Will the AL Central survive the next 10 years?

qwerty · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 05:14 PM)

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

That is where people are unfair.

The only way they got that ''baseball tradition'' was with an oppurtunity in the first place. So if given the chance it is theoretically possible that teams from other various locations could do just as well as the brewers. One or two teams will slowly leak into the entire league, as such seems inevitable eventually. I cannot forsee the mlb doing anything drastic and adding any more than 2 teams at a time every ten years or so. They know what they are doing and are not gonna water the league down anytime soon.

Six more teams out there would just be too drastic and would take many years to get the league back to terms, skill wise. It would be a never ending chain down the line. Just look at how bad the bottom feeders are in the nfl and nba year in year out. I truly love baseball due to how close the talent levels are day in day out. Baseball is a crap shoot compared to the nfl or nba. It is far from uncommon to see the worst team in the nba with a sub .200 winning percentage. Almost every season there are 2,3,4,5 teams with sub .350 records. There is no word for that other than atrocious. The nfl and nba are simply too top heavy.

I love football and i love basketball, the disparities in the nfl and nba i can do without.

caulfield12 · February 24, 2009

I guess that brings up an interesting question.

The teams who have built (or had built for them these days) new stadiums and then moved to a new city?

Key Arena in Seattle comes to mind right away in the NBA...not sure if there are any relevant MLB comparisons. The Expos' stadium was about 30 years old when they moved to DC. Seattle had a team for one year in 1969 and then had to wait nearly a decade for a new stadium (Kingdome). Milwaukee also lost its team for four years before the Brewers came in 1970.

Then again, we haven't seen economic times like these since the 1930's, I just thought it was an interesting idea for a topic.

Las Vegas; Norfolk, Va.; Monterrey, Mexico; Portland, Ore.; and Northern Virginia (those were the five other areas, along with DC, bidding on a team five years ago)....we've been talking a lot about Portland in this thread, obviously Northern VA has to be out with both the Orioles and Nationals.

That leaves Norfolk (AAA city for a long time), Mexico and Portland. I can't see how shipping or ship-building will increase in this economy, so strike Norfolk probably, and Las Vegas is in the depths of a real estate bust, so cross them out too. There have always been doubts about Vegas' viability for MLB for a number of other reasons besides the economy.

Edited February 24, 2009 by caulfield12

Cochise · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (WCSox @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 08:52 AM)

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.

The Portland Metro area is as large as a bunch of the other small market teams that are struggling. But your point is taken about the difficulty of travel around the state and the lack of surrounding metro areas as a source for a larger extended fanbase.

Although I do agree with you that north of the Columbia most people are already M's fans, I don't buy that as an argument. Most people in the beltway were O's fans and yet the Expos were still relocated to DC. If you relocate a team, you are going to infringe on some fanbase.

Though I will say, there really isn't a whole lot of fervor for a club at the moment. People seem more concerned about whether or not PDX will possibly be getting an MLS team (yawn).

But mainly, WCSox is right, people here in Oregon are mostly concerned with the Ducks and the Beavers, and I'm not sure if a major league club would change that. I wouldn't mind finding out though.

chiguy79 · February 24, 2009

I don't think teams fold but there is definitely going to be a strike as owners refuse to pay salaries that the players are used to, I think the current collective bargaining agreement ends in 2011? so just hope the economy is back on track by then otherwise their won't be baseball in 2011...which would make the s***ty economy feel even worse!

NorthSideSox72 · February 24, 2009

We are talking expansion or new cities again?

Here is my fave choice: the largest metro area that does not have a major league sports franchise (football, baseball, basketball, hockey), and also doesn't have another team within 100 miles.

Anyone want to guess?

hint: also has a large hispanic population, great baseball weather with minimal rain and warm temps, and a population that is growing very quickly, and an entire state without any major professional sports competition.

NorthSideSox72 · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 08:58 AM)

We are talking expansion or new cities again?

Here is my fave choice: the largest metro area that does not have a major league sports franchise (football, baseball, basketball, hockey), and also doesn't have another team within 100 miles.

Anyone want to guess?

hint: also has a large hispanic population, great baseball weather with minimal rain and warm temps, and a population that is growing very quickly, and an entire state without any major professional sports competition.

I just realized that my above description could actually apply to two different cities. Either one would be a good choice.

joeynach · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 10:12 AM)

I just realized that my above description could actually apply to two different cities. Either one would be a good choice.

Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico.

I also think Salt Lake City might work as well as New Orleans (made more sense before Katrina).

CanOfCorn · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (joeynach @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 09:53 AM)

Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico.

I also think Salt Lake City might work as well as New Orleans (made more sense before Katrina).

Albuquerque might not be a bad choice, although outside of Albuquerque, it's an hour to the next metro area (Santa Fe). But the Dukes/Isotopes have done well for years.

Soxbadger · February 24, 2009

Weve all seen what happens when New Mexico gets a sport franchise. Bold new flavors, a starving man in the outfield, can we really let that happen again?

As for the comparison to Seattle (I almost posted this to start), the difference with baseball and basketball is that basketball can be played in arenas that already exist for the most part.

The Ford Center was opened in 2002 in OKC. They built it so that they could keep the NCAA tournament and try and attract a NHL or NBA team.

Can you name any MLB quality baseball stadiums that have been opened in the last 5 years that are not currently housing a baseball team, in any of the locations suggested?

In bad economic times its going to be much harder to get loans and to get tax payer support to build a stadium for a team that isnt even there. How are tax payers going to react if the stadium is basically empty for years (like the Ford Center) and they spent hundreds of millions on it.

CanOfCorn · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 10:35 AM)

Weve all seen what happens when New Mexico gets a sport franchise. Bold new flavors, a starving man in the outfield, can we really let that happen again?

As for the comparison to Seattle (I almost posted this to start), the difference with baseball and basketball is that basketball can be played in arenas that already exist for the most part.

The Ford Center was opened in 2002 in OKC. They built it so that they could keep the NCAA tournament and try and attract a NHL or NBA team.

Can you name any MLB quality baseball stadiums that have been opened in the last 5 years that are not currently housing a baseball team, in any of the locations suggested?

In bad economic times its going to be much harder to get loans and to get tax payer support to build a stadium for a team that isnt even there. How are tax payers going to react if the stadium is basically empty for years (like the Ford Center) and they spent hundreds of millions on it.

Also basketball stadiums can host lots of other things...concerts, rodeo, wrestling/mma/boxing, hockey, arena football, even convention space. Baseball stadiums are used for...well, baseball.

Here's a question that I don't know the answer to, maybe someone here does...were the football stadiums in Charlotte and Nashville built with the possibility of using them for baseball? I know that's not the way the sports are working these days, but wasn't sure if they were looking ahead, just in case.

BobDylan · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (WCSox @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 01:52 PM)

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.

The surrounding areas bring that 500,000 to over 2 million. There is more than enough around these necks to support a professional baseball team, especially with how well connected the Max-Rail is. I'd have to say that nobody gives a damn about baseball in Portland because nobody has a reason to. Hell, people are working to bring a ML Soccer team to the city... talk about a low draw in this country. With how beautiful the summers are here, I can't think of many, if any, other places better suited for a Major League Baseball team.

MHizzle85 · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 10:35 AM)

Weve all seen what happens when New Mexico gets a sport franchise. Bold new flavors, a starving man in the outfield, can we really let that happen again?

:lolhitting Nice Simpsons reference.

Texsox · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:32 PM)

Nice Simpsons reference.

/feeling old :unsure:

NorthSideSox72 · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:39 PM)

/feeling old :unsure:

I didn't get it either, don't feel bad.

Soxbadger · February 24, 2009

I didnt make the reference to obvious, I thought some Simpons fans may get it and think of the episode where the Springfield Isotopes are secretly moving and Homer goes on a hunger strike.

Hungry Hungry Homer

HuskyCaucasian · February 24, 2009

I wanted to get a little debate in here before I posted my opinion... because I've never really had one on relocation. Having read all the various sides, i think i have one. lol

City growth and decline change over time. Who would have thought in 1950 (when baseball moved west) that Las Vegas would be what it is today? Who could have imagined the complete implosion of the US auto market (Detroit)? Who could have thought New Orleans would be seriously considered for a NBA team and a baseball team... only to have the entire city leveled? (ok, maybe we saw that one coming). But you get my point. Things change.

With that being said, here is my input:

I think if there were a salary cap in MLB, that might help level the playing field a little to keep some smaller market teams in play, but it wont be enough to save franchises from towns that are sinking. Some cities are going through rough times... Phoenix being one. But, they have the potential to recover. Some cities have serious problems on a macro-level... Detroit being one. Some cities are stagnant... KC being one. Some teams just never took root, Marlins and Rays.

So, while Detroit has history and may be sustainable for the short term, in the long term it may be screwed. They'd have to reassess in 4-5 years.

So, in the short term, i could see cities like Marlins. Tampa Bay, Kansas City and Detroit needing to pack up shop. Tampa though is stuck in a nastly lease, so they may need to limp through unless MLB steps in and pays of the rent or fold the team. And the Marlins are in the process of getting new digs, so they may be there to stay.

Those are a lot of AL teams, what about the NL? I see the East and West as "Stable". I dont knwo enough about Cinici and Milwaukee to speak of them, but they seem... ok.

So, what happens? I can see temas moving to Las Vegas (not until the housing market turns around). I really feel that is a place a team can thrive.

Portland is also an interesting option... and worth exploring. So is Charlotte... it's far enough away from the "big cities" on the east coast to be able to build its own local fan base. Drawing from Southern VA, Northern South Carolina, and all of North Carolina.

I dont see new teams in San Jose or Silicon Valley unles the A's move. I see them moving "reagonally" rather than across the country.

The San Antonio/Austin corridor is interesting, but i just dont see it working.

Mexico City is a FACINATING idea. WOuld baseball be popular in Mexica City?

I would be in favor of contracting some teams rather than moving because I think MLB (and many other sports) have over grown), but I dont see it happening.

So, where does this leave us? Here is my projection for 10-15 years from now...

EAST

Baltimore

Boston

New York

Toronto

Charlotte (formerly Kansas City, Detroit, or Tampa)

CENTRAL

Chicago

Cleveland

Mexico City (formerly Kansas City, Detroit, or Tampa)

Minnesota

WEST

Los Angeles

Oakland (relocated to San Jose or Silicon Vally)

Seattle

Texas

Las Vegas (formerly Kansas City, Detroit, or Tampa)

EAST

Atlanta

New York

Philadelphia

Washington

Pittsburgh

CENTRAL

Chicago

Cincinnati

Houston

Milwaukee

St. Louis

WEST

Arizona

Colorado

Los Angeles

San Diego

San Francisco

Portland (Formerly the Marlins)

Edited February 24, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

BobDylan · February 24, 2009

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 04:06 PM)