How much of an effect do you think throwing a Major League team in the mix would have on the Carolina League? I know that MLB owners could gives a rat's ass about the success of their Minor League affiliates, but I feel like the owners of those clubs might push back at least a little on that.
The problem is the location. One of the less mentioned tragedies of the cookie cutter parks built in the 60's and 70's was the fact that the parks were built in out of the way suburbs of the towns they were located. Now ballparks are once again located in more urban areas close to the downtown areas.
I'm glad someone else said it. I've been to both as well, and while they both suck, people are really understating the suck of the Trop.
The Bay really should be a 1 franchise town. It'd be like if there was a team in Everett or Chelsea.
Yeah, the A's regularly outdrew the Giants in the 1980s. In 1989, when both teams went to the World Series, the A's drew 2.67 million fans and the Giants 2.01.
Mexico City would be Denver 2.0, but worse. It's another 2,000+ feet of altitude over Denver.
Agreed on Mexico City, didn't want to get into the elevation but you're right. Not a viable candidate at this point.
They could have hung on in Philadelphia if the Macks hadn’t been so inept and if the AL president had allowed local bidders to take over the team.
Or Philadelphia? I've lived in Philly for the last 20 years and there is absolutely no sense of nostalgia that I've ever seen for the A's, but nonetheless I can't tell you how cool it would be if the Phillies had moved to KC and the AL East today was the MFY, As, Os, Blue Jays (or Rays - doesn't matter), and Red Sox.
San Antonio is even bigger, 6th most populous US city as of 2020:
I don’t think it would have much of an impact on that league. While there are 4 Carolina League teams in the state, the only one anywhere close to Charlotte is Kannapolis which is 25 or so miles away. The other 3 are between 130 and 250 miles away.
I think it'd be too close to Houston, wouldn't it? Less than 3 hours away... although I guess that's about the same distance between San Diego and LA. San Antonio (or maybe El Paso?) would probably be a better destination for a third Texas team.
Yup. Charlotte would be losing its Triple A team, but I think the other minor league teams -- Carolina League, SALLY, International (Durham Bulls) -- would be fine. I'd love for an MLB team to be in Charlotte; when the Red Sox came through it would give me a reason to take the train down from Durham.
CSAs or probably MSAs are a better measure unless you think only people within the city limits would go to games. San Antonio is the 25th CSA behind Portland, Charlotte, Orlando (24th MSA). Austin isn't in a CSA but its MSA is 28th. So none are slam dunks but they probably could all support something if the conditions were right (Portland and Charlotte seem like the best to me given their wealth and the distance they'd cover -- Austin would be pretty close to Arlington which is likely why they aren't mentioned much).
Started a thread in the Port Cellar. The NBA has several team names that don't fit, especially the two mentioned here.
I remember when the Twins "almost" moved to Kernersville -- yes, Kernersville. They played an exhibition game in Winston-Salem that I attended.
Looking at this chart makes me wonder if moving the Rays from Tampa to Orlando would be a good option. Orlando has a greater CSA pop (4,222,422) than the Tampa MSA pop (3,219,514). If building a new stadium in Tampa isn't an option, moving the team to a new stadium that's about 2 hours away wouldn't piss the local fans off as much as moving the team to Canada.
How much worry might there be about folks staying home to watch the new, local MLB franchise on TV rather than sit in the stands for A league games? Especially with the novelty of having a team in the early years of existence and beyond that if they show to be a competitive team that contends for the playoffs.
Routine infield popups hitting the ceiling immediately places The Trop as the worst park in the MLB. Cookie cutter, etc.,blah -blah -- the least Major League Park is the trop until it's not.
Yep, reminds me of playing wiffle ball in the gym when we were kids. The ground rules for those catwalk rings are akin to us assigning different hit values for each level up the bleachers that the ball landed.
Then we'll continue to have a parade of nameless relievers throwing 95 mph in the late innings and will see much less offense than I think most fans desire
I think you’re going to have the parade of relievers either way, but it could be mandatory 14 position players/14 pitchers. Right now those rules are suspended (as of 5/1 it will be 13 and 13), so some teams have 16 pitchers.
Thanks for sharing. I think it would have to be because of his sense of the game's history. Hallowed ground in some sense due to the great teams that played there in the 70's?
How about we split the difference? 27 man roster with a minimum of 14 position players. Keeps pitchers at 13 max per team and adds another bat/glove or more if they choose.
I was thinking along similar lines, but maybe less the history and more the old-style game presentation? I suspect games at the Colosseum don't have the near constant distractions (loud music, big screen games, etc) or other modern amenities that make it feel as much like an amusement park as a ballpark. Dodger Stadium should have all the same type of history and "hallowed ground" vibes, but also has the modern sound and light show stuff that annoys the old-school fans.
I have been to all 5 California stadiums (Dodger and LAA once, SD twice, SF four or five and 3 at OAK) as well as Coors, Chase Field, Minute Maid, all three Braves stadiums of the last 30 years, and Fenway. Oakland isn't in the same neighborhood of the history and admitted bias of Fenway or the beautiful presentation of SD or SF or even Coors. But I'd rank LAA at least as bad as Oakland from a pure "what the stadium is" aspect and I think Dodger Stadium may be the most overrated stadium of all of them. Obviously the difference between LAA, Dodger and Oakland is the team on the field and the way the team leadership looks at how the fan experience is.
Great minds think alike. Though I didn't mention it I did wonder about all of the "bells and whistles" that the newer parks bring that might be a departure and distraction from the game that Van Everyman's FIL loved. I have to admit that as much as I appreciate all of the advancements and improvements to Fenway in the past 20 years, there are times that I wish the experience was a bit simpler.
Chicago's population is a lot bigger but the White Sox have the same problem as the A's do - they are in the bad side of town.
There was a niche following of the Athletics for years. In Hatboro (about 45 minutes north) there was a Historical Society dedicated to the Philadelphia A's. Unfortunately, it closed down about a decade ago.
To add to the confusion, from a marketing perspective, the relevant metric is the city's Designated Market Area. That's the area that is tied together by the same television stations. If you've ever worked in TV advertising, you judge the impact of buying a TV spot by how many eyeballs it will reach, and a big part of that is what DMA it runs in (in addition to time, etc...). So when you're talking about a team's prospective TV audience, generally you're talking about it's DMA size.
Interesting... would moving the team to a different DMA (Orlando) mean that they couldn't broadcast in their old DMA (Tampa)?
View: https://twitter.com/oracleseagull/status/1519141376297869314?s=21&t=J0y1Wbm4JHqUW37uOrGJBgAnd you are literally a seagull.
Oracle Park Seagull
@OracleSeagull
You are literally the president of a baseball team. You’re acting like a petulant child who got told no TV on school nights. Show a little decorum dude. Act like a grownup. View: https://twitter.com/davekaval/status/1519135667447422976
