (Reds, Indians).

Clearly the biggest obstacles to establishing MLB teams anywhere are construction of stadiums and supporting infrastructure. Every city wants a team. Nobody in any city wants to pay for it (aside from politicians and their kickback cronies), and neither do the franchise owners or the league.

EDIT- Oops, skipped Orlando FL (2.921M)

BoredViewer · Jan 30, 2014

nvalvo said:
I don't think that's what he means: it's more that these FA are evidence that there is sufficient legitimate major league talent that baseball wouldn't be diluted as much as it was in previous post-expansion eras.

Some would argue that several organizations haven't really been putting full rosters of major league talent on the field in recent years.

Fred not Lynn · Jan 30, 2014

Spacemans Bong said:
The Montreal area has almost as many people as both metro areas combined and a pre-requisite of any team relocating to Montreal would fix the two biggest issue they had the first time around: having a shitty ballpark and shitty ownership.

Not only that, like Toronto, Montreal would have a reach beyond their "market" - and become another "Canada's Team" (and Canadians swallow this shit up. You wouldn't have a Bill Simmonsesque prohibition for being fans of both teams...rather, Canadians will embrace whichever team is doing best - and follow whichever one goes deeper into the season/playoffs as a contender, even if it's your home team's rival all year (they already do this in hockey, " I'm a Leafs fan, but when they're out, I cheer for whichever Canadian team is left"). Also quite likely that any Montreal MLB team would be owned/controlled by Bell, and like Roger's Blue Jays, ~~shoved down the throats~~ highly promoted across Canada via Bell's national communications reach.

I'm going to criticize Portland a little more. AAA Baseball has failed THREE times in Portland. The Hillsboro Hops are going to have to sell out a lot of games to convince me that the market has changed and a higher level of baseball belongs there...and even then, they'd need to move up the ladder, just like a player. If short-A works after 5-7 years, maybe some shifting could happen and you can try AA or AAA...and if that works for another 5-7 years, maybe, just maybe Portland will have shown itself as ready for MLB consideration. Until then, they're just not that into baseball there as far as I am concerned.

Fred not Lynn · Jan 30, 2014

mabrowndog said:
Clearly the biggest obstacles to establishing MLB teams anywhere are construction of stadiums and supporting infrastructure. Every city wants a team. Nobody in any city wants to pay for it (aside from politicians and their kickback cronies), and neither do the franchise owners or the league.

Cobb County is quite beautiful this time of year...

mabrowndog · Jan 30, 2014

By the way, Charlotte could rightfully include both the Greensboro NC and Spartanburg/Greenville SC areas, which would rank 43rd & 49th on the above list, and hold another 3 million people. That wouldn't be nearly as important for attendance as it would be for a regional TV package. Clearly it's the ripest spot for an expansion franchise or relocation.

Spacemans Bong · Jan 30, 2014

mabrowndog said:
By the way, Charlotte could rightfully include both the Greensboro NC and Spartanburg/Greenville SC areas, which would rank 43rd & 49th on the above list, and hold another 3 million people. That wouldn't be nearly as important for attendance as it would be for a regional TV package. Clearly it's the ripest spot for an expansion franchise or relocation.

The province of Quebec has eight million people. That's not including New Brunswick, or northern NY, Vermont, or eastern Ontario (including Ottawa), that conceivably could be in an Expos TV market (seeing as they were at one point). Or potentially the whole country of Canada, 37 million, considering you can watch all 162 Jays games in Vancouver.

Frank Fenway · Jan 30, 2014

There needs to be two teams in Canada.

B H Kim · Jan 30, 2014

Fred not Lynn said:
The Las Vegas 51s struggle at the gate, but they play at an outdated (and outdoor in Vegas in July) stadium. With a truly sexy, state of the art MLB park, a Las Vegas team could cater to locals and visitors provided it was set up to be a handy excursion from the strip (and not remove gamblers from the casinos for too long).

I don't think any city can count on meaningful contributions to attendance from out-of-town tourists. Before the Expos moved to DC, one the big selling points claimed for DC as an expansion/relocation destination was the large number of tourists who visit DC every summer and who were expected to take in a game if given the option. However, the Nationals now say that almost all of their home attendance is coming from DC, Maryland and Virginia.

Mighty Joe Young · Jan 30, 2014

Fred not Lynn said:
Not only that, like Toronto, Montreal would have a reach beyond their "market" - and become another "Canada's Team" (and Canadians swallow this shit up. You wouldn't have a Bill Simmonsesque prohibition for being fans of both teams...rather, Canadians will embrace whichever team is doing best - and follow whichever one goes deeper into the season/playoffs as a contender, even if it's your home team's rival all year (they already do this in hockey, " I'm a Leafs fan, but when they're out, I cheer for whichever Canadian team is left"). Also quite likely that any Montreal MLB team would be owned/controlled by Bell, and like Roger's Blue Jays, ~~shoved down the throats~~ highly promoted across Canada via Bell's national communications reach.

I'm going to criticize Portland a little more. AAA Baseball has failed THREE times in Portland. The Hillsboro Hops are going to have to sell out a lot of games to convince me that the market has changed and a higher level of baseball belongs there...and even then, they'd need to move up the ladder, just like a player. If short-A works after 5-7 years, maybe some shifting could happen and you can try AA or AAA...and if that works for another 5-7 years, maybe, just maybe Portland will have shown itself as ready for MLB consideration. Until then, they're just not that into baseball there as far as I am concerned.

The demise of the Expos was almost certainly a product of ownership incompetence or (in my belief) malfeasance. Loria was a carpetbagger and did his best to destroy the franchise - in which he succeeded ..

I have always believed Montreal could become an outstanding MLB franchise again - with the two caveats of good ownership and a new stadium. Oddly enough I think the stadium issue is the easier obstacle to overcome. Unlike Toronto - which is always complaining or whining about being a "world class city" - Montreal just is. The Quebec government was perfectly willing to build a new hockey stadium in Quebec city - so I don't think it much of a stretch for them to help with a baseball stadium in Montreal. The Ownership question is much harder to solve - you need someone (or some thing) with very deep pockets who actually knows what they are doing. As mentioned Bell is an obvious candidate.

I think it would have to be back in the NL. While an AL franchise would have the instant rivalry with Toronto there are deep NL roots which would appeal to older fans. Even when the Blue Jays came into existence many fans retained Montreal as their favourite NL team - my own Red Sox fandom predates both Canadian franchises - but I always liked the Expos and rooted for them. The Blue Jays on the other hand ..

Fred not Lynn · Jan 30, 2014

The demise of the Expos was almost certainly a product of ownership incompetence or (in my belief) malfeasance. Loria was a carpetbagger and did his best to destroy the franchise - in which he succeeded ..

Now come on, don't give Loria all the credit. He had a lot of help from Bud "still pissed off about 1969" Selig.

I don't think the renewed efforts to return MLB to Montreal happening just as Selig announces his retirement is a coincidence...they knew not to bother until now.

mabrowndog · Jan 30, 2014

Spacemans Bong said:
The province of Quebec has eight million people. That's not including New Brunswick, or northern NY, Vermont, or eastern Ontario (including Ottawa), that conceivably could be in an Expos TV market (seeing as they were at one point). Or potentially the whole country of Canada, 37 million, considering you can watch all 162 Jays games in Vancouver.

My intent was not to get into a Montreal vs Charlotte dick-swinging contest, since both are certainly capable of supporting MLB teams. The adjacent MSAs I cited are both within a 90-minute drive of downtown Charlotte, and that proximity would clearly enhance viewership (and attendance) more than being, say, five hours away on the Outer Banks, even though eastern NC would be considered home turf for a Charlotte club.

So I'm not sure why you're trying to play the "add the entire province of Quebec" game. Especially since North Carolina has nearly 10 million people today, South Carolina would add 4.8 million, and western Virginia another half million. More importantly, Charlotte and the adjacent MSAs have grown more than 30% since 2000. Metro Montreal has grown by just over 1% since 2001.

Again, I believe both are great cities worthy of hosting a franchise. But if I'm a baseball investor asked to choose between one or the other, it's no contest.

MentalDisabldLst · Jan 30, 2014

There are a lot of reasons why the complaints about Portland are a canard, chiefly having to do with how minor-league baseball isn't really baseball - in the sense of having a cohesive team who is actually trying to win all their games and compete with other teams on an equal footing. It's a farce.

But before I waste more words on it, I should instead just redirect people to Joe Posnanski's excellent post advocating the freedom of the minor leagues. If the minors were free, perhaps we could evaluate Portland along that basis. But for now, I discount the argument of "AAA has failed there" because AAA is a bullshit sideshow, it's not 'baseball'.

Just as important is that Oregon is now the #1 net destination for people moving within the US. Faster than SLC.

Infield Infidel · Jan 30, 2014

I saw a couple years ago this analysis on BP that rated population per franchise and corporate backing, and Montreal was way higher than anyone else for the former and Norther New Jersey way higher for the latter. Montreal just has NHL and MLS and could easily support another team. Northern New Jersey is territorially difficult but the quantity of corporate interest might overcome that.

I think there is way too much competition for the sports dollar in Charlotte. Not only NBA and NFL, but it's a bit different from other places where, since college sports and NASCAR are so huge there.

Fred not Lynn · Jan 30, 2014

SLC's growth is certainly much more breeding than migration...

That said, I will stand by stating that Portland has to "earn" it's baseball wings by supporting a minor league team. No market is "too good" for the minors, and AAA baseball is arguably the 2nd or 3rd highest level of baseball play on earth. Minor league baseball is baseball. The story lines may differ, but the ballpark experience is the same, except that it is scaled down a bit.

brs3 · Jan 30, 2014

Plympton91 said:
This is a topic I've been thinking about for a few years now, in part from following the minor leagues and seeing how much borderline major league talent is spending the entire year in AAA not getting even a cup of coffee a lot of times. Last night while perusing the list of still available free agents I thought about it again. Basically, how in the bloody hell can there still be almost an entire quality rotation of starting pitchers (Jiminez, Santana, Arroyo, Jason Hammel, Bruce Chen), a closer from a playoff team (Rodney) and a non-loogy LHRP who had a good season (O Perez), a couple useful middle relievers (K. Gregg, P. Neshak), a borderline all-star shortstop in his good years (Drew), a guy who hit 27 HRs in 2/3rds of a season (N. Cruz), and a league average DH/first-baseman (K. Morales) still unsigned on January 31st?

I think that it's unlikely these guys will be without jobs on Opening Day. If they remain unsigned then, I might agree that there's something to be said. The indy leagues are great if you attend for 'the love of the game', but actual talent? You're lucky if each indy team has a HR hitter and 1 guy on the pitching staff that is lights out for 5 innings. I say that from the perspective that I really enjoy baseball of any variety. The MiLB talent is fun, but it's impossible to ignore the reality that the majority of the games aren't played to be competitive, but for development. Posnanski's freedom idea is awesome, but it's a pipedream,

Fred not Lynn · Jan 30, 2014

And with Montreal, your not playing "add the entire Province of Quebec", you're playing "add the entire country of Canada".

Different investors will respond differently to each market. A US based investor certainly would prefer to avoid the hassle of owning a Canadian team, but a Canadian investor with national interests (once again, Bell perfectly fits this description) will prefer Canada.

Scriblerus · Jan 30, 2014

I grew up in Vermont, and as a kid went to almost as many Expos games a year as Red Sox games, 3-4 games each. I think some of it had to do with Montreal being a little closer and cheaper, but it was always fun to go to those games.

Of course, you didn't need a passport to go to Canada back then. Not that a new Montreal team would be looking at a lot of attendance from northern VT, NY, NH...

Fred not Lynn · Jan 30, 2014

With a minor league team, you're going to shift to a watching model where you tend to follow a player as much as a team...

nameless · Jan 30, 2014

Beyond the Box Score took a look at this subject last spring.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Jan 30, 2014

The place that stands out to me is San Antonio. Its the 7th largest city in the country, the MSA is the 25th largest and growing quite rapidly, and its right next to the Austin MSA. Austin is much closer to San Antonio than it is to Dallas or Houston so there's chance to steal that fanbase over time.

Also worth noting: While baseball in Houston doesn't seem that successful right now, it wasn't that long ago that Houston regularly ranked in the top half of the league in attendance. People in Texas will turn out for baseball as long as their team doesn't absolutely suck ass.

mabrowndog · Jan 30, 2014

Infield Infidel said:
I saw a couple years ago this analysis on BP that rated population per franchise and corporate backing, and Montreal was way higher than anyone else for the former and Norther New Jersey way higher for the latter. Montreal just has NHL and MLS and could easily support another team. Northern New Jersey is territorially difficult but the quantity of corporate interest might overcome that.

I think there is way too much competition for the sports dollar in Charlotte. Not only NBA and NFL, but it's a bit different from other places where, since college sports and NASCAR are so huge there.

The fact that the Braves, relative to the size of the Atlanta area and Turner Field's capacity, have had consistently disappointing attendance since '97 inclusive despite regularly contending for pennants certainly gives some merit to your point.

terrisus · Jan 30, 2014

I'd think Brooklyn or northern New Jersey would be the best place for another team. The New York area supported 3 teams for 50 years, it can certainly do it again.
As was said though, that would pretty much have to happen over the Yankees' and Mets' dead bodies. Unfortunately.

Spacemans Bong · Jan 30, 2014

Maybe this isn't quantifiable, but I think it's a big point in Montreal's favor that it seems more people who live there are from there and most root for Montreal teams. Dog certainly makes a good case for Charlotte, but there's a hell of a lot of people in North Carolina who might never give a damn about a North Carolina MLB team, because they'd rather watch the Red Sox on Extra Innings. That Sun Belt transplant disadvantage is real, I'd say it even affects teams in more well-established Sun Belt markets like SF and LA.

mabrowndog · Jan 30, 2014

The transplant thing is certainly a factor, but it works both ways. Shortly after I moved to ATL the city was awarded an NHL franchise. So my business partner (a lifelong Sabres fan) and I split season tickets to the Thrashers for their first three years. We wanted to be able to see live NHL hockey. It had nothing to do with rooting for the home team.

I'd go to dozens of Braves games each year for the same reason, and also because my buddies and I could each pay a dollar (!!) for an unsold nosebleed seat on game day, and just stand at the railing of the Chop House overlooking center field while waitresses brought us food & beer. I also got Falcons season tickets for my last two years there, mainly because it was live NFL, but also because Arthur Blank slashed prices to entice larger crowds (a strategy that worked). And yes, it was nice when the Falcons won just for the communal conviviality, but I was never a Falcons fan.

But as his kids grew, they became fans of the Atlanta teams. Most of their classmates were likewise. A lot of transplant parents were bringing their children to see the Hawks/Thrashers/Braves/Falcons, even if they themselves held affinities for their northern teams. Hell, it happened with me and my siblings here in New England. Our dad was a die-hard NY Football Giants fan, but we all grew up with the Pats.

YTF · Jan 30, 2014

Spacemans Bong said:
The province of Quebec has eight million people. That's not including New Brunswick, or northern NY, Vermont, or eastern Ontario (including Ottawa), that conceivably could be in an Expos TV market (seeing as they were at one point). Or potentially the whole country of Canada, 37 million, considering you can watch all 162 Jays games in Vancouver.

When I read this post it makes me think how absolutely mind boggling it is to think that the Expos didn't even have a TV contract (neither French or English speaking if I'm correct) or an English speaking radio contract at the end of their existence. Even more mind boggling that MLB allowed Loria to run that franchise into the ground and then allow him to buy The Marlins.

terrisus · Jan 30, 2014

Of course, to talk about the population of Quebec as a whole...

I don't think that people up in Salluit are too likely to make it down for many games.
More a matter of the metro area around Montreal than the province as a whole.

To add a bit more - Quebec is about 600,000 square miles. Texas is about 270,000 square miles.
So, more than double the size of Texas.

OttoC · Jan 30, 2014

Four 8-team leagues, 154-game schedule? Sounds right to me.

Spacemans Bong · Jan 30, 2014

terrisus said:
Of course, to talk about the population of Quebec as a whole...

I don't think that people up in Salluit are too likely to make it down for many games.
More a matter of the metro area around Montreal than the province as a whole.

To add a bit more - Quebec is about 600,000 square miles. Texas is about 270,000 square miles.
So, more than double the size of Texas.

Of the 8 million or so people in Quebec, about 7,500,000 live within a three-hour drive from Montreal. Nobody but Inuits that far north. And hell, if you want to throw out the 500,000 people who couldn't realistically drive there and back for a Saturday afternoon game, you could probably replace them with the people in northern NY or Vermont - and throw in another million from the Ottawa region, since Ottawa is a two-hour drive from Montreal.

YTF said:
When I read this post it makes me think how absolutely mind boggling it is to think that the Expos didn't even have a TV contract (neither French or English speaking if I'm correct) or an English speaking radio contract at the end of their existence. Even more mind boggling that MLB allowed Loria to run that franchise into the ground and then allow him to buy The Marlins.

In a way it's kind of mind boggling the way that the local business community and broadcasters totally checked out on the team. Contrary to the stereotype of Canadians as only being interested in hockey, it cut deeper than people in the US might realize - gosh, there was even some anxiety in the late 90s that the Canadiens might move. Quebec was going through a nasty recession and there was a great deal of nervousness regarding separation (justified, since it barely failed to pass). The lack of TV extended to the Habs, they had a bitch of a time until the late 80s in getting equal TV coverage to the Leafs because of the bilingual TV issue. Charles Bronfman took almost two years to sell the team because he insisted on the new owners keeping a team in Montreal. Even so, a team in Canada's second largest market should be a tremendously valuable asset.

What I think helps now is that the political situation has stabilized (I mean, the Parti Quebecois are in power and doing stupid shit, but a referendum is off the table). Quebec is no longer in a recession and may benefit at some point in the future from resource exploitation - not my favorite way to grow an economy but it's worked for Canada in the last decade. A new team would by definition fix the ballpark situation, and the TV rights boom has definitely made its way north - even before they lost hockey to Rogers, people were reporting that Bell was kicking the tires on a baseball team in Montreal. There's more revenue sharing and help for teams now too, providing some insulation against dollar fluctuation.

MentalDisabldLst · Jan 30, 2014

OttoC said:
Four 8-team leagues, 154-game schedule? Sounds right to me.

What does the number of games have to do with it? Why would you decrease the amount of baseball being played? I'll never understand the fetish older baseball fans have for going back to a 154-game schedule, as if that number was any less arbitrary than 162.

mabrowndog · Jan 30, 2014

MentalDisabldLst said:
What does the number of games have to do with it? Why would you decrease the amount of baseball being played? I'll never understand the fetish older baseball fans have for going back to a 154-game schedule, as if that number was any less arbitrary than 162.

He's probably assuming an expanded playoff schedule, which would necessitate a shorter regular season to avoid playing baseball past Thanksgiving [/hyperbole].

Obviously it won't happen, since the league as a whole would never surrender 128 games' worth of collective revenue.

Fred not Lynn · Jan 30, 2014

When I read this post it makes me think how absolutely mind boggling it is to think that the Expos didn't even have a TV contract (neither French or English speaking if I'm correct) or an English speaking radio contract at the end of their existence. Even more mind boggling that MLB allowed Loria to run that franchise into the ground and then allow him to buy The Marlins.

MLB didn't "allow" Loria's sabotage, MLB enabled, if not encouraged it. Selig's animosity towards Montreal and Seattle has been tangible ever since those cities beat out his beloved Milwaukee for expansion in 1969.

OttoC · Jan 30, 2014

MentalDisabldLst said:
What does the number of games have to do with it? Why would you decrease the amount of baseball being played? I'll never understand the fetish older baseball fans have for going back to a 154-game schedule, as if that number was any less arbitrary than 162.

In an 8-team league, you would have seven opponents. 154/7 = 22, or 11 games at home and 11 on the road. In order to keep home and road equal, but play more games, you would have to expand the schedule to 168 games.

Besides, if you have four separate leagues, then you have all sorts of play-off possibilities to keep the season long.

Jesus.

MiketheCat · Jan 30, 2014

Fetish? You should be nicer to those of us who actually saw Sam Horn play. And while your at it, get off my lawn.

Saints Rest · Jan 30, 2014

What about Latin America? San Juan? Mexico City? Seems like a market that MLB would like to expand into more concretely.

SumnerH · Jan 30, 2014

What about Latin America? San Juan? Mexico City? Seems like a market that MLB would like to expand into more concretely.

I would love this, or especially Havana when the government changes. Sadly I don't think the economics work (they tested San Juan when the Expos moved and the numbers weren't great).

Infield Infidel · Jan 30, 2014

It would be interesting. The NFL really wouldn't work overseas, like in London or Mexico, because the players are almost entirely American. players wouldn't want to live there.

But baseball is, what 25% latino? Would Latin american players want to live in San Juan? Monterrey?

VORP Speed · Jan 30, 2014

It would be interesting. The NFL really wouldn't work overseas, like in London or Mexico, because the players are almost entirely American. players wouldn't want to live there.

But baseball is, what 25% latino? Would Latin american players want to live in San Juan? Monterrey?

You don't think single, wealthy twenty-somethings would want to live in London??

SumnerH · Jan 30, 2014

As of 2012, 28% of opening day roster players identified as Hispanic.

Saints Rest · Jan 30, 2014

In my mind, it's also about expanding eyeballs to the MLB game of baseball. I have no knowledge or data on this, but my guess is that although Latin America is probably full of BASEBALL fans, and that many of those fans love certain PLAYERS, there isn't much interest in following a specific TEAM. In the same way that much of Canada follows a single Canadian team, I would guess that much of Latin America might follow, albeit remotely, a team based in Latin America.

The question is would it be enough to entice fans away from the local teams and leagues.

MentalDisabldLst · Jan 31, 2014

VORP Speed said:
You don't think single, wealthy twenty-somethings would want to live in London??

Have you SEEN british girls?

Should baseball expand again?

bubble burster

stole corsi's dream

Member

stole corsi's dream

twenty foreskins

rusty cohlebone

chapeau rose

Dick Button Jr.

chapeau rose

Ask me about total zone...or paint

Member

Dick Button Jr.

Dick Button Jr.

Ask me about total zone...or paint

chapeau rose

Member

Well-Known Member

The North remembers

Dick Button Jr.

Ask me about total zone...or paint

MentalDisabldLst

Guest

teaching korea american

Dick Button Jr.

sings praises of pinstripes

Dick Button Jr.

Member

Dick Button Jr.

New Member

Member

Ask me about total zone...or paint

formerly: imgran

chapeau rose

Ask me about total zone...or paint

Member

formerly: imgran

Member

chapeau rose

MentalDisabldLst

Guest

Ask me about total zone...or paint

Dick Button Jr.

Member

bubble burster

New Member

Well-Known Member

Malt Liquor Picker

teaching korea american

Member

Malt Liquor Picker

Well-Known Member

MentalDisabldLst

Guest