KevFu
Registered User
75% of owners have to approve a move.
75% of owners aren't going to concede the whole market to the Cubs.
You'd think that... but that should be the #1 decision on the Athletics leaving Oakland (not conceding the Bay Area to the Giants; just like the owners rejected the Giants moving to St. Pete!
And Houston got a replacement team once they had a stadium.
Right, but Oakland and Chicago won't be able to get "Second teams BACK" because the Giants and Cubs would have territorial rights (which Legally they aren't veto rights, but in practice they are).
Chicagoland has 9.5 million people. Nashville's metro area is just over 2 million
30% of Chicagoland is a bigger market than Nashville.
Don't get me wrong, I think Nashville will be a good expansion market. But no one is buying a team from the 3rd largest market to move them out. Even is bad as they've been for the last 15 years, they're still 15th in Forbes valuations.
I agree with your logic 100% I just want it applied in the Bay Area, too.
Because while Chicagoland is 9.5 million people, if you extend out about 2 hours in every direction for the "Sports Market boundaries" that we don't have good wikipedia tables for...
There's very very few people between Chicagoland and Champagne, Bloomington, Peoria and Iowa added to the market; and Milwaukee's market begins when Chicagoland ends, and Detroit's market begins on the east.
While the same thing for the Giants/A's, brings you to a grand total of like 18-22 million people inn places like Sacramento, San Jose, Stockton, Reno, Modesto, Davis, Monterrey, Santa Cruz, Napa, etc, etc.
This is where MLB needs common-sense leadership to orchestrate the best solution for MLB.
A new Oakland A's with a new owner need to remain in the Bay Area; and probably ditto the White Sox; while current owners are free to take their rosters to new cities with new identities.