BASE-BALL

[jp the roadgeek]

I don't think the A's can succeed in Vegas. I think their best bet is Montreal.

I don't think Montreal is clamoring for another MLB franchise. If the Aviators (coincidentally Oakland's Triple-A affiliate) draw significant numbers, it's not unreasonable MLB might want to tap that market. If they were to move to Canada and not be horribly misaligned, Vancouver would be a good option.

In that case, they'd probably move to the AL East, Tampa Bay to the Central (to keep Toronto in the East with them), and KC to the West. 

[Henry]

I don't think the A's can succeed in Vegas. I think their best bet is Montreal.

I don't think Montreal is clamoring for another MLB franchise. If the Aviators (coincidentally Oakland's Triple-A affiliate) draw significant numbers, it's not unreasonable MLB might want to tap that market. If they were to move to Canada and not be horribly misaligned, Vancouver would be a good option.

In that case, they'd probably move to the AL East, Tampa Bay to the Central (to keep Toronto in the East with them), and KC to the West. 

Or Toronto could move to the Central instead of Tampa Bay.

On another note, although I'd love to see a team in Nashville, I think Memphis deserves one too.

[Roadgeekteen]

I don't think the A's can succeed in Vegas. I think their best bet is Montreal.

I don't think Montreal is clamoring for another MLB franchise. If the Aviators (coincidentally Oakland's Triple-A affiliate) draw significant numbers, it's not unreasonable MLB might want to tap that market. If they were to move to Canada and not be horribly misaligned, Vancouver would be a good option.

In that case, they'd probably move to the AL East, Tampa Bay to the Central (to keep Toronto in the East with them), and KC to the West.

Tampa Bay in the central would be so wonky, Toronto is more inland than Tampa Bay.

[triplemultiplex]

Ah screw the Braves; they don't get ALL of Dixie.  It's not 1995.  Move the A's to Charlotte or Nashville.

[Roadgeekteen]

Ah screw the Braves; they don't get ALL of Dixie.  It's not 1995.  Move the A's to Charlotte or Nashville.

The MLB should have 2 expansion teams so they have 32 like the NFL and NHL.

[jp the roadgeek]

I don't think the A's can succeed in Vegas. I think their best bet is Montreal.

I don't think Montreal is clamoring for another MLB franchise. If the Aviators (coincidentally Oakland's Triple-A affiliate) draw significant numbers, it's not unreasonable MLB might want to tap that market. If they were to move to Canada and not be horribly misaligned, Vancouver would be a good option.

In that case, they'd probably move to the AL East, Tampa Bay to the Central (to keep Toronto in the East with them), and KC to the West.

Tampa Bay in the central would be so wonky, Toronto is more inland than Tampa Bay.

Actually, Toronto (79° W) is farther east than St Pete (82° W).  And the Lightning are in the NHL Central Division this year. 

[ilpt4u]

Actually, Toronto (79° W) is farther east than St Pete (82° W).  And the Lightning are in the NHL Central Division this year.

While true, the AL Central is basically a Great Lakes Division, with Minnesota/Twin Cities, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland (Kansas City being the Outlier, anyway) - dumping KC and adding Toronto, heck might even rename the Division either the AL North or the AL Great Lakes over the AL Central at that point, and it could/would be a logical, geographical Division

[NWI_Irish96]

Toronto would make the most sense to move to the AL Central, given their proximity to the rest of the division, especially Cleveland and Detroit. Plus, there are a large number of retired Yankees and Red Sox fans in Florida so Tampa Bay isn't going to want to lose those home series.

[Flint1979]

Since this is baseball can I start a get rid of Tony LaRussa rant?

[Flint1979]

Ah screw the Braves; they don't get ALL of Dixie.  It's not 1995.  Move the A's to Charlotte or Nashville.

The MLB should have 2 expansion teams so they have 32 like the NFL and NHL.

MLB doesn't need anymore expansion. The talent level in MLB is already thinned out enough and the season is already long enough.

[Henry]

I don't think the A's can succeed in Vegas. I think their best bet is Montreal.

I don't think Montreal is clamoring for another MLB franchise. If the Aviators (coincidentally Oakland's Triple-A affiliate) draw significant numbers, it's not unreasonable MLB might want to tap that market. If they were to move to Canada and not be horribly misaligned, Vancouver would be a good option.

In that case, they'd probably move to the AL East, Tampa Bay to the Central (to keep Toronto in the East with them), and KC to the West.

Tampa Bay in the central would be so wonky, Toronto is more inland than Tampa Bay.

Actually, Toronto (79° W) is farther east than St Pete (82° W).  And the Lightning are in the NHL Central Division this year. 

Actually, Toronto (79° W) is farther east than St Pete (82° W).  And the Lightning are in the NHL Central Division this year.

While true, the AL Central is basically a Great Lakes Division, with Minnesota/Twin Cities, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland (Kansas City being the Outlier, anyway) - dumping KC and adding Toronto, heck might even rename the Division either the AL North or the AL Great Lakes over the AL Central at that point, and it could/would be a logical, geographical Division

Toronto would make the most sense to move to the AL Central, given their proximity to the rest of the division, especially Cleveland and Detroit. Plus, there are a large number of retired Yankees and Red Sox fans in Florida so Tampa Bay isn't going to want to lose those home series.

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

[Flint1979]

I don't think the A's can succeed in Vegas. I think their best bet is Montreal.

I don't think Montreal is clamoring for another MLB franchise. If the Aviators (coincidentally Oakland's Triple-A affiliate) draw significant numbers, it's not unreasonable MLB might want to tap that market. If they were to move to Canada and not be horribly misaligned, Vancouver would be a good option.

In that case, they'd probably move to the AL East, Tampa Bay to the Central (to keep Toronto in the East with them), and KC to the West.

Tampa Bay in the central would be so wonky, Toronto is more inland than Tampa Bay.

Actually, Toronto (79° W) is farther east than St Pete (82° W).  And the Lightning are in the NHL Central Division this year. 

Actually, Toronto (79° W) is farther east than St Pete (82° W).  And the Lightning are in the NHL Central Division this year.

While true, the AL Central is basically a Great Lakes Division, with Minnesota/Twin Cities, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland (Kansas City being the Outlier, anyway) - dumping KC and adding Toronto, heck might even rename the Division either the AL North or the AL Great Lakes over the AL Central at that point, and it could/would be a logical, geographical Division

Toronto would make the most sense to move to the AL Central, given their proximity to the rest of the division, especially Cleveland and Detroit. Plus, there are a large number of retired Yankees and Red Sox fans in Florida so Tampa Bay isn't going to want to lose those home series.

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

Yeah and over on the AL side you had the White Sox in the AL West while the Cubs were in the NL East.

[Roadgeekteen]

I don't think the A's can succeed in Vegas. I think their best bet is Montreal.

I don't think Montreal is clamoring for another MLB franchise. If the Aviators (coincidentally Oakland's Triple-A affiliate) draw significant numbers, it's not unreasonable MLB might want to tap that market. If they were to move to Canada and not be horribly misaligned, Vancouver would be a good option.

In that case, they'd probably move to the AL East, Tampa Bay to the Central (to keep Toronto in the East with them), and KC to the West.

Tampa Bay in the central would be so wonky, Toronto is more inland than Tampa Bay.

Actually, Toronto (79° W) is farther east than St Pete (82° W).  And the Lightning are in the NHL Central Division this year. 

Actually, Toronto (79° W) is farther east than St Pete (82° W).  And the Lightning are in the NHL Central Division this year.

While true, the AL Central is basically a Great Lakes Division, with Minnesota/Twin Cities, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland (Kansas City being the Outlier, anyway) - dumping KC and adding Toronto, heck might even rename the Division either the AL North or the AL Great Lakes over the AL Central at that point, and it could/would be a logical, geographical Division

Toronto would make the most sense to move to the AL Central, given their proximity to the rest of the division, especially Cleveland and Detroit. Plus, there are a large number of retired Yankees and Red Sox fans in Florida so Tampa Bay isn't going to want to lose those home series.

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

St. Louis and Chicago had more clout to stay in the east.

[NWI_Irish96]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

[Roadgeekteen]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

Why did they choose Milwaukee to move east?

[NWI_Irish96]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

Why did they choose Milwaukee to move east?

I haven't been able to find anything definitive as to the reason. Generally, ownership of the teams and how well-liked they are by the rest of the league has an impact.

[jp the roadgeek]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

Why did they choose Milwaukee to move east?

I haven't been able to find anything definitive as to the reason. Generally, ownership of the teams and how well-liked they are by the rest of the league has an impact.

Perhaps because Milwaukee was a relatively new team (only had started in 1969 as the Seattle Pilots), while the White Sox were a charter member of the AL. 

[Roadgeekteen]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

Why did they choose Milwaukee to move east?

I haven't been able to find anything definitive as to the reason. Generally, ownership of the teams and how well-liked they are by the rest of the league has an impact.

Perhaps because Milwaukee was a relatively new team (only had started in 1969 as the Seattle Pilots), while the White Sox were a charter member of the AL.

But isn't the east more advantageous because of rivals and travel?

[NWI_Irish96]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

Why did they choose Milwaukee to move east?

I haven't been able to find anything definitive as to the reason. Generally, ownership of the teams and how well-liked they are by the rest of the league has an impact.

Perhaps because Milwaukee was a relatively new team (only had started in 1969 as the Seattle Pilots), while the White Sox were a charter member of the AL.

But isn't the east more advantageous because of rivals and travel?

Yes, the East was more advantageous due to travel and exposure. The new team got that benefit over the more established team. That's what makes me think perhaps the rest of the owners may have had something against the Sox ownership.

[Flint1979]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

Why did they choose Milwaukee to move east?

I haven't been able to find anything definitive as to the reason. Generally, ownership of the teams and how well-liked they are by the rest of the league has an impact.

Perhaps because Milwaukee was a relatively new team (only had started in 1969 as the Seattle Pilots), while the White Sox were a charter member of the AL.

But isn't the east more advantageous because of rivals and travel?

Yes, the East was more advantageous due to travel and exposure. The new team got that benefit over the more established team. That's what makes me think perhaps the rest of the owners may have had something against the Sox ownership.

That was when the Allyn's owned the team. No idea what happened there.

[Alps]

Since this is baseball can I start a get rid of Tony LaRussa rant?

Please, that's better than endless debate about Fictional Relocations.

[jp the roadgeek]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

Why did they choose Milwaukee to move east?

I haven't been able to find anything definitive as to the reason. Generally, ownership of the teams and how well-liked they are by the rest of the league has an impact.

Perhaps because Milwaukee was a relatively new team (only had started in 1969 as the Seattle Pilots), while the White Sox were a charter member of the AL.

But isn't the east more advantageous because of rivals and travel?

Yes, the East was more advantageous due to travel and exposure. The new team got that benefit over the more established team. That's what makes me think perhaps the rest of the owners may have had something against the Sox ownership.

That was when the Allyn's owned the team. No idea what happened there.

The Allyn's owned the White Sox, but the Cubs were the one with the curse of the goat.

But that was around the time Veeck bought the team and almost moved them to Tampa Bay.

[Flint1979]

Remember when the NL had the same problem years ago when there were only two divisions per league? It had Chicago and St. Louis in the East, but Atlanta and Cincinnati in the West. I wonder why that was...

The Cubs and Cardinals pushed hard to be put in the East because they wanted more games in the big media markets of NY and Philly. MLB agreed partly because those two and the Giants were the dominant NL teams of the time and this avoided having all three in the same division.

In 1972, when the (2nd) Washington Senators moved to Texas, Milwaukee got to switch from West to East instead of the White Sox despite the Sox being a bit farther east (and wanting more games against traditional rivals in NY, Cle and Det.

Why did they choose Milwaukee to move east?

I haven't been able to find anything definitive as to the reason. Generally, ownership of the teams and how well-liked they are by the rest of the league has an impact.

Perhaps because Milwaukee was a relatively new team (only had started in 1969 as the Seattle Pilots), while the White Sox were a charter member of the AL.

But isn't the east more advantageous because of rivals and travel?

Yes, the East was more advantageous due to travel and exposure. The new team got that benefit over the more established team. That's what makes me think perhaps the rest of the owners may have had something against the Sox ownership.

That was when the Allyn's owned the team. No idea what happened there.

The Allyn's owned the White Sox, but the Cubs were the one with the curse of the goat.

But that was around the time Veeck bought the team and almost moved them to Tampa Bay.

I'm pretty sure Veeck wanted to keep the team in Chicago and it was Reinsdorf that almost moved them to Tampa Bay all over getting a new stadium. Yeah sure the old ballpark was small and falling apart but it was a shrine. I think it's interesting that the White Sox have played in the same neighborhood for their entire existence. The ballpark they first played in was south of the current ballpark where Wentworth Gardens is at.

[Flint1979]

Well Tony LaRussa is totally out of touch with the game today. Up until this year he hadn't managed in a decade and it's typical Jerry Reinsdorf hiring his friends and putting them in positions they shouldn't be in. LaRussa should have stayed retired it's ridiculous the guy is 76 years old and totally out of touch with the roster. Making a big deal about Mercedes swinging on a 3-0 pitch against a position player for the Twinkies was ridiculous. The Twins are a division rival they aren't anyone we need to respect and they certainly don't respect anyone else. But oh we're up 15-4 and the Twinks put a position player in to pitch and Mercedes works it to 3-0 and then swings and hits a home run and what's LaRussa doing? He's standing on the field shaking his head all because Mercedes missed a sign or something because Tony had the take sign on but so freaking what? The guy gets paid to hit home runs and has been one of the most exciting players in the game this season so far. Screw Tony LaRussa, bring Hawk Harrelson back and let him fire him again.

[jeffandnicole]

Well Tony LaRussa is totally out of touch with the game today. Up until this year he hadn't managed in a decade and it's typical Jerry Reinsdorf hiring his friends and putting them in positions they shouldn't be in. LaRussa should have stayed retired it's ridiculous the guy is 76 years old and totally out of touch with the roster. Making a big deal about Mercedes swinging on a 3-0 pitch against a position player for the Twinkies was ridiculous. The Twins are a division rival they aren't anyone we need to respect and they certainly don't respect anyone else. But oh we're up 15-4 and the Twinks put a position player in to pitch and Mercedes works it to 3-0 and then swings and hits a home run and what's LaRussa doing? He's standing on the field shaking his head all because Mercedes missed a sign or something because Tony had the take sign on but so freaking what? The guy gets paid to hit home runs and has been one of the most exciting players in the game this season so far. Screw Tony LaRussa, bring Hawk Harrelson back and let him fire him again.

And if he hit a grounder to thr 2nd baseman?

Yes, he got fortunate. But he still ignored the coach.