MLB Off-Topic

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ghost Of The Year

Yeah, I stand by 20. The real problem is none of those 20 are as sexy hip and flashy as Vegas. That's what's driving John Fisher to picking Vegas. If they move to Vegas, they will find it appealing for ten years, then see what a fickle town it really is. The Braves played 13 years in Milwaukee. The A's played 13 years in KC. I give the A's 13 years in Vegas before moving on to greener pastures.

There's a much, much greater chance of the A's to Vegas completely falling through than them moving on after a decade. If indeed a billion+ dollar, team-owned, baseball-only stadium is built on the site of the Tropicana, it's gonna be there for the long haul.

And as others have said, the number of realistic expansion/relocation spots is small. Probably a 3rd team in Texas (Austin or San Antonio) and either Nashville or Charlotte (maybe both if the Rays need to be moved). I don't think Portland will work, Vancouver definitely wouldn't work; maybe Salt Lake City? But they're probably getting an NHL team soonish, and supporting 3 major franchises in a metro area that small is probably asking a lot.

[Madden08PCgmr]

Living in the NW, I've heard the argument for Portland many times. Makes alot of sense logistically, but I don't think its a strong enough market in relation to other options.

Its comical the A's can't make Oakland work for them. Its the 5th largest market in the country, and arguably the richest. Lots of money in Vegas, but 20, 30 years from now, hard to argue they'd be better off. Say what you will about the stadium situation.

I definitely don't see 20 viable US cities for expansion or relocation. MLB might be able to make the NBA model work for them, trying to strangle small markets (Salt Lake, Sac'to, OKC..) but with no revenue sharing, market size is king.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden08PCgmr

Living in the NW, I've heard the argument for Portland many times. Makes alot of sense logistically, but I don't think its a strong enough market in relation to other options. Its comical the A's can't make Oakland work for them. Its the 5th largest market in the country, and arguably the richest. Lots of money in Vegas, but 20, 30 years from now, hard to argue they'd be better off. Say what you will about the stadium situation. I definitely don't see 20 viable US cities for expansion or relocation. MLB might be able to make the NBA model work for them, trying to strangle small markets (Salt Lake, Sac'to, OKC..) but with no revenue sharing, market size is king.

Tho it will never happen, NYC could easily support a third team. But it's an ugly choice. The Yankees and Mets won't approve. Oakland's problem is the same as the A's;
the A's need a new owner, and Oakland needs better elected officials. The combination of Fisher and Oakland leaders is proving lethal to the A's.

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ghost Of The Year

the A's need a new owner, and Oakland needs better elected officials. The combination of Fisher and Oakland leaders is proving lethal to the A's.

Giants ownership is partly responsible as well. In the early 90s, the Giants were threatening to move to St. Petersburg, and the A's went out of their way to convince them to stay in the Bay Area, going so far as to giving the Giants the exclusive territorial rights to the San Jose area so they could build a new stadium there.

Even though the Giants eventually sold to new owners who stayed and built Pac Bell with their own money, they retained the San Jose rights that the A's had given up and then used that to kibosh the A's potentially moving to San Jose themselves. No good deed goes unpunished.

[zello144]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ghost Of The Year

Yeah, I stand by 20. The real problem is none of those 20 are as sexy hip and flashy as Vegas. That's what's driving John Fisher to picking Vegas. If they move to Vegas, they will find it appealing for ten years, then see what a fickle town it really is. The Braves played 13 years in Milwaukee. The A's played 13 years in KC. I give the A's 13 years in Vegas before moving on to greener pastures.

I think Vegas can be good for the A's if they sell after the stadium is built to a better ownership group. If they continue getting rid of good players and refusing to spend like in Oakland it will fickle out. What Vegas has though is that tourist money that they wouldn't get in Oakland.

20 other cities is hard. I'd like to see Nashville or Charlotte not exactly sexy cities but I could see those working out. I used to think New Orleans could work but I don't think that's a baseball town. I don't really like Portland and think that they would run into the same issues they had with Oakland with trying to build a stadium there. A Third NYC team would be horrible but I wouldn't mind a third team in NY state in Buffalo. I used to be very against Salt Lake City but now I've kinda warmed up to the idea.

[Madden08PCgmr]

24 years ago, they blew up the Kingdome.

Seattle may have been better off if they had blown up the team instead.

[fugazi]

Anything other than Mexico City is the wrong answer.

Unless MLB changes its revenue model, they've tapped all the big markets...

Though I think the expansion Brooklyn Burros would be a hit.

[fugazi]

In other news, MLB hates baseball....

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/xU4...ibextid=NqTh7c

Gross. This is gross.