MLB Expansion Candidates

[Henry]

According to ESPN, 10 teams are in the running for MLB expansion, including one former MLB city. Where would you put the next two teams if you were the commissioner?

Austin/San Antonio: Would make a natural rival for Houston and Texas
Charlotte, Nashville and Raleigh: Potential new natural rivals for Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore, Cincinnati and St. Louis
Mexico City: Would be first Mexican team in a Big Four sports league, but IDK if it'll work
Montreal: Revive the Expos and the natural rivalry with Toronto
Orlando: IDK if it'll work, with the attendance problems that the Rays and Marlins are suffering through
Portland: Great natural rival for Seattle
San Jose: The Giants wouldn't be happy about this
Salt Lake City: Great natural rival for Colorado, and I suspect that they'll continue the ending double-Z naming convention that started with the Jazz

[KeithE4Phx]

No way should MLB expand.  They can barely support 30 teams, let alone 32, with most of those proposed being smaller markets.  Montreal, maybe, but Mexico City is a non-starter.  So are Austin/San Antonio (too close to Houston), Portland (too close to Seattle), and San Jose (once the A's leave, that's it for the Bay Area as a two team city).

I voted for Nashville and SLC, but as move-ins for the Chicago White Sox and Arizona Diamondbacks, respectively.  Both teams' owners are in maximum greed mode, threatening to move their teams unless the taxpayers pay for new ballparks in more wealthy neighborhoods (South Loop and Scottsdale, respectively).  Been there, done that both times in the past, having lived in Chicago in the '80s and Phoenix since 1994, when they were being proposed.  Both owners are billionaires and can fund their own ballparks if they want new ones.

Both Guaranteed Rate Field and Chase Field are relatively new (opened in 1991 and 1998, respectively), although both need some work.  But there's nothing inherently wrong with either of them.  Jerry Rensdorf and Ken Kendrick just don't like the demographics (working class and minority) of either of their current locations -- deja vu Atlanta all over again.  Too bad for them, as far as I'm concerned. 

[texaskdog]

Austin.  No major league teams and a top drawing AAA team.  San Antonio had a AAA team and didn't draw (and if you put the stadium in between the two it's the 12 largest MSA in the country).

[Flint1979]

Hopefully they don't expand. The talent level is already watered down. 30 teams is plenty.

[SectorZ]

A generation ago they were ready to contract the Twins and Expos.

[kphoger]

Salt Lake City: Great natural rival for Colorado, and I suspect that they'll continue the ending double-Z naming convention that started with the Jazz

I almost voted for SLC, but the bolded statement convinced me otherwise.  Jazz is a dumb team name.

[Big John]

Salt Lake City: Great natural rival for Colorado, and I suspect that they'll continue the ending double-Z naming convention that started with the Jazz

I almost voted for SLC, but the bolded statement convinced me otherwise.  Jazz is a dumb team name.

at least 3 cases where an NBA team moved but kept the team name. And in each case the name was appropriate for the old location, but makes no sense in the new location.

[JayhawkCO]

Salt Lake City: Great natural rival for Colorado, and I suspect that they'll continue the ending double-Z naming convention that started with the Jazz

I almost voted for SLC, but the bolded statement convinced me otherwise.  Jazz is a dumb team name.

I don't want to assume you didn't know this already, but for anyone that didn't, they used to be the New Orleans Jazz and moved to SLC and didn't change the name. Similar to the Lakers moving from Minneapolis to LA.

[JayhawkCO]

Also, I'm voting for Mexico City because I think it'd be cool. Not because I think logistically it works in any way.

[1995hoo]

Salt Lake City: Great natural rival for Colorado, and I suspect that they'll continue the ending double-Z naming convention that started with the Jazz

I almost voted for SLC, but the bolded statement convinced me otherwise.  Jazz is a dumb team name.

at least 3 cases where an NBA team moved but kept the team name. And in each case the name was appropriate for the old location, but makes no sense in the new location.

There were more than three cases. Some of the names that were kept (Hawks, Nets, Warriors, Kings) were neutral things; Nets would arguably make sense for a basketball team regardless of location. At least one (Hornets) was a name that doesn't seem like a big deal unless you know the historical connections between that word and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

Then you have two where the team names arguably made more sense after the move: The San Diego Rockets moved to Houston and kept their name, which is an eminently sensible name for Houston. The Baltimore Bullets moved to the DC area (playing for one year as the "Capital Bullets" before adopting "Washington"), and while they're no longer technically called the Bullets ("technically" because some people still call them that), the name "Bullets" unfortunately fit Washington way too well in the 1980s and early 1990s and would fit way too well today.



Regarding baseball, the Commissioner pretty definitely ruled out Mexico City in recent comments when he was asked about it.

[Buck87]

Austin.  No major league teams and a top drawing AAA team.

Austin has an MLS team now

[miclugo]

If ending in zz *were* a convention for Salt Lake teams, the team should be named the Buzz.  Traditionally SLC's baseball teams have been named the Bees (and apparently they were the Buzz at one point).

[hotdogPi]

How about Santo Domingo? We already have a team outside the US, so this isn't unprecedented.

[Big John]

If ending in zz *were* a convention for Salt Lake teams, the team should be named the Buzz.  Traditionally SLC's baseball teams have been named the Bees (and apparently they were the Buzz at one point).

And Utah's highway shields.

[JayhawkCO]

How about Santo Domingo? We already have a team outside the US, so this isn't unprecedented.

Far less money in Santo Domingo than Mexico City even. Gotta think about revenue streams. Quality of life is markedly different too.

[kphoger]

Salt Lake City: Great natural rival for Colorado, and I suspect that they'll continue the ending double-Z naming convention that started with the Jazz

I almost voted for SLC, but the bolded statement convinced me otherwise.  Jazz is a dumb team name.

I don't want to assume you didn't know this already, but for anyone that didn't, they used to be the New Orleans Jazz and moved to SLC and didn't change the name. Similar to the Lakers moving from Minneapolis to LA.

Sorry, I should have clarified.  Jazz was a dumb team name in New Orleans too.  All non-pluralized team names are dumb.

[JayhawkCO]

Salt Lake City: Great natural rival for Colorado, and I suspect that they'll continue the ending double-Z naming convention that started with the Jazz

I almost voted for SLC, but the bolded statement convinced me otherwise.  Jazz is a dumb team name.

I don't want to assume you didn't know this already, but for anyone that didn't, they used to be the New Orleans Jazz and moved to SLC and didn't change the name. Similar to the Lakers moving from Minneapolis to LA.

Sorry, I should have clarified.  Jazz was a dumb team name in New Orleans too.  All non-pluralized team names are dumb.

How do you feel about soccer club names then? Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Sporting Kansas City, etc.?

[1995hoo]

Salt Lake City: Great natural rival for Colorado, and I suspect that they'll continue the ending double-Z naming convention that started with the Jazz

I almost voted for SLC, but the bolded statement convinced me otherwise.  Jazz is a dumb team name.

I don't want to assume you didn't know this already, but for anyone that didn't, they used to be the New Orleans Jazz and moved to SLC and didn't change the name. Similar to the Lakers moving from Minneapolis to LA.

Sorry, I should have clarified.  Jazz was a dumb team name in New Orleans too.  All non-pluralized team names are dumb.

I have no problem with "singular form" team names, but I object to the practice some media outlets have of treating them as singular for grammatical purposes because it reads very strangely when used in juxtaposition with another name they treat as plural. The Washington Post, for example, insists on strange things like, "The Miami Heat is on a five-game winning streak, while the Washington Wizards have lost 12 straight." I would use "are" in reference to the Heat there, or else just use the city names. (I've seen some very strange examples of the complete opposite, though, like when some weirdo edits Wikipedia to say something like, "The Washington Commanders is a professional American football team ....")

[NWI_Irish96]

No way should MLB expand.  They can barely support 30 teams, let alone 32, with most of those proposed being smaller markets.  Montreal, maybe, but Mexico City is a non-starter.  So are Austin/San Antonio (too close to Houston), Portland (too close to Seattle), and San Jose (once the A's leave, that's it for the Bay Area as a two team city).

I voted for Nashville and SLC, but as move-ins for the Chicago White Sox and Arizona Diamondbacks, respectively.  Both teams' owners are in maximum greed mode, threatening to move their teams unless the taxpayers pay for new ballparks in more wealthy neighborhoods (South Loop and Scottsdale, respectively).  Been there, done that both times in the past, having lived in Chicago in the '80s and Phoenix since 1994, when they were being proposed.  Both owners are billionaires and can fund their own ballparks if they want new ones.

Both Guaranteed Rate Field and Chase Field are relatively new (opened in 1991 and 1998, respectively), although both need some work.  But there's nothing inherently wrong with either of them.  Jerry Rensdorf and Ken Kendrick just don't like the demographics (working class and minority) of either of their current locations -- deja vu Atlanta all over again.  Too bad for them, as far as I'm concerned. 

Yeah, there's already a huge talent differential between the best and worst teams, and expansion would just make that worse.

The best place to put a team would be San Jose, but something would have to be worked out with the Giants.

Next best would be Montreal, followed by Charlotte and Nashville.

[JayhawkCO]

I think the biggest reason MLB shouldn't expand is because it's already a dying sport.

[Mapmikey]

(I've seen some very strange examples of the complete opposite, though, like when some weirdo edits Wikipedia to say something like, "The Washington Commanders is a professional American football team ....")

Yes...i believe the correct description should've been, "The Washington Commanders are a huge mess"

[kphoger]

How do you feel about soccer club names then? Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Sporting Kansas City, etc.?

The only one that sounds good to me is Manchester United, and that's probably because (1) I've heard it a million times, and (2) it kind of sounds like 'United' isn't actually the club name.

I want a team name to also refer to the individual players.  That is to say, in my mind "the Orioles" refers to a number of individual players, not just the team as a whole.  "I once dated a New Orleans Jazz" makes no grammatical sense, whereas "I once dated a Dallas Cowboy" merely reveals a poor life choice.

I have no problem with "singular form" team names, but I object to the practice some media outlets have of treating them as singular for grammatical purposes because it reads very strangely when used in juxtaposition with another name they treat as plural. The Washington Post, for example, insists on strange things like, "The Miami Heat is on a five-game winning streak, while the Washington Wizards have lost 12 straight." I would use "are" in reference to the Heat there, or else just use the city names. (I've seen some very strange examples of the complete opposite, though, like when some weirdo edits Wikipedia to say something like, "The Washington Commanders is a professional American football team ....")

Diving into US–British journalism conventions...  What if you leave out the team name altogether?

Miami is on a five-game winning streak.  (US convention)
Miami are on a five-game winning streak.  (British convention)

[hotdogPi]

What if you leave out the team name altogether?

New York is on a five-game winning streak. Wait, which one?

That said, this is currently how the PWHL does things. There are six teams that don't even have names other than the city they're in (or near for two of them, or the state for one of them). There isn't even an option to call Ottawa something other than Ottawa. That said, they're expected to get proper names next season.

[rlb2024]

How do you feel about soccer club names then? Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Sporting Kansas City, etc.?

Many of the soccer clubs have nicknames as well -- Manchester United are the Red Devils, Tottenham Hotspur are the Spurs (or just Spurs), Liverpool are the Reds, Chelsea are the Blues, etc.  They are just not as commonly used as the nicknames are in the US.

[Hunty2022]

I voted to bring back Montreal, and expand into SLC. I would love if Hampton Roads got an expansion franchise, but that will most likely never happen.


Talking about relocations...

One of the Florida teams (I think it was the Marlins?) apparently wanted to relocate to Hampton Roads around 2012, but obviously didn't. Up in Arlington (VA), before the Expos became the Nationals, the Astros were very close to moving into Virginia, but ended up staying in Houston and moved into Minute Maid Park.