PDA

View Full Version : Marlins stadium deal dies again


Fenway
05-05-2007, 02:17 PM
TALLAHASSEE --

The Florida Marlins struck out in the Legislature again.

The Senate adjourned Friday without considering a request for a $60 million sales tax rebate to complete the financing for a proposed $490 million ballpark in Miami, despite the House's 86-24 vote for the measure last week.





http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-pfmarlins05may05,0,7314819.story?coll=sfla-sports-headlines

WhiteSox5187
05-05-2007, 03:02 PM
So does this mean the Marlins are likely to move?

ewokpelts
05-05-2007, 09:00 PM
So does this mean the Marlins are likely to move?well, they better have SOMEWHERE to play in 2011, cuz they sure as hell aint playin in joe robbe stadium

IndianWhiteSox
05-05-2007, 09:13 PM
well, they better have SOMEWHERE to play in 2011, cuz they sure as hell aint playin in joe robbe stadium

You know that for a fact?

But that said, I could see them playing in Portland, San Antonio, Hartford or even Indianapolis before the end of the decade.

thomas35forever
05-05-2007, 10:43 PM
Well, I guess Rachel Phelps was wrong. Miami isn't a good place to have a baseball team.

FloridaTigers
05-05-2007, 11:27 PM
The problem is, MLB waited too long to place a team there. By 1993, everyone already had allegiance with another team. So it was up to the younger generations to build a fanbase...but with the firesales after 1997 and 2003-5, it kills off any potential fans. And Joe Robbie/Pro Player/Dolphin/Whatever far away from either metropolitan area.

Palehose Pete
05-06-2007, 12:18 AM
So, if the Marlins aren't in FLA, are they still going to be called the "Marlins?" Cuz there aren't that many states where that name makes sense. You know, the Missouri Marlins really sounds stupid..

Nellie_Fox
05-06-2007, 01:55 AM
So, if the Marlins aren't in FLA, are they still going to be called the "Marlins?" Cuz there aren't that many states where that name makes sense. You know, the Missouri Marlins really sounds stupid..That hasn't prevented the Utah Jazz and the Los Angeles Lakers.

MUsoxfan
05-06-2007, 02:02 AM
You know that for a fact?

But that said, I could see them playing in Portland, San Antonio, Hartford or even Indianapolis before the end of the decade.


I can't see Hartford because I'm sure pretty much everyone has a deep allegiance to the NY/Boston teams.

I can't see Indy because the midwest is pretty saturated with baseball and they already have a ****load of money going into the new football stadium.

Portland's a possibility but I don't know how fanatical about sports they get out there.

San Antonio is probably the only other choice

Jurr
05-06-2007, 02:12 AM
I can't see Hartford because I'm sure pretty much everyone has a deep allegiance to the NY/Boston teams.

I can't see Indy because the midwest is pretty saturated with baseball and they already have a ****load of money going into the new football stadium.

Portland's a possibility but I don't know how fanatical about sports they get out there.

San Antonio is probably the only other choice
New Orleans, perhaps? Nashville?
Nashville is one of the quickest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S. I could see it happening there.

MUsoxfan
05-06-2007, 02:19 AM
New Orleans, perhaps? Nashville?
Nashville is one of the quickest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S. I could see it happening there.


I've been to New Orleans many times and I've never really felt much of a baseball vibe. The Zephyrs games are cool but that city needs much more than MLB at this point.

I can see Nashville. They support football and hockey....why not baseball

TheOldRoman
05-06-2007, 02:38 AM
I can't see Hartford because I'm sure pretty much everyone has a deep allegiance to the NY/Boston teams.

I can't see Indy because the midwest is pretty saturated with baseball and they already have a ****load of money going into the new football stadium.

Portland's a possibility but I don't know how fanatical about sports they get out there.

San Antonio is probably the only other choice
Portland said "We'd love to have you, as long as you build your own stadium." That is not serious interest.
San Antonio is a possibility because they are dangling money for new stadiums in hope of getting a football and or baseball team. I think something will get done eventually in Miami. Baseball can work there - provided a real stadium and ownership that doesn't have a firesale every 8 years or so.

DSpivack
05-06-2007, 02:50 AM
Portland said "We'd love to have you, as long as you build your own stadium." That is not serious interest.
San Antonio is a possibility because they are dangling money for new stadiums in hope of getting a football and or baseball team. I think something will get done eventually in Miami. Baseball can work there - provided a real stadium and ownership that doesn't have a firesale every 8 years or so.

While they had two fire sales (by different owners, no?) in a span of 8 or so years, they also won two world series in that time.

siugrad25
05-06-2007, 09:12 AM
The stadium deal has become a farse down here. It passed through House a couple week's ago, but never came up for vote before session closed on Friday. Then throw in several political feuds and it's just plain ugly. I know the new governor, Charlie Crist, is a big booster, but they can't even agree on a stadium site. There is a chance it could get in over the summer in a special property tax session, but that's just speculation at this point.

As for where to play, Huizenga has told them he wants them out by the end of the 2010 (11) season. Now, that's not to say that he couldn't be enticed with a little more money, but I know he wants them out. He really wants to use the stadium during the summer for concerts, etc. You should see the expansion/renovation they're doing at Dolphins Stadium.

IMO if you don't see a stadium deal in place by next year, I don't think the Marlins' owners are going to waste any time. Personally, I don't think they were 'wowed' over the places they've been at yet.


Legislators said the bill was the victim of political wrangling between the two chambers in the final days of the session and a long-running feud between Sen. Rudy Garcia, R-Hialeah, and Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, who both supported the measure, but couldn't agree on whose name would appear on the bill.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/baseball/marlins/sfl-mar050407,0,784343.story?coll=sfla-sports-marlins

Oblong
05-06-2007, 09:20 AM
So, if the Marlins aren't in FLA, are they still going to be called the "Marlins?" Cuz there aren't that many states where that name makes sense. You know, the Missouri Marlins really sounds stupid..

yep, like the LA Lakers, Utah Jazz, Calgary Flames....

ewokpelts
05-06-2007, 11:34 AM
You know that for a fact?

But that said, I could see them playing in Portland, San Antonio, Hartford or even Indianapolis before the end of the decade.the dolphins are kicking them out after 2010.

ComiskeyBrewer
05-06-2007, 12:06 PM
New Orleans, perhaps? Nashville?
Nashville is one of the quickest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S. I could see it happening there.

The only reason i doubt Nashville, is because i don't see the stadium being built. Right now they won't even pony up the cash to help out on a AAA Stadium, let alone the massive costs of an MLB stadium.

lbtigerfan
05-06-2007, 01:03 PM
New Orleans, perhaps? Nashville?
Nashville is one of the quickest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S. I could see it happening there.

Not N.O. We don't need a baseball team and I don't know anyone that's ever wanted one. High school and college baseball is what's loved around here. Our minor league team, the Zephyrs, doesn't really get that much attention, much less a MLB team.

soxtalker
05-06-2007, 01:22 PM
I can't see Hartford because I'm sure pretty much everyone has a deep allegiance to the NY/Boston teams.

...

Well, allegiance is one thing. Would the NYY, NYM, or Boston be able to block any such move? If not, this might be a way to get a third team into the NY market.

IndianWhiteSox
05-06-2007, 01:26 PM
I can't see Hartford because I'm sure pretty much everyone has a deep allegiance to the NY/Boston teams.

I can't see Indy because the midwest is pretty saturated with baseball and they already have a ****load of money going into the new football stadium.

Portland's a possibility but I don't know how fanatical about sports they get out there.

San Antonio is probably the only other choice

While that might be the case, you also have to remember how crazy they are about baseball in the northeast and you factor in a chance for Boston to also have a interleague rival, that could be the dark horse in all of this.

IndianWhiteSox
05-06-2007, 01:27 PM
Well, allegiance is one thing. Would the NYY, NYM, or Boston be able to block any such move? If not, this might be a way to get a third team into the NY market.

Actually that would get a team into the Boston market, but for a team to move into NJ, then you have a team that would be in the NYC market while having a naturalized inter league rivalry with the Phillies.

downstairs
05-06-2007, 01:47 PM
Not N.O. We don't need a baseball team and I don't know anyone that's ever wanted one. High school and college baseball is what's loved around here. Our minor league team, the Zephyrs, doesn't really get that much attention, much less a MLB team.

Yep. New Orleans is a party town. Football works very well here. Basketball was and is a mistake, regardless of Katrina.

Baseball? No way. No one would ever consider it. You'd get as much of a reception as Montreal had on average.

(BTW, never realized there were more people from NOLA on this board).

IndianWhiteSox
05-06-2007, 01:54 PM
the dolphins are kicking them out after 2010.

Where's the link?

lbtigerfan
05-06-2007, 10:56 PM
Yep. New Orleans is a party town. Football works very well here. Basketball was and is a mistake, regardless of Katrina.

Baseball? No way. No one would ever consider it. You'd get as much of a reception as Montreal had on average.

(BTW, never realized there were more people from NOLA on this board).

Hmm... me neither

MiamiSpartan
05-07-2007, 11:11 AM
don't blame Miami for this. It's the state legislature that keeps blowing it. We finally have a gov who is in favor of it, and now the state senate screws it up...
Put a decent ballpark downtown, and people will show up. Dolphins Stadium is an awful place to watch a game.

ewokpelts
05-07-2007, 11:35 AM
don't blame Miami for this. It's the state legislature that keeps blowing it. We finally have a gov who is in favor of it, and now the state senate screws it up...
Put a decent ballpark downtown, and people will show up. Dolphins Stadium is an awful place to watch a game.i imagine the stench of yet another craptacular dolphins season dosent help

comet2k
05-07-2007, 03:41 PM
If I owned a struggling MLB franchise like the Marlins, I'd start looking at Mexico City (pop. 20 million), where they'e crazy about baseball and Mexicans would adopt a team as a national franchise.

Monterrey (pop. 3-4 million) would be my second choice. Smaller, but closer to the U.S.

The prime cities in the U.S. and Canada are taken, and MLB and NBA are finding out that secondary cities like Portland and Nashville would have a hard time sustaining a franchise.

Ten years from now, the Washington Nationals could be the Ciudad de México Nacionales. :D:

JohnTucker0814
05-07-2007, 05:07 PM
They should just merge the Marlins and White Sox... bring that team here and merge it with our current roster... really just send Hanley, Cabrera and Willis...

havelj
05-07-2007, 06:09 PM
Castro dies.
Marlins move to Havana.

OR

Marlins move to Mexico.

The percentage of Latinos in the game is reaching new heights and isn't stopping.

the gooch
05-07-2007, 06:48 PM
Castro dies.
Marlins move to Havana.

OR

Marlins move to Mexico.

The percentage of Latinos in the game is reaching new heights and isn't stopping. Yes, Latinos are a strong part of MLB. But Mexican fans can't support a major league ballclub. They won't be buying $40 tickets to every game, or $6 cervezas in the stands.

comet2k
05-07-2007, 07:16 PM
Yes, Latinos are a strong part of MLB. But Mexican fans can't support a major league ballclub. They won't be buying $40 tickets to every game, or $6 cervezas in the stands.

With 20 million people in and around Mexico City, there are plenty of fans who can afford those prices. They aren't all poor.

MrRoboto83
05-08-2007, 01:08 AM
yep, like the LA Lakers, Utah Jazz, Calgary Flames....


Utah and all that Jazz is what I have always called them.

Vegas is the most logical location for the Marlins. I say build a giant mega ballpark-casino-hotel equiped with slots at every seat.

SouthSoxFan
05-08-2007, 03:55 AM
So, if the Marlins aren't in FLA, are they still going to be called the "Marlins?" Cuz there aren't that many states where that name makes sense. You know, the Missouri Marlins really sounds stupid..
yep, like the LA Lakers, Utah Jazz, Calgary Flames....
...and the Washington Expos, Texas Senators, Milwaukee Pilots, Minnesota Senators, and Baltimore Browns. They won't be the Marlins if they leave South Florida. Much greater marketing potential with a new team name, new colors, etc.

Is Charlotte a possibility? Seems similar in size to N.O., Vegas, Indy. And its close (90 miles) to the Greensboro area which is another million+ people.

One issue if they move to another city is division alignment. Most of the cities discussed are outside the eastern time zone. In that case, I suspect Pittsburgh would be moved to the NL East.

dcb56
05-08-2007, 04:51 AM
You know that for a fact?

But that said, I could see them playing in Portland, San Antonio, Hartford or even Indianapolis before the end of the decade.

None of those cities, or any of the others listed in this tread, cannot legitimately support a MLB franchise. If Selig, Loria, and Co. can't make it work in Miami, then baseball should contract the franchise.

IndianWhiteSox
05-08-2007, 07:10 AM
None of those cities, or any of the others listed in this tread, cannot legitimately support a MLB franchise. If Selig, Loria, and Co. can't make it work in Miami, then baseball should contract the franchise.

In a theoretical sense that might be true, but don't underestimate the power of fandom. Let's face it, if the NBA is about to have a team in OKC and baseball has teams in Toronto and San Diego, then it really wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for a baseball team relocate to one of those cities.

nedlug
05-08-2007, 08:51 AM
None of those cities, or any of the others listed in this tread, cannot legitimately support a MLB franchise. If Selig, Loria, and Co. can't make it work in Miami, then baseball should contract the franchise.

What do you mean by 'legitimately' supporting a team? On what criteria do you base this?

ewokpelts
05-08-2007, 08:53 AM
If I owned a struggling MLB franchise like the Marlins, I'd start looking at Mexico City (pop. 20 million), where they'e crazy about baseball and Mexicans would adopt a team as a national franchise.

Monterrey (pop. 3-4 million) would be my second choice. Smaller, but closer to the U.S.

The prime cities in the U.S. and Canada are taken, and MLB and NBA are finding out that secondary cities like Portland and Nashville would have a hard time sustaining a franchise.

Ten years from now, the Washington Nationals could be the Ciudad de México Nacionales. :D: the nationals are getting a new FREE stadium...they aint going nowhere...oh, and someone coughed up 450 MILLion for them

ewokpelts
05-08-2007, 08:56 AM
Utah and all that Jazz is what I have always called them.

Vegas is the most logical location for the Marlins. I say build a giant mega ballpark-casino-hotel equiped with slots at every seat.i will say this with the utmost level of sureness: a vagas team will have NOTHING to do with casinos. no slots, sportsbooks, ect. i am always amused that people think a vegas team would stoop so low to have slots in the park. it's like saying that comiskey park should have a place for mobsters to check thier guns or the astrodome had space shuttle parking and posts for the cowboys to tie up thier horses.

get real.

ewokpelts
05-08-2007, 08:58 AM
With 20 million people in and around Mexico City, there are plenty of fans who can afford those prices. They aren't all poor.i think mlb wants monterrey more.....can they support 81 games a year? it may work for soccer with less games, but could ownership get 25k a night for baseball?

soxfanatlanta
05-08-2007, 09:47 AM
Is Charlotte a possibility? Seems similar in size to N.O., Vegas, Indy. And its close (90 miles) to the Greensboro area which is another million+ people.

Sort answer - no. NASCAR, NCAA hoops, and the NFL rule the land there. Perhaps in ten years Charlotte will be able to support MLB, but not right now.

I'm not surprised the deal is not going through; South Florida is always strapped for cash, and since the state is not helping out, the onus falls on the city, and county to foot the bill. Pulling money from a community development fund is a hot issue, and the media is clearly against the deal. I don't see this getting done.

Fenway
05-08-2007, 10:19 AM
It won't happen but the logical place for a MLB team in Northern NJ. If any place could support a third team it is Metro New York.

A NL team would do well in the Hartford-New Haven-Springfield corridor. New England is baseball mad and a think a lot of fans would relish not driving into Boston or New York for games.

The next tier of cities just maybe too small. Portland, Las Vegas, Sacremento, San Antonio just don't have the metro population. Indianapolis is too entrenched with Cincinnati. Charlotte perhaps if the banks there were good corporate sponsors.

10 years from now I would not be surprised to see MLB in Havana because I think once Castro passes on many Cubans with money will return from Miami.

MUsoxfan
05-08-2007, 11:38 AM
It won't happen but the logical place for a MLB team in Northern NJ. If any place could support a third team it is Metro New York.



I don't know. There's already 5 MLB teams within a 200m radius out there. Wouldn't a 6th oversaturate the baseball market of the ESPN coast?

ComiskeyBrewer
05-08-2007, 11:51 AM
Mexico City, or maybe Vancouver? I know it's close to Seattle, but that would finally give them a real rival.

102605
05-08-2007, 12:00 PM
Move the Pirates to the NL East.

Move the Marlins to Portland and the AL West (call them whatever).

AL and NL both end up balanced at 15 teams and 5 per division.

itsnotrequired
05-08-2007, 12:06 PM
Move the Pirates to the NL East.

Move the Marlins to Portland and the AL West (call them whatever).

AL and NL both end up balanced at 15 teams and 5 per division.

And with an odd number of teams in each league, someone sits out every night. The number of games in a season would need to be shortened or it would end up being 8 months long.

Either that or interleague every night.

102605
05-08-2007, 12:08 PM
And with an odd number of teams in each league, someone sits out every night. The number of games in a season would need to be shortened or it would end up being 8 months long.

Either that or interleague every night.

Damm. Fine give Mexico City and Vegas their team too.:D:

ewokpelts
05-08-2007, 12:30 PM
And with an odd number of teams in each league, someone sits out every night. The number of games in a season would need to be shortened or it would end up being 8 months long.

Either that or interleague every night.

bingo! get rid of unbalanced scheds and let every team playeach other one series a year. there's no reason why division foes play each other 19 times a year. the yankees, blow sawks, and cubs have fans that travel well, as well as curious onlookers in other cities, let them spread thier attendance love across the league. AND, by plaing the other 29 teams, a team liek the sox will be less likely to play to their competition(liek they do to the royals)

Fenway
05-08-2007, 12:34 PM
I don't know. There's already 5 MLB teams within a 200m radius out there. Wouldn't a 6th oversaturate the baseball market of the ESPN coast?

Probably not. If you divide NY's metro population 3 ways, each team would still have more to draw from than any other team. If NY can support 3 hockey teams it certainly can do the same in baseball.

102605
05-08-2007, 01:01 PM
bingo! get rid of unbalanced scheds and let every team playeach other one series a year. there's no reason why division foes play each other 19 times a year. the yankees, blow sawks, and cubs have fans that travel well, as well as curious onlookers in other cities, let them spread thier attendance love across the league. AND, by plaing the other 29 teams, a team liek the sox will be less likely to play to their competition(liek they do to the royals)

That makes a ton of sense.

MrRoboto83
05-08-2007, 01:11 PM
i will say this with the utmost level of sureness: a vagas team will have NOTHING to do with casinos. no slots, sportsbooks, ect. i am always amused that people think a vegas team would stoop so low to have slots in the park. it's like saying that comiskey park should have a place for mobsters to check thier guns or the astrodome had space shuttle parking and posts for the cowboys to tie up thier horses.

get real.


You actually thought I was serious? Wow, I'm good!

WizardsofOzzie
05-08-2007, 01:17 PM
I don't know. There's already 5 MLB teams within a 200m radius out there. Wouldn't a 6th oversaturate the baseball market of the ESPN coast?
You mean there are teams that aren't on the east coast?

Baby Fisk
05-08-2007, 01:19 PM
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8138/youppiyu5.jpg
"Ahem..."

ewokpelts
05-08-2007, 01:30 PM
You actually thought I was serious? Wow, I'm good!try teal next time...there's been a lot of morons that think vegas sports will include slot machines in the bathroom

MrRoboto83
05-08-2007, 01:40 PM
try teal next time...there's been a lot of morons that think vegas sports will include slot machines in the bathroom


The thing is in Nevada, slots are considered a sport.

TDog
05-08-2007, 01:41 PM
bingo! get rid of unbalanced scheds and let every team playeach other one series a year. there's no reason why division foes play each other 19 times a year. ...


There is a reason, but you obviously disagree with it. It's a difference in philosophy. NL traditionalists used to bash the AL because it had a balanced schedule, that the White Sox would play more games out of their division than within it.

At the beginning of divisional play in 1969, with the addition of Seattle and Kansas City to the AL, the White Sox played AL West teams 9 home and 9 away, while playing the AL East teams 6 home and 6 away. When the league added Toronto and Seattle 8 years later, the schedule was virtually balanced, although there were a few odd games here and there because 13 doesn't go evenly into 162. People, including many critics from the NL, complained that it cheapened the divisional races. Now one could say it cheapens the wild card, but the unbalanced schedule argument to provide the opportunity for more exciting divisional races is the one that has prevailed.

I was covering a Bulls basketball game in Indianapolis as a courtside photographer in 1976, and received a handout from the Pacers with the rest of the media responding to some things said by Bulls management. One of them was complaining about the NBA's balanced schedule, which the Pacers defended. I have no idea what the NBA does now and consider it irrelevant. I only know that there is a reason to play an unbalanced schedule. And I have to agree that I would rather see the Sox play more games in their division against AL Central teams.

An unbalanced schedule makes the divisional races arbitrary. If you eliminate the divisions with 14, 15 or 16 teams in the league -- contract a couple and the argument doesn't change --you have unwieldy pennant races. Baseball isn't about playoff races, despite the concession of the wild card. Leave that for inferior sports.

ewokpelts
05-08-2007, 03:54 PM
There is a reason, but you obviously disagree with it. It's a difference in philosophy. NL traditionalists used to bash the AL because it had a balanced schedule, that the White Sox would play more games out of their division than within it.

At the beginning of divisional play in 1969, with the addition of Seattle and Kansas City to the AL, the White Sox played AL West teams 9 home and 9 away, while playing the AL East teams 6 home and 6 away. When the league added Toronto and Seattle 8 years later, the schedule was virtually balanced, although there were a few odd games here and there because 13 doesn't go evenly into 162. People, including many critics from the NL, complained that it cheapened the divisional races. Now one could say it cheapens the wild card, but the unbalanced schedule argument to provide the opportunity for more exciting divisional races is the one that has prevailed.

I was covering a Bulls basketball game in Indianapolis as a courtside photographer in 1976, and received a handout from the Pacers with the rest of the media responding to some things said by Bulls management. One of them was complaining about the NBA's balanced schedule, which the Pacers defended. I have no idea what the NBA does now and consider it irrelevant. I only know that there is a reason to play an unbalanced schedule. And I have to agree that I would rather see the Sox play more games in their division against AL Central teams.

An unbalanced schedule makes the divisional races arbitrary. If you eliminate the divisions with 14, 15 or 16 teams in the league -- contract a couple and the argument doesn't change --you have unwieldy pennant races. Baseball isn't about playoff races, despite the concession of the wild card. Leave that for inferior sports.The yankees get to "surge" due to 19 games a year against the blue jays, orioles, and devil rays. that's 57 games where they have a good chance to win 40. now look at the west. since there's only 4 teams, that means the a's, angels, rangers, and mainers can only play each other no more then 60 times a year(at the 19-20 games a year rate)...where do you get he other 102 games? why, the al central! the yankees dont have to worry about the angels or a's as much as we do. same problem befalls the tigers and twins too.... a more balanced schedule also helps teams at the gate. who wants to go to yet another royals series? not that many people...but seeing nl teams (and stars) more often sure helps the gate.

comet2k
05-08-2007, 05:00 PM
Here are the 50 largest metro areas in North America, with population estimates (in millions) culled from reent censuses. They may not all be current, but they're close, and they're rounded.

The five largest cities without MLB teams are in Mexico and Canada. The largest in the U.S. is Portland, which surprised me.

Mexico City 19.25
New York 18.75
Los Angeles 16.83
Chicago 9.44
San Francisco 5.90
Dallas 5.82
Philadelphia 5.82
Toronto 5.55
Miami 5.42
Houston 5.28
Wash. DC 5.21
Atlanta 4.92
Detroit 4.49
Boston 4.41
Guadalajara 4.09
Phoenix 3.86
Montreal 3.67
Monterrey 3.66
Seattle 3.20
Minneapolis 3.14
San Diego 2.93
St. Louis 2.78
Baltimore 2.66
Tampa Bay 2.65
Pittsburgh 2.39
Denver 2.36
Vancouver 2.24
Cleveland 2.13
Portland 2.09
Cincinnati 2.07
Sacramento 2.04
Kansas City 1.95
Orlando 1.93
San Antonio 1.89
Columbus 1.71
Las Vegas 1.71
Norfolk 1.65
Indianapolis 1.64
Providence 1.62
Charlotte 1.52
Milwaukee 1.51
Austin 1.45
Nashville 1.42
New Orleans 1.32
Memphis 1.26
Louisville 1.20
Hartford 1.19
Okla. City 1.16
Ottawa 1.16
Calgary 1.11

Hitmen77
05-08-2007, 09:45 PM
MLB's problem is that there really aren't any other good markets for baseball to move into. They had a hard time relocating the Expos before they finally picked Washington.

I think the only realistic alternative is Portland - and they won't pay for a stadium. Northern NJ would easily support a team, but the Mets and Yankees would never allow it. I have doubts the other markets mentioned can support an MLB team. Remember, it's alot tougher to support an MLB franchise - with the need in today's economics to draw 2.5 million fans - than to support an NBA or NFL team.

I doubt a Mexican city can support an MLB team. Sure, they have huge populations, but do they have enough ability to rake in enough money in American dollars to compete - that is, selling about 2.5 million tickets that are at least equivalent to $10. What about a TV revenue and skyboxes? Are there the $millions there needed to compete in the MLB?

caracascat
05-09-2007, 01:06 AM
Jeffery Loria is now attempting to gut 2 teams Expos and MArlins. He is worse than Marge Schott. Where is the integrity of the game

Fenway
05-09-2007, 09:19 AM
Looking at the metro area list I was surprised at how tiny Milwaukee is ( it is smaller than Providence, Rhode Island )

When you look at a market now population is no longer the main item, it is the number of cable homes you can deliver.

Portland would hurt Seattle in that regard, Sacremento would hurt the Bay Area and a team in the Carolinas would hurt bith Atlanta and Balto-DC.

Funny thing is the market with the most potential in that list is Montreal.

Now for Montreal to work you would need a new stadium closer to the English area of the city ( that was a big minus with Stade Olympique ) But Montreal could deliver a could cable market of Quebec and the Maritimes.

Loria, Sampson and Selig never wanted to do the work to win back a fan base heartbroken by the 1994 strike and then the selloff of the team.

Luke
05-09-2007, 10:20 AM
bingo! get rid of unbalanced scheds and let every team playeach other one series a year. there's no reason why division foes play each other 19 times a year. the yankees, blow sawks, and cubs have fans that travel well, as well as curious onlookers in other cities, let them spread thier attendance love across the league. AND, by plaing the other 29 teams, a team liek the sox will be less likely to play to their competition(liek they do to the royals)

The problem with a balanced schedule is that the division winners end up being rather arbitrary. We know some divisions are weaker than others but can you imagine, if after playing the same schedule, an entire divsion was under .500 and had to send a team to the playoffs? Imagine a scenario like last year if the Sox won 90 games and finished third, and then some team from the west won 80 games. If they both payed the same schedule, it would kill any credilbility baseball has.

ewokpelts
05-09-2007, 10:21 AM
MLB's problem is that there really aren't any other good markets for baseball to move into. They had a hard time relocating the Expos before they finally picked Washington.

I think the only realistic alternative is Portland - and they won't pay for a stadium. Northern NJ would easily support a team, but the Mets and Yankees would never allow it. I have doubts the other markets mentioned can support an MLB team. Remember, it's alot tougher to support an MLB franchise - with the need in today's economics to draw 2.5 million fans - than to support an NBA or NFL team.

I doubt a Mexican city can support an MLB team. Sure, they have huge populations, but do they have enough ability to rake in enough money in American dollars to compete - that is, selling about 2.5 million tickets that are at least equivalent to $10. What about a TV revenue and skyboxes? Are there the $millions there needed to compete in the MLB? the only thing hard about washington was the stadium deal. mlb WANTED to be there from the start. the other cities' bids were only accepted so they could evaluate other moves chances.

jerry and bud ran the nationals move. from bud's "inaction" on the hill in 2001 to jerry brokering an even better deal than what the sox got for comiskey park.

ewokpelts
05-09-2007, 10:22 AM
The problem with a balanced schedule is that the division winners end up being rather arbitrary. We know some divisions are weaker than others but can you imagine, if after playing the same schedule, an entire divsion was under .500 and had to send a team to the playoffs? Imagine a scenario like last year if the Sox won 90 games and finished third, and then some team from the west won 80 games. If they both payed the same schedule, it would kill any credilbility baseball has.so you're ok with the yankees and boston feasting on a creampuff schedule while the sox
do double duty in two other division, both which are a lot tougher than the al least?

ewokpelts
05-09-2007, 10:28 AM
Jeffery Loria is now attempting to gut 2 teams Expos and MArlins. He is worse than Marge Schott. Where is the integrity of the gamemarge schott's ownership group brought cinncinatti three titles. loria gave south florida a championship in his second year on the job. and the marlins had three years in a row where they were above 500

PaulDrake
05-09-2007, 10:31 AM
Here are the 50 largest metro areas in North America, with population estimates (in millions) culled from reent censuses. They may not all be current, but they're close, and they're rounded.

The five largest cities without MLB teams are in Mexico and Canada. The largest in the U.S. is Portland, which surprised me.

Mexico City 19.25
New York 18.75
Los Angeles 16.83
Chicago 9.44
San Francisco 5.90
Dallas 5.82
Philadelphia 5.82
Toronto 5.55
Miami 5.42
Houston 5.28
Wash. DC 5.21
Atlanta 4.92
Detroit 4.49
Boston 4.41
Guadalajara 4.09
Phoenix 3.86
Montreal 3.67
Monterrey 3.66
Seattle 3.20
Minneapolis 3.14
San Diego 2.93
St. Louis 2.78
Baltimore 2.66
Tampa Bay 2.65
Pittsburgh 2.39
Denver 2.36
Vancouver 2.24
Cleveland 2.13
Portland 2.09
Cincinnati 2.07
Sacramento 2.04
Kansas City 1.95
Orlando 1.93
San Antonio 1.89
Columbus 1.71
Las Vegas 1.71
Norfolk 1.65
Indianapolis 1.64
Providence 1.62
Charlotte 1.52
Milwaukee 1.51
Austin 1.45
Nashville 1.42
New Orleans 1.32
Memphis 1.26
Louisville 1.20
Hartford 1.19
Okla. City 1.16
Ottawa 1.16
Calgary 1.11

Where did you get those stats? I'm not questioning accuracy, just curious about the source.

dickallen15
05-09-2007, 10:36 AM
With 20 million people in and around Mexico City, there are plenty of fans who can afford those prices. They aren't all poor.
There would be a big issue with security in Mexico City.

ewokpelts
05-09-2007, 10:38 AM
There would be a big issue with security in Mexico City.agreed. rich american and latin players would be easy targets for kidnappers or other unsavory folk. you'll get more urbina type events.

of course, the upside is getting a team that mexicans on both sides of the border will support. and you'd have a team that latin players would fight to get on. i could see guys taking less money to play infront of people that speak the same language.

Luke
05-09-2007, 10:51 AM
so you're ok with the yankees and boston feasting on a creampuff schedule while the sox
do double duty in two other division, both which are a lot tougher than the al least?

No, I've never liked that. I don't think what we have now is particularly great. What I'm trying to say is; with a balanced schedule you essentially have one, 16 team league. Unless they're going to take the top 4 records, it just makes divisions completely useless.

ewokpelts
05-09-2007, 11:06 AM
No, I've never liked that. I don't think what we have now is particularly great. What I'm trying to say is; with a balanced schedule you essentially have one, 16 team league. Unless they're going to take the top 4 records, it just makes divisions completely useless.variety of competition will make overall play better.

Luke
05-09-2007, 11:11 AM
variety of competition will make overall play better.

I could see that argument, I could also see it the other way. Generally, I'm in favor of anything that means less games against Johan.

comet2k
05-09-2007, 01:10 PM
Where did you get those stats? I'm not questioning accuracy, just curious about the source.

U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2005 and similar sources for Canada and Mexico.

comet2k
05-09-2007, 01:15 PM
There would be a big issue with security in Mexico City.
.
Security is an issue in a lot of big cities.

TDog
05-09-2007, 04:48 PM
The problem with a balanced schedule is that the division winners end up being rather arbitrary. We know some divisions are weaker than others but can you imagine, if after playing the same schedule, an entire divsion was under .500 and had to send a team to the playoffs? Imagine a scenario like last year if the Sox won 90 games and finished third, and then some team from the west won 80 games. If they both payed the same schedule, it would kill any credilbility baseball has.

Exactly. The Phillies won more games than the Cardinals last year and didn't make the postseason Because they played different teams, there is no direct comparison between the two records.

Baseball has fudged a bit by creating a wild card, which is affected by the unbalanced schedule. It also uses records in determining home-field advantage in the postseason, which it didn't used to do. Some would have records with schedules that are way out of balance determine who hosts the World Series. I expect this to come up in a thread around the next All-Star Game.

Despite the problems, an unbalanced schedule is better than the alternative.

ewokpelts
05-10-2007, 02:40 AM
Exactly. The Phillies won more games than the Cardinals last year and didn't make the postseason Because they played different teams, there is no direct comparison between the two records.

Baseball has fudged a bit by creating a wild card, which is affected by the unbalanced schedule. It also uses records in determining home-field advantage in the postseason, which it didn't used to do. Some would have records with schedules that are way out of balance determine who hosts the World Series. I expect this to come up in a thread around the next All-Star Game.

Despite the problems, an unbalanced schedule is better than the alternative.
but the mets won more games than the phillies. and the wild card(dodgers) won more games than the phillies. so...what's you're point. the phillies had two chances to get in, and pissed them both away.

Luke
05-10-2007, 09:55 AM
but the mets won more games than the phillies. and the wild card(dodgers) won more games than the phillies. so...what's you're point. the phillies had two chances to get in, and pissed them both away.

In the end it doesn't matter. The TV ratings are better with an unbalanced schedule because it yields more prime time games. Unless it becomes less profitable, it's not going away.

ewokpelts
05-10-2007, 10:22 AM
In the end it doesn't matter. The TV ratings are better with an unbalanced schedule because it yields more prime time games. Unless it becomes less profitable, it's not going away.you mean red sox /yankees?

and, btw, all games after 7pm are prime time.

Luke
05-10-2007, 10:29 AM
you mean red sox /yankees?

and, btw, all games after 7pm are prime time.

Just because we're all tired of the Yankees-Red Sox hype doesn't mean MLB doesn't like the money it makes them.

I should have been more clear. More starts within local time zones. More 7:00 PM starts instead of 9:00 or 10:00 PM starts in the Pac time zone. Or less 4 and 5:00 PM starts if you're watching your west coast team play in the eastern/central time zone.

ewokpelts
05-10-2007, 10:46 AM
Just because we're all tired of the Yankees-Red Sox hype doesn't mean MLB doesn't like the money it makes them.

I should have been more clear. More starts within local time zones. More 7:00 PM starts instead of 9:00 or 10:00 PM starts in the Pac time zone. Or less 4 and 5:00 PM starts if you're watching your west coast team play in the eastern/central time zone.we have this problem already. i dont see that a blocker to a more balanced schedule. hell, a balanced sched might make things easier

DSpivack
05-10-2007, 11:35 AM
Just because we're all tired of the Yankees-Red Sox hype doesn't mean MLB doesn't like the money it makes them.

I should have been more clear. More starts within local time zones. More 7:00 PM starts instead of 9:00 or 10:00 PM starts in the Pac time zone. Or less 4 and 5:00 PM starts if you're watching your west coast team play in the eastern/central time zone.

So the Sox should start their games at 6 when they're playing east coast teams, and at 9 when they're playing west coast teams so as to accomodate them? And teams out west should start their games at 4 or 5 so east coast can watch at a better time? That's ridiculous.

Luke
05-10-2007, 11:58 AM
So the Sox should start their games at 6 when they're playing east coast teams, and at 9 when they're playing west coast teams so as to accomodate them? And teams out west should start their games at 4 or 5 so east coast can watch at a better time? That's ridiculous.

Absolutely not.

I'm struggling to make my point here. What I'm saying is that TV ratings in say Chicago suffer when the Sox don't start till 9:00 and don't finish till 12:00AM because they're playing say, the A's. Likewise TV ratings in say, LA suffer when The LAA of A start a game at 4:00 because they're playing say, the Yankees.

What MLB wants is TV ratings and the ad revenue that goes with them. What gets ratings is as many games that start at 7:00 PM locally as possible. That's the reason for the divisions, and that's the reason for the unbalances schedule. It's all about TV ratings. When the Sox play the Twins 19 times, that's 19 games that start at 7:00 PM in two markets.

My end point is that regardless of whether or not you think an unbalanced schedule is best, or a balanced schedule is best for competition, there is a monetary motivation for MLB to keep and unbalanced schedule. Unless that changes, we're staying with an unbalanced schedule.

ewokpelts
05-10-2007, 12:33 PM
Absolutely not.

I'm struggling to make my point here. What I'm saying is that TV ratings in say Chicago suffer when the Sox don't start till 9:00 and don't finish till 12:00AM because they're playing say, the A's. Likewise TV ratings in say, LA suffer when The LAA of A start a game at 4:00 because they're playing say, the Yankees.

What MLB wants is TV ratings and the ad revenue that goes with them. What gets ratings is as many games that start at 7:00 PM locally as possible. That's the reason for the divisions, and that's the reason for the unbalances schedule. It's all about TV ratings. When the Sox play the Twins 19 times, that's 19 games that start at 7:00 PM in two markets.

My end point is that regardless of whether or not you think an unbalanced schedule is best, or a balanced schedule is best for competition, there is a monetary motivation for MLB to keep and unbalanced schedule. Unless that changes, we're staying with an unbalanced schedule.viewers dont care about sox/royals 19 times a year.

Luke
05-10-2007, 01:08 PM
viewers dont care about sox/royals 19 times a year.

Doesn't matter.

MLB has a model that is profitable and they're not going to change it because you or I are interested in seeing the Sox matchup against the Mariners and O's more often or because some people think a balanced schedule would be better for competition. For now, 19 Red Sox-Yankees games is making MLB a ton of money, and they're not doing away with it.

I don't know how we got on this tangent. Going back to the original title of the thread, it looks like Florida's other team is starting to rumble about a new ballpark.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/09/Tampabay/No_stadium_in_on_deck.shtml

the gooch
05-10-2007, 02:14 PM
Luke-
you're right about the short-term buck being in the unbalanced schedule. I am more concerned with the long-term implications and the continuation of MLB's desire to sell only the wealthy teams to all of the world and leave the small market teams to receiving revenue sharing for eternity. Eventually the Yankees-RedSox bubble will burst - people will not want to hear about them anymore. What will that leave MLB with then?

Luke
05-10-2007, 02:35 PM
Luke-
you're right about the short-term buck being in the unbalanced schedule. I am more concerned with the long-term implications and the continuation of MLB's desire to sell only the wealthy teams to all of the world and leave the small market teams to receiving revenue sharing for eternity. Eventually the Yankees-RedSox bubble will burst - people will not want to hear about them anymore. What will that leave MLB with then?

I agree, I think to some extent MLB has mortaged long-term interest for short term payoffs. It's a complicated issue because you have to account for small market teams that aren't competing because of incompetancy vs. those that are just at a financial disadvantage. In the end, there has to be some leveling of the playing field so that small market teams can compete, but aren't rewarded for just marching some schlubs out there and collecting their revenue sharing.

No matter what, they need to treat the league like more than just supporting players for the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Mets and Giants.

PaulDrake
05-10-2007, 02:50 PM
I agree, I think to some extent MLB has mortaged long-term interest for short term payoffs. It's a complicated issue because you have to account for small market teams that aren't competing because of incompetancy vs. those that are just at a financial disadvantage. In the end, there has to be some leveling of the playing field so that small market teams can compete, but aren't rewarded for just marching some schlubs out there and collecting their revenue sharing.

No matter what, they need to treat the league like more than just supporting players for the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Mets and Giants. Excellent, especially the last sentence.