Will the AL Central survive the next 10 years?

[caulfield12]

This isn't directly related to baseball, per se, but I thought it was interesting. It wouldn't surprise me if Detroit has a difficult time hanging onto their NFL/MLB/NBA teams, and perhaps Cleveland and Kansas City will eventually fail as franchises, too. Do you see the teams comprising the AL Central being the same as the five that currently constitute the division? Will the White Sox be able to build a true dynasty due to the competitive advantage of Chicago vis a vis the other four cities in our division?

 

It seems to me that the areas that will really thrive in the future include Seattle/Vancouver/Portland (one franchise relocated), San Jose/Silicon Valley/SF (+1), the Research Triangle/Charlotte (banking, universities) +1, Nashville, San Antonio/Austin corridor...these last two are stretches due to population size and/or weather concerns.

 

The Rust Belt and Sun Belt will be under the most duress....perhaps the Rays will not survive (although their future looks bright on the field as an organization) and/or the Marlins, the Diamondbacks....Cleveland and Detroit will be disproportionately affected as well. Other teams at risk will be the Royals, Reds, Brewers and Pirates. If the Padres didn't make it, you could imagine one more Southern California franchise. It also seems pretty clear Las Vegas will never have a franchise, either. I wouldn't be surprised to see four out of the ten aforementioned teams replaced and/or fail in the next decade.

 

I think baseball will also need to start becoming more creative at looking at Mexico City, Northern Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and/or Venezuela for expansion. All of those sites would be much more likely than Tokyo/Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or China for the next decade.

 

The Twins looks to be the second-best positioned for the new economy, but they're taking out a pretty massive debt load with the new stadium and opening that facility in the teeth of a recession. While NY can absorb the blow/s, at least for now, I am less concerned than say 2-3 years ago that the Twins will become the dominant franchise in the division.

 

 

 

 

 

The Rust Belt in particular looks likely to shed vast numbers of jobs, and some of its cities and towns, from Cleveland to St. Louis to Buffalo to Detroit, will have a hard time recovering. Since 1950, the manufacturing sector has shrunk from 32 percent of nonfarm employment to just 10 percent. This decline is the result of long-term trends—increasing foreign competition and, especially, the relentless replacement of people with machines—that look unlikely to abate. But the job losses themselves have proceeded not steadily, but rather in sharp bursts, as recessions have killed off older plants and resulted in mass layoffs that are never fully reversed during subsequent upswings.

 

In November, nationwide unemployment in manufacturing and production occupations was already 9.4 percent. Compare that with the professional occupations, where it was just a little over 3 percent. According to an analysis done by Michael Mandel, the chief economist at BusinessWeek, jobs in the “tangible” sector—that is, production, construction, extraction, and transport—declined by nearly 1.8 million between December 2007 and November 2008, while those in the intangible sector—what I call the “creative class” of scientists, engineers, managers, and professionals—increased by more than 500,000. Both sorts of jobs are regionally concentrated. Paul Krugman has noted that the worst of the crisis, so far at least, can be seen in a “Slump Belt,” heavy with manufacturing centers, running from the industrial Midwest down into the Carolinas. Large swaths of the Northeast, with its professional and creative centers, have been better insulated.

 

Perhaps no major city in the U.S. today looks more beleaguered than Detroit, where in October the average home price was $18,513, and some 45,000 properties were in some form of foreclosure. A recent listing of tax foreclosures in Wayne County, which encompasses Detroit, ran to 137 pages in the Detroit Free Press. The city’s public school system, facing a budget deficit of $408 million, was taken over by the state in December; dozens of schools have been closed since 2005 because of declining enrollment. Just 10 percent of Detroit’s adult residents are college graduates, and in December the city’s jobless rate was 21 percent.

 

To say the least, Detroit is not well positioned to absorb fresh blows. The city has of course been declining for a long time. But if the area’s auto headquarters, parts manufacturers, and remaining auto-manufacturing jobs should vanish, it’s hard to imagine anything replacing them.

 

When work disappears, city populations don’t always decline as fast as you might expect. Detroit, astonishingly, is still the 11th-largest city in the U.S. “If you no longer can sell your property, how can you move elsewhere?” said Robin Boyle, an urban-planning professor at Wayne State University, in a December Associated Press article. But then he answered his own question: “Some people just switch out the lights and leave—property values have gone so low, walking away is no longer such a difficult option.”

 

Perhaps Detroit has reached a tipping point, and will become a ghost town. I’d certainly expect it to shrink faster in the next few years than it has in the past few. But more than likely, many people will stay—those with no means and few obvious prospects elsewhere, those with close family ties nearby, some number of young professionals and creative types looking to take advantage of the city’s low housing prices. Still, as its population density dips further, the city’s struggle to provide services and prevent blight across an ever-emptier landscape will only intensify.

 

That’s the challenge that many Rust Belt cities share: managing population decline without becoming blighted. The task is doubly difficult because as the manufacturing industry has shrunk, the local high-end services—finance, law, consulting—that it once supported have diminished as well, absorbed by bigger regional hubs and globally connected cities. In Chicago, for instance, the country’s 50 biggest law firms grew by 2,130 lawyers from 1984 to 2006, according to William Henderson and Arthur Alderson of Indiana University. Throughout the rest of the Midwest, these firms added a total of just 169 attorneys. Jones Day, founded in 1893 and today one of the country’s largest law firms, no longer considers its Cleveland office “headquarters”—that’s in Washington, D.C.—but rather its “founding office.”

Edited February 22, 2009 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Worldwide, people are crowding into a discrete number of mega-regions, systems of multiple cities and their surrounding suburban rings like the Boston–New York–Washington Corridor. In North America, these mega-regions include SunBelt centers like the Char-Lanta Corridor, Northern and Southern California, the Texas Triangle of Houston–San Antonio–Dallas, and Southern Florida’s Tampa-Orlando-Miami area; the Pacific Northwest’s Cascadia, stretching from Portland through Seattle to Vancouver; and both Greater Chicago and Tor-Buff-Chester in the old Rust Belt. Internationally, these mega-regions include Greater London, Greater Tokyo, Europe’s Am-Brus-Twerp, China’s Shanghai-Beijing Corridor, and India’s Bangalore-Mumbai area. Economic output is ever-more concentrated in these places as well. The world’s 40 largest mega-regions, which are home to some 18 percent of the world’s population, produce two-thirds of global economic output and nearly 9 in 10 new patented innovations.

 

Some (though not all) of these mega-regions have a clear hub, and these hubs are likely to be better buffered from the crash than most cities, because of their size, diversity, and regional role. Chicago has emerged as a center for industrial management and has rolled up many of the functions, such as finance and law, once performed in smaller midwestern centers. Los Angeles has a broad, diverse economy with global strength in media and entertainment. Miami, which is being hit hard by the collapse of the real-estate bubble, nonetheless remains the commercial center for the large South Florida mega-region, and a major financial center for Latin America. Each of these places is the financial and commercial core of a large mega-region with tens of millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars in output. That’s not going to change as a result of the crisis.

 

And potential problems (perhaps we're already seeing it with reduced ticket sales and sponsorships in ST) for the teams who train in Arizona.

 

Phoenix, for instance, grew from 983,403 people in 1990 to 1,552,259 in 2007. One of its suburbs, Mesa, now has nearly half a million residents, more than Pittsburgh, Cleveland, or Miami. As housing starts and housing prices rose, so did tax revenues, and a major capital-spending boom occurred throughout the Greater Phoenix area. Arizona State University built a new downtown Phoenix campus, and the city expanded its convention center and constructed a 20-mile light-rail system connecting Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe.

 

And then the bubble burst. From October 2007 through October 2008, the Phoenix area registered the largest decline in housing values in the country: 32.7 percent. (Las Vegas was just a whisker behind, at 31.7 percent. Housing in the New York region, by contrast, fell by just 7.5 percent over the same period.) Overstretched and overbuilt, the region is now experiencing a fiscal double whammy, as its many retirees—some 21 percent of its residents are older than 55—have seen their retirement savings decimated. Mortgages Limited, the state’s largest private commercial lender, filed for bankruptcy last summer. The city is running a $200 million budget deficit, which is only expected to grow. Last fall, the city government petitioned for federal funds to help it deal with the financial crisis. “We had a big bubble here, and it burst,” Anthony Sanders, a professor of economics and finance at ASU, told USA Today in December. “We’ve taken Kevin Costner’s Field of Dreams and now it’s Field of Screams. If you build it, nobody comes.”

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography/2

 

 

[jasonxctf]

i think that any movement comes down to overall success. Its not a stretch to think that attendance and support go hand-in-hand with play on the field. Think Indians in the 90's. How many sellout games did they have in a row???

 

Now, if I had to pick one AL Central team that is destined to move, it would be Kansas City. They haven't had a quality team in nearly 15 years.

[scenario]

I picture the small market teams struggling more than Detroit. It's large enough to keep going despite the struggles of auto-related businesses.

 

To put it in perspective, in 2008, the Tigers drew over 39,000 per game (average)... 9th in MLB and only about 1,000 per game less than the Cubs. So, as long as they don't go back to sucking for long periods of time, they should draw.

 

But your post is interesting. I can imagine we could eventually see some shifting of franchises from diminishing to growing markets.

Edited February 23, 2009 by scenario

[santo=dorf]

I know not all the teams sell out their games, but I love how large the league. Honestly I wish there were six divisions of 6. It would give me a reason to travel to a state. I don't know if I'll ever go back to Kentucky or TN, but if the Sox played a series there I would.

[WilliamTell]

6 teams in a division would be cool, adding to 36 total teams, but on the other hand I don't like expansion because it makes the odds of winning the championship worse in any sport. Not in the first few because expansion teams tend do not do very well, but sometimes you have the Marlins and Diamondbacks that win the World Series very early.

 

I don't see any of the AL Central teams leaving in the near future. Minnesota is getting a new stadium, and we all saw how they were pissed when being mentioned for contraction. And since I'm from the Minnesota area I've heard all the relocation rumors in every sport. The Timberwolves moving to New Orleans over 10 years ago, the Vikings moving to Los Angeles a few years ago, the Twins moving to Tampa over ten years ago. Recently only the Northstars relocation to Dallas has happened, and that's probably been around 15 years ago or more, I don't really get into hockey so I'm not sure.

 

I don't see Kansas City or Cleveland leaving either. Kansas City has one other professional franchise, the Chiefs. They are big enough so sustain both the Chiefs and the Royals. Even though the Royals have been terrible since George Brett retired, they have a loyal fan base and wouldn't want to see their team leave.

 

Cleveland was selling out every baseball game in the late 90's showing they have fans when they're good, just like most teams. What it comes down to for any team, is what the owner wants to do. We all saw the Seattle SuperSonics get moved to Oklahoma City, so anything it possible.

[knightni]

The NFC North is more boned.

[GoodAsGould]

I have no problem with the expansion of teams in MLB if there are cities that can support them. That being said I think they should find a way to get the Rangers in the central if this happens.

[WCSox]

It seems to me that the areas that will really thrive in the future include Seattle/Vancouver/Portland (one franchise relocated), San Jose/Silicon Valley/SF (+1),

 

Portland is a bad market for a baseball team. Not only is it relatively small for a "major" city (500,000), but the rest of the state is not very populated and those that do live here don't give a crap about baseball anyway. College sports (and, to a lesser extent, the Blazers) are the big draws in Oregon... and sports in general trails skiing, hiking, and camping in popularity.

 

I also disagree that Seattle and Nor Cal will "thrive" in the future. IMO, both have already seen their heydays and will either remain the same or (more likely) decline somewhat. California is an economic disaster right now with the subprime crisis, and businesses are leaving in droves because of the unfavorable tax laws. Seattle is a little better off, but has many of the same problems that San Fran does (overcrowded, housing is way too expensive, etc.).

 

the Research Triangle/Charlotte (banking, universities) +1, Nashville, San Antonio/Austin corridor...these last two are stretches due to population size and/or weather concerns.

 

I agree with this. The Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Texas are going to be the major growth areas. I'll also throw in Boise and Salt Lake City, although I don't see those as good markets for MLB teams. If I had to guess, I'd say that Nashville would be next in line for a relocated franchise.

Edited February 22, 2009 by WCSox

[greg775]

Good post caulfield, but it's a bit depressing.

Are we to assume the economy will never rebound? That the future of America consists of low employment rates and an overall horrific economy?

If so I'd hate to be a 5 year old child right now.

I prefer to look at it more optimistically. America will rebound and there will be baseball in the AL Central cities.

[knightni]

Baseball is not a feasable sport for small/medium market expansion.

 

Otherwise, Indianapolis and Charlotte would already have franchises.

[SouthsideDon48]

Baseball is not a feasable sport for small/medium market expansion.

 

Otherwise, Indianapolis and Charlotte would already have franchises.

 

Hmmmm, isn't the size of the markets in Milwaukee and Denver about the same size as Indianopolis nd Charlotte?

[knightni]

Hmmmm, isn't the size of the markets in Milwaukee and Denver about the same size as Indianopolis nd Charlotte?

Milwaukee has a fan base that goes to games because of baseball tradition.

 

Denver is a huge market. They have 5 states worth of fans to choose from.

[caulfield12]

Some of the Charlotte love is based on the theory that the Wachovia/Wells Fargo staved off the loss of tremendous job loss (albeit not all) in Charlotte, and then you have the twin presence of Bank of America.

 

Financial centers of the world have not moved quickly...in the last 500 years, you could argue Amsterdam to London to NYC...but I think Charlotte and Nashville will definitely be the cities to watch in the New South.

 

Portland (the Beavers?) used to put up some amazing numbers for their minor league teams, and I think at one point it was only a short-season team, maybe I'm mistaken. Salt Lake City, Louisville and Denver were the other three franchises, along with the Buffalo Bisons, that seemed to really dominate. After Katrina, you'd obviously have to cross New Orleans off the list.

 

With the influx of immigration (and the assumption many of these immigrants, legal and illegal, like beisbol, although their incomes aren't perhap high enough to reflect in season ticket numbers right away) in South Texas, the corridor between San Antonio and Austin (it would probably have to be a domed stadium though, blah!) is another area to watch.

 

I'm pretty sure Colorado (Boulder area?) can't sustain two teams, and there's the altitude/climate issue...but there's a huge swath of territory for just the Royals and the Rockies...Salt Lake City is probably the only other franchise that could fit, and that's a big stretch to me, although not impossible.

Edited February 22, 2009 by caulfield12

[joeynach]

Maybe its not so much about Ticket Sales as it is about Sponsorships and Corporate Spending (outings, conferences, etc). After all the populations of these AL Central Cities isn't that small. You are still talking about finding 30,000+ ppl to go see a ballgame in cities that have millions in population. If you have a quality team in a pennant race you will get ur 30-40K fans per game. At that point its more about the media, sponsorships, corporate events, skybox reservations, etc. Just look at the metro populations of AL Central cities....as long as the team is good they should still draw.

 

Chicago - 9.5M

Detroit - 4.5M

Cleveland - 2M

Minneapolis - 3.2M

Kansas City - 2M

 

 

 

 

[Texsox]

With less than an hours drive from Austin, via a good freeway, the team could be situated in North San Antonio. Also, San Antonio is a reasonable drive from the border, and many Mexican-nationals use San Antonio as a base for tourism. There is plenty of land still available along the expressway.

[Cochise]

Portland is the biggest market in the country without a major league club. In 2002 when the Padres and the Mariners had an exhibition game in Portland, it sold out in 15 minutes. Its definitely the largest metro area in the country with only one pro franchise. As far as the fan base is concerned, its hard to tell. Over the years Portland has had trouble maintaining a fan base with its minor league clubs, but maybe minor league clubs get minor league fans? In 2001 and 2002 Mariners broadcasts in Portland got 4.3 and 4.5 ratings from the Portland area, which was better than 19 major league cities, including the Cubs, Yankees and Giants. And during the 2002 World Series, the Portland area had the 7th best viewership for any city watching, and 3rd best for a city without a regional interest. Lastly, according to a 2003-04 poll on ESPN Portland has the highest %age of major league fans for city without a team (72%).

 

Now, these numbers could be a bit skewed. First off, I got my info from a site called http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/. Now, I don't have more current numbers, because these are from the proposal made to MLB when the Expos were on the move. Thats why the numbers are a bit dated. Also, the TV numbers for Mariners could be a bit inflated because thats when the Mariners were winning 116 games and Ichiro was a rising star. The 2002 World series also featured 2 West Coast teams as well, which could inflate the numbers a bit. But it definitely shows that there is a market and people are interested. I know I'd go to games if they brought a team here. Portland summers are great, it barely rains and it never gets too hot or humid. All we're missing is a ballgame.

 

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents to the discussion. It'd be cool if MLB relocated a team to PDX, hopefully it'd be a National League team, but it'd make more sense to realign the divisions and have 6 5 team divisions.

[southsider2k5]

Portland is the biggest market in the country without a major league club. In 2002 when the Padres and the Mariners had an exhibition game in Portland, it sold out in 15 minutes. Its definitely the largest metro area in the country with only one pro franchise. As far as the fan base is concerned, its hard to tell. Over the years Portland has had trouble maintaining a fan base with its minor league clubs, but maybe minor league clubs get minor league fans? In 2001 and 2002 Mariners broadcasts in Portland got 4.3 and 4.5 ratings from the Portland area, which was better than 19 major league cities, including the Cubs, Yankees and Giants. And during the 2002 World Series, the Portland area had the 7th best viewership for any city watching, and 3rd best for a city without a regional interest. Lastly, according to a 2003-04 poll on ESPN Portland has the highest %age of major league fans for city without a team (72%).

 

Now, these numbers could be a bit skewed. First off, I got my info from a site called http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/. Now, I don't have more current numbers, because these are from the proposal made to MLB when the Expos were on the move. Thats why the numbers are a bit dated. Also, the TV numbers for Mariners could be a bit inflated because thats when the Mariners were winning 116 games and Ichiro was a rising star. The 2002 World series also featured 2 West Coast teams as well, which could inflate the numbers a bit. But it definitely shows that there is a market and people are interested. I know I'd go to games if they brought a team here. Portland summers are great, it barely rains and it never gets too hot or humid. All we're missing is a ballgame.

 

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents to the discussion. It'd be cool if MLB relocated a team to PDX, hopefully it'd be a National League team, but it'd make more sense to realign the divisions and have 6 5 team divisions.

 

Unless you have interleague play everyday, this would be impossible as each league would have an odd number of teams.

 

[CanOfCorn]

The problem with relocating or expanding to the San Antonio/Austin area comes down to two things...the Astros and the Rangers. A good chunk of the population of Austin are UT grads from one of those two areas...with it skewed more towards the Astros, just because the natives tend to point that direction when it comes to baseball. In fact, Austin is strange about sports. Obviously, they are UT-centric. But after that, for baseball, it's the Astros. For football, it's the Cowboys. For basketball, it's the Spurs.

 

San Antonio wouldn't be that great of a market either because of the HUGE population of military. Those folks are from all over the country and while they might go to games they won't be rooting for the San Antonio/Austin/CenTex Whatevers.

[Cochise]

Unless you have interleague play everyday, this would be impossible as each league would have an odd number of teams.

 

Yeah that didn't come out right. I meant that I hope it would be a national league team so I could watch a team, and even cheer for a home town team and not have it interfere with cheering for the Sox. I have trouble cheering for other AL teams. Thats my hang up. Anyway, thats why I said hopefully it'd be a NL team. But I said it'd make more sense to realign the divisions and have 6 divisions of 5 teams. Say you'd move the Marlins to the West Coast and the AL. Move the Pirates to the NL East. That takes care of the NL, 3 disions with 5 teams each. Then you put the former Marlins (Portland's team) in the AL West.

 

I chose the Marlins because they seem like the most viable candidate for relocation. Before last year I'd say Tampa was up there. And I guess they still could be. It depends on how last season's success translates. If the Rays moved to the West Coast you could probably just get away with the AL West and AL East flip flopping who has 4 teams and who has 5. It might even make the AL more competitive with a team having more of a chance to fight it out for the playoffs without having to deal year in and year out with the massive payrolls of the Yankees and Red Sox.

 

Anyway, I digress. I wasn't clear on what I meant, and I hope that takes care of things.

[Putitontheboardyesss]

I think of it this way...if MLB was going to expand for 2010 & KC or Cleveland didn't have a team, would MLB consider placing a team in either of those 2 cities? I don't think they would even consider it.

 

I know that the Indians had an amazing sellout streak last decade, but things have changed drastically since then. The northeast Ohio area has been devastated by a loss of manufacturing jobs. It's 1 of the poorest areas of the country per capita income. During much of that sellout streak, there was no NFL team to compete against. The Browns & LeBron get the vast majority of the ticket money in Cleveland these days...the Tribe is 3rd fiddle.

 

I can easily see a few MLB teams relocated over the next 5-10 years. If it happens, I hope that the powers that be relocate a team to the NY/NJ area to take some of the massive revenue away from the Bankees & Mets. If they can move a Wahington team into the Orioles backyard, they can do the same to the Evil Empire.

[WCSox]

In 2001 and 2002 Mariners broadcasts in Portland got 4.3 and 4.5 ratings from the Portland area, which was better than 19 major league cities, including the Cubs, Yankees and Giants. And during the 2002 World Series, the Portland area had the 7th best viewership for any city watching, and 3rd best for a city without a regional interest. Lastly, according to a 2003-04 poll on ESPN Portland has the highest %age of major league fans for city without a team (72%).

Now, these numbers could be a bit skewed. First off, I got my info from a site called http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/. Now, I don't have more current numbers, because these are from the proposal made to MLB when the Expos were on the move. Thats why the numbers are a bit dated. Also, the TV numbers for Mariners could be a bit inflated because thats when the Mariners were winning 116 games and Ichiro was a rising star. The 2002 World series also featured 2 West Coast teams as well, which could inflate the numbers a bit.

 

If the source didn't completely give it away, those numbers are definitely cherry-picked.

 

Portland has a few things working against it...

 

(1) The Mariners. Lots of people in PDX are already fans and it's only 3 hours away.

 

(2) The Portland/Vancouver area is relatively small and the next-closest major metro area (Salem, ~150,000) is an hour away. Corvallis is even further away and Eugene to PDX is a full two hours. If you go north, you're in M's territory. The Cascades make driving in from Central Oregon a massive headache. Driving in from Astoria or Newport through the Coastal Range on those windy, two-lane roads is also a pain in the ass. So, you'd basically be relying on Portland/Vancouver and Salem as the bulk of your season ticket base. That's maybe 900,000 people, tops.

 

(3) Most native Oregonians aren't really into pro sports. The culture difference between here and the Midwest is enormous. They follow the Ducks or Beavers, maybe the Blazers, and that's about it. The transplants already follow other teams and, while they may go to a couple of games, they're probably not going to fork down money on season tickets.

 

(4) Public financing for a stadium might be a problem in PDX. Taxes and cost of living are already pretty high out here. An owner might get a lot more public financial support elsewhere.

 

Portland is sort of like Indianapolis: A large enough city for a baseball team, but with a VERY limited suburban area, no other major metro areas within easy driving distance, no significant cultural interest in baseball, and an established team only a few hours away. My feeling is that Charlotte or Nashville would get a team first. And it's too bad because, like you said, Portland's summer weather is outstanding.

Edited February 24, 2009 by WCSox

[WilliamTell]

I think of it this way...if MLB was going to expand for 2010 & KC or Cleveland didn't have a team, would MLB consider placing a team in either of those 2 cities? I don't think they would even consider it.

 

I know that the Indians had an amazing sellout streak last decade, but things have changed drastically since then. The northeast Ohio area has been devastated by a loss of manufacturing jobs. It's 1 of the poorest areas of the country per capita income. During much of that sellout streak, there was no NFL team to compete against. The Browns & LeBron get the vast majority of the ticket money in Cleveland these days...the Tribe is 3rd fiddle.

 

I can easily see a few MLB teams relocated over the next 5-10 years. If it happens, I hope that the powers that be relocate a team to the NY/NJ area to take some of the massive revenue away from the Bankees & Mets. If they can move a Wahington team into the Orioles backyard, they can do the same to the Evil Empire.

 

Your LeBron comment is an interesting one. In a way, LeBron could indirectly decide the fate of the Indians. If he stays in Cleveland and the Cavs continue to be solid, maybe the Indians leave Cleveland. But if LeBron leaves and goes to New York like a lot think, the Cavs will take a hit in attendence and the Indians might gain.

[caulfield12]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123543721679054667.html

 

Another article on the perfect storm of problems converging on AZ.

[Soxbadger]

It cant rain all the time.

 

I doubt you will see teams relocating unless an amazing set of circumstance arises.

 

In bad economic times, who is raising taxes to build new stadiums in new cities?

 

Would the Indians really leave the Jake, a relatively brand new stadium for a college facility?

 

Would the Tigers leave their brand new field?

 

This really makes absolutely no sense.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Soxbadger