Toggle sidebar

Nashville & SLC Front Runners for MLB Expansion

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Voight

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
42,524
19,168
Mulberry Street
www.fox13now.com

Salt Lake City named favorite for MLB expansion team by ESPN insider

Saying Major League Baseball expansion is "destiny," a respected ESPN insider is calling Salt Lake City a favorite to land one of two teams that are expected to be awarded.
www.fox13now.com www.fox13now.com

www.espn.com

Passan: When MLB could expand to 32 teams -- and which cities are the favorites to get one

Expansion is inevitable. Here's what you need to know about the timeline, potential locations and remaining hurdles.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to read more...
 
Last edited:
I've said it before, I'll say it again.... the first cities to start building, or at the very least financing, MLB-caliber stadiums will be the frontrunners for the next teams.

Also doesn't hurt the league that the threat of interested markets can be used as a wedge to try to pilfer public money out of state and local governments, a la what Reinsdorf is trying to do again to almost assuredly no avail in Illinois.
 
Last edited:
End on a Hinote said:
With a metro population only around 1.2 million its pretty wild that SLC could be on the verge of having 4 of the big 5 leagues (MLS included).
Click to expand...

Eh, CSAs are better for sports because they give you a clearer picture of financial strength based on TV dollars, since so much money comes from RSNs.

Boston acts big market in all sports, and Phoenix acts mid-sized market in sports:
MSA - #10 Phoenix 5.0, #11 Boston 4.9
CSA - #8 Boston 8.3, #13 Phoenix 5.1

SLC's CSA is #22 in the US with 2.779 million.


I am beginning to think that Raleigh is a better choice than Nashville.
 
KevFu said:
Eh, CSAs are better for sports because they give you a clearer picture of financial strength based on TV dollars, since so much money comes from RSNs.

Boston acts big market in all sports, and Phoenix acts mid-sized market in sports:
MSA - #10 Phoenix 5.0, #11 Boston 4.9
CSA - #8 Boston 8.3, #13 Phoenix 5.1

SLC's CSA is #22 in the US with 2.779 million.


I am beginning to think that Raleigh is a better choice than Nashville.
Click to expand...
Boston teams as we all know basically have all of New England except the parts of CT closest to NY. Do Phoenix teams have fan bases outside of AZ? Like at least New Mexico?
 
aqib said:
Boston teams as we all know basically have all of New England except the parts of CT closest to NY. Do Phoenix teams have fan bases outside of AZ? Like at least New Mexico?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my point. That's why looking at the DMAs or MSAs for "how big a market is" when talking expansion doesn't make as much sense as looking at CSAs (or something bigger).

You're putting the games on TV for the entire state of Tennessee, North Carolina or Utah if you pick Nashville, Charlotte or Salt Lake City.


I actually think it would be smarter to put an MLB team in Raleigh than in Charlotte. Charlotte's bigger, but the competiton for sports dollars is going to play a role: Charlotte also has NFL and NBA, and of all the cities with all three, Charlotte would be last behind Cleveland in terms of size (and Cleveland has one title since 1965, not exactly a financial powerhouse).

Raleigh is smaller that Charlotte (2.3m vs 3.3m CSA), but wouldn't compete for fan dollars with the NFL/NBA and MLS. Just NHL.

Either team would be "Carolina's team" because they're certainly not both getting franchises, and the games would be on TV in all of the state either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MiddleEarth
KevFu said:
Yeah, that's my point. That's why looking at the DMAs or MSAs for "how big a market is" when talking expansion doesn't make as much sense as looking at CSAs (or something bigger).

You're putting the games on TV for the entire state of Tennessee, North Carolina or Utah if you pick Nashville, Charlotte or Salt Lake City.


I actually think it would be smarter to put an MLB team in Raleigh than in Charlotte. Charlotte's bigger, but the competiton for sports dollars is going to play a role: Charlotte also has NFL and NBA, and of all the cities with all three, Charlotte would be last behind Cleveland in terms of size (and Cleveland has one title since 1965, not exactly a financial powerhouse).

Raleigh is smaller that Charlotte (2.3m vs 3.3m CSA), but wouldn't compete for fan dollars with the NFL/NBA and MLS. Just NHL.

Either team would be "Carolina's team" because they're certainly not both getting franchises, and the games would be on TV in all of the state either way.
Click to expand...
Actually I was asking if AZ teams do have fans from surrounding states like Denver and Seattle teams do.

As far as Carolina baseball goes, it's hard to say how well it will work given the ubiquitous number of minor league teams in the state. You'd have some of the same problems as Florida who also has a lot of minor league teams but also has spring training on top of it.

Charlotte could have gotten the Twins back in the 90s but voted against the tax on fast foot to make it happen.
 
aqib said:
Actually I was asking if AZ teams do have fans from surrounding states like Denver and Seattle teams do.

As far as Carolina baseball goes, it's hard to say how well it will work given the ubiquitous number of minor league teams in the state. You'd have some of the same problems as Florida who also has a lot of minor league teams but also has spring training on top of it.

Charlotte could have gotten the Twins back in the 90s but voted against the tax on fast foot to make it happen.
Click to expand...

In think NC is very different than the FL/ARZ spring training issue.

Minor league stadiums are great views in a smaller stadium, at cheaper prices. Spring training gives you that, but with MLB players.

How much does it cost to see Aaron Judge hit baseballs in the Tampa area, from seats up close? $50 in Feb/Mar, and $300 from April through September. NC doesn't have that problem.
 
KevFu said:
Markets don't get teams, owners do. Which is a shame, because Montreal and Nashville would work the best.
Click to expand...
So thinking just thinking out loud, if MLB wanted even divisions they could easily find 6 markets that could support a team. My only question is if there is enough talent to support 6 more MLB teams.

I think that's the key question with every league. The NFL could easily go to 40 teams as long as there are cities willing to throw money to build adequate stadiums.
 
aqib said:
So thinking just thinking out loud, if MLB wanted even divisions they could easily find 6 markets that could support a team. My only question is if there is enough talent to support 6 more MLB teams.

I think that's the key question with every league. The NFL could easily go to 40 teams as long as there are cities willing to throw money to build adequate stadiums.
Click to expand...

Well, there's some interesting aspects to the premise. Like, does MLB have six divisions because that's the best format, or just because six worked better than four or eight?

Like, if you were going to keep six divisions and have six teams in each, you'd add Las Vegas/Oakland (so both have teams), Salt Lake and Portland... ALL IN THE AL WEST.
The NL West would get Vancouver.
The AL Central would get Nashville.
The NL East would get Montreal.


Generally speaking I think the "is there enough talent?" thing is a loaded question and one that's really irrelevant.

Is the overall talent level going to go down with expansion? Absolutely in the way we think of it. You're adding 52 players to MLB who probably wouldn't be in MLB without extra teams.

But the flaw is that teams AREN'T always using the best 30 guys for each role and anyone not on an MLB roster is inferior. There's players who just don't get jobs for economic reasons, not talent reasons.


I mean, MLB has SHRUNK the Draft repeatedly. It went from 101 rounds in 1990, to 62, to 50, to 40 and it's now 20.

It's also easier to find guys than ever before thanks to YouTube and streaming, and actual stats on guys that mean something. You can scout more players better than ever.

So it will be totally fine to go to 32. Yeah, the pitching is gonna be worse than before because of expansion, but it's going to be like "a fraction of a run worse."
 
KevFu said:
Well, there's some interesting aspects to the premise. Like, does MLB have six divisions because that's the best format, or just because six worked better than four or eight?

Like, if you were going to keep six divisions and have six teams in each, you'd add Las Vegas/Oakland (so both have teams), Salt Lake and Portland... ALL IN THE AL WEST.
The NL West would get Vancouver.
The AL Central would get Nashville.
The NL East would get Montreal.


Generally speaking I think the "is there enough talent?" thing is a loaded question and one that's really irrelevant.

Is the overall talent level going to go down with expansion? Absolutely in the way we think of it. You're adding 52 players to MLB who probably wouldn't be in MLB without extra teams.

But the flaw is that teams AREN'T always using the best 30 guys for each role and anyone not on an MLB roster is inferior. There's players who just don't get jobs for economic reasons, not talent reasons.


I mean, MLB has SHRUNK the Draft repeatedly. It went from 101 rounds in 1990, to 62, to 50, to 40 and it's now 20.

It's also easier to find guys than ever before thanks to YouTube and streaming, and actual stats on guys that mean something. You can scout more players better than ever.

So it will be totally fine to go to 32. Yeah, the pitching is gonna be worse than before because of expansion, but it's going to be like "a fraction of a run worse."
Click to expand...
So off the top of my head Portland, Vegas, Mexico City, Monterray, Nashville, Charlotte, Montreal, and Vancouver are all markets that could support an MLB team. Obviously you aren't going to add 8 teams. Now if you add 2 you can go to 4 division of 4 teams each like the NFL.

If you went to 36 teams you could just add one team to each division:
Montreal AL East
Nashville AL Central
Portland/Vancouver AL West
Charlotte NL East
Mexico City/Monterray NL Central
Vegas NL West

The question is simply do you have enough players to staff 6 more teams?
 
Right, I was saying that "just add one team to each division" isn't a good idea. The good idea is to get TEX/HOU the hell out of the AL West!


You absolutely have enough players to field six more teams. You can field as many teams you want! But what you mean is "do you have enough players EQUAL TO the talent of what's in the league NOW to add six more teams."

That's moot. MLB won't add six teams at once, the most they've ever done is four at a time, and that was the decade they expanded for the first time and had gone almost 60 years with 8 teams each.

But they're looking at 30 years since the last expansion. They absolutely can do two teams. Six isn't happening because it's baseball: Bob Costas proposed 30 teams, six divisions of 5, and year-round interleague play in 1994 and MLB wasn't ready for THAT for another 19 years.

Hell, one of their smartest executives said "baseball could DIE in the next decade" if they didn't expand, and "AT LEAST 32 teams could and SHOULD play Major League Baseball" back in 1959.

Baseball moves slow. Going to 32 teams should have been planned in 1995 and happened by 2005.

The pitching will be worse. People will complain about it for five years, and then forget about it.
 
KevFu said:
Right, I was saying that "just add one team to each division" isn't a good idea. The good idea is to get TEX/HOU the hell out of the AL West!


You absolutely have enough players to field six more teams. You can field as many teams you want! But what you mean is "do you have enough players EQUAL TO the talent of what's in the league NOW to add six more teams."

That's moot. MLB won't add six teams at once, the most they've ever done is four at a time, and that was the decade they expanded for the first time and had gone almost 60 years with 8 teams each.

But they're looking at 30 years since the last expansion. They absolutely can do two teams. Six isn't happening because it's baseball: Bob Costas proposed 30 teams, six divisions of 5, and year-round interleague play in 1994 and MLB wasn't ready for THAT for another 19 years.

Hell, one of their smartest executives said "baseball could DIE in the next decade" if they didn't expand, and "AT LEAST 32 teams could and SHOULD play Major League Baseball" back in 1959.

Baseball moves slow. Going to 32 teams should have been planned in 1995 and happened by 2005.

The pitching will be worse. People will complain about it for five years, and then forget about it.
Click to expand...

Oh I know it won't happen at once. Especially with Oakland and Tampa Bay in purgatory.

MLB did add 4 teams in 2 years in 61-62 and then 4 teams at once in 1969. Granted there was the threat of a 3rd major league and later Congress getting involved after the A's left KC.
 
aqib said:
Oh I know it won't happen at once. Especially with Oakland and Tampa Bay in purgatory.

MLB did add 4 teams in 2 years in 61-62 and then 4 teams at once in 1969. Granted there was the threat of a 3rd major league and later Congress getting involved after the A's left KC.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 4 teams they added at once in 1969 was both about KC politicians suing after the A's left for Oakland, but also that 6/6 in divisions made a TON of sense and logistically better for everyone.
 
Honestly, I wish MLB/Oakland cut a deal on the new Howard Terminal site, the A's get an expansion draft and Fisher takes a rebranded terrible roster to Vegas.

I'm worried they lost so much momentum that they really only have one expansion candidate. And if it takes too long to wrap up OAK/TB stadiums and find a second expansion city, then they'll get expansion PPD by a work stoppage.
 
aqib said:
So off the top of my head Portland, Vegas, Mexico City, Monterray, Nashville, Charlotte, Montreal, and Vancouver are all markets that could support an MLB team. Obviously you aren't going to add 8 teams. Now if you add 2 you can go to 4 division of 4 teams each like the NFL.

If you went to 36 teams you could just add one team to each division:
Montreal AL East
Nashville AL Central
Portland/Vancouver AL West
Charlotte NL East
Mexico City/Monterray NL Central
Vegas NL West

The question is simply do you have enough players to staff 6 more teams?
Click to expand...
That’s not a question at all, really, they don’t have enough players to staff the teams they do have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom