I'm not confident that a team in Nashville or Charlotte would actually do much to stem the Braves fandom except in their immediate vicinity. I actually think Charlotte would develop a larger and more robust fanbase immediately but Nashville clearly covets MLB and has for decades now.
MLB expansion 'thin'?
- Thread starter Bonk
- Start date
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
I think you're overstating the likelihood here.
Cleveland's owners are dirt poor, true, but they have been willing to spend when extra cash is available.
When they had a large minority shareholder with John Sherman they spent money. In 2019 though he exited to purchase the Royals. Simce then Dolan has reverted to his miserly ways, there's no way around that.
Last season though the Guardians sold another minority share to David Blitzer though, so they should have some extra cash again and will hopefully use it like they did last time.
Eventually Blitzer should take over a controlling interest and my hope is that the Blitzer era will be something closer to the 90s Jacobs era than the miserly Dolan era.
KevFu
Registered User
But why? "Because that's how it's always been" is a dumb reason to do anything (and yes, I see the irony in saying this in a topic of AL and NL being separate. But I'm one of the rare people who actually HAVE AN ANSWER for that, too!).
A long time ago -- I've had this four-league concept for a while now -- I mapped it all out on how the four-game series thing would work. You play either 8 or 12 game road-trips or home-stands. And if the next one starts/stops is determined by which day of the week it is when the last one ends. It was a really simple formula that totally works.
It's also A LOT easier when the teams playing 28 series against each other are only as spread out as MIN-BOS, MIA-KC, NYM-STL, and PHX-SEA... and the only cross-country travel is ONE eight-game road trip per other division.
There's no financial advantage to playing 3-game series than end on Sundays and Thursdays. It's just what made PERFECT math sense in 1969 when baseball went to two divisions of six per league: 18 games vs division (90), 12 games vs rest of league (72). 54 three-game series.
There was a 2017 "leaked plan" reported in Baseball America:
Radical Realignment - BR Bullpen
And one stated "goal" of radical realignment is "reduce travel." But the application of the plan DOESN'T reduce travel. Grouping teams by geography seems like it does, but the ORDER of games is what dictates how many miles you travel.
Like I said, the AL/NL format (prior to 2023) cuts MLB in half for the schedule. Instead of one road series vs 5 AL East teams, and zero vs 5 NL East teams, Seattle would play half of the 10 MLB East teams, which is still five series.
A reduction of SERIES from 54 three-game series to 40 four-game series actually IS a massive reduction in travel. Because each new series is a flight.
And if that means it's "Weird" to have more FRI-MON series (they do happen now), then so be it.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
According to Wikipedia (yes, yes I know) it can expand by 10k seats. Its the closest thing to MLB ready stadium that does not have MLB team. But yea they are not giving Omaha a team. Shame.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
Because fans want to be able to travel to see a weekend series.
Sunday is a getaway day, everyone plays during the day expect for SNB. So now you're going to make Sunday the 1st day of some series, forcing Saturday travel and no Saturday night games?
You're trying to lessen travel, but making the trips themselves more difficult.
Last edited:
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
It DOESN'T necessarily mean more Fri-Mon series. Fri-Mon is fine, the issue comes when the days get off track, like I showed above:
FRI-MON
TUE-FRI
SAT-TUE
WED-SAT
SUN-WED
There needs to be consistent off days (currently Mondays and Thursday), but with every series being 4 games, how are you planning for that?
3 game series work perfect for 7 day weeks. 4 game series don't.
KevFu
Registered User
Right, but that's going to increase over time.
It's the same reason why baseball would be dumb to let the A's leave Oakland: No one in the Bay Area who's a die-hard A's fan is going to switch allegiances to the Giants the day the A's move. But ALL OF NEW ENGLAND is die-hard Red Sox fans... 70 years after the Boston NL team left for Milwaukee. (Same in St. Louis with the Cardinals after the Browns moved to Baltimore).
It takes a loooooong time, but when you look at it after a half-century... every fan of Nashville/Charlotte probably would be a fan of someone else.
Which is another reason why the AL/NL separation is good and works: Put Nashville in the NL South with Atlanta and you're forcing those fans to "Give up" their old team, and a large percentage of them WON'T. (They might hate the new team based on what it does to blackout rules).
But putting Nashville/Charlotte in the AL, you can let those fans ROOT FOR BOTH. They can be a die-hard Atlanta fan, but casually watch Nash/Char and eventually it can morph into they're really a bigger fan of the local team now.
KevFu
Registered User
Fans traveling to road series is actually pretty rare. I know people DO sometimes take vacations to see their team on the road, but (a) how many of them are hitting all three games? and (b) playing a fourth game in the series changes that how?
Also, if you're splitting a series over a weekend (like, new team comes in Saturday or Sunday), doesn't that DOUBLE the amount of different fan bases that could visit in a given weekend?
I still believe in Montreal. All these other markets are smaller than them. They just wanted a free stadium. Let's see what happens with Tampa.
Major League Baseball will never come back to Montreal: economics prof
"It's a lot of money to pay for nostalgia," says Moshe Lander. And taxpayers aren't in the mood to pay.montrealgazette.com
It’s an issue that is tender and sensitive for Montreal baseball fans, and an economics professor at Concordia University isn’t holding back.
Article content
Montreal Expos Fans meet 1994 players
0 of 1 minute, 51 secondsVolume 0%
Moshe Lander firmly believes there will be no return of baseball to Montreal to replace the Expos.
“They’re not going to get a team. It’s not going to happen,” Lander said in a phone interview. “I don’t think baseball is an attraction like it was in the 1960s when they got a franchise.
“Now Toronto, to some extent, runs Canada, and Toronto would not want Montreal to infringe on their rights.”
Lander apologized for being the “purveyor of bad news” for anyone looking to get a team back, but said he was just being honest.
A new stadium downtown would run into the “billion-dollar-plus range, and the idea of public taxpayer money to finance such a stadium” would not be accepted, he said.
“That idea doesn’t go down with taxpayers. There would be instantaneous pushback. Income inequality is so pronounced.”
The Montreal Baseball Group — headed by Stephen Bronfman and Mitch Garber — has no interest in an expansion franchise or relocated team. Garber told the Canadian Baseball Network website in October 2022 that his group was against pursuing a team that would play the traditional 162 games after they fell in love with the split-season, part-time concept with Tampa Bay — a scenario quashed by Major League Baseball in January 2022.
Bronfman has never publicly made a statement in favour of going after a traditional franchise. To date, no other individual or group has come forward to say they are taking up the cause.
KevFu
Registered User
I believe in Montreal, too.
The economics of baseball are that teams with a new stadium are going to be totally fine. Might not be competitive consistently, that's up to the front office. But in general, fans are smarter than people give them credit for...
... which is another reason I believe the concept of a "failed market" is ridiculous:
Think of wrestling: Vince McMahon, the character, walked in to a chorus of boos; fans chanting how much they hate him for screwing Steve Austin. The fans all KNOW it's a character and part of the show; and that Vince, the person, OWNED WWF/E. And it's comical how they're paying their money TO HIM, to boo him. The reality is, they KNOW and understand that Vince the person is doing a great job running WWE, and they want to give him their money.
In real Big Five sports, when an owner is screwing the fans and the city, the fans don't pay the guy to boo them (except on rare occasions like Oakland's reverse boycott). Montreal was a ghost town in their last years because the fans were not going to give their money to a guy screwing them over.
IF there's a stadium built in Montreal, the Expos would be fine for two decades. The problem is how likely/realistic it is to get a stadium built. Canada seems really far ahead of the US in seeing the folly of civic handouts to billionaires. And that can make the buy-in for a Canadian MLB team too big for someone to try and win an expansion bid.
The economics of baseball are that teams with a new stadium are going to be totally fine. Might not be competitive consistently, that's up to the front office. But in general, fans are smarter than people give them credit for...
... which is another reason I believe the concept of a "failed market" is ridiculous:
Think of wrestling: Vince McMahon, the character, walked in to a chorus of boos; fans chanting how much they hate him for screwing Steve Austin. The fans all KNOW it's a character and part of the show; and that Vince, the person, OWNED WWF/E. And it's comical how they're paying their money TO HIM, to boo him. The reality is, they KNOW and understand that Vince the person is doing a great job running WWE, and they want to give him their money.
In real Big Five sports, when an owner is screwing the fans and the city, the fans don't pay the guy to boo them (except on rare occasions like Oakland's reverse boycott). Montreal was a ghost town in their last years because the fans were not going to give their money to a guy screwing them over.
IF there's a stadium built in Montreal, the Expos would be fine for two decades. The problem is how likely/realistic it is to get a stadium built. Canada seems really far ahead of the US in seeing the folly of civic handouts to billionaires. And that can make the buy-in for a Canadian MLB team too big for someone to try and win an expansion bid.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
The Omaha ballpark size is probably where many MLB teams are headed. Owners are about preserving the higher ticket price now
MLB teams aren't moving in any direction at all, every ballpark built in the last 20 years falls within a relatively narrow 36-46,000 seat range and the two newest are in the dead middle of that pack. The Rays have reduced capacity to 25k but they are basically the Coyotes of baseball
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
The one team that has increased ballpark capacity when building a new park over the last 30 years just replaced it with a new smaller park. The next groups are talking 30-32K. It’s one thing if you want to call my argument a bit of a slippery slope, but I invite you to look it all up. These ballparks aren’t coming in larger than their predecessors, and Vegas is going low for reasons.
KevFu
Registered User
Seats 37,001+ are basically there for the playoffs. The regular season isn't going to sell out every game, every year, regardless of team performance unless you're Boston.
KevFu
Registered User
If not going with a radical Four-League plan that gets everyone what they want, then returning to the strict concept of AL & NL having representation in regions is the way to go:
AL West: SEA, OAK/LV, LAA, COL
AL Cent: MIN, CWS, KC, TEX
AL Mideast: CLE, DET, TB, NASH
AL East: BOS, NYY, TOR, BAL
NL West: SD, SF, LAD, ARZ
NL Cent: MIL, CHC, STL, HOU
NL Mideast: CIN, PIT, MIA, ATL
NL East: PHI, NYM, MON, WAS
I know there's "better" ways to align divisions, but hear me out...
Play 16 vs Division (48 games)
Play 7 vs League (84 games)
Play 3 vs interleague Rival Division (12 games) every season
Play 3 vs 6 of the other 12 interleague teams (18 games), alternating in a four-year cycle to host everyone.
That's 162 games.
The divisions are what they are because it guarantees you the "local interleague rival" play every year.
AL West: SEA, OAK/LV, LAA, COL
AL Cent: MIN, CWS, KC, TEX
AL Mideast: CLE, DET, TB, NASH
AL East: BOS, NYY, TOR, BAL
NL West: SD, SF, LAD, ARZ
NL Cent: MIL, CHC, STL, HOU
NL Mideast: CIN, PIT, MIA, ATL
NL East: PHI, NYM, MON, WAS
I know there's "better" ways to align divisions, but hear me out...
Play 16 vs Division (48 games)
Play 7 vs League (84 games)
Play 3 vs interleague Rival Division (12 games) every season
Play 3 vs 6 of the other 12 interleague teams (18 games), alternating in a four-year cycle to host everyone.
That's 162 games.
The divisions are what they are because it guarantees you the "local interleague rival" play every year.
