Tampa Bay Rays Exploring Splitting Season Between Tampa and Montreal

[KevFu]

Does anyone have a link to a quote from MLB that they are actually interested in 32 teams and an 8x4 structure?

Manfred's views on expansion and advocating for 32 have been quite widespread. Probably the best stand alone quote is:

“I would like baseball to be in the midst of exploring whether we could get to 32 teams, either by adding additional teams in the United States but also open to the idea of Canada, Mexico, as possibilities. I think 32 opens up the opportunity for a substantial rethinking of our format and postseason format, meaning realignment, as well as reconstruction of divisions. Maybe even geographical realignment.”

Manfred has spoke about expansion and potential cities so much that he recently joked about how he should not mention specific cities by name because doing so has set off tizzies in those cities.
He has specifically mentioned: Montreal, Nashville, Charlotte, Portland, Las Vegas; Vancouver, Mexico City. Maybe San Juan. (Edited)

The specifics of 8 divisions of 4, or 4 divisions of 8 have not been specifically mentioned. But I outlined the pros/cons of 8 of 4 and 4 of 8 earlier in the thread.

But I assure you, if you google "Manfred on Expansion" you'll get 5.4 million results starting in May of 2016. Most the dates of articles are obvious: Opening Day, All-Star time, Post-season time, Winter Meetings time: Every big “state of baseball” press conference occasion, an article on expansion follows.

 

[KevFu]

Oh, at the 2017 World Series, he specifically mentioned they could go to eight divisions of four.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

Some Portlanders are trying to get an MLB stadium. The city of Portland isn't openly opposed, but isn't really helping. When push comes to shove, I wouldn't necessarily bet on Portland.

Nashville is the other real "it city" right now. There have been rumors. OTOH, that's a rather new AAA park they just completed, correct?

Correct - First Tennessee Park in Nashville opened four years ago.

Charlotte has a new minor league park, too.... Makes MLB unlikely there.

Also correct. BB&T Ballpark opened in 2014 and, as best I can recall, not able to be expanded into an MLB park - this was actually a bone of contention in getting the landswap that led to BB&T's construction approved as a local lawyer (and baseball gadfly) filed a lawsuit to halt the landswap as he felt this would block his ability to be a member of an ownership group bringing an MLB team into town as the Knights old park, Knights Stadium, built in the suburb of Fort Mill, SC, was specifically built to be able to be expanded into an MLB suitable park (or at least as a stopgap until a new MLB park could be built).

 

[razor ray]

Tampa Bay Rays' radical plan to share team is first step to bringing MLB back to Montreal

 

[Gnashville]

 

[patnyrnyg]

This raises a lot of interesting questions.
A) How would this impact player recruitment and deals? Players having to find two homes and potentially pay two different home-game tax rates.
B) Would both TV deals be "full priced?" Even if they're modest TV deals (like the franchise currently has), having two deals alone would be a pretty notable bump in revenue.
C) Would sponsors from one city be willing to sponsor a full season? Would Montreal companies be putting up ads in the Tampa-area stadium?
D) Would the handful of Tampa fans still care about the team if there's no chance for them to watch the meaningful games down the stretch and into the playoffs? Seems like the Tampa portion of the season would essentially be an extended spring training
E) Seems like there's tons of potential for accidental visa headaches
F) How would this impact the spending of public funding to create new stadiums? There's already plenty of (justified) backlash towards public money being spent on stadiums, but this cuts their effective usage in half, making the already flimsy case for local economic impact even flimsier.

A) they already pay the jock tax and they have accountants to handle it. 2 homes? Most have multiple abodes, but moving mid-season would likely be a pain in the butt., They can rent apartments or live in an upscale long-term hotel. But that part I agree, would be quite inconvenient and I am sure the MLBPA will be chiming in if they were to go ahead with it.
B) That is interesting. My guess is they would want to carry all games in both tv markets.
C) Doubtful.
D) This was the first thing I thought. What would be the point of Tampa folk buying ticket packages when they won't have access to potential play-off games. Yes, I am sure people will attend, but their season and partial plans will take a beating as will their overall attendance.
E) That could happen anytime a team is crossing the border in any of the sports.
F) Not much, imo. While opposition will be vocal, the bigwig politicians that make the decisions will still cave to the teams.

 

[patnyrnyg]

New logo: a skeleton. Call them the X-Rays (sounds better than Ray-pos)

I was thinking "Snowbirds" would be the perfect nickname.

 

[HisIceness]

Once again I'm just going to state my opinion that Charlotte would be a terrible MLB city. So no, it's not a good fit for one of two expansion teams.

@garnetpalmetto is correct. BB&T Park was not built to expand to MLB like the stadium in Buffalo is/was. Building that park was a nightmare for the city as well and you're not going to convince Charlotteans, many of whom are still burned by the Arena vote in 2001, that spending taxpayer money to build yet another shiny new toy is a good use of $$.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Kind of a vulgar cash grab, poor taste IMO. Are people in Washington actually into this? There's not much fondness for the Nationals in Montreal, but not much actual hate either, maybe some casual dislike because they are a sore reminder of what was but it's nothing personal. It's fully acknowledged the loss of the club was mostly due to our own failures and then some scheming from Loria & Selig at the end. Washington parading around in the Expos uniform isn't going to go down well though, that's not your team.

 

[Gnashville]

Kind of a vulgar cash grab, poor taste IMO. Are people in Washington actually into this? There's not much fondness for the Nationals in Montreal, but not much actual hate either, maybe some casual dislike because they are a sore reminder of what was but it's nothing personal. It's fully acknowledged the loss of the club was mostly due to our own failures and then some scheming from Loria & Selig at the end. Washington parading around in the Expos uniform isn't going to go down well though, that's not your team.

It’s the franchises 50th year so they are wearing the Expos Jerseys

 

[KevFu]

Correct - First Tennessee Park in Nashville opened four years ago.



Also correct. BB&T Ballpark opened in 2014 and, as best I can recall, not able to be expanded into an MLB park - this was actually a bone of contention in getting the landswap that led to BB&T's construction approved as a local lawyer (and baseball gadfly) filed a lawsuit to halt the landswap as he felt this would block his ability to be a member of an ownership group bringing an MLB team into town as the Knights old park, Knights Stadium, built in the suburb of Fort Mill, SC, was specifically built to be able to be expanded into an MLB suitable park (or at least as a stopgap until a new MLB park could be built).

Loar, the Nashville billionaire trying to get an MLB team has picked a stadium site, and it's land already owned by the Nashville Sports Commission (may not be the correct name of the organization, tough to keep them all straight.

 

[KevFu]

Also, I feel like Montreal being essentially “approved” by MLB to be a relocation city speaks to the guilt they feel for screwing over the city with the Loria Expos salting of the earth situation.

Montreal is by far the biggest market and if you took Montreal and Portland via expansion and had Tampa move to Nashville (where they could play in the Sounds stadium until a bigger one was built), you could charge more for the expansion teams than expanding into Nashville and Portland and relocating to Montreal.

They’d be leaving money on the table to make it up to Montreal.

 

[A Loyal Dog]

I have a question.

I remember it was a big deal when the Expos left Montreal, but I wanted to know - were there any teams that defended Montreal and/or wanted the Expos to stay in Montreal? I know Toronto (a team Montreal helped get in) was against Montreal staying. But I don't remember the rest...

 

[Burke the Legend]

I have a question.

I remember it was a big deal when the Expos left Montreal, but I wanted to know - were there any teams that defended Montreal and/or wanted the Expos to stay in Montreal? I know Toronto (a team Montreal helped get in) was against Montreal staying. But I don't remember the rest...

Minnesota I believe

 

[A Loyal Dog]

Minnesota I believe

But, if I remember correctly, Minnesota only voted against because they were in the same "pickle" as Montreal.

So no other team wanted to come to the defense of Montreal???

 

[KevFu]

I have a question.

I remember it was a big deal when the Expos left Montreal, but I wanted to know - were there any teams that defended Montreal and/or wanted the Expos to stay in Montreal? I know Toronto (a team Montreal helped get in) was against Montreal staying. But I don't remember the rest...

But, if I remember correctly, Minnesota only voted against because they were in the same "pickle" as Montreal.

So no other team wanted to come to the defense of Montreal???

That’s an impossible question to answer.

Voting on the relocation of the Expos isn’t the same as “not supporting Montreal.” There’s nothing anyone can do to “defend Montreal.” Voting on MLB issues isn’t “Well, I LIKE Montreal more than Washington DC.”

The owners vote to: “A solution presented by MLB that works best for MLB and their own interests” and “retain the rights of MLB owners to make the decisions that get them the most money.” Everytime you vote against a relocation, you’re hurting your own ability to relocate if necessary.

Everyone in baseball with any ounce of intelligence accepts that Loria ruined baseball in Montreal (and tried his hardest to ruin it in Miami), and the city didn’t fail.


Now, as for the Twins thing, the vote you’re talking about was a 28-2 vote against CONTRACTION, with the owners of the Expos and Twins voting against it.

1. It was a PR stunt. MLB didn’t need to contract anyone, it was a bargaining ploy for CBA negotiations. The owners cried poverty and held that vote THE DAY BEFORE the CBA expired.

2. You know it was a PR stunt where Montreal and Minnesota voted against contraction so they could point to the vote and say “We didn’t want it” when the OWNERS OF MONTREAL AND MINNESOTA VOLUNTEERED FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

3. After the vote, the owners basically said “We’ll table contraction (aka preserve those 50 union jobs!) in exchange for a luxury cap.” The owners won, and the next season, the average revenue of franchises went up $3 million each… even though only ONE TEAM payed the luxury tax. Somehow, the $10 million the Yankees paid gave everyone in baseball $90 million to split up and baseball was economically saved!

 

[A Loyal Dog]

That’s an impossible question to answer.

Voting on the relocation of the Expos isn’t the same as “not supporting Montreal.” There’s nothing anyone can do to “defend Montreal.” Voting on MLB issues isn’t “Well, I LIKE Montreal more than Washington DC.”

The owners vote to: “A solution presented by MLB that works best for MLB and their own interests” and “retain the rights of MLB owners to make the decisions that get them the most money.” Everytime you vote against a relocation, you’re hurting your own ability to relocate if necessary.

Everyone in baseball with any ounce of intelligence accepts that Loria ruined baseball in Montreal (and tried his hardest to ruin it in Miami), and the city didn’t fail.


Now, as for the Twins thing, the vote you’re talking about was a 28-2 vote against CONTRACTION, with the owners of the Expos and Twins voting against it.

1. It was a PR stunt. MLB didn’t need to contract anyone, it was a bargaining ploy for CBA negotiations. The owners cried poverty and held that vote THE DAY BEFORE the CBA expired.

2. You know it was a PR stunt where Montreal and Minnesota voted against contraction so they could point to the vote and say “We didn’t want it” when the OWNERS OF MONTREAL AND MINNESOTA VOLUNTEERED FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

3. After the vote, the owners basically said “We’ll table contraction (aka preserve those 50 union jobs!) in exchange for a luxury cap.” The owners won, and the next season, the average revenue of franchises went up $3 million each… even though only ONE TEAM payed the luxury tax. Somehow, the $10 million the Yankees paid gave everyone in baseball $90 million to split up and baseball was economically saved!

Wow, thanks for your reply!

I wonder if there were any teams back then that felt bad about the whole Loria/Expos situation, and the eventual relocation to Washington.

 

[LeHab]

Wow, thanks for your reply!

I wonder if there were any teams back then that felt bad about the whole Loria/Expos situation, and the eventual relocation to Washington.

Well GMs happy to pouch Expos developed players in fire sales were probably sad.

For owners, they made a good profit after selling the team (including reloc fees?) and no longer having to support a welfare team. Don't think many were shedding tears.

 

[cutchemist42]

If you're MLB, how do you handle the Expos trademark even? I know the NHL owned the Jets name and logos and heard True North had to pay a legit fee for that name.

At the same time, I've heard the Nationals actually own the Expos trademarks. Anyone know how it truly worked with that right now?

 

[Centrum Hockey]

It’s the franchises 50th year so they are wearing the Expos Jerseys

That is a weird choice they don't honor the expos retried numbers the same way the avs don't honor the nordiques retried numbers in hockey.

 

[LeHab]

If you're MLB, how do you handle the Expos trademark even? I know the NHL owned the Jets name and logos and heard True North had to pay a legit fee for that name.

At the same time, I've heard the Nationals actually own the Expos trademarks. Anyone know how it truly worked with that right now?

MLB owns Expos related IP except for Youppi! now owned by Habs.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

So no other team wanted to come to the defense of Montreal???

(In a weird coincidence, I just got done reading a chapter in a book on the American Revolution about the 1775 Invasion)

 

[PCSPounder]

In the end... isn't this an attempt to get more stadiums on the drawing board?

Not actually built, but planned. Getting cities to commit.

It seems like a bad gimmick, it happened right about the time the stadium site contract extension news in Portland happened, and from what I'm seeing, it may have excited a news cycle of sports journos, but it's not moving the needles that matter.

 

[Braun]

In the end... isn't this an attempt to get more stadiums on the drawing board?

Not actually built, but planned. Getting cities to commit.

It seems like a bad gimmick, it happened right about the time the stadium site contract extension news in Portland happened, and from what I'm seeing, it may have excited a news cycle of sports journos, but it's not moving the needles that matter.

I doubt the group in Montreal will commit to a stadium for a half season team.

 

[cutchemist42]

If you're Montreal, do you even want to go into that market that is already fickle enough about non-event sports? I mean baseball is at its lowest entertainment value at this point and I could see Montrealers tuning out quickly in a losing season.

I used to love baseball but it just sucks at this point and I dont see why you'd want in at this point until the game is improved again.