Nashville Stars, proposed MLB expansion team discussion

[Big Z Man 1990]

And those who had the nerve to like that post should also be ashamed

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Now, I think that the home stadium of the Nashville team should have its naming rights owned by a local company as is typically done in sports.

 

[oknazevad]

It's ridiculously rude to hijack a thread. Sorry if you don't like being called out on it, but those are the facts.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

O'Charley's would be a good company to buy the naming rights to the Volunteers' park. They are a restaurant chain based in Nashville.

By the way, I am vegan, and I have eaten Gardein's Nashville hot chicken. It is, without a doubt, the hottest thing I have ever eaten.

 

[KevFu]

Where did I say anything about MLB's desire to expand? I just said that I thought it had become clear to Dombroski that expansion was less likely. I said absolutely nothing about the reasons for it. Your response seems to be trying to put words in my mouth.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but clarify the reality of the situation. You said in the first post, and again in this one, that: "expansion was less likely."

Absent a qualifying statement like "in the next 3 years," expansion isn't less likely at all. It's going to happen. Once either Oakland or Tampa get a new stadium deal locked down, then MLB is going to expand. The exact date of the announcement and first year they have 32 teams is in flux, of course, but it's going to happen.

The Nashville group wanted someone to sherpa them through building an organization: setting up baseball operations. The Nashville group will present to MLB in 2022 now instead of 2021 and they'll be ready with their bid. Will a second city be as prepared as they are? Who knows. If they are, then MLB can go deeper and vet and explore, and vote on it in 2023 or 2024, and that gets stadium deals finalized and construction started and they start playing in 2028-2030 range.

The expansion timeline is CRAZY SLOW. The Diamondbacks and Rays started playing in 1998 after they were awarded teams in 1995, after MLB convened the expansion committee in 1991. And the whole first half of the process was jump-started because after Tampa built their stadium to lure the White Sox, then Giants, then lost out to Miami in the 1991 expansion decision, the Florida politicians called the commissioner before Congress to investigate MLB's anti-trust exemption. MLB responded by asking the owner that flirted with Tampa and Tampa resident George Steinbrenner to form a committee on expansion. MLB made the decision to give Tampa a team to get Congress off their backs as fast as they could and it took SEVEN YEARS.

Dombrowski took the Phillies job because he can do his usual thing of trading prospects and signing free agents, make a run, leave an expensive mess and get fired before Nashville needs him to actually do anything baseball related within the Nashville organization.

 

[KevFu]

Just timeline perspective:

The NHL put Leiweke in charge of their expansion committee and we all knew then then NHL was going to expand "soon."
That was 11 years ago and the Kraken haven't hit the ice yet.

 

[golfortennis]

I feel 2025 would be a good year to close the book on MLB's two-league era, since it would mark the quasquicentennial (125th anniversary) of MLB's modern era, which began when the American League declared itself a major league in competition with the National League in 1901, though before the turn of the 21st century, the AL and NL stopped being independent entities.

Well Bud Selig ran a power play to get more things under his control is what happened, not "they stopped being independent entities."

I suppose it's already down the road with the stupid interleague play, but someone made a real good point years ago when "radical realignment" was being tossed about. You look at places with two teams, there is most definitely a favored team, and a "secondary" team in terms of popularity. With the separate leagues, you have a different slate of opponents, and with no DH in the NL, a different product. If you have the same opponents coming to town for both teams, then what is the Mets' selling point? How do the Angels differentiate themselves?

Make no mistake, either, interleague play was brought in to have those teams *face each other.* Nobody was clamoring for the Pirates and the Royals to meet, or the Reds and the Twins to do battle. It was all bout the NY, LA, and CHI teams playing. Now that the novelty has worn off, it's just another game, which has taken a lot of lustre off what baseball had, but you can't put the crap back in the horse, so...

This is why you don't let a couple of writers with an agenda determine your business plan.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Well, I've advocated for universal DH. And the four-league history-based alignment stops short of a complete geographic alignment for regular season play, instead dividing the Eastern/Central teams based on how long each city has been part of MLB, thus preserving the identities of the AL and NL, but mostly resetting those leagues' lineups of cities to what they were in 1957 - which to many is at least the beginning of the end of baseball's golden age. The moves of the Dodgers and Giants from NYC to California the following year are what set off the beginning of the expansion era. Many markets got new teams in the next 4 decades either through expansion or relocation, while in 1972 Washington left the scene until the Expos relocated from Montreal to become the Nationals in 2005.

I feel separating the Mountain/Pacific teams into their own league would help many in the West realize their dream of a MLB league based entirely in their region. The Pacific Coast League (the minor one) tried decades ago to join the AL and NL as a major league, but those two leagues were too greedy and did not want further major league competition. So, the AL and NL plotted to eventually place teams in the key cities of the PCL, only Portland and Sacramento from the PCL's heyday do not currently have MLB teams.

Make no mistake, most if not all the people who ran the major leagues in those days are now dead. And MLB values the sport's history as much as they do their current era.

Also being realized decades after first being proposed is the Continental League. Every city planned for that league but Buffalo is in MLB now. And five of those teams - all but Colorado (to PCL) and NY Mets (remaining in NL) - would form the core of this incarnation of the CL. Also joining them would be Tampa Bay and the two expansion teams in Montreal and Nashville, thus placing an MLB team in every market that had one in the 20th century for the first time. Nashville would be the first new market added in the 21st century.

A huge selling point for this alignment would that the PCL teams would only play 18 interleague games (one rotating opponent from the AL, CL, NL, each a 6-game home-and-home) compared to 36 for the ET/CT teams. PCL teams would only have to play 9 road games east of the Mountain Time Zone every year, all on one road trip. The ET/CT teams would only have to play one three-game series west of the Central Time Zone.

I mean right now it is ridiculous that the AL West has teams in the Central and Pacific Time Zones, which are two time zones away from each other, and result in the Texas teams having to play at least almost 30 games on the West Coast every year. Surely they can't be OK with that. For instance, an Astros-Mariners game in Seattle that starts at 7 PM local time would be a 9 PM start in Houston.

In the NFL at least, if you are located in the Eastern or Central Time Zone, you will play at least a vast majority of your games in those time zones, because not all possible NFL matchups occur in a given year.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

And (for the moment) abandoning divisional play would bring back another element of classic baseball. However, the first place teams in each league wouldn't directly advance to the World Series, there'd be four playoff teams (the top four) in each league. But those teams who finish first in their respective leagues would be recognized as "regular season champions" of their league.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

As part of the formation of the PCL the 6 teams in classic cities would begin occasionally wearing throwbacks of classic minor league PCL teams:

The Los Angeles Angels and San Diego Padres would wear throwback uniforms of the classic PCL teams of the same names.

The Dodgers would wear Hollywood Stars throwbacks.

The Giants would wear San Francisco Seals throwbacks.

The Athletics would wear Oakland Oaks throwbacks.

The Mariners would wear Seattle Rainiers throwbacks.

In the latter four cases, the names of the classic PCL teams in question would have their trademarks transferred from Minor League Baseball to the applicable major league team.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Furthermore, there would be 20 protected interleague rivalries of geographic significance among the ET/CT teams. All but three teams (Houston, Nashville, Texas) would have at least one protected rival, and many would have multiple protected rivals.

Like the Yankees would play the Mets and Phillies every year. Or Cleveland (name change pending) would play both Cincinnati and Pittsburgh on an annual basis (the latter is heavily popular whenever they meet because of the Browns-Steelers rivalry in the NFL).

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

As part of my proposed realignment, I've proposed the transfers of several franchise histories, although this would be optional:

The histories of the first two AL teams in Washington would be transferred to the Nationals, retroactively making them the only classic 16 team to have been a member of both the AL and NL, while the Twins and Rangers would be regarded as 1961 and 1972 expansion teams.

The history of the original Expos would be transferred to the new franchise.

The one-season history of the Seattle Pilots franchise would be transferred to the Mariners, retroactively making the Brewers a 1970 expansion team.

Again, this is optional.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Here are the current TV market ranks for each team under my proposed realignment.

American League:
NY Yankees: New York (#1)
Chicago Sox: Chicago (#3)
Washington: Washington, D.C. (Hagerstown) (#7)
Boston: Boston (Manchester) (#9)
Detroit: Detroit (#14)
Cleveland: Cleveland-Akron (Canton) (#19)
Baltimore: Baltimore (#26)
Kansas City: Kansas City (#32)

National League:
NY Mets: New York (#1)
Chicago Cubs: Chicago (#3)
Philadelphia: Philadelphia (#4)
Miami: Miami-Fort Lauderdale (#16)
St. Louis: St. Louis (#23)
Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh (#24)
Milwaukee: Milwaukee (#35)
Cincinnati: Cincinnati (#37)

Continental League:
Texas: Dallas-Fort Worth (#5)
Houston: Houston (#8)
Atlanta: Atlanta (#10)
Tampa Bay: Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota) (#12)
Minnesota: Minneapolis-St. Paul (#15)
Nashville: Nashville (#28)
Toronto: Toronto/Hamilton/Niagara Falls (CAN #1)
Montreal: Montreal/Laval (CAN #2)

(I can't seem to find any site that lists a combined US/Canada ranking)

Pacific Coast League:
LA Angels and Dodgers: Los Angeles (#2)
Oakland and San Francisco: San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (#6)
Arizona: Phoenix (Prescott) (#11)
Seattle: Seattle-Tacoma (#13)
Colorado: Denver (#17)
San Diego: San Diego (#29)

 

[oknazevad]

Please just stop with the fantasy stuff already. This is not the thread for it. And they're not going with four leagues.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Please just stop with the fantasy stuff already. This is not the thread for it. And they're not going with four leagues.

Don't like it then don't comment. It's as easy as pie.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Alright, I'm going to show you all some stats.

In 2019, the Athletics had to play 61 of their 81 road games east of the Mountain Time Zone - and 19 of those games were in Texas, because the Astros and Rangers are part of the AL West

The year before, the Astros played 38 road games west of the Central Time Zone, as the West Divisions were paired up for interleague play.

Under the format I am proposing, the Athletics would only play 9 games east of the Mountain Time Zone, all of them in one road trip.

Conversely, the Astros would only play 3 games west of the Central Time Zone - all in one series (the PCL team they visit in interleague play will likewise visit them).

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

The four-league alignment could also allow Fox to be creative with their Saturday night regional telecasts (outside of weeks where PCL teams are playing interleague games).

Fox could distribute up to four games involving ET/CT teams to affiliates in those time zones at 7 PM ET/6 PM CT.

For viewers in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones, affiliates in those time zones would be offered a choice between two PCL games at 7 PM PT/8 PM MT, unless Fox wanted to distribute a single PCL game to all of those affiliates. Fox affiliates in Hawaii, Alaska, and Pacific territories would also show a PCL game. As Guam is a day ahead of the Continental US (there are other Pacific territories a day ahead as well), a game airing at 7 PM Saturday night in Los Angeles would be a 1 PM Sunday afternoon broadcast in Guam, which would then be repeated at 7 PM local time on KEQI-LP.

 

[KevFu]

Please just stop with the fantasy stuff already. This is not the thread for it. And they're not going with four leagues.

It's not far-fetched at all because the other options are far worse. I feel like I kind of helped create the monster with Big Z's four-team concept, since I brought up the four-league PCL/CBL a few years ago. I have since come around to the idea that the CBL won't be the option to take because it's too radically weird looking for people to accept as a viable solution.

But a Pacific League and SOUTHERN LEAGUE makes complete and total sense compared to a 16-team AL and 16-team NL. And here's why. Montreal and Nashville gives you 8 PTZ/MTZ teams, 9 CTZ teams and 15 ETZ teams. So there's basically TWO WAYS to do 16-team AL/NL, and two radical ideas. Keep in mind that anyone switching divisions or leagues has veto rights

Option I: 8-team divisions, West and East:
AL West - LAA, OAK, SEA, TEX, HOU, CWS, MIN, KC
AL East - DET, CLE, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL, TB, Nashville
NL West - LAD, SD, SF, ARZ, COL, STL, CHC, MIL
NL East - CIN, PIT, MON, NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA

Looks good! Except you get to the schedule. Currently, you play 74 vs division, 68 vs league, and 20 interleague. Divisions would be bigger, fewer non-division league opponents. So that translates to around 90 vs division (12 each) and 52 vs league (6.5 each) and 20 interleague.

LAD, SD, SF, ARZ, COL are losing 10 PTZ/MTZ road start times; LAA, SEA, OAK are losing 6.
STL, CHC, MIL get 12 more PTZ/MTZ road games; CWS, MIN, KC get 7 or 8 more. And all six have veto rights.

Option II: 4-team divisions
Plenty of arguments to be made on HOW to divide these teams into groups of 4. Everyone is going to lobby for exactly what they want. So while THIS is probably the cleanest:
AL East - BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR
AL South - HOU, TEX, KC, TB
AL Cent - CWS, MIN, CLE, DET
AL West - LAA, OAK, SEA, COL
NL West - LAD, SD, SF, ARZ
NL Cent - STL, CHC, MIL, NASH
NL East - MON, NYM, PHI, WAS
NL South - PIT, CIN, ATL, MIA
18.67 vs division (54), 7 vs league (84), 24 interleague.

9 teams have veto rights and at least 5 definitely would not like that (ATL, MIA, KC, TB, COL)

Option III: Radical Realignment by geography. This is the Manfred proposal.
NL West: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL/Portland
NL Central: MIL, CHC, STL, CWS, KC, TEX, HOU, COL/Nashville
AL East: CIN, PIT, PHI, BAL, WAS, ATL, MIA, TB
AL North: DET, CLE, BOS, NYY, NYM, Montreal, TOR, MIN (?)

12 vs division, 1 series vs other 24 teams; 156 game schedule.

Only TB, LAD, SD, SF, ARZ and possibly COL would NOT have veto rights. The last time a commissioner tried radical realignment to look like the NBA/NHL, there was an ownership Coup and he was the only MLB commish ever to be removed and it was only resolved by Selig moving his Brewers to the NL. This would likely have 20+ no votes.


Option IV: the radical LOOKING Pacific/Southern option.
PL: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL
SL: TB, MIA, ATL, WAS, TEX, HOU, KC, Nashville
NL: MIL, CHC, STL, CIN, PIT, PHI, NYM, Montreal
AL: MIN, CWS, DET, CLE, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL

Schedule: 16 vs Division (112), 1 series vs half the others (48)

15 teams have veto rights:
LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL, TEX, HOU -- all 10 of them are getting every single thing they want out of realignment. It's a huge win. No vetos used.
KC, ATL, TB, MIA, WAS would have veto rights and objections.


To recap:
Option I: 14 No Votes, 10 teams have a veto
Option II: 9 No Votes, 9 teams have veto rights
Option III: 20+ No Votes, 25 teams have veto rights.
Option IV: 5 No Votes, 15 teams have veto rights.

Right off the bat, you can see it's between Option II and Option IV; Option IV has the edge in fewest no votes and fewest vetos. And the vetos include the same teams: KC, ATL, TB, MIA, WAS.

Compare the two options for those five teams:
KC gets road 26 CTZ games from O2 and 32 or 36 in O4. You won their vote.
TB would have every division game vs a CTZ team in O2. O4 gives them MIA, ATL, WAS in the division. They lose games vs NYY/BOS in both options; O4 gives them more games vs BOS/NYY/PHI/NYM than O2. You won their vote.
MIA would have PIT, CIN, ATL in O2. Only ATL is a rival and PIT/CIN are small market teams that aren't going to draw well on the road; O4 gives them ATL plus WAS and in-state rival TB. That's better. They lose NYM/PHI in both options, O4 is more games vs NYM/PHI/NYY/BOS. You won their vote.

ATL would have MIA, CIN, PIT in Option II; and Option IV gives them WAS as well, fewer games in the PTZ/MTZ, gets them NYM/PHI/NYY/BOS/ visiting more times than Option II. It's a better option for them as well.

Only WAS has a better O2 than O4. But you have a carrot to dangle: MLB can step into the WAS/BAL TV contract conflict;
And you have a Plan B: You can switch Montreal to the AL and sub in BAL to the South because BAL is about to be for sale and you can tie the sale to accepting the Southern League assignment (Just like MLB did with Houston to move to the AL West).

So there you have it. It is NOT CRAZY. Sorry this was so long.

 

[MNNumbers]

It's not far-fetched at all because the other options are far worse. I feel like I kind of helped create the monster with Big Z's four-team concept, since I brought up the four-league PCL/CBL a few years ago. I have since come around to the idea that the CBL won't be the option to take because it's too radically weird looking for people to accept as a viable solution.

But a Pacific League and SOUTHERN LEAGUE makes complete and total sense compared to a 16-team AL and 16-team NL. And here's why. Montreal and Nashville gives you 8 PTZ/MTZ teams, 9 CTZ teams and 15 ETZ teams. So there's basically TWO WAYS to do 16-team AL/NL, and two radical ideas. Keep in mind that anyone switching divisions or leagues has veto rights

Option I: 8-team divisions, West and East:
AL West - LAA, OAK, SEA, TEX, HOU, CWS, MIN, KC
AL East - DET, CLE, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL, TB, Nashville
NL West - LAD, SD, SF, ARZ, COL, STL, CHC, MIL
NL East - CIN, PIT, MON, NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, MIA

Looks good! Except you get to the schedule. Currently, you play 74 vs division, 68 vs league, and 20 interleague. Divisions would be bigger, fewer non-division league opponents. So that translates to around 90 vs division (12 each) and 52 vs league (6.5 each) and 20 interleague.

LAD, SD, SF, ARZ, COL are losing 10 PTZ/MTZ road start times; LAA, SEA, OAK are losing 6.
STL, CHC, MIL get 12 more PTZ/MTZ road games; CWS, MIN, KC get 7 or 8 more. And all six have veto rights.

Option II: 4-team divisions
Plenty of arguments to be made on HOW to divide these teams into groups of 4. Everyone is going to lobby for exactly what they want. So while THIS is probably the cleanest:
AL East - BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR
AL South - HOU, TEX, KC, TB
AL Cent - CWS, MIN, CLE, DET
AL West - LAA, OAK, SEA, COL
NL West - LAD, SD, SF, ARZ
NL Cent - STL, CHC, MIL, NASH
NL East - MON, NYM, PHI, WAS
NL South - PIT, CIN, ATL, MIA
18.67 vs division (54), 7 vs league (84), 24 interleague.

9 teams have veto rights and at least 5 definitely would not like that (ATL, MIA, KC, TB, COL)

Option III: Radical Realignment by geography. This is the Manfred proposal.
NL West: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL/Portland
NL Central: MIL, CHC, STL, CWS, KC, TEX, HOU, COL/Nashville
AL East: CIN, PIT, PHI, BAL, WAS, ATL, MIA, TB
AL North: DET, CLE, BOS, NYY, NYM, Montreal, TOR, MIN (?)

12 vs division, 1 series vs other 24 teams; 156 game schedule.

Only TB, LAD, SD, SF, ARZ and possibly COL would NOT have veto rights. The last time a commissioner tried radical realignment to look like the NBA/NHL, there was an ownership Coup and he was the only MLB commish ever to be removed and it was only resolved by Selig moving his Brewers to the NL. This would likely have 20+ no votes.


Option IV: the radical LOOKING Pacific/Southern option.
PL: LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL
SL: TB, MIA, ATL, WAS, TEX, HOU, KC, Nashville
NL: MIL, CHC, STL, CIN, PIT, PHI, NYM, Montreal
AL: MIN, CWS, DET, CLE, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL

Schedule: 16 vs Division (112), 1 series vs half the others (48)

15 teams have veto rights:
LAA, LAD, OAK, SF, SD, ARZ, SEA, COL, TEX, HOU -- all 10 of them are getting every single thing they want out of realignment. It's a huge win. No vetos used.
KC, ATL, TB, MIA, WAS would have veto rights and objections.


To recap:
Option I: 14 No Votes, 10 teams have a veto
Option II: 9 No Votes, 9 teams have veto rights
Option III: 20+ No Votes, 25 teams have veto rights.
Option IV: 5 No Votes, 15 teams have veto rights.

Right off the bat, you can see it's between Option II and Option IV; Option IV has the edge in fewest no votes and fewest vetos. And the vetos include the same teams: KC, ATL, TB, MIA, WAS.

Compare the two options for those five teams:
KC gets road 26 CTZ games from O2 and 32 or 36 in O4. You won their vote.
TB would have every division game vs a CTZ team in O2. O4 gives them MIA, ATL, WAS in the division. They lose games vs NYY/BOS in both options; O4 gives them more games vs BOS/NYY/PHI/NYM than O2. You won their vote.
MIA would have PIT, CIN, ATL in O2. Only ATL is a rival and PIT/CIN are small market teams that aren't going to draw well on the road; O4 gives them ATL plus WAS and in-state rival TB. That's better. They lose NYM/PHI in both options, O4 is more games vs NYM/PHI/NYY/BOS. You won their vote.

ATL would have MIA, CIN, PIT in Option II; and Option IV gives them WAS as well, fewer games in the PTZ/MTZ, gets them NYM/PHI/NYY/BOS/ visiting more times than Option II. It's a better option for them as well.

Only WAS has a better O2 than O4. But you have a carrot to dangle: MLB can step into the WAS/BAL TV contract conflict;
And you have a Plan B: You can switch Montreal to the AL and sub in BAL to the South because BAL is about to be for sale and you can tie the sale to accepting the Southern League assignment (Just like MLB did with Houston to move to the AL West).

So there you have it. It is NOT CRAZY. Sorry this was so long.

Kev,
In all honesty, if you are TB, what do you want? Do you get $$ benefits from NY and BOS coming to town often? Or, is that worse because of playoff competition implications? This sort of balance is that part that I can never decide on for MLB.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

The Buccaneers are fine without having any Northern teams in their division.

During their time in the NFC Central, they often had to make late season trips to Chicago and Green Bay which both play outdoors.

The Bucs sold out every home game from 1998-2009, well after moving into the NFC South.

The Rays would have Minnesota, Montreal and Toronto in their league under my proposal. And there's probably a lot of people in the area who originally came from Canada, just as much as from the Northern US. And the other four Southern teams in the CL are expected by me to bring large legions of visiting fans to road game against the Rays.

 

[KevFu]

Kev,
In all honesty, if you are TB, what do you want? Do you get $$ benefits from NY and BOS coming to town often? Or, is that worse because of playoff competition implications? This sort of balance is that part that I can never decide on for MLB.

It's difficult to ascertain individual views of teams because there's tons of data backing up rational decisions and then you have people who just don't think that way.

For example, I can pull out all kinds of data on Home/Away in NHL and why it doesn't work, and all the data on why MLB radical realignment by geography would be worse for baseball.

And you still have people who see all that data and say "But we'll lose STH if we don't do Home/Away with everyone!" and "B-b-b-but, Mets/Yankees 18 times = huge money!"

Based on what we know about Tampa Bay, I would assume their GM would follow the data. But their owner is a whole other issue.

 

[KevFu]

And of course, with Tampa, it's a little curious because of their ballpark situation.

I'd imagine that if Tampa got a stadium deal done for a location where way more Rays fans have access and they could draw more fans, they'd be less inclined to be in a NYY/BOS division and more inclined to be in an easier to win division

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

And, similar to Nick's simulcast of a CBS-aired NFL playoff game, and my proposal to simulcast some CBS-produced NHL games for other cable channels on Nick, there would also be Nick simulcasts of select MLB games on Paramount Movie Network under all my proposals.

If a Nick simulcast features the Detroit Tigers, then there would be color commentary from Jessica DiCicco in character as Lynn Loud from The Loud House, which is set in a fictional Detroit suburb.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

And, similar to Nick's simulcast of a CBS-aired NFL playoff game, and my proposal to simulcast some CBS-produced NHL games for other cable channels on Nick, there would also be Nick simulcasts of select MLB games on Paramount Movie Network under all my proposals.

If a Nick simulcast features the Detroit Tigers, then there would be color commentary from Jessica DiCicco in character as Lynn Loud from The Loud House, which is set in a fictional Detroit suburb.

there is no such Paramount Movie Network..... Paramount started as Gaylord Broadcasting's the Nashville Network, later the National Network, then SPIKE, when VIACOM bought the channel, Z, it's simply Paramount Network, do not confuse it with Lifetime or Hallmark networks

 

[triggrman]

Just want to drop a few things here fyi.

First, there's a ton of corporations that call Nashville home. Nissan, Bridgestone, HCA, Mitsubishi , Dollar General, Tractor Supply, iHeart, Cracker Barrel, Schneider Electric, Genesco, Community Health Systems and numerous other national health care companies. Lots have regional operations here too, like Amazon, Lowe's Co, Dell, The Kroger Co., etc. So corporate dollars aren't a struggle like they were 20 years ago here.
The metro area now has over 2M people and is still rapidly growing.
Baseball is huge here. We put out a lot of MLB talent, including Mookie Betts, David Price, Sonny Gray, Robbie Ray, Caleb Joseph, Tony Kemp, RA Dickey, etc, and even more got their start at Vanderbilt.
I do have a bias, being a native and having a son in travel baseball.