PDA

View Full Version : A's cancel Cisco Field...could move or be sold


Fenway
02-18-2009, 02:35 PM
KNBR radio in San Francisco is reporting the A's have now pulled out of Fremont completely and the owner admits moving or selling the team is likely.

The owner says Portland, Sacremento and Vegas are possible but also admits the owner of the Montreal Canadiens is interested in bringing baseball back to Quebec.

VeeckAsInWreck
02-18-2009, 02:47 PM
Geez has a baseball franchise moved more than the A's?

Philadelphia
KC
Oakland

sox1970
02-18-2009, 02:49 PM
Geez has a baseball franchise moved more than the A's?

Philadelphia
KC
Oakland

Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta Braves

VeeckAsInWreck
02-18-2009, 02:53 PM
Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta Braves

I forget that they started off in Boston.

Anyway, It'll be interesting to see where the A's go.

I wouldn't mind seeing them go to Vegas. I'd plan to attend games when the Sox travel there.

Fenway
02-18-2009, 03:03 PM
A fan really has to love baseball to go to Oakland.

There is nothing good to say about that park except that it is on BART

LITTLE NELL
02-18-2009, 03:04 PM
I forget that they started off in Boston.

Anyway, It'll be interesting to see where the A's go.

I wouldn't mind seeing them go to Vegas. I'd plan to attend games when the Sox travel there.
I could be wrong but I don't believe MLB will ever allow a team in Vegas.
Too bad about Cisco Field, from all the artists renditions and internet virtual tours it looked like a great park.

TDog
02-18-2009, 03:04 PM
Milwaukee Brewers
St. Louis Browns
Baltimore Orioles, which aren't going anywhere

KNBR radio in San Francisco is reporting the A's have now pulled out of Fremont completely and the owner admits moving or selling the team is likely.

The owner says Portland, Sacremento and Vegas are possible but also admits the owner of the Montreal Canadiens is interested in bringing baseball back to Quebec.

Charlie Finley should have never moved the A's to Oakland.

I think it would be a good move to send the A's to Sacramento. The A's may be more popular in the Valley than they are in the Bay Area. The Sacramento River Cats are the team's AAA affiliates. Sacramento doesn't have a major league stadium, but, of course, neither does Oakland.

San Jose would be a better move than Sacramento, but it seems to be Giants country. When the Giants were talking about moving, San Jose wouldn't have surprised me as their ultimate home. Moving a team such as short distance as Sacramento or San Jose would be easier to sell than a move to Oregon, French-speaking Canada or Nevada.

Las Vegas is a baseball disaster that major league owners will never allow to happen.

I never thought the A's would move to Freemont.

DSpivack
02-18-2009, 03:06 PM
Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta Braves

Or the Angels!

They started out as Los Angeles, became California for decades, switched to Anaheim, and are now Los Angeles of Anaheim. They've been in the same stadium since 1966.

Scottiehaswheels
02-18-2009, 03:10 PM
I'd like a team in Indianapolis, of course that probably won't happen for another 30 years or so I would imagine. :whiner:

thomas35forever
02-18-2009, 03:21 PM
Interesting. You'd have to wonder how the AL is going to re-align if the A's go to Montreal. You can't have three teams in the West, so my guess would be something like:

West
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Seattle
Texas

Central
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota
Toronto

East
Baltimore
Boston
Montreal
New York
Tampa Bay

ChiSoxFan81
02-18-2009, 03:30 PM
Honestly, I hope the A's do move. I can't stand watching the Sox play there. The damn air horns all game make me want to rip my head off.

Red Barchetta
02-18-2009, 03:36 PM
KNBR radio in San Francisco is reporting the A's have now pulled out of Fremont completely and the owner admits moving or selling the team is likely.

The owner says Portland, Sacremento and Vegas are possible but also admits the owner of the Montreal Canadiens is interested in bringing baseball back to Quebec.


It's nice to hear the owner of the Montreal Canadiens would like to bring baseball back to Quebec. Too bad he doesn't realize that MLB has already failed in that market.

I would like to see the A's stay on the west coast - perhaps Sacramento. Portland is an interesting option...

whitesox901
02-18-2009, 03:43 PM
I'd like to see the A's move, but Portland I think its to close to Seattle and won't be a bid fan base, If they are going to Sacremento then why even move? and with Vegas would'nt be too bad, they'd get to stay within there division, but I hope they would get to go to Quebec and be the Athlétisme du Québec :D:


Central
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota
Toronto


At this point, couldn't we just re-name it the Great Lakes Division? :D:

I can't stand watching the Sox play there

Me neither, its a black hole like Texas and the Garbage-Bag Dome

Fenway
02-18-2009, 03:56 PM
It's nice to hear the owner of the Montreal Canadiens would like to bring baseball back to Quebec. Too bad he doesn't realize that MLB has already failed in that market.

I would like to see the A's stay on the west coast - perhaps Sacramento. Portland is an interesting option...

Montreal failed not because of lack of fan interest but ownership that discovered they could make money by slashing payroll and pocketing revenue sharing.

The firesale after the 1994 strike just broke the hearts of the fans and then came the final insult of trading Pedro.

Then having Loria's stepson calling the French fanbase 'frogs' just enraged those fans who were left.

Stade Olympique was another problem. The roof never worked and was finally sealed shut. The park had no AC and Quebecers didn't want to be indoors during summer. The ballpark was also very hard to get to from the English suburbs where the fanbase was strongest as the Metro does not go into English neighborhoods.

Montreal is a far better baseball town than Miami or Tampa and with the right ownership it could work. Being a partner instead of rival of the Habs would be a huge marketing plus.

Hitmen77
02-18-2009, 03:58 PM
KNBR radio in San Francisco is reporting the A's have now pulled out of Fremont completely and the owner admits moving or selling the team is likely.

The owner says Portland, Sacremento and Vegas are possible but also admits the owner of the Montreal Canadiens is interested in bringing baseball back to Quebec.

Wow. Actually, I'm not surprised because the plan sounded very shaky from the get-go. But, wow because this might be the nail in the coffin for the A's in Oakland.

Unless the A's are planning to get a privately-financed stadium, then I would think that Portland and Montreal are not viable candidates.

Some people seem to think that Vegas is the next huge baseball market, but its metro area is smaller than Kansas City, Cleveland, or Cincinnati's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

Maybe Sacramento would be the best candidate since it would allow the A's to maintain their existing fan base.

Or maybe they can move back to Philadelphia.

Luke
02-18-2009, 04:02 PM
Portland and Sacramento are pretty comparable in size. Portland being a slightly larger media market, but Sacramento has that built in proximity to the A's current market.

It seems unrealistic to expect anyone to build a new stadium right now, which is going to make for a pretty tough sale.

It's hard to imagine MLB being to anxious to go back to Montreal, or to be the first league to venture into Vegas.

Fenway
02-18-2009, 04:08 PM
The Province of Quebec says they would be willing to build a new park using revenue from the Quebec Lotto. You can actually bet on any sport at any local lotto outlet.

The dream is to build new venues for baseball in Montreal and hockey in Quebec City.




Wow. Actually, I'm not surprised because the plan sounded very shaky from the get-go. But, wow because this might be the nail in the coffin for the A's in Oakland.

Unless the A's are planning to get a privately-financed stadium, then I would think that Portland and Montreal are not viable candidates.

Some people seem to think that Vegas is the next huge baseball market, but its metro area is smaller than Kansas City, Cleveland, or Cincinnati's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

Maybe Sacramento would be the best candidate since it would allow the A's to maintain their existing fan base.

Or maybe they can move back to Philadelphia.

It's Dankerific
02-18-2009, 04:12 PM
I'm all for Portland!

Seattle isn't THAT close. Its not like its a day trip unless its a Sunday afternoon game and you like being in the car most of the day.

Hitmen77
02-18-2009, 04:13 PM
The Province of Quebec says they would be willing to build a new park using revenue from the Quebec Lotto. You can actually bet on any sport at any local lotto outlet.

The dream is to build new venues for baseball in Montreal and hockey in Quebec City.

What are the demographics of Montreal compared to the Expos attendance heyday of 15-25 years ago? I don't know much about Quebec, but I thought I read that it has become more predominantly French over the years. If it's true that the English population in the area is shrinking, then past marginal success may not guarantee that the Montreal of today would support a baseball team.

Hitmen77
02-18-2009, 04:21 PM
I'd like a team in Indianapolis, of course that probably won't happen for another 30 years or so I would imagine. :whiner:

It would be cool to have an MLB team in Indy, but I don't think the city is big enough to support a team. I know the Colts and Pacers do well there, but it's much more difficult to support an MLB team in this day and age when local TV deals are a key source of revenue and attendance less than 2.5 million is now seen as not enough.

I'm all for Portland!

Seattle isn't THAT close. Its not like its a day trip unless its a Sunday afternoon game and you like being in the car most of the day.

Unless the city of Portland has a change of heart, I think they've been pretty firm in the past that they won't support a publicly financed stadium.

Here's my question: What is MLB going to do if the Marlins stadium deal falls through? Then they'll stuck with 2 teams in non-viable stadium with no good alternative metro area out there as an obvious choice for relocation. You can make that 3 teams and count Tampa Bay if they weren't locked in to a long-term lease.

RKMeibalane
02-18-2009, 04:24 PM
I'd like a team in Indianapolis, of course that probably won't happen for another 30 years or so I would imagine. :whiner:

Agreed. I think fans would support a team here, as there is a significant of White Sox/Cubs/Reds fans around.

Victory Field isn't really a good fit for MLB games, but it's a great place to watch baseball.

white sox bill
02-18-2009, 04:32 PM
The question still begs: Will our piss poor performances follow the A's out of Oakland?

It's Dankerific
02-18-2009, 04:32 PM
Unless the city of Portland has a change of heart, I think they've been pretty firm in the past that they won't support a publicly financed stadium.

Here's my question: What is MLB going to do if the Marlins stadium deal falls through? Then they'll stuck with 2 teams in non-viable stadium with no good alternative metro area out there as an obvious choice for relocation. You can make that 3 teams and count Tampa Bay if they weren't locked in to a long-term lease.

Yeah, I dont think Portland would be up for financing after the problems they had with the AAA/soccer Park (PGE Field or whatever).

BleacherBandit
02-18-2009, 04:38 PM
Will they continue with the A's name? That's my question. If they do move, will they move the name that has swiched from three cities?

TDog
02-18-2009, 04:58 PM
Will they continue with the A's name? That's my question. If they do move, will they move the name that has swiched from three cities?

Sure. They'll even keep the elephant.

guillen4life13
02-18-2009, 05:13 PM
A few options for where I could see there being a decent market for an MLB team:

Vancouver, BC
Portland, OR
Nashville, TN
Charleston, SC or Charlotte, NC
Vegas (though I think this would be a dangerous move on the part of MLB)
Jacksonville or Gainesville, FL

I know that Florida has shown itself to be a suspect (at best) baseball market, but the demographics and traffic up north would be much more favorable for a baseball team trying to get fans to the park.

I'd say Indianapolis is a little too close to Cincinnati and Chicago to be a legitimate market.

cards press box
02-18-2009, 05:19 PM
A fan really has to love baseball to go to Oakland.

There is nothing good to say about that park except that it is on BART

As long as they have been in Oakland, the A's have had die-hard fans who have been with them through thick and thin. I've spoken with people in the Bay Area who have repeatedly made this analogy:

A's to Giants = White Sox to Cubs

I would be said for the die-hard A's fans if they relocated. Having said that, has anyone mentioned New York/Brooklyn/Jersey City as a possible relocation site for the A's or, for that matter, the Marlins if their stadium deal falls through.

AZChiSoxFan
02-18-2009, 05:24 PM
The Province of Quebec says they would be willing to build a new park using revenue from the Quebec Lotto. You can actually bet on any sport at any local lotto outlet.

The dream is to build new venues for baseball in Montreal and hockey in Quebec City.

Very interesting. I for one would like to see baseball in Montreal again provided it would be in a new stadium.

Sargeant79
02-18-2009, 05:37 PM
Re: Vegas...

I think it would be a challenge, but not because of the gambling connection. On one hand, the metro area probably could support based only on numbers, because while the number of permanent residents is less than some other cities that may be in contention, the number of non-residents in the city at any given time numbers in the six figures no matter when you count them. The problem is that it is that the population is so unique compared with that of other cities. Everything revolves around the service economy, which means more non-traditional schedules and diversions for the permanent residents. Plus, the team would be competing with the gaming industry for discretionary income among both locals and tourists alike. You would also need an indoor stadium, of course.

For my own reasons, I would love it since I plan on moving out there in the next few years. But I don't think it would be a very viable sports market, at least not for a team that needs to sell tickets for 81 home games a year.

DumpJerry
02-18-2009, 06:28 PM
It would be cool to have an MLB team in Indy, but I don't think the city is big enough to support a team. I know the Colts and Pacers do well there, but it's much more difficult to support an MLB team in this day and age when local TV deals are a key source of revenue and attendance less than 2.5 million is now seen as not enough.
The thing is, the Colts need to pull in 70,000 or so eight times a year. The Pacers, 14,000 or so 41 times. A MLB team needs to pull in 30,000+ 81 times a year. Huge challenge.

PKalltheway
02-18-2009, 06:29 PM
It would be neat to see baseball return to Montreal, but they have to find a way to get a new stadium up there.

It would be really awesome if they could put a third team in the New York Metro area.

Even though it would be cool to see a team in Indy, like previous posters have said, it's too small, and it is too close to Cincinnati and Chicago.

I want Mags back
02-18-2009, 07:40 PM
Central
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota
Toronto



The AL Norris Division :cool:

soxinem1
02-18-2009, 09:13 PM
Here's my question: What is MLB going to do if the Marlins stadium deal falls through? Then they'll stuck with 2 teams in non-viable stadium with no good alternative metro area out there as an obvious choice for relocation. You can make that 3 teams and count Tampa Bay if they weren't locked in to a long-term lease.

Bud and Jerry will spearhead MLB to buy both teams, then move them to cities that have proven they cannot support a ML baseball team, and force the taxpayers to fund public-financed stadiums.

Then instead of giving the money MLB makes on the over-valued franchise back to the cities that fronted the cash to build the parks, they'll keep it.

Sound familiar???

raven1
02-19-2009, 04:06 AM
For both the A's & Marlins MLB is ignoring the option that makes the most sense: contraction. Building big new stadiums is going to be tough in this economy, especially when there are no obvious new markets begging for a team. I was disappointed when this fell through a couple years ago with the Expos (yet another reason to hate the Twins), but greed apparently took over when the owners realized what they could get for a franchise that really should have been shut down.

Shutting down the A's & Marlins would allow MLB to realign with better rivalries. The Brewers could shift back to the AL Central, KC or Minnesota could move to the AL West, and Pittsburgh could move to the NL East. The only downside is losing the Athletics name from a tradition standpoint, but maybe Tampa Bay could adopt it?

Bucky F. Dent
02-19-2009, 06:59 AM
I'd like a team in Indianapolis, of course that probably won't happen for another 30 years or so I would imagine. :whiner:


You been reading the newspapers, Scottie.

We can't afford the teams that we've got.

Red Barchetta
02-19-2009, 07:50 AM
The only downside is losing the Athletics name from a tradition standpoint, but maybe Tampa Bay could adopt it?[/quote]

Good idea! "A's" rhymes with "Rays". :D:

I like the sound of the "Tampa Bay A's"...

I think Florida can support MLB, however the ballpark has to be in a good location and state of the art. The current two options include an outdoor humidor (Marlins) or a sterile air-conditioned concrete can (Rays). They need to meet in the middle and design a retractable roof ballpark similar to Arizona, Houston, Milwaukee or Seattle.

mrfourni
02-19-2009, 09:08 AM
For both the A's & Marlins MLB is ignoring the option that makes the most sense: contraction. Building big new stadiums is going to be tough in this economy, especially when there are no obvious new markets begging for a team. I was disappointed when this fell through a couple years ago with the Expos (yet another reason to hate the Twins), but greed apparently took over when the owners realized what they could get for a franchise that really should have been shut down.

Shutting down the A's & Marlins would allow MLB to realign with better rivalries. The Brewers could shift back to the AL Central, KC or Minnesota could move to the AL West, and Pittsburgh could move to the NL East. The only downside is losing the Athletics name from a tradition standpoint, but maybe Tampa Bay could adopt it?

I wouldn't be so quick to blame only MLB for the contraction disaster of the late 90's early 2000's. If I remember correctly the MLBPA had a lot to say about contracting the Marlins and Twins.

Hitmen77
02-19-2009, 09:29 AM
It would be neat to see baseball return to Montreal, but they have to find a way to get a new stadium up there.

It would be really awesome if they could put a third team in the New York Metro area.

Even though it would be cool to see a team in Indy, like previous posters have said, it's too small, and it is too close to Cincinnati and Chicago.

I agree that the New York area (Northern New Jersey) would be one of the best candidates for a new team. Wouldn't they have to get the Yankees and Mets okay to do this? I don't see that happening.

Chicken Dinner
02-19-2009, 09:38 AM
Maybe they'll get some stimulus. :D:

Marqhead
02-19-2009, 09:53 AM
I agree that the New York area (Northern New Jersey) would be one of the best candidates for a new team. Wouldn't they have to get the Yankees and Mets okay to do this? I don't see that happening.

I don't think they needed Baltimore's approval for the Nats, so I doubt it. I could be wrong though.

guillensdisciple
02-19-2009, 09:57 AM
Interesting. You'd have to wonder how the AL is going to re-align if the A's go to Montreal. You can't have three teams in the West, so my guess would be something like:

West
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Seattle
Texas

Central
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota
Toronto

East
Baltimore
Boston
Montreal
New York
Tampa Bay


BAHAHAHAHAHA

That would make the A.L. West even more of a sham than it already is. Kansas City, Texas, and Seattle. That would be the greatest cluster**** of bad teams I have ever seen.

Scottiehaswheels
02-19-2009, 10:12 AM
I would think the A's moving to any part of the country outside of the west would force a redistribution of teams including perhaps even 15 to each league?

Scottiehaswheels
02-19-2009, 10:13 AM
You been reading the newspapers, Scottie.

We can't afford the teams that we've got.Eh hell... What's one more? At least I'd enjoy this new one. :smile:

eriqjaffe
02-19-2009, 10:23 AM
I would think the A's moving to any part of the country outside of the west would force a redistribution of teams including perhaps even 15 to each league?The problem with having 15 teams in each league is that it would mean that one team from each league would either be sitting idle for 3-4 days in a row, which would make the season take even longer. Although, those idle teams could also be involved in a rotating (and season-long) interleague schedule.

Marqhead
02-19-2009, 10:31 AM
Contraction. 28 teams, two 14 team conferences, four 7 team divisions. wont happen, but I can dream can't I?

Scottiehaswheels
02-19-2009, 10:34 AM
The problem with having 15 teams in each league is that it would mean that one team from each league would either be sitting idle for 3-4 days in a row, which would make the season take even longer. Although, those idle teams could also be involved in a rotating (and season-long) interleague schedule.That year long interleague idea is along the lines of what I think would occur. It would also enable a more balanced schedule of games during interleague I would think. As long as we could get rid of this whole "rivalry" thing.

DSpivack
02-19-2009, 10:51 AM
I don't see the MLBPA ever allowing contraction to occur. It's a drastic measure than doesn't seem needed [yet?].

white sox bill
02-19-2009, 10:55 AM
Bay area newspaper says A's are playing games with Freemont:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/ci_11734820

peelwonder
02-19-2009, 10:57 AM
Move to Vegas!

I'd figure out how to make some more Sox road games!!!!

Red Barchetta
02-19-2009, 12:23 PM
The problem with having 15 teams in each league is that it would mean that one team from each league would either be sitting idle for 3-4 days in a row, which would make the season take even longer. Although, those idle teams could also be involved in a rotating (and season-long) interleague schedule.

I like the idea of intermixing the interleague schedule throughout the season and keep them regionally focused. If MLB wants to maintain the divisional playoff format, I really think they should have balanced divisions.

chaotic8512
02-19-2009, 12:43 PM
A few options for where I could see there being a decent market for an MLB team:

Vancouver, BC
Portland, OR
Nashville, TN
Charleston, SC or Charlotte, NC
Vegas (though I think this would be a dangerous move on the part of MLB)
Jacksonville or Gainesville, FL

I know that Florida has shown itself to be a suspect (at best) baseball market, but the demographics and traffic up north would be much more favorable for a baseball team trying to get fans to the park.

I'd say Indianapolis is a little too close to Cincinnati and Chicago to be a legitimate market.

I'd agree with Vancouver and Nashville, maybe even Charleston (first pro sports team in SC?) or Jacksonville. However, I think I would die if Gainesville got an MLB team. There would be no way they could sustain a team, anyway.

What about Buffalo or San Antonio?

Britt Burns
02-19-2009, 12:55 PM
The Austin A's!

We are the largest city without a pro sports team, Round Rock always draws extermely well, the city is still booming and with 1.5 million people in our metro area and another 1.5 million in San antonio just a quick drive away we could totally support a team.

I know, it will never happen, but a guy can dream...

thepaulbowski
02-19-2009, 01:07 PM
Agreed. I think fans would support a team here, as there is a significant of White Sox/Cubs/Reds fans around.

Victory Field isn't really a good fit for MLB games, but it's a great place to watch baseball.

I don't think Indy could take another pro sports team. Until recently (Peyton Manning) they didn't support the Colts. Indy is college town, not a pro sports town.

AZChiSoxFan
02-19-2009, 01:55 PM
I don't think they needed Baltimore's approval for the Nats, so I doubt it. I could be wrong though.

Each team has territorial rights. San Jose "belongs" to the Giants and that's why the A's can't move there.

I believe you are incorrect. I'm pretty sure that Bud had to pay Angelos a sizeable chunk of cash to get him to agree to allow the Expos to move to the District.

Scottiehaswheels
02-19-2009, 02:02 PM
I don't think Indy could take another pro sports team. Until recently (Peyton Manning) they didn't support the Colts. Indy is college town, not a pro sports town.I believe Indy would be a great MLB town, if they would just do away with the f'ing blackout rules.... As it is, I have to pay an additional $400 or so a year to watch the Sox games down here.... And I never see the WCIU games... Going on 2 sad years now for me... :whiner:

Marqhead
02-19-2009, 02:17 PM
Each team has territorial rights. San Jose "belongs" to the Giants and that's why the A's can't move there.

I believe you are incorrect. I'm pretty sure that Bud had to pay Angelos a sizeable chunk of cash to get him to agree to allow the Expos to move to the District.

Now that you mention it, that makes sense. If this is the case, then I'm sure that Jersey/New York is a possible destination, but don't you think that a 3rd New York team would get swallowed by the Yankees and to a lesser extent the Mets? I'm pretty sure such a move would piss off the Steinbrenners.

I think my head would explode if there was a third team in the NY area.

DSpivack
02-19-2009, 02:19 PM
Each team has territorial rights. San Jose "belongs" to the Giants and that's why the A's can't move there.

I believe you are incorrect. I'm pretty sure that Bud had to pay Angelos a sizeable chunk of cash to get him to agree to allow the Expos to move to the District.

Yup, the Nats also got buried on a secondary MASN channel. Their tv ratings are miniscule.

DSpivack
02-19-2009, 02:21 PM
Now that you mention it, that makes sense. If this is the case, then I'm sure that Jersey/New York is a possible destination, but don't you think that a 3rd New York team would get swallowed by the Yankees and to a lesser extent the Mets? I'm pretty sure such a move would piss off the Steinbrenners.

I think my head would explode if there was a third team in the NY area.

Getting the Mets and Yankees to agree to would be difficult, but I'm sure $omething could be worked out. The NY area has 18 million people, I think they could easily fit a 3rd team in there and have it viable; either in New Jersey or Connecticut.

Lip Man 1
02-19-2009, 03:05 PM
Yes MLB paid off the O's to allow the Expos franchise to move there.

Yes a 3rd team in NYC is viable AND would solve all the griping about the Yankees and Mets spending so much.

Immediately the value of those two franchises would be reduced along with the value of their TV and radio deals. At least some advertisers would also leave to get involved with the 3rd team. They simply wouldn't have as much money to spend.

Lip

doublem23
02-19-2009, 03:12 PM
The Austin A's!

We are the largest city without a pro sports team, Round Rock always draws extermely well, the city is still booming and with 1.5 million people in our metro area and another 1.5 million in San antonio just a quick drive away we could totally support a team.

I know, it will never happen, but a guy can dream...

Austin's way too small for an MLB team. maybe the city proper is 16th largest in the country, but the metro area is only 40th. Lots of bigger cities that would get a team first.

DSpivack
02-19-2009, 03:14 PM
Austin's way too small for an MLB team. maybe the city proper is 16th largest in the country, but the metro area is only 40th. Lots of bigger cities that would get a team first.

Too small? It's comparable in size to Milwaukee.

Red Barchetta
02-19-2009, 03:20 PM
Yes MLB paid off the O's to allow the Expos franchise to move there.

Yes a 3rd team in NYC is viable AND would solve all the griping about the Yankees and Mets spending so much.

Immediately the value of those two franchises would be reduced along with the value of their TV and radio deals. At least some advertisers would also leave to get involved with the 3rd team. They simply wouldn't have as much money to spend.

Lip

I wonder how long it would take a third team to attract a core fanbase? Imagine the same thing in Chicago or the suburbs? You have the hard core SOX and Cubs fans who would not embrace the new team, so who would? Perhaps people who live near the ballpark and would take advantage of not having to drive into Chicago for pro baseball. However I doubt many city residents would travel to the suburbs to watch pro MLB with the Sox/Cubs so close.

I would be curious as to what geopgraphic New York/New Jersey boundaries would come into play.

AZChiSoxFan
02-19-2009, 04:08 PM
I wonder how long it would take a third team to attract a core fanbase? Imagine the same thing in Chicago or the suburbs? You have the hard core SOX and Cubs fans who would not embrace the new team, so who would? Perhaps people who live near the ballpark and would take advantage of not having to drive into Chicago for pro baseball. However I doubt many city residents would travel to the suburbs to watch pro MLB with the Sox/Cubs so close.

I would be curious as to what geopgraphic New York/New Jersey boundaries would come into play.

Someone who follows the NHL closely (I don't) can comment on this but it seems to me that the Devils have more of a following in the greater NYC area than the Islanders do and the Devils didn't move there all that long ago (relatively speaking).

DSpivack
02-19-2009, 04:11 PM
Someone who follows the NHL closely (I don't) can comment on this but it seems to me that the Devils have more of a following in the greater NYC area than the Islanders do and the Devils didn't move there all that long ago (relatively speaking).

The Devils are also a very successful franchise with multiple Stanley Cup titles in the last 15 years.

The Islanders play in the biggest dump in all of sports.

whitesoxwilkes
02-19-2009, 04:19 PM
I'd agree with Vancouver and Nashville, maybe even Charleston (first pro sports team in SC?) or Jacksonville. However, I think I would die if Gainesville got an MLB team. There would be no way they could sustain a team, anyway.

What about Buffalo or San Antonio?

Buffalo's on the verge of losing the Bills, and is only 90 minutes from Toronto and the Jays. Probably not.

Lip Man 1
02-19-2009, 05:35 PM
Red:

18 million people in the greater NYC area almost guarantees there will be enough fans for a 3rd club especially since you wouldn't expect them to be charging an arm or a leg for seats (at least at the start...)

Lip

Chicken Dinner
02-19-2009, 10:44 PM
I wonder how long it would take a third team to attract a core fanbase? Imagine the same thing in Chicago or the suburbs? You have the hard core SOX and Cubs fans who would not embrace the new team, so who would? Perhaps people who live near the ballpark and would take advantage of not having to drive into Chicago for pro baseball. However I doubt many city residents would travel to the suburbs to watch pro MLB with the Sox/Cubs so close.

I would be curious as to what geographic New York/New Jersey boundaries would come into play.

It's kind of funny that New York has 2 football teams that both play in Jersey. :scratch:

WhiteSoxFan84
02-19-2009, 11:14 PM
How about Louisville, Kentucky? They should be able to support a team.

whitesox901
02-19-2009, 11:19 PM
How about Louisville, Kentucky? They should be able to support a team.

I would think that's too close to Cin City

Fenway
02-19-2009, 11:47 PM
My understanding is that the Yankees can block a team in the Meadowlands but the Mets can not based on the way MLB set up the territory. It is similar to the Giants being able to block San Jose.

However the Yankees could be bought off by having the NJ based team on YES. Dolan might also buy off the Yankees to get baseball back on MSG Network.

It is hard for a new team to enter an existing territory. The Nats have less TV viewers than AAA Pawtucket as they only average 4,000 viewers a game on MASN.

Sacramento looks like the safest bet for the A's as it is only 80 miles up I-80. But they can't even build a new arena for the Kings so how can a ballpark be built?

Montreal will get another chance at some point. It has by far the largest population base in the US or Canada without MLB, and the fans will come back once they know for sure that a team will stay.

The situation in Miami is getting dicey. If they don't start building soon they will have no place to play as the Dolphins don't want them as tenants anymore.

Lurking in all this is Monterey, Mexico. They do have a stadium that can be used immediately which only Montreal has as well.

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 12:01 AM
My understanding is that the Yankees can block a team in the Meadowlands but the Mets can not based on the way MLB set up the territory. It is similar to the Giants being able to block San Jose.

However the Yankees could be bought off by having the NJ based team on YES. Dolan might also buy off the Yankees to get baseball back on MSG Network.

It is hard for a new team to enter an existing territory. The Nats have less TV viewers than AAA Pawtucket as they only average 4,000 viewers a game on MASN.

Sacramento looks like the safest bet for the A's as it is only 80 miles up I-80. But they can't even build a new arena for the Kings so how can a ballpark be built?

Montreal will get another chance at some point. It has by far the largest population base in the US or Canada without MLB, and the fans will come back once they know for sure that a team will stay.

The situation in Miami is getting dicey. If they don't start building soon they will have no place to play as the Dolphins don't want them as tenants anymore.

Lurking in all this is Monterey, Mexico. They do have a stadium that can be used immediately which only Montreal has as well.

That will only be a possibility when it's deemed safe, and economically viable--could a team survive long-term in Mexico?

Fenway
02-20-2009, 12:49 AM
That will only be a possibility when it's deemed safe, and economically viable--could a team survive long-term in Mexico?

Possibly. Certainly it would not be anymore risky than any other options on the table.

I have seen the booklet the Montreal people have put together. There are now media options the Expos never had. A strong Quebec sports channel now exists and they have had good ratings showing the Red Sox in French. Fans in Montreal will not follow Toronto but will watch Boston which is actually closer than Toronto is. 2 clear channel 50KW AM stations (690 French and 940 English) have said they would carry a new team. Loria rebuffed them 10 years ago and went with smaller stations and for awhile only had English radio on the internet.

The French business community would support the team as well but would not deal with Loria. The proposed site for the ballpark would be in the middle of the St Lawrence River where the casino and amusement park are located. It has a Metro station and easy expressway access from all parts of the city.

They stress that another key would make sure the team was in the AL East so they could build geographic rivals with Toronto, Boston and the Yankees. Fans of Boston and New York would flock to Montreal from Vermont and upstate NY. (The Mets have no fanbase there)

They also would want the Expos name and history back

Stade Olympique was the biggest problem and another problem was after part of the stadium collapsed in 1991 people were afraid to go there. The team had to play all of September on the road.

My gut says if done right Montreal would thrive.

PKalltheway
02-20-2009, 07:34 AM
How about Louisville, Kentucky? They should be able to support a team.
That's funny, because I swear I remember reading somewhere that Charlie Finley tried to move the A's to Louisville from Kansas City, but Commissioner Bowie Kuhn nixed the move. I'm too lazy to look up the details. Maybe someone here can corroborate this story?

Thome25
02-20-2009, 07:44 AM
The A's could move to Louisville and rename themselves the "Sluggers".

Fenway
02-20-2009, 08:25 AM
That's funny, because I swear I remember reading somewhere that Charlie Finley tried to move the A's to Louisville from Kansas City, but Commissioner Bowie Kuhn nixed the move. I'm too lazy to look up the details. Maybe someone here can corroborate this story?

Actually earlier than that. Finley signed a lease in 1964 with Louisville but the AL owners voted 9-1 against. Then he started sniffing at Oakland.

Finley said he knew Oakland was a horrible mistake after the second home game in 1968 when nobody showed up.

Finley's dream was for the White Sox to move and he would grab Chicago.

white sox bill
02-20-2009, 08:43 AM
Actually earlier than that. Finley signed a lease in 1964 with Louisville but the AL owners voted 9-1 against. Then he started sniffing at Oakland.

Finley said he knew Oakland was a horrible mistake after the second home game in 1968 when nobody showed up.

Finley's dream was for the White Sox to move and he would grab Chicago.

Fenway did Charlie O write a biography? I'm thinking he did

TommyJohn
02-20-2009, 09:03 AM
Finley's dream was for the White Sox to move and he would grab Chicago.

That was the plan in 1975. The White Sox were going to be sold to Walter Mitty (Danny Kaye) who would ship them to Seattle. Finley was then going to shift the A's to Chicago and rename them the White Sox, so that the south side team would still have the name. Bill Veeck's purchase put the kibbosh on all of that planning.

khan
02-20-2009, 09:43 AM
Yes a 3rd team in NYC is viable AND would solve all the griping about the Yankees and Mets spending so much.

Immediately the value of those two franchises would be reduced along with the value of their TV and radio deals. At least some advertisers would also leave to get involved with the 3rd team. They simply wouldn't have as much money to spend.

Lip

These all sound like GOOD things to me. As in, they'd be good for MLB.

Heck, between our SOX, the scrubs, and milwaukee, there are 3 teams in the vicinity with a far smaller market than metro NYC.

Move the A's to Hartford or Atlantic City!

jabrch
02-20-2009, 09:56 AM
That will only be a possibility when it's deemed safe, and economically viable--could a team survive long-term in Mexico?

Monterrey is safe. Economically viable - that's a different story.

downstairs
02-20-2009, 10:27 AM
Montreal is by far the best choice. Everyone thinks they tanked because the city isn't interested in baseball. However they forget how popular the team was when it was winning.

Problem was the ownership never let the team win. They wanted to be a farm system for all other teams, and sell off assets as they became expensive.

All of this being said- that's sort of what the A's do now!

Fenway
02-20-2009, 10:48 AM
Fenway did Charlie O write a biography? I'm thinking he did

I don't think he did but there are several books about him and the A's.

Finley was a lot like Veeck and certainly knew baseball and loved the game. However he had a temper and stubborn streak. He was angry when the fans of KC embraced the new AFL football team and not the A's and how ironic that the same thing happened in Oakland.

You think the White Sox had radio problems in the 70's? The A's at one point had a flagship station on FM with only TEN watts of power and was non commercial to boot.

It remains a mystery why the A's could not draw fans in the dynasty years. At the time the ballpark was much nicer than Candlestick and they didn't suffer from bone chilling cold nights on the east side of the Bay. However San Francisco people would not go to Oakland for any reason and BART had not opened as of yet.

Today whatever charm the Mausoleum had was destroyed by the building of Mt Davis in CF. It is a horrible ballpark now and the concourse is dark and dank.

Luke
02-20-2009, 11:06 AM
The problem with relocating the A's is that there's really not an ideal city left. Just about ever possible city has a pretty major knock against it be it population, indifference towards baseball, territorial rights, no interest in building a stadium or having previously lost a franchise.

Montreal has shown that they will support a team, and has a big metro area, but the fate of the Expos will make people think twice. Although from what Fenway said, they seem to have a pretty legit plan.

Sacramento might work, but again, no MLB ready stadium and they seem to have no interest in building a new arena for the Kings.

Portland and Charlotte are probably the next two cities that have shown the most interest (albeit mixed) in landing a team.. Even in those cities there's pretty heavy resistance to spending a fraction of what a MLB stadium would cost to build baseball only facilities for their AA teams.

San Antonio has shown mild interest from time to time, but don't seem to be interested right now.

Most of the other cities mentioned are just not viable Major League cities. Obviously a team's success is not tied entirely to the population it has access to, but it's certainly a factor. Kansas City and Milwaukee have 1.9 and 1.5 million people in their metro areas respectively. That's really pushing it, even in the cities that have traditionally been called "baseball towns."

MLB should probably just payoff the Giants. Let the A's go to San Jose, they seem to want a team, and the A's want to go there.

Nellie_Fox
02-20-2009, 11:23 AM
The A's could move to Louisville and rename themselves the "Sluggers".I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Hillerich & Bradsby would certainly defend their trademark and not allow it. Besides, the A's have remained the A's from Philly to KC to Oakland; why should they change their name if they move again? There's nothing about "A's" or "Athletics" that is tied to a city or region.

Luke
02-20-2009, 11:28 AM
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Hillerich & Bradsby would certainly defend their trademark and not allow it. Besides, the A's have remained the A's from Philly to KC to Oakland; why should they change their name if they move again? There's nothing about "A's" or "Athletics" that is tied to a city or region.

There's already a AAA team there called the Bats and they play at Louisville Slugger Field. I would also go out on a limb and say that MLB might have issues with corporate sponsorship in a team name.

Malgar 12
02-20-2009, 11:40 AM
It's nice to hear the owner of the Montreal Canadiens would like to bring baseball back to Quebec. Too bad he doesn't realize that MLB has already failed in that market.

I would like to see the A's stay on the west coast - perhaps Sacramento. Portland is an interesting option...

So why did D.C. get three chances? Baseball can and has worked in Montreal.

Nellie_Fox
02-20-2009, 11:46 AM
There's already a AAA team there called the Bats and they play at Louisville Slugger Field.I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here (I'm really having trouble reading between the lines lately.) Hillerich & Bradsby don't hold a trademark on the word "bats," and I'm sure they paid for naming rights to the field as advertising. Another corporate entity using the name as their own, and profiting from it, is another ball of wax altogether. I don't think H & B would take kindly to someone selling items with the name "Louisville Sluggers" on them with H & B not making a penny on it.

KenBerryGrab
02-20-2009, 12:22 PM
The A's fans I know (and that would be five) are all in favor of San Jose.

areilly
02-20-2009, 12:23 PM
San Antonio has shown mild interest from time to time, but don't seem to be interested right now.

I often wonder why Austin never comes up as a possible destination. In either case, you could certainly give the Rangers a better rival than . . . whoever the Rangers dislike.

Luke
02-20-2009, 01:32 PM
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here (I'm really having trouble reading between the lines lately.) Hillerich & Bradsby don't hold a trademark on the word "bats," and I'm sure they paid for naming rights to the field as advertising. Another corporate entity using the name as their own, and profiting from it, is another ball of wax altogether. I don't think H & B would take kindly to someone selling items with the name "Louisville Sluggers" on them with H & B not making a penny on it.

I'm agreeing.

I was just trying to say that H&B already has an interest in Louisville, and it's at the AAA level. I can't imagine anyone risking the TM infringement and naming a team Louisville Sluggers. Going one step further I can't imagine MLB being OK with that team name in the first place. It's a moot point. Louisvill hasn't been a Major League town since 1899, and that probably won't change anytime soon.

I often wonder why Austin never comes up as a possible destination. In either case, you could certainly give the Rangers a better rival than . . . whoever the Rangers dislike.

I can think of a couple reasons. College Football will be king there for the foreseeable future. They have relatively small metro area; about 1.6 million. We've seen from Milwaukee and KC that a metro area of that size can support a baseball team, but given that no other major sports franchise has tried to break in there, I don't see baseball wanting to be that guinea pig.

areilly
02-20-2009, 02:22 PM
I can think of a couple reasons. College Football will be king there for the foreseeable future. They have relatively small metro area; about 1.6 million. We've seen from Milwaukee and KC that a metro area of that size can support a baseball team, but given that no other major sports franchise has tried to break in there, I don't see baseball wanting to be that guinea pig.

Good point about the college football, although one could argue the maniacal following of UT at least shows there's a local interest in sports, and with MLB and the NCAA having different seasons they wouldn't necessarily be competing - but in light of MLB's track record of resistance to pioneering, you're right, San Antonio would be the more likely home to a third Texas team.

Thinking about it more, has an MLB franchise *ever* been the first pro sports team in a city or market? Cincy, maybe?

guillen4life13
02-20-2009, 02:35 PM
I often wonder why Austin never comes up as a possible destination. In either case, you could certainly give the Rangers a better rival than . . . whoever the Rangers dislike.

I actually considered San Antonio/Austin in my previous post, but I then thought about the interest levels they may attract.

Football is king in Texas. It always has been, and baseball isn't a huge draw down there in Arlington. Houston is in the top half in league attendance but they've been reasonably successful over the past 15 years or so. Any expansion team is likely to start out doing pretty badly for the first five years at least. The exceptions to that were the Marlins (look at them now) and D'Backs, who had no competition and are in a bigger market than San Antonio/Austin. Both teams had very rich owners who put the money down in the beginning to bring a championship.

Gainesville was probably not a good choice, but I do think Jacksonville would be a viable place.

However, I do think that the Carolinas could use representation in the MLB and if I were the one making decisions, I would place a team in Charleston. Then, of course, you realign the divisions, with KC or Minnesota going to the AL West, and Toronto joining the AL Central.

I think this would be good for everyone involved because:

Toronto may finally have another chance at success in a division more suited to their financial capabilities. Historically, the A's are very competitive, and the AL East would be a lot more competitive, especially with the Rays' recent success.

Then, if the Twins are put into the AL West, they give the same fits to the Angels as they've been giving us for the last several years.

Nellie_Fox
02-20-2009, 02:49 PM
Thinking about it more, has an MLB franchise *ever* been the first pro sports team in a city or market? Cincy, maybe?All of the original teams in both leagues. The NFL, NBA, and NHL didn't exist yet when the National and American leagues were formed.

As for relocation and/or expansion, weren't the Braves the first pro franchise in Atlanta and Milwaukee? The A's in KC? There are probably more.

TDog
02-20-2009, 03:02 PM
The A's fans I know (and that would be five) are all in favor of San Jose.

All the people I know in San Jose are Giants fans.

Daver
02-20-2009, 03:09 PM
The best place to relocate the A's would be New York or New England.

TDog
02-20-2009, 03:12 PM
All of the original teams in both leagues. The NFL, NBA, and NHL didn't exist yet when the National and American leagues were formed.

As for relocation and/or expansion, weren't the Braves the first pro franchise in Atlanta and Milwaukee? The A's in KC? There are probably more.

That is an excellent point. But the first pro (I think the implied meaning here is major league) franchise in Milwaukee was the Milwaukee Brewers of the American League in 1901. They became the St. Louis Browns long before there were professional leagues for football or basketball.

You could add Anaheim to the list, if you don't consider it to be Los Angeles.

WHILEPITCH
02-20-2009, 03:23 PM
i used to root for this team, this will be a shame if they leave the town

Luke
02-20-2009, 03:29 PM
The best place to relocate the A's would be New York or New England.

Territory wise, is there a difference if a team wanted to relocate to New Jersey or Brooklyn. I mean Would a team have to pay the Yankees more to move to Brooklyn vs Jersey?

There are 18 million people in the NY/NJ metro area. They could sure absorb a third team.

Hitmen77
02-20-2009, 04:57 PM
The best place to relocate the A's would be New York or New England.

This sports writer actually suggested (for the Rays) New York, Boston or Philadelphia.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8532512/Tampa-doesn%27t-deserve-the-East-leading-Rays

With the enormous financial and attendance success of the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox, I agree that MLB could successfully add a 3rd team to NY (in New Jersey) or a 2nd team to New England.

Philadelphia has the 5th largest metro area in the US. It may be the largest metro area with only one team. Still, I think the Philadelphia suggestion is a bit absurd. I don't see Philly becoming a 2-team city again. I'd imagine way too much time has passed to have any A's fans left in Philadelphia. Though it would be pretty wild to have MLB pretty much come full circle and have 3 teams in NY, 2 teams in NE, and 2 teams in Philadelphia again.

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 05:07 PM
I actually considered San Antonio/Austin in my previous post, but I then thought about the interest levels they may attract.

Football is king in Texas. It always has been, and baseball isn't a huge draw down there in Arlington. Houston is in the top half in league attendance but they've been reasonably successful over the past 15 years or so. Any expansion team is likely to start out doing pretty badly for the first five years at least. The exceptions to that were the Marlins (look at them now) and D'Backs, who had no competition and are in a bigger market than San Antonio/Austin. Both teams had very rich owners who put the money down in the beginning to bring a championship.

Gainesville was probably not a good choice, but I do think Jacksonville would be a viable place.

However, I do think that the Carolinas could use representation in the MLB and if I were the one making decisions, I would place a team in Charleston. Then, of course, you realign the divisions, with KC or Minnesota going to the AL West, and Toronto joining the AL Central.

I think this would be good for everyone involved because:

Toronto may finally have another chance at success in a division more suited to their financial capabilities. Historically, the A's are very competitive, and the AL East would be a lot more competitive, especially with the Rays' recent success.

Then, if the Twins are put into the AL West, they give the same fits to the Angels as they've been giving us for the last several years.


Charleston? It's way too small to support a pro team. Charlotte I can see, or Nashville, or Orlando.

Or how about a 3rd team in the LA area--Inland Empire somewhere? [the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes have one of the coolest names in the Minors]

Daver
02-20-2009, 05:16 PM
Territory wise, is there a difference if a team wanted to relocate to New Jersey or Brooklyn. I mean Would a team have to pay the Yankees more to move to Brooklyn vs Jersey?

There are 18 million people in the NY/NJ metro area. They could sure absorb a third team.

It could be done without the A's paying a dime, just a decree from Bud Selig approving the move in the best interest of baseball.

Hitmen77
02-20-2009, 05:19 PM
The thing people have to remember when they throw out all these metro area suggestions is that it's much more difficult to support an MLB franchise than franchises from other leagues.

In this era, a team pretty much needs to draw at least 2.5 million per season to be considered to have "attendance problems" or a "lack of fan support". That's an average of more than 30,000 per game for 81 games in a season...including drawing that many on successive worknight/school nights.
Also, teams heavily rely on local TV or cable network revenue.

Louisville, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Charlotte.....I think it would be tough for these medium-sized metro areas to support a team through the long haul of 81 home games.

The reality is that there really aren't that many new markets for MLB to turn to.

sbsox
02-20-2009, 07:29 PM
Charleston? It's way too small to support a pro team. Charlotte I can see, or Nashville, or Orlando.

Or how about a 3rd team in the LA area--Inland Empire somewhere? [the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes have one of the coolest names in the Minors]

Coolest Name in the minors and best logo....... the Lansing Lugnuts

TDog
02-20-2009, 07:51 PM
Coolest Name in the minors and best logo....... the Lansing Lugnuts

And the Quakes' mascot is a dinosaur, which did something that led to a successful lawsuit against the team in the 1990s.

Also in the California League, the Modesto Nuts have Al Almond on their home caps and Wally Walnut on their road caps, or maybe it's the other way around. In the Golden League, the Yuma Scorpions have some cool merchandise. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of our home, or something like that.

BleacherBandit
02-20-2009, 09:39 PM
And the Quakes' mascot is a dinosaur, which did something that led to a successful lawsuit against the team in the 1990s.

Also in the California League, the Modesto Nuts have Al Almond on their home caps and Wally Walnut on their road caps, or maybe it's the other way around. In the Golden League, the Yuma Scorpions have some cool merchandise. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of our home, or something like that.

Funniest
minor-league team name: Mongomery Biscuits. Their mascot is hillarious: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/MontgomeryBiscuitsCap.png

I'd consider buying some merchandise from them even though they are the Rays's A-ball team.

Frater Perdurabo
02-20-2009, 10:07 PM
The thing people have to remember when they throw out all these metro area suggestions is that it's much more difficult to support an MLB franchise than franchises from other leagues.

In this era, a team pretty much needs to draw at least 2.5 million per season to be considered to have "attendance problems" or a "lack of fan support". That's an average of more than 30,000 per game for 81 games in a season...including drawing that many on successive worknight/school nights.
Also, teams heavily rely on local TV or cable network revenue.

Louisville, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Charlotte.....I think it would be tough for these medium-sized metro areas to support a team through the long haul of 81 home games.

The reality is that there really aren't that many new markets for MLB to turn to.

Here's a deeppink idea that the MLB owners and the MLBPA would hate:

Take the 10 weakest MLB teams, and the 10 strongest AAA teams, and make a new 20-team AAAA league.

Then you've got a 10-team AL and 10-team NL. 18 games (9 home, 9 away) against all 9 league opponents = 162 games. AL winner faces NL winner in World Series in mid-October.

After each season, the last place AL team and last place NL team get demoted to AAAA, and the two top-performing AAAA teams get promoted to the majors.

Now, even the bottom feeders in MLB have something to fight for (or to avoid), and the 20 AAAA teams have the incentive to play as hard as possible to get into the majors.

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 10:17 PM
Here's a deeppink idea that the MLB owners and the MLBPA would hate:

Take the 10 weakest MLB teams, and the 10 strongest AAA teams, and make a new 20-team AAAA league.

Then you've got a 10-team AL and 10-team NL. 18 games (9 home, 9 away) against all 9 league opponents = 162 games. AL winner faces NL winner in World Series in mid-October.

After each season, the last place AL team and last place NL team get demoted to AAAA, and the two top-performing AAAA teams get promoted to the majors.

Now, even the bottom feeders in MLB have something to fight for (or to avoid), and the 20 AAAA teams have the incentive to play as hard as possible to get into the majors.

You would have to detach those 10 AAA teams from affiliating with majors.

It's an interesting idea, but not very realistic.

Fenway
02-20-2009, 10:22 PM
City of Fremont got the official paperwork from the A's today
RIP Cisco Field

http://newballpark.blogspot.com

SFGate.com is saying the A's now will try to throw San Jose on Selig's lap.

Frater Perdurabo
02-20-2009, 10:25 PM
You would have to detach those 10 AAA teams from affiliating with majors.

It's an interesting idea, but not very realistic.

Yes, AAA affiliations would be scrambled (20 AAA teams would remain, to be affiliated with the 20 remaining MLB teams). And no, it's not at all realistic.

But it does allow cities like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Oakland to have a shot at successful seasons, competing with other mid-sized cities like Portland, Charlotte and Las Vegas, while the really big markets slug it out among themselves.

Viva Medias B's
02-20-2009, 10:26 PM
How about Green Bay?

Seriously, I like the idea of Memphis/Nashville or Charlotte. Granted, Tennessee is part of Cardinal Nation while the Brave fans populate the Carolinas. But I think both can be viable options for the Athletics.

DSpivack
02-20-2009, 10:29 PM
How about Green Bay?

Seriously, I like the idea of Memphis/Nashville or Charlotte. Granted, Tennessee is part of Cardinal Nation while the Brave fans populate the Carolinas. But I think both can be viable options for the Athletics.

Memphis I think too small, but Nashville and Charlotte could work.

TDog
02-20-2009, 11:18 PM
City of Fremont got the official paperwork from the A's today
RIP Cisco Field

http://newballpark.blogspot.com (http://newballpark.blogspot.com/)

SFGate.com is saying the A's now will try to throw San Jose on Selig's lap.

The weather usually is better for baseball in San Jose in any case. I never liked the idea of Fremont and I know A's fans never warmed to the idea if Fremont. I wouldn't be surprised if the A's stayed in Oakland for awhile.

Fenway
02-21-2009, 12:08 AM
Meanwhile the A's have changed cable stations.

Instead of being second rate cousins on Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area they have moved to Comcast Sportsnet California which is based in Sacramento. The move will allow more games to be televised.

Obviously there is more money in San Jose than Sacramento but will the existing fanbase follow? Fremont was a hike from Oakland ( but at least on BART )

Supposedly BART plans to go to San Jose at some point next decade so maybe. What A's fans exist in SF could take Caltrain I suppose but nobody will want to deal with driving on the 101.

I really don't understand how MLB gave the Giants Santa Clara County along with San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin.

Meanwhile Loria must be watching all this carefully. He really is looking at the clock running out of time in Miami. For obvious reasons Montreal isn't an option for the Marlins as Jeff is as loved in Quebec as Art Modell is in Cleveland. New Jersey HAS to be his Plan B as a NL team between the Mets and Philly would be intense.

Tampa? This season will be a barometer for them. If they don't get a sizable bump in attendance now they never will.

A couple of years ago Charlotte may have been a viable option but now with Wacovia gone and Bank of America hurting no way.

New Orleans has the Superdome but now post-Katrina it is just too small.

A NL team in the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield corridor could work. Providence-Pawtucket is just too close to Boston

San Antonio and or Austin???? doubtful

Indy and Louisville are too close to Cincinnati.

Portland? maybe but not much of a TV market outside of Oregon

I wish Doug Pappas was still alive to crunch the numbers as he had a tremendous feel for the business of baseball. Montreal and Quebec have the most eyeballs and TV sets.

Baseball is the toughest nut with 81 openings and now you almost need to average 30,000 a game. Milwaukee drawing 3 million with their market limitations is the exception.

chisoxfanatic
02-21-2009, 12:20 AM
I would like to visit every MLB city for a game at least once in my life. If the A's move to Vegas, then I couldn't do that, as I refuse to ever set foot in that place. For that reason, Portland or Montreal sound fine to me!

BleacherBandit
02-21-2009, 12:46 AM
I would like to visit every MLB city for a game at least once in my life. If the A's move to Vegas, then I couldn't do that, as I refuse to ever set foot in that place. For that reason, Portland or Montreal sound fine to me!


I saw Casino last weekend, and I vow never to either. :cool:

Atlantic City is probably cleaner.

chisox123
02-21-2009, 01:01 AM
I don't understand why MLB wouldn't consider Puerto Rico. When the Expo's were there the fans loved it. I think that it would work out fine, Puerto Ricans love baseball and really want a team to call their own.

Viva Medias B's
02-21-2009, 01:03 AM
Meanwhile Loria must be watching all this carefully. He really is looking at the clock running out of time in Miami. For obvious reasons Montreal isn't an option for the Marlins as Jeff is as loved in Quebec as Art Modell is in Cleveland. New Jersey HAS to be his Plan B.

That vote (http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/breaking-news/story/913462.html) as to whether or not approve the proposed Marlins stadium on the site of the Orange Bowl takes place March 9. I have a feeling it will pass and, hence, baseball in South Florida will continue to live on. I think the Miami Marlins will draw better in Little Havana, at the site of the demolished Orange Bowl Stadium, than they would at Dolphin Stadium.

Fenway
02-21-2009, 01:06 AM
I saw Casino last weekend, and I vow never to either. :cool:

Atlantic City is probably cleaner.

I have heard Atlantic City called many things... clean is not on the list

That is why the 2 big casinos in Connecticut are drawing so well from NYC

whitesox901
02-21-2009, 01:11 AM
I hope they move back to Montreal or Quebec City, from what I've read, it seems to be the best place to go. Plus someone on here realigned the division that I think would be nice:

AL EAST: Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Montreal Expos, New York Yankees, Tampa Bay Rays
AL CENTRAL: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, Toronto Blue Jays
AL WEST: Kansas City Royals, Los Angeles Angels, Seattle Mariners, Texas Rangers

Nellie_Fox
02-21-2009, 01:12 AM
Here's a deeppink idea that the MLB owners and the MLBPA would hate:

Take the 10 weakest MLB teams, and the 10 strongest AAA teams, and make a new 20-team AAAA league.

Then you've got a 10-team AL and 10-team NL. 18 games (9 home, 9 away) against all 9 league opponents = 162 games. AL winner faces NL winner in World Series in mid-October.

After each season, the last place AL team and last place NL team get demoted to AAAA, and the two top-performing AAAA teams get promoted to the majors.

Now, even the bottom feeders in MLB have something to fight for (or to avoid), and the 20 AAAA teams have the incentive to play as hard as possible to get into the majors.The problem with a "relegation" system for MLB is convincing someone to build a 40,000 seat ballpark for a minor-league club just in case they get promoted to major-league status. There's no way you'd draw enough people to a "AAAA" team to support an MLB size ballpark.

Fenway
02-21-2009, 01:34 AM
Better off keeping Montreal and Toronto together and moving Tampa to the Central. Travel for Tampa would be the same as they are are 1000 miles from nearest rival anyways (Balto)

Remember Cleveland is due north of Tampa Bay.

BTW what is happening with the 49ers move to Santa Clara?




I hope they move back to Montreal or Quebec City, from what I've read, it seems to be the best place to go. Plus someone on here realigned the division that I think would be nice:

AL EAST: Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Montreal Expos, New York Yankees, Tampa Bay Rays
AL CENTRAL: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, Toronto Blue Jays
AL WEST: Kansas City Royals, Los Angeles Angels, Seattle Mariners, Texas Rangers

whitesox901
02-21-2009, 01:42 AM
Better off keeping Montreal and Toronto together

I think you're right on that one, they could be division rivals which I think would help build a fan base of the old Expos fan's who didn't like the Jays. Also, why not put a team in Western Canada ala Vancouver or Calgary, if they can hold an NHL team couldn't they hold an MLB team?

DSpivack
02-21-2009, 02:04 AM
I think you're right on that one, they could be division rivals which I think would help build a fan base of the old Expos fan's who didn't like the Jays. Also, why not put a team in Western Canada ala Vancouver or Calgary, if they can hold an NHL team couldn't they hold an MLB team?

Canada is obsessed with hockey, and mostly indifferent to baseball. No way Calgary could ever support an MLB team. Vancouver, maybe, but they couldn't support an NBA team.

Hitmen77
02-21-2009, 10:54 AM
I think you're right on that one, they could be division rivals which I think would help build a fan base of the old Expos fan's who didn't like the Jays. Also, why not put a team in Western Canada ala Vancouver or Calgary, if they can hold an NHL team couldn't they hold an MLB team?

It's already been stated a few times in this thread that you can't compare supporting an MLB team to supporting an NHL or NBA team. An NHL or NBA team only has about 40 home games and only needs about 20,000 fans/game to sell out. That's 800,000 fans per season. You'd need to triple that amount to have enough fan support for an MLB team today.

Luke
02-22-2009, 11:34 AM
BTW what is happening with the 49ers move to Santa Clara?

The last I heard is that they are looking at building a building a stadium in Santa Clara and it would be shared with the Raiders.

Canada is obsessed with hockey, and mostly indifferent to baseball. No way Calgary could ever support an MLB team. Vancouver, maybe, but they couldn't support an NBA team.

A couple of people I play hockey with (shockingly they're Canadian) said that most of the kids in Canada play baseball as well as hockey, but it's a distant second.

I second that. Calgary, Edmonton Winnipeg; they could never support MLB. Winnipeg didn't have enough support to get a new stadium built for the Jets, and they're hockey obsessed.

TDog
02-22-2009, 12:35 PM
...
A couple of people I play hockey with (shockingly they're Canadian) said that most of the kids in Canada play baseball as well as hockey, but it's a distant second. ...

I have had the pleasure of driving across western Canada. I saw a lot of baseball fields. Obviously, there is a shorter window for playing baseball, and it's exclusively an outdoor game. Hockey is played on indoor ice rinks. But if you drive across Saskatchewan or Manitoba, you see a lot more youth baseball fields than you would on a drive across Minnesota or North Dakota.

As for people suggesting where the A's should go, I don't think the A's are going anywhere at least for awhile.

kaufsox
02-23-2009, 01:00 PM
Here's a deeppink idea that the MLB owners and the MLBPA would hate:

Take the 10 weakest MLB teams, and the 10 strongest AAA teams, and make a new 20-team AAAA league.

Then you've got a 10-team AL and 10-team NL. 18 games (9 home, 9 away) against all 9 league opponents = 162 games. AL winner faces NL winner in World Series in mid-October.

After each season, the last place AL team and last place NL team get demoted to AAAA, and the two top-performing AAAA teams get promoted to the majors.

Now, even the bottom feeders in MLB have something to fight for (or to avoid), and the 20 AAAA teams have the incentive to play as hard as possible to get into the majors.

you've been watching too much soccer.:D:

kaufsox
02-23-2009, 01:01 PM
I would like to visit every MLB city for a game at least once in my life. If the A's move to Vegas, then I couldn't do that, as I refuse to ever set foot in that place. For that reason, Portland or Montreal sound fine to me!

may I ask why?

kaufsox
02-23-2009, 01:10 PM
I would love to see a move to Vancouver, but if some consider Portland too close to Seatle, wouldn't Vancouver fall in that discussion as well? Columbus OH is the largest city in the state, and I think it is the largest metro area now as well, but no way Cincy and Cleveland would agree to that. Maybe something regional in the Carolinas would work.

EnglishChiSox
02-23-2009, 02:37 PM
I would love to see a move to Vancouver, but if some consider Portland too close to Seatle, wouldn't Vancouver fall in that discussion as well? Columbus OH is the largest city in the state, and I think it is the largest metro area now as well, but no way Cincy and Cleveland would agree to that. Maybe something regional in the Carolinas would work. I have thought for some the South needs another team, only The Braves between D.C and Tampa Bay.

Daver
02-23-2009, 02:57 PM
I have thought for some the South needs another team, only The Braves between D.C and Tampa Bay.

They don't support the Braves, the southeast for the most part follows college football and NASCAR, in that order.

TDog
02-23-2009, 06:18 PM
may I ask why?

If you have to ask, you aren't going to respect his answer. As someone who has had to spend a lot of time in Las Vegas, I fully understand and empathize with the post.

Fortunately, the point is moot.

C-Dawg
02-23-2009, 07:08 PM
City of Fremont got the official paperwork from the A's today
RIP Cisco Field



I wonder how long before the A's update their website? Its still full-speed-ahead for Cisco Field on the internets!

:rolleyes:

ComiskeyBrewer
02-23-2009, 07:22 PM
They don't support the Braves, the southeast for the most part follows college football and NASCAR, in that order.

I would add HS football as a close third as well.

whitesox901
02-23-2009, 08:00 PM
So whats the most likely cenerio for the A's?

TDog
02-23-2009, 08:32 PM
So whats the most likely cenerio for the A's?

That they remain in Oakland.

whitesox901
02-23-2009, 10:05 PM
That they remain in Oakland.

damn, I want them to Move to Quebec City/Montreal

guillen4life13
02-23-2009, 10:36 PM
I don't understand why MLB wouldn't consider Puerto Rico. When the Expo's were there the fans loved it. I think that it would work out fine, Puerto Ricans love baseball and really want a team to call their own.

1) Would the San Juan A's like to travel to Seattle for a series or vice versa? It's quite a distance, and playing in the same league, it would happen.

2) The median household income as of 2007 according to Wikipedia is $17,741. In an age when ballplayers make the type of money they make, ticket prices will have to compare to continental US prices. This would make attendance a huge issue, especially once the excitement of a new team in PR dies down. The Puerto Rican economy has suffered some major setbacks over the past couple years also.

3) If you're a free agent American ballplayer would you want to sign to play in a country/territory where English isn't so prevalent? As far as I know, it's not even like Montreal where English is still quite present. The PR has its English speakers but Spanish is undoubtedly the major language.

Fan interest would be there, but I don't think fans would have the resources to be able attend games 30,000 strong. I think even 20,000 fans per game would be tough while being a profitable franchise.

Luke
02-24-2009, 09:03 AM
1) Would the San Juan A's like to travel to Seattle for a series or vice versa? It's quite a distance, and playing in the same league, it would happen.

2) The median household income as of 2007 according to Wikipedia is $17,741. In an age when ballplayers make the type of money they make, ticket prices will have to compare to continental US prices. This would make attendance a huge issue, especially once the excitement of a new team in PR dies down. The Puerto Rican economy has suffered some major setbacks over the past couple years also.

3) If you're a free agent American ballplayer would you want to sign to play in a country/territory where English isn't so prevalent? As far as I know, it's not even like Montreal where English is still quite present. The PR has its English speakers but Spanish is undoubtedly the major language.

Fan interest would be there, but I don't think fans would have the resources to be able attend games 30,000 strong. I think even 20,000 fans per game would be tough while being a profitable franchise.

Also, I'd be lying if I said I was familiar with the business community in San Juan, but I have to wonder if it's big enough to sell luxury boxes and bring in corporate sponsorships.

Fenway
02-24-2009, 09:46 AM
Also, I'd be lying if I said I was familiar with the business community in San Juan, but I have to wonder if it's big enough to sell luxury boxes and bring in corporate sponsorships.

MLB has admitted San Juan was a complete failure and playing games away from Montreal just made the Expos fanbase angrier at Selig.

Selig's anger towards Montreal dates back to 1968 when the NL owners picked the Quebec location over Milwaukee for an expansion franchise. But the NL owners were convinced the White Sox were moving to Wisconsin and would make Chicago a NL town. Selig also enraged the Francophone business community when he refused to sell the club back to Montreal interests. The minority owners of the Expos never had a voice about Loria as he was forced upon them.

As I have posted previously Stade Olympique was the problem. The Expos were forced to accept it but it would be like the White Sox being told they had to play in a new park in Rogers Park. The stadium was in the east end of Montreal Island 20 miles away from the Expos hardcore base on the West Island near Dorval Airport.

Baseball owners have historically screwed up franchise moves. In the late 50's the plan was to have one team per city for television reasons. This is why the Giants were willing to move to San Francisco. The Cubs were looking at Minneapolis and the White Sox would have stayed. However Branch Rickey fouled up the plan with the Continental League and his biggest supporter was NY power broker Bill Shea. MLB then decided to expand and every Continental League city got a franchise with the exception of Buffalo.

The A's never should have left Philadelphia as the city was an AL town. The Browns made the right move going to Baltimore, the Braves knew they could not compete with the Red Sox and O'Malley just could not turn down LA as he knew if he didn't Wrigley would.

MLB has a bigger problem in Miami where the new Dolphins owner says he will only extend the Marlins lease IF a new stadium is being built. The Marlins do not have Montreal as a fallback for obvious reasons because of Loria. Tampa will be in play as well in a couple of years when the lease buyout will be cheap enough to escape ( but where? )

Just because a city can support an NFL team doesn't mean it can substain MLB. You could put a NFL team in Sioux Falls and find 70000 people willing to buy a 10 game season ticket.

TommyJohn
02-24-2009, 10:09 AM
MLB has admitted San Juan was a complete failure and playing games away from Montreal just made the Expos fanbase angrier at Selig.

Selig's anger towards Montreal dates back to 1968 when the NL owners picked the Quebec location over Milwaukee for an expansion franchise. But the NL owners were convinced the White Sox were moving to Wisconsin and would make Chicago a NL town. Selig also enraged the Francophone business community when he refused to sell the club back to Montreal interests. The minority owners of the Expos never had a voice about Loria as he was forced upon them.

As I have posted previously Stade Olympique was the problem. The Expos were forced to accept it but it would be like the White Sox being told they had to play in a new park in Rogers Park. The stadium was in the east end of Montreal Island 20 miles away from the Expos hardcore base on the West Island near Dorval Airport.

Baseball owners have historically screwed up franchise moves. In the late 50's the plan was to have one team per city for television reasons. This is why the Giants were willing to move to San Francisco. The Cubs were looking at Minneapolis and the White Sox would have stayed. However Branch Rickey fouled up the plan with the Continental League and his biggest supporter was NY power broker Bill Shea. MLB then decided to expand and every Continental League city got a franchise with the exception of Buffalo.

The A's never should have left Philadelphia as the city was an AL town. The Browns made the right move going to Baltimore, the Braves knew they could not compete with the Red Sox and O'Malley just could not turn down LA as he knew if he didn't Wrigley would.

MLB has a bigger problem in Miami where the new Dolphins owner says he will only extend the Marlins lease IF a new stadium is being built. The Marlins do not have Montreal as a fallback for obvious reasons because of Loria. Tampa will be in play as well in a couple of years when the lease buyout will be cheap enough to escape ( but where? )

Just because a city can support an NFL team doesn't mean it can substain MLB. You could put a NFL team in Sioux Falls and find 70000 people willing to buy a 10 game season ticket.


Mmmmm. I never heard of any plan to move the Cubs to Minneapolis. The plan was that the Giants would move there because that is where their Triple-A club played. Los Angeles is where the Cubs AAA club played, so it wouldn't surprise me if the thought was to move them there. Wrigley letting O'Malley have the territorial rights for a song (along with WGN getting broadcasting rights for a pittance) shows that Wrigley was A) a monumentally dumb businessman or B) cared little or nothing for baseball.

Luke
02-24-2009, 10:27 AM
MLB has a bigger problem in Miami where the new Dolphins owner says he will only extend the Marlins lease IF a new stadium is being built. The Marlins do not have Montreal as a fallback for obvious reasons because of Loria. Tampa will be in play as well in a couple of years when the lease buyout will be cheap enough to escape ( but where? )

Just because a city can support an NFL team doesn't mean it can substain MLB. You could put a NFL team in Sioux Falls and find 70000 people willing to buy a 10 game season ticket.

I agree completely. I really believe that every viable city for MLB already has a team or has had a team. This thread has mentioned a ton of great cities that we all love for one reason or another, but the fact is, most of them just aren't big league cities or markets. Either there aren't enough butts to put in seats, or they won't build a stadium, or the community doesn't support it.

So what happens to the Marlins if they're stadium bill is killed next month? It looks like it's going to cost about $1.8 billion once all the bonds are considered. This to construct a $600 million stadium.

kaufsox
02-24-2009, 12:58 PM
If you have to ask, you aren't going to respect his answer. As someone who has had to spend a lot of time in Las Vegas, I fully understand and empathize with the post.

Fortunately, the point is moot.

I asked because I was genuinely curious. There can be multiple reasons why someone doesn't like somewhere or something. I don't pretend to know them all. Perhaps their reasons for not liking Vegas would make me reevaluate my opinions of the place. Perhaps I would get to know the person better. Perhaps the next time someone brings up a similar reason in conversation, I can appreciate their point even more. At no time would I disrespect a person's decision or personal preference. except maybe someone who refers to themselves as "dog"

jabrch
02-24-2009, 02:05 PM
So whats the most likely cenerio for the A's?


That they continue to find creative designer steroids and stay ahead of the MLB testing.

ode to veeck
02-24-2009, 02:11 PM
A fan really has to love baseball to go to Oakland.

There is nothing good to say about that park except that it is on BART

Actually, it is one of the nicer parks to go to these days, don't know why you say that, unlkess you just don't like going to Oakland

ode to veeck
02-24-2009, 02:17 PM
Milwaukee Brewers
St. Louis Browns
Baltimore Orioles, which aren't going anywhere



Charlie Finley should have never moved the A's to Oakland.

I think it would be a good move to send the A's to Sacramento. The A's may be more popular in the Valley than they are in the Bay Area. The Sacramento River Cats are the team's AAA affiliates. Sacramento doesn't have a major league stadium, but, of course, neither does Oakland.

San Jose would be a better move than Sacramento, but it seems to be Giants country. When the Giants were talking about moving, San Jose wouldn't have surprised me as their ultimate home. Moving a team such as short distance as Sacramento or San Jose would be easier to sell than a move to Oregon, French-speaking Canada or Nevada.

Las Vegas is a baseball disaster that major league owners will never allow to happen.

I never thought the A's would move to Freemont.

bull****, the only reason san jose is giants country is MLB made that designation when they wanted to move the giants close to near great america (close to where 49ers plans are) and they put a bond measure to voters to have taxpayers pay for the park and we intelligently turned it down, prior to that there was no designation for the south bay as giants territory. south bay would make way too much sense as the A's would be able to draw there at lot better than in Oakland (look at the Sharks who have practically sold out their whole history). MLB is stupid in this regard.

DSpivack
02-24-2009, 02:19 PM
Actually, it is one of the nicer parks to go to these days, don't know why you say that, unlkess you just don't like going to Oakland

I've never been, only have driven by, but one of the nicer parks these days? Compared to where?

AZChiSoxFan
02-24-2009, 03:03 PM
I asked because I was genuinely curious. There can be multiple reasons why someone doesn't like somewhere or something. I don't pretend to know them all. Perhaps their reasons for not liking Vegas would make me reevaluate my opinions of the place. Perhaps I would get to know the person better. Perhaps the next time someone brings up a similar reason in conversation, I can appreciate their point even more. At no time would I disrespect a person's decision or personal preference. except maybe someone who refers to themselves as "dog"

Dude, lighten up. What on Earth does his screen name have to do with anything?

AZChiSoxFan
02-24-2009, 03:04 PM
Actually, it is one of the nicer parks to go to these days, don't know why you say that, unlkess you just don't like going to Oakland

:?::o:

ode to veeck
02-24-2009, 03:05 PM
I've never been, only have driven by, but one of the nicer parks these days? Compared to where?

nicer than the urinal or fenway for sure, its easy to get to easy to park for free, foods not bad, but not as good as the cell, seats are relatively close to the field in lower levels, not a bad park at all, the A's will just never draw well there (never did even with the 3-peat, but more to do with everyone in the bay area hating finley because of crap he pulled on fans of california seals hockey team)

ode to veeck
02-24-2009, 03:09 PM
As long as they have been in Oakland, the A's have had die-hard fans who have been with them through thick and thin. I've spoken with people in the Bay Area who have repeatedly made this analogy:

A's to Giants = White Sox to Cubs

I would be said for the die-hard A's fans if they relocated. Having said that, has anyone mentioned New York/Brooklyn/Jersey City as a possible relocation site for the A's or, for that matter, the Marlins if their stadium deal falls through.

there are a lot of die hard A's fans throughout the bay area, but more common in less afluent areas as well which is why they would draw better in fremont or north san jose (many of their fans are actually from san jose these days anyway)

ode to veeck
02-24-2009, 03:16 PM
Now that you mention it, that makes sense. If this is the case, then I'm sure that Jersey/New York is a possible destination, but don't you think that a 3rd New York team would get swallowed by the Yankees and to a lesser extent the Mets? I'm pretty sure such a move would piss off the Steinbrenners.

I think my head would explode if there was a third team in the NY area.

San Jose as Giants territory makes no sense at all and is only a recent abberation of the Giants failed plans to move there some years back

ode to veeck
02-24-2009, 03:17 PM
The best place to relocate the A's would be New York or New England.

It would be dumb to move them out of the Bay Area which is easily large enough and has plenty of long term MLB fans to support two teams, and already has a dedicated fan base for the A's

kaufsox
02-24-2009, 03:38 PM
Dude, lighten up. What on Earth does his screen name have to do with anything?

I'm quite light, thank you, dude. I made the comment about his screen name as a joke. Does everything need to be color coded? Also, TDOG made the assumption that I wouldn't respect someone based on their reasons for a specific preference, I simply wanted to disabuse him of that notion.

Fenway
02-24-2009, 03:49 PM
Actually, it is one of the nicer parks to go to these days, don't know why you say that, unlkess you just don't like going to Oakland


You have been to too many games at Wrigley :scratch:

whitesox901
02-24-2009, 03:52 PM
bring back the Expos!

Luke
02-24-2009, 04:01 PM
A's are now focused on "Northern California."

http://www.ballparkdigest.com/news/index.html?article_id=1048

To me that means Sacramento or San Jose.

DSpivack
02-24-2009, 04:02 PM
A's are now focused on "Northern California."

http://www.ballparkdigest.com/news/index.html?article_id=1048

To me that means Sacramento or San Jose.

Or Eureka!

TDog
02-24-2009, 04:44 PM
Actually, it is one of the nicer parks to go to these days, don't know why you say that, unlkess you just don't like going to Oakland

Oakland's ballpark really isn't so bad, and the BART makes it easy enough to get to. There are plenty of great seats available, and it generally isn't as cold there as it is at the Giants games. It is fairly utilitarian in that there is no scenery, but by the same token there is nothing to distract you from the game. San Jose and Sacramento would be better still weather-wise, but I don't see anyone building the A's a new stadium anytime soon.

ode to veeck
02-24-2009, 05:20 PM
You have been to too many games at Wrigley :scratch:

LOL probably true but what does that have to do with the price of wheat in Egypt

soxinem1
02-24-2009, 05:56 PM
Or Eureka!

Or Twenty-Nine Palms!!!!

DSpivack
02-24-2009, 07:23 PM
Or Twenty-Nine Palms!!!!

He said Northern California. :tongue:

TDog
02-24-2009, 08:46 PM
Or Twenty-Nine Palms!!!!

For future reference, there is no hyphen in Twentynine Palms. I wouldn't be so picky if I weren't a former resident.

soxinem1
02-24-2009, 09:15 PM
For future reference, there is no hyphen in Twentynine Palms. I wouldn't be so picky if I weren't a former resident.

My condolences.:tongue:

AZChiSoxFan
02-24-2009, 10:22 PM
My condolences.:tongue:

I'll second that. Wow, one of those places where you don't really believe people actually live.

DSpivack
02-24-2009, 10:35 PM
I'll second that. Wow, one of those places where you don't really believe people actually live.

The strangest places I have ever been have all been out west. What comes to mind are Bakersfield, CA and Battle Mountain, NV. The Salton Sea seems strange, from what I've read and seen on tv.

TDog
02-24-2009, 11:58 PM
... The Salton Sea seems strange, from what I've read and seen on tv.

Until you have smelled the Salton Sea, you don't know the half of it. Frankly, I can't believe that people actually visit Laughlin, Nevada, on purpose. Of course, such remote communities don't even have teams in the Class A California League. Even if these communities were in Northern California, they wouldn't be relevant to the discussion of where the A's could end up.

Obviously, it was a bad idea to move the Kansas City A's to Oakland four decades ago. It was probably a mistake to move the Philadelphia A's to Kansas City before I was born. But the A's have been in Oakland four 40 years. They have been a Northern California team since I came of age as a baseball fan, and I don't see that changing.

khan
02-25-2009, 12:59 PM
For future reference, there is no hyphen in Twentynine Palms. I wouldn't be so picky if I weren't a former resident.

I hated 29 Palms when I was stationed there.

whitesox901
03-03-2009, 09:10 PM
Another think if the A's were to move to Montreal would be two big pluses

The team would be competitive, because for the most part, the Athletics have been very competitive since 2000 with four division titles (2000, 2002, 2003, 2006) and a Wild Card Birth (2001) also with Billy Beane GM'ing I don't think that would stop any time soon. Then with the Expos being the AL, they would slide in with the AL East, since its in Canada, I would think that Jays fans would come to games against the Expos when the Jays were in town, and with the Yankees and Red Sox having the biggest away-game fan base the Expos owners would still real in a little cash from the 25 or so division games against New York, Toronto and Red Sox Nation.

Fenway
03-03-2009, 09:35 PM
Another think if the A's were to move to Montreal would be two big pluses

The team would be competitive, because for the most part, the Athletics have been very competitive since 2000 with four division titles (2000, 2002, 2003, 2006) and a Wild Card Birth (2001) also with Billy Beane GM'ing I don't think that would stop any time soon. Then with the Expos being the AL, they would slide in with the AL East, since its in Canada, I would think that Jays fans would come to games against the Expos when the Jays were in town, and with the Yankees and Red Sox having the biggest away-game fan base the Expos owners would still real in a little cash from the 25 or so division games against New York, Toronto and Red Sox Nation.

Exactly.

Yankees and Red Sox would sellout The Big Owe with no problem. I remember one Sunday where the customs checkpoint on I-91 in Vermont was backed up for miles with Boston fans.

Portland is always mentioned but remember they have never been considered for the NFL which is an easier sell for season tickets.

Montreal will work as long as the owners don't make the same idiotic mistakes that the Expos made their last 10 years. Most importantly embrace the Francophone business community that Loria told go to hell.

A new ballpark located on provincial land either on the island in the St Lawrence River or the now closed Blue Bonnets race track will do just fine as both are accessible to the fanbase on the West Island that the Big O was not.

Montreal did not fail baseball, MLB failed Montreal.

whitesox901
03-03-2009, 09:55 PM
would they reconsider building Labatt Park?

Fenway
03-03-2009, 10:16 PM
would they reconsider building Labatt Park?

My understanding is they would use the design but it would be at another location.

Loria cancelled the team option on the land without warning in 2001
even though the other owners of the team voted to keep it. That was the final straw as it signaled Loria was looking elsewhere.

Actually to be fair Loria was not really the bad guy, it was his stepson David Samson who wanted out of Quebec. Samson has made no friends in South Florida either.

Samson endeared himself to Montreal when he stated the Expos were tired of being considered second tier status to a stupid hockey team. You can imagine how well that went over up there.

Luke
03-04-2009, 10:36 AM
Here's a decent, quick read on what it would take to get the A's in San Jose.

http://www.ballparkdigest.com/features/index.html?article_id=1054

One of the interesting bits is how Portland and Vegas have been on the sidelines for this.

From the same site, and article that casts doubt on the future of the Marlins' ballpark.

http://www.ballparkdigest.com/news/index.html?article_id=1085

TDog
03-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Here's a decent, quick read on what it would take to get the A's in San Jose.

http://www.ballparkdigest.com/features/index.html?article_id=1054

One of the interesting bits is how Portland and Vegas have been on the sidelines for this. ...

A lot of people at WSI don't like the idea of baseball in Oakland and would like to place them in another state. I certainly can understand that. No one despises the A's more than I do. But the A's are going to stay in Oakland for the near future and won't be leaving NoCal in the foreseeable future.

That should be the end of the story.

I am also happy to see that it looks like MLB dreams for Las Vegas apparently are dead.

TheOldRoman
03-04-2009, 07:30 PM
It could be done without the A's paying a dime, just a decree from Bud Selig approving the move in the best interest of baseball.That isn't true. They had to fight like hell with Peter Angelos to get the Nats into Baltimore's territory. I don't remember the specifics of the deal, but the Orioles pretty much dictated which channels the Nats could be shown on, and a huge percent of the potential fanbase doesn't get games because of it. With all the consessions Baltimore got, I don't see SF giving up San Jose without a big payout.

Daver
03-04-2009, 08:09 PM
That isn't true. They had to fight like hell with Peter Angelos to get the Nats into Baltimore's territory. I don't remember the specifics of the deal, but the Orioles pretty much dictated which channels the Nats could be shown on, and a huge percent of the potential fanbase doesn't get games because of it. With all the consessions Baltimore got, I don't see SF giving up San Jose without a big payout.

Bud Selig never forced it, he spent the money because at the time MLB owned the Nationals, and it was in his best interest to keep Peter Angelos happy, since Angelos owned a share of the team in question.

ode to veeck
03-04-2009, 08:31 PM
A lot of people at WSI don't like the idea of baseball in Oakland and would like to place them in another state. I certainly can understand that. No one despises the A's more than I do. But the A's are going to stay in Oakland for the near future and won't be leaving NoCal in the foreseeable future.

That should be the end of the story.

.


Exactly. and San Jose council members have been asking what it takes to move them there since the Fremont deal went sour, so not a lot of wooing needed as the refernced article implied. More like MLB nees to wake up and end the San Jose is Giants territory BS (fact of the matter is San Jose is closer to Oakland than San Francisco by geography)

PKalltheway
03-04-2009, 11:06 PM
Exactly. and San Jose council members have been asking what it takes to move them there since the Fremont deal went sour, so not a lot of wooing needed as the refernced article implied. More like MLB nees to wake up and end the San Jose is Giants territory BS (fact of the matter is San Jose is closer to Oakland than San Francisco by geography)
Agreed. But with all of this talk of the "Giants territory," what the hell constitutes as "A's territory," and why can't they build a stadium there? My guess is Fremont was the only city outside of Oakland that was "A's territory"...

Nellie_Fox
03-04-2009, 11:51 PM
...won't be leaving NoCal in the foreseeable future.It is my understanding that the Bay Area is not considered Northern California.

TDog
03-05-2009, 12:44 AM
It is my understanding that the Bay Area is not considered Northern California.

California seems to be a state of mind. What separates Northern California from Southern California can vary. I always understood that Southern California went up the coast just south of Santa Barbara where Central California begins. Northern California, I understood, began in Monterey and went up to the Oregon border.

You also have the Southland -- metropolitan Los Angeles. I was born in Oceanside, which is south of the Southland. I wonder if LA (or Pasadena etc.) people coined the term Southland because the Southern California label included garden spots (and former TDog haunts) like Needles, El Centro and the much-maligned-in-this-thread Twentynine Palms. The Bay Area is a similarly separate region, with The City being San Francisco.

There may be an idea that NoCal starts north of the Bay Area, but no one considers The City to be in Central California. I now live in the Central Valley, the Big Valley, if you watched television westerns in the 1960s. Modesto, however, is not in Central California.

Because California was never divided into two or three states (although the Mexican border separates it from Baja California), there is no firm answer to the boundaries, except perhaps in some newspaper style books.

However, the Central Valley running up Highway 99 to the state capital does seem to be predominately A's country, as opposed to Giants land. That point means little to this discussion, though, because I don't see Sacramento, in these days of financial crisis, building a suitable stadium for the A's.

Luke
03-05-2009, 09:39 AM
Agreed. But with all of this talk of the "Giants territory," what the hell constitutes as "A's territory," and why can't they build a stadium there? My guess is Fremont was the only city outside of Oakland that was "A's territory"...

Fremont was the closest city to San Jose that the Giants couldn't block. Basically the Giants have territorial rights over San Jose, the same way the Orioles had rights over D.C. It's not apples to apples though, since the A's are already in the Bay Area. The Giants have said they won't allow the A's in San Jose, my guess would be it's just posturing, and SF just wants to get some money for the A's moving to San Jose.

ode to veeck
03-05-2009, 11:52 AM
Agreed. But with all of this talk of the "Giants territory," what the hell constitutes as "A's territory," and why can't they build a stadium there? My guess is Fremont was the only city outside of Oakland that was "A's territory"...


To avoid the BS of San Jose as Giants territory the A's owner went for Fremont plan 1st. The Fremont location is easily accessible to the south bay (largest population in bay area these days). Now that Fremont is busted due to idiots in that city and the idiots at NUMI Motors, the A's will likely bring the case against the BS of South Bay is Giants territory. In actual fact, there was no designation as such until a bond measure was put before the voters in Santa Clara county to pay for a new Giants stadium (just before PacBell was built, which south bay voters intelligently turned down). PacBell and China basin was the back up plan when the south bay voters told the Giants to build their own stadium, but then the south bay is still stuck with the stupid designation that they are Giants territory, when in fact the two teams have shared the Bay Area for decades-this is no way similar to Nats moving to Baltimore. There are actually at least as many A's fans in working class San Jose as there are yuppie Giants fans (if not more).

PKalltheway
03-05-2009, 09:47 PM
To avoid the BS of San Jose as Giants territory the A's owner went for Fremont plan 1st. The Fremont location is easily accessible to the south bay (largest population in bay area these days). Now that Fremont is busted due to idiots in that city and the idiots at NUMI Motors, the A's will likely bring the case against the BS of South Bay is Giants territory. In actual fact, there was no designation as such until a bond measure was put before the voters in Santa Clara county to pay for a new Giants stadium (just before PacBell was built, which south bay voters intelligently turned down). PacBell and China basin was the back up plan when the south bay voters told the Giants to build their own stadium, but then the south bay is still stuck with the stupid designation that they are Giants territory, when in fact the two teams have shared the Bay Area for decades-this is no way similar to Nats moving to Baltimore. There are actually at least as many A's fans in working class San Jose as there are yuppie Giants fans (if not more).
Ahh, okay, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up (and many thanks to Luke's contribution as well)! :thumbsup: