AARoads Forum

According to ESPN, 10 teams are in the running for MLB expansion (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/39563422/mlb-expansion-potential-cities-candidates-teams-austin-montreal-nashville-orlando-portland-raleigh-salt-lake-city), 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

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.  :angry:

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).

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

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

Quote from: Henry on February 28, 2024, 10:09:19 PM
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.

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 10:04:27 AM

Quote from: Henry on February 28, 2024, 10:09:19 PM
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.

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 10:04:27 AM

Quote from: Henry on February 28, 2024, 10:09:19 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Big John on February 29, 2024, 10:49:21 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 10:04:27 AM

Quote from: Henry on February 28, 2024, 10:09:19 PM
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.

Quote from: texaskdog on February 28, 2024, 10:52:43 PM
Austin.  No major league teams and a top drawing AAA team.

Austin has an MLS team now

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).

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

Quote from: miclugo on February 29, 2024, 11:56:26 AM
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.

Quote from: 1 on February 29, 2024, 11:58:49 AM
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.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 10:56:53 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 10:04:27 AM

Quote from: Henry on February 28, 2024, 10:09:19 PM
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.

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 12:15:36 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 10:56:53 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 10:04:27 AM

Quote from: Henry on February 28, 2024, 10:09:19 PM
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.?

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 12:15:36 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 10:56:53 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 10:04:27 AM

Quote from: Henry on February 28, 2024, 10:09:19 PM
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 ....")

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on February 28, 2024, 10:36:38 PM
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.  :angry:

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.

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

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 29, 2024, 12:31:12 PM
(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"

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 12:21:48 PM
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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 29, 2024, 12:31:12 PM
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)

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 01:16:56 PM
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.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 12:21:48 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Hunty2022 on February 29, 2024, 01:50:41 PM
I voted to bring back Montreal

Me too.  Maybe just because it's one of the very few non-Chicago MLB games I've actually been to.  (Seattle might be the only other one.)

I also voted Portland, just because I think it would bip.

Quote from: Hunty2022 on February 29, 2024, 01:50:41 PM
and expand into SLC

If I hadn't voted Portland, I would have gone with SLC.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 10:57:44 AM
Also, I'm voting for Mexico City because I think it'd be cool. Not because I think logistically it works in any way.

I didn't, because I think any expansion into Mexico should start with either Monterrey or Tijuana, with my personal preference being Monterrey.

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 02:37:32 PM
I didn't, because I think any expansion into Mexico should start with either Monterrey or Tijuana, with my personal preference being Monterrey.

TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 02:42:14 PM
TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

Chiefs versus Dallas in 1996.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 02:42:14 PM
TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

I mentioned Tijuana and Monterrey because their local professional baseball teams already draw some of the largest crowds—along with Mexico City and Saltillo, both of which are farther from the border.

The grassroots group MLB Raleigh has pushed a pretty strong case for some time now, but the big question is whether the powers that be would deem Raleigh a large-enough market for expansion (i.e. Charlotte would likely be a more realistic bet).

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 03:01:19 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 02:42:14 PM
TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

I mentioned Tijuana and Monterrey because their local professional baseball teams already draw some of the largest crowds—along with Mexico City and Saltillo, both of which are farther from the border.

I would think the biggest issue in having a team in Mexico would be the perceived standard of living. I know Monterrey and Tijuana are supposed to be nice enough, but neither of those cities have the draw of Mexico City. I don't think an extra hour/90 minutes flying time much matters either.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 03:44:22 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 03:01:19 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 02:42:14 PM
TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

I mentioned Tijuana and Monterrey because their local professional baseball teams already draw some of the largest crowds—along with Mexico City and Saltillo, both of which are farther from the border.

I would think the biggest issue in having a team in Mexico would be the perceived standard of living. I know Monterrey and Tijuana are supposed to be nice enough, but neither of those cities have the draw of Mexico City. I don't think an extra hour/90 minutes flying time much matters either.

I would also think Mexico City's elevation (over 7,300 feet, more than 2,000 feet higher than Denver) would be an issue working against it.

Quote from: rlb2024 on February 29, 2024, 04:09:14 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 03:44:22 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 03:01:19 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 02:42:14 PM
TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

I mentioned Tijuana and Monterrey because their local professional baseball teams already draw some of the largest crowds—along with Mexico City and Saltillo, both of which are farther from the border.

I would think the biggest issue in having a team in Mexico would be the perceived standard of living. I know Monterrey and Tijuana are supposed to be nice enough, but neither of those cities have the draw of Mexico City. I don't think an extra hour/90 minutes flying time much matters either.

I would also think Mexico City's elevation (over 7,300 feet, more than 2,000 feet higher than Denver) would be an issue working against it.

Far more of an issue in sports where you actually have to run for a long time. Yeah, balls are hit farther, but you could just make the fences farther away.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 04:14:34 PM

Quote from: rlb2024 on February 29, 2024, 04:09:14 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 03:44:22 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 03:01:19 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 02:42:14 PM
TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

I mentioned Tijuana and Monterrey because their local professional baseball teams already draw some of the largest crowds—along with Mexico City and Saltillo, both of which are farther from the border.

I would think the biggest issue in having a team in Mexico would be the perceived standard of living. I know Monterrey and Tijuana are supposed to be nice enough, but neither of those cities have the draw of Mexico City. I don't think an extra hour/90 minutes flying time much matters either.

I would also think Mexico City's elevation (over 7,300 feet, more than 2,000 feet higher than Denver) would be an issue working against it.

Far more of an issue in sports where you actually have to run for a long time. Yeah, balls are hit farther, but you could just make the fences farther away.

It's not just the elevation, it's also the air pollution. They've improved quite a bit from where they were in the past, but they still have a significant problem. Crime is widely perceived as an issue as well.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 29, 2024, 04:21:52 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 04:14:34 PM

Quote from: rlb2024 on February 29, 2024, 04:09:14 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 03:44:22 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 03:01:19 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 02:42:14 PM
TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

I mentioned Tijuana and Monterrey because their local professional baseball teams already draw some of the largest crowds—along with Mexico City and Saltillo, both of which are farther from the border.

I would think the biggest issue in having a team in Mexico would be the perceived standard of living. I know Monterrey and Tijuana are supposed to be nice enough, but neither of those cities have the draw of Mexico City. I don't think an extra hour/90 minutes flying time much matters either.

I would also think Mexico City's elevation (over 7,300 feet, more than 2,000 feet higher than Denver) would be an issue working against it.

Far more of an issue in sports where you actually have to run for a long time. Yeah, balls are hit farther, but you could just make the fences farther away.

It's not just the elevation, it's also the air pollution. They've improved quite a bit from where they were in the past, but they still have a significant problem. Crime is widely perceived as an issue as well.

Well, as a guy who visited Haiti on his honeymoon and has been to many other developing countries, I'm not scared at all of Mexico City.

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 10:04:27 AM

Quote from: Henry on February 28, 2024, 10:09:19 PM
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.

Jazz is a great name for a team - in New Orleans, LA.  Ditto Lakers in Minneapolis, MN and Grizzlies in Vancouver, BC.

Heheheheheeeh

Mike

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 03:44:22 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 03:01:19 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 29, 2024, 02:42:14 PM
TJ seems like they already would have some Padres fandom. Monterrey seems like a better option between those two. I know the NFL played a game there (Cowboys/Cardinals without looking it up?) in the preseason a while back.

I mentioned Tijuana and Monterrey because their local professional baseball teams already draw some of the largest crowds—along with Mexico City and Saltillo, both of which are farther from the border.

I would think the biggest issue in having a team in Mexico would be the perceived standard of living. I know Monterrey and Tijuana are supposed to be nice enough, but neither of those cities have the draw of Mexico City. I don't think an extra hour/90 minutes flying time much matters either.

Monterrey has a pretty nice standard of living by Mexican standards.  Last time I was there, we grabbed some lunch near here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/u7rPTjuLf4e6hK1v5), for example.

I was also figuring there would be people who would drive or take the bus down from Laredo and the RGV to watch games, rather than fly.

Quote from: mgk920 on February 29, 2024, 04:41:47 PM
Jazz is a great name for a team - in New Orleans, LA.  Ditto Lakers in Minneapolis, MN and Grizzlies in Vancouver, BC.

The Lakers and the Grizzlies are good names because they're plural.

^^ Since you have Chicago ties, how do you feel about the White Sox?

Adding more teams while baseball is still being played at Tropicana Field would be an, uh, interesting approach.

Quote from: kphoger on February 29, 2024, 04:56:59 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on February 29, 2024, 04:41:47 PM
Jazz is a great name for a team - in New Orleans, LA.  Ditto Lakers in Minneapolis, MN and Grizzlies in Vancouver, BC.

The Lakers and the Grizzlies are good names because they're plural.

This is actually Memphis' second Grizzlies team -- the short-lived World Football League team in the 70s was also called the Grizzlies (also the Southmen).  Both teams relocated from Canada (the WFL team was originally slated to play in Toronto where they would also have been the Northmen).

Quote from: Big John on February 29, 2024, 05:22:44 PM
^^ Since you have Chicago ties, how do you feel about the White Sox?

I grew up going to both Cubs and Sox games.  My family didn't discriminate.

But Sox is just an alternate spelling of Socks, which is plural.

Quote from: Flint1979 on February 28, 2024, 11:20:47 PM
Hopefully they don't expand. The talent level is already watered down. 30 teams is plenty.

they have twice as many teams with double the population, and back then sadly you had to be white to play.  more talent then ever statistically.

how about getting rid of the Florida teams that don't draw and go with Austin, Montreal, Nashville, and Portland?

Quote from: texaskdog on February 29, 2024, 06:16:51 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on February 28, 2024, 11:20:47 PM
Hopefully they don't expand. The talent level is already watered down. 30 teams is plenty.

they have twice as many teams with double the population, and back then sadly you had to be white to play.  more talent then ever statistically.

I've always felt the same way:
In 1960, there were 16 teams and 179.3 million people, or one team per 11.2 million people
In 1977 there were 26 teams and 220.2 million people, or one team per 8.5 million people
In 1993 there were 28 teams and 260.3 million people, or one team per 9.3 million people
In 2023 there were 30 teams and 340 million people, or one team per 11.3 million people
So we're at the same place we were at the beginning of the expansion era.

Add to that the international expansion of the talent pool:
In 1960 there were 3.5 foreign-born players per team
In 1977 there were 4.1 foreign-born players per team
In 1993 there were 6.4 foreign-born players per team
In 2023 there were 13.4 foreign-born players per team

And the above-mentioned fact that full integration of MLB hadn't happened by 1960, I think the idea that the talent pool is more selective memory than fact.

And of course, back then professional sports was not nearly as lucrative (with many players holding off-season jobs), so the incentive for the best athletes to participate wasn't as great, and the fact that training and conditioning has improved exponentially since then...

Anyhow, I've always thought Portland and Charlotte were the best choices, but I think it's going to be Nashville and Salt Lake City.

(I do think there's a decent chance that the Las Vegas deal falls apart, and San Jose should be ready to fight for the A's again)

I assume that an Eastern city and a Western city will be chosen, so I'm going with Charlotte and Salt Lake City.

Quote from: 1 on February 29, 2024, 11:58:49 AM
How about Santo Domingo? We already have a team outside the US, so this isn't unprecedented.

... with PLENTY of both baseball fans and talent ... and not a logistical nightmare. It's 150 NM closer to Seattle than San Juan.

San Juan wouldn't be bad either for the same reason *AND* it's still in the USA. Yeah, it's on Atlantic time, but, as the current DST nonsense is set up, that would only matter for game 6 and 7 of the world series. It's 500 NM (900 km) longer from Seattle than Miami, but closer to most eastern US cities than many west coast cities.

But, the talent pool is pretty diluted at this point.

San Juan makes more sense than most of the others.

Yeah, San Juan would be cool.  Too bad it wasn't in the poll to vote for.

Baseball isn't popular enough for expansion.  The league needs to disabuse itself of the idea.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 01, 2024, 10:32:45 AM
Baseball isn't popular enough for expansion.  The league needs to disabuse itself of the idea.

Then a trade is in order.  Get rid of the A's and the non-devil Rays in exchange for these two new teams.

The A's first choice was to move to the south bay area. San Jose, Santa Clara, etc.

The Giants nixed that. Made it clear it was a no-go.

I think it would have been a good fit, but....

The again, the Austin / San Antonio areas are wide open.

DFW and Houston are the two biggest markets without two teams each. Austin and SAT are kind of both shared between the Astros and Rangers. (Likewise the Cowboys & Texans) Clearly, there is enough market in SAT & Austin together to build a place out between them. Places like Wimberly, New Braunfels, or San Marcos. As far as that goes, either would be a medium sized market by themselves.

Why would anyone suggest Salt Lake City? That isn't a very big city, it's a medium sized city and the metro area has 1.2 million people which would make it one of the smallest markets in the league. There aren't enough people in SLC for a MLB team.

Quote from: Flint1979 on March 01, 2024, 01:20:19 PM
Why would anyone suggest Salt Lake City? That isn't a very big city, it's a medium sized city and the metro area has 1.2 million people which would make it one of the smallest markets in the league. There aren't enough people in SLC for a MLB team.

The same reason FritzOwl wants to put an Interstate through whatever empty spot on the map:  because there isn't one near there yet.

Quote from: kphoger on March 01, 2024, 01:26:47 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on March 01, 2024, 01:20:19 PM
Why would anyone suggest Salt Lake City? That isn't a very big city, it's a medium sized city and the metro area has 1.2 million people which would make it one of the smallest markets in the league. There aren't enough people in SLC for a MLB team.

The same reason FritzOwl wants to put an Interstate through whatever empty spot on the map:  because there isn't one near there yet.

Yep that's probably the same reason lol.

"1.2 million" excludes Provo and Ogden, which would very clearly be part of the Salt Lake City market.

Quote from: 1 on March 01, 2024, 01:52:34 PM
"1.2 million" excludes Provo and Ogden, which would very clearly be part of the Salt Lake City market.

Ok well Utah as a state has 3.2 million people. Going by states they would have the least population by far.

Quote from: Flint1979 on March 01, 2024, 02:11:46 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 01, 2024, 01:52:34 PM
"1.2 million" excludes Provo and Ogden, which would very clearly be part of the Salt Lake City market.

Ok well Utah as a state has 3.2 million people. Going by states they would have the least population by far.

The Salt Lake City media market (and TV revenue drives these decisions much more than gate revenue) is 29th in the country - ahead of current MLB markets San Diego, Kansas City, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee, and just behind Baltimore. It's also ahead of Las Vegas.

On the other hand, while the area is still growing, it is not growing as fast as some of the other areas on this list, like Austin, Raleigh, and Charlotte.

Thr State of Utah has committed $900 million towards bonds for a MLB stadium, in addition to $900 million for either renovations to the Delta Center or a new NBA/NHL arena.


The only question may be is Salt Lake getting the Athletics or an expansion team. Once there is some clarity on the Athletics moving to Vegas we will see expansion.

Quote from: tidecat on March 07, 2024, 10:56:13 PM
Thr State of Utah has committed $900 million towards bonds for a MLB stadium, in addition to $900 million for either renovations to the Delta Center or a new NBA/NHL arena.


The only question may be is Salt Lake getting the Athletics or an expansion team. Once there is some clarity on the Athletics moving to Vegas we will see expansion.

We also need to see some progress on the Rays' newest ballpark project before expansion can become reality. Hopefully, it'll be a much smoother process than Howard Terminal was for Oakland.

Why am I thinking more and more that Baseball in North America would be ideal for conversion to an overseas style of a promotion and relegation system?

:hmmm:

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on March 08, 2024, 12:13:47 PM
Why am I thinking more and more that Baseball in North America would be ideal for conversion to an overseas style of a promotion and relegation system?

:hmmm:

Mike

Did you become P13?

Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2024, 12:42:56 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on March 08, 2024, 12:13:47 PM
Why am I thinking more and more that Baseball in North America would be ideal for conversion to an overseas style of a promotion and relegation system?

:hmmm:

Mike

Did you become P13?

He's been saying this for decades.

Quote from: tidecat on March 07, 2024, 10:56:13 PM
Thr State of Utah has committed $900 million towards bonds for a MLB stadium, in addition to $900 million for either renovations to the Delta Center or a new NBA/NHL arena.

Utah is BOOMING right now...

Funny that people once said Salt Lake City didn't have enough people to support an NBA team, but the Jazz proved them wrong. Hell, even the Bases Loaded video game series put a team in Utah!

NL
West - San Francisco, LA Dodgers, San Diego, Arizona
North - Colorado, Saint Louis, Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee
South - Nashville, Atlanta, Miami, Washington
East - Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY Mets

AL
West - Seattle, Las Vegas, Utah, LA Angels
South - Houston, Texas, Tampa Bay, Baltimore
North - Kansas City, Chicago White Sox, Minnesota, Detroit
East - Cleveland, Toronto, Boston, NY Yankees

IMHO,

- The idea of expansion to countries at a different economic level is a non-starter.  Even Toronto, in the most America like country that isn't America, has issues with the fact that they take in C$ and pay out US$.  Playing in Mexico or the DR won't work.

- IF the corridor of prosperity that runs SW-NE through the Carolinas were one compact metro area, it would be certain to be an expansion place.  But it isn't.  It is a 200 mile long chain of cities, suburbs, town, and open spaces.  That can work for football, which is once a week, but night in and night out baseball, they have to pick ONE place to play, and that is far away for everyone else.

- Geography is over-rated in baseball rivalries.  People in Denver are no more or less inclined to dislike a theoretical team in Salt Lake City than one in Boston or Seattle. 

- Austin and San Antonio are football country.

- The precedent set by paying to Orioles to somehow "allow" a team in Washington, haunts baseball.  The Reds and Braves have the same rights in Nashville, the Braves and Nationals in North Carolina, the Blue Jays in Montreal, etc.

Baseball is in a huge state of flux.  One is because of the death of the RSN model.  Without the RSN money, there really isn't "small markets and big markets" anymore.  The problem is they have players that demand money that just isn't there anymore.  If you just let the people that want the local team's games buy them outside the cable bundle model, it is a tiny fraction of people.  Two is that baseball isn't working in Florida (told you so) and there are stadium problems in Tampa, Oakland/Las Vegas, and other places.  They need to solve all of that before they think about expansion. 

Quote from: mgk920 on March 08, 2024, 12:13:47 PM
Why am I thinking more and more that Baseball in North America would be ideal for conversion to an overseas style of a promotion and relegation system?

:hmmm:

Mike

It will never happen in any North American Major League sport. You think the owners would give up the money they make when they get relegated that easily?

Quote from: tchafe1978 on March 10, 2024, 10:50:41 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on March 08, 2024, 12:13:47 PM
Why am I thinking more and more that Baseball in North America would be ideal for conversion to an overseas style of a promotion and relegation system?

:hmmm:

Mike

It will never happen in any North American Major League sport. You think the owners would give up the money they make when they get relegated that easily?

Right now we are letting the markets decide things, and at great expense in pvblic treasure.

Mike