SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
BA Expansion Article and Discussion
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 22, 2015 12:19:04 GMT -5
www.baseballamerica.com/majors/baseball-ponders-pros-cons-expansion/I've been thinking a lot about another round of expansion ever since the Astros moved to the AL. It is so unweildy having two 15-team leagues (I hate interleague play in general, so constant interleague play makes me want to punch kittens), and it seemed an almost obvious precursor to another expansion announcement. Maybe it was the sort of thing Selig wanted to leave to the Manfred administration. Or maybe it's all part of a diabolical plot to normalize interleague play. The best place for a new team is, without a doubt Brooklyn/North Jersey. I've argued for years that it's the obvious landing spot for the Rays if they get out of their pit of despair. There's tons of money, regional identity, built-in rivalries, everything. Of course, the Yankees an Mets aren't going to let it happen as the power structure currently stands. The one place not mentioned in the BA article which I think would be a great fit would be Indianapolis. They do a great job supporting their basketball and football teams, and Indy is frequently at or near the top of minor league attendance - they were #1 in 2015. One other thing that Indy has going for it, which I don't classify as a good thing but MLB undoubedly would, is that they will probably be able to use public money for a stadium. Again, I don't endorse that on any level, but it certainly gives them an advantage. As far as the interest in international markets, I'm pretty skeptical. I know there's a lot of nostalgia for the Expos right now, especially with Jonah Keri's really good Up, Up, and Away. But Montreal's attendance was dismal for years, and I don't like their shot at strongarming the Quebecois locals ino paying for a new stadium. Vancouver is probably the best international fit, and one I would be on board with. San Juan and Havana are pipe dreams. I'd be really thrilled to see teams in those places in my lifetime. The quality of play is always a concern, but frankly I think the game is being played at a high level right now. There's a ton of reasonably good pitching, and the international influx over the 20 years since the AZ/TB expansion has been an amazing thing. Plus, I'd sacrifice a bit on the quality of play front to never have the Red Sox home opener be against a National League team again.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871 
|
Post by danr on Apr 22, 2015 13:18:51 GMT -5
I wonder how they managed to overlook Las Vegas as a potential location. There was a lot of talk a few years ago about MLB being very interested in putting a team there. That was before the housing meltdown, which hit Las Vegas very hard. But they are rebuilding their downtown and growth continues. Like Phoenix, they would have to have an enclosed stadium. The heat there is just incredible in the summer.
Now that I live in the Portland area I am very partial to the idea of a team being located here. We get blacked out for the Seattle games, which I think is outrageous. People here do not identify with Seattle other than both cities are in the Pacific Northwest. Portland is about the same size as Baltimore (with 1/10th the crime) and it is growing. Housing is very tight. There is a local guy who has been active in promoting the idea. The PCL stadium was converted to major league soccer and that team has done extremely well. A new stadium would be needed for MLB and it probably would have to have a cover, maybe like Seattle's. It sometimes doesn't stop raining here until July.
I think there would be some strenuous objections from a number of quarters to locating a team in Indiana, at least during its present political environment.
Buffalo also would be a good city for a team and would give it solid support. It would be a good location for an AL East team considering that Toronto is not far away. There is great interest in baseball there. The triple A Bisons team always has drawn well.
|
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 23, 2015 9:48:43 GMT -5
The stupid TV rights deals seem to be the biggest barrier for this. What a mess to give teams exclusive rights over certain areas. They don't own us!
|
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Apr 23, 2015 10:23:13 GMT -5
Since most of the Dodgers fans converted to Mets when O'Malley deserted Brooklyn, I believe they would be the more vociferous in opposition to a third team in their backyard.
Montreal is ramping up efforts to attract an expansion or relocated team. The population base and a new ballpark would stand that city in good stead for consideration.
I agree with the OP on the inter league play. American Leaguerers are at a distinct disadvantage when playing in NL cities. I don't have a problem with the five team, fifteen team league format however.
I believe the Tampa Bay area can support a team. St. Pete, however, is not the place. Somehow they have to find the will to build a new park in Tampa proper and mollify St. Pete on its long term obligation to the Rays.
|
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Apr 23, 2015 10:33:11 GMT -5
So how does it work for baseball expansions as far as getting players? Same as nfl i'd asssume. i was too young and not as interested when the rays and diamonbacks formed so i don't remember how it went.
|
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Apr 23, 2015 11:13:38 GMT -5
Looked it up for the 1997 expansion draft and wikipedia says: Be interesting to see which 15 players the Red Sox would protect. And then which players they would protect after each round. So an expansion draft for for the 2016 season would take place in November 2015 and would autoprotect players drafted in 2014 and this June and players 18 or younger when signed in 2013, based on above rules. Betts Bogaerts Ramirez Swihart Owens Margot Rodriguez Moncada Johnson Kelly Miley Porcello Vazquez Castillo Pedroia Dunno if that is too youth-heavy. Sandoval would prob get selected but I'm fine with that. Nava, Holt, Buchholz probably. |
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Apr 23, 2015 12:07:02 GMT -5
How many rounds are there?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 23, 2015 12:44:53 GMT -5
Players who are not 40-man eligible would not need to be protected. So someone like Moncada wouldn't be eligible for an expansion draft next offseason based on the rules of the two previous drafts, assuming he isn't added to the 40-man this season (he almost certainly will not be).
There were 70 players selected in the 1997 expansion draft.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 23, 2015 12:59:25 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be a blast to be doing the picks in an expansion draft? Klostrophobic's list of protected Sox players is pretty good. If you are a GM looking at the players available, and there are some really good ones, who do you pick? JBJ, Devers, Chavis, Kopech, Marrero, Sandoval, Holt, etc?
That decision, of course, would be based on what players and what types of players were available from other teams. Even so, I think it would be really hard to choose among those Sox players.
|
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Apr 23, 2015 13:09:29 GMT -5
Players who are not 40-man eligible would not need to be protected. So someone like Moncada wouldn't be eligible for an expansion draft next offseason based on the rules of the two previous drafts, assuming he isn't added to the 40-man this season (he almost certainly will not be). There were 70 players selected in the 1997 expansion draft. Is this true? Wikipedia claims all players are eligible unless they're a certain age or were drafted in last two drafts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Major_League_Baseball_expansion_draft#ProceduresBased on those rules I would say Moncada is eligible. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 23, 2015 14:31:10 GMT -5
Klostrphobic, I believe you're right about Moncada being eligible, but I am trying to figure if there was a rule requiring selections to be placed on the 40-man roster immediately. I think that the rules now might have to be changed by a year to match the premium currently being placed on amateur talent. Otherwise the new teams would likely stock up on younger talent like Stank, Rijo and Guerra, rather than filling out their major league rosters and depth through the draft, which is the real goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 23, 2015 15:07:18 GMT -5
We already have teams struggling to get 50% attendance. I don't really favor expansion and having another team with no fans. The Nationals are *still* trying to get a foothold in the region.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 23, 2015 17:12:20 GMT -5
I believe that all major league teams now are making money regardless of their attendance. In fact, MLB is awash in money. MLB could easily expand by several teams without a problem.
The Nationals don't seem to be having trouble with attendance. They drew 2.6 million last year, an average of 32,000 per game. And 40 miles up 95 in Baltimore the Orioles drew 2.5 million, an average of 30,000 per game. The Red Sox drew 2.9 million, an average of 36,000 per game.
There are only six teams drawing less than 2 million, and with the exception of KC, which drew just a bit less than 2 million, the other five, Tampa, Cleveland, Miami, Houston and the Chicago White Sox did not offer their fans much to cheer about last year.
I think that weather affects the attendance of some teams, particularly those that are in very hot places without A/C, or in ones where it is cold and damp this time of year and sometimes in the fall as well. But then there are cities like Boston, St. Louis and Milwaukee where the fans will fill the place almost all the time.
The fact is that more and more revenue is coming from television and probably MLB would make even more money if there were more teams. Put major league teams in cities like Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Buffalo and maybe Montreal again, and, I believe, interest in MLB would increase.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 23, 2015 17:33:52 GMT -5
Good article. It hugely undersells the scheduling advantages of having 32 teams, though. You can easily create a balanced schedule: no more arbitrarily playing clubs out of your division anywhere from 6 to 9 times, in which clubs in the same division can even make different numbers of trips to the other coast. And, more importantly, you can schedule it all in 3 and 4 game series, reducing the amount of total travel for everryone by getting rid of the occasional 2 game series.
There's no argument against it based on some teams struggling with attendance. Between the last pre-expansion year, 1992, and 2014, here are the 10 worst clubs for attendance:
1) '92 HOU, 1.21M
2) '92 CLE, 1.22
3) '92 DET, 1.42
4) '14 CLE, 1.44
5) '14 TB, 1.45
6) '92 SF, 1.56
7) '14 CHA, 1.65
8) '92 SEA, 1.65
9) '92 MON, 1.67
10) '92 SD, 1.72
The '14 A's, a team that is considered in need of a move (and why they're not looking at Sacramento instead of near San Jose beats me) would have ranked 14th in attendance in 1992.
The Nationals were 12th in MLB in 2014 with 2.58M. Furthermore, they're further (385 miles) from Charlotte than Atlanta (245 miles) is, so it's kind of unclear as to why they have territorial rights there, if in fact they do. Practically speaking, Charlotte is not near any MLB city, and, along with Montreal, is an obvious place to expand to.
Seattle to Portland is 175 miles, which is closer than Boston to NYC (215), but Philly and NYC are just 92 miles apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 23, 2015 18:14:15 GMT -5
I'd rather see them expand to Latin America (Mexico) than attempt the montreal experiment a second time. Its not only close but I can see them pulling in a lot more revenue and interest for the league. San Antonio would also be great.
I think two New York teams is more than enough. I have a hard time seeing baseball catching on in some of the other suggested locations too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 23, 2015 20:15:46 GMT -5
Puerto Rico would be good too.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 23, 2015 21:33:44 GMT -5
Remember, attendance isn't what makes teams money, TV deals are. San Juan and Havana are nowhere near being able to supply what Charlotte and Indianapolis could in that department.
Also, Mexico City is 750 miles from Houston, the closest major league city.
|
|
|
|
Post by hockeypuck2008 on Apr 24, 2015 0:06:05 GMT -5
I think you would have to think about if and when you add two teams do you break down into 4 divisions in each league? If so you have to look at where the new teams go within those 4 divisions. That might determine where you place a team. So say you create 4 division, 4 teams a division.
So say the AL breaks down into these 4 divisions. East- Boston, New York, Baltimore, and Tampa Bay. Central- Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, and Toronto. The Midwest- Kansas City, Minnesota, Texas, and Houston. West- Oakland, Seattle, Anaheim, and expansion team.
So the NL is harder to break down. East- New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Miami. Central- Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Washington. Midwest- St. Louis, Cincinnati, Colorado, and expansion Team. West- Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Arizona.
If you break it down into 4 divisions that pretty much decides where you are going to place your teams and who gets what expansion team. The two areas you will need teams will be one on the west coast and one in the lower central time zone. The AL will get a west team. I think that goes without saying and an obvious choice. So Las Vegas and Portland would be your choices for expansion. In the NL you will need a Midwest or lower central team. That makes Indianapolis a no brainer. Moving St. Louis and Cincinnati out of the Central might make some owners mad but I do not see any way around it. Toronto will probably be happy to get out of the AL East.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 24, 2015 6:09:02 GMT -5
I don't see Montreal really doing that well in the tv ratings, either do you? Mexico City is of the largest cities in the world and it would become the de facto team of the country. They could make a lot of merchandise there too.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 24, 2015 7:26:06 GMT -5
The median income in Mexico City is $2,429.91. It just isn't going to compete with Charlotte in terms of a TV deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 24, 2015 7:37:46 GMT -5
Looked it up for the 1997 expansion draft and wikipedia says: Be interesting to see which 15 players the Red Sox would protect. And then which players they would protect after each round. So an expansion draft for for the 2016 season would take place in November 2015 and would autoprotect players drafted in 2014 and this June and players 18 or younger when signed in 2013, based on above rules. Betts Bogaerts Ramirez Swihart Owens Margot Rodriguez Moncada Johnson Kelly Miley Porcello Vazquez Castillo Pedroia Dunno if that is too youth-heavy. Sandoval would prob get selected but I'm fine with that. Nava, Holt, Buchholz probably. God I'm just imagining the frenzy of hot takes we'd have to endure if they left Ortiz off of the protected list. Looking at the 1997 draft it's amazing how poorly both teams ended up doing. Whoever would end up running these two new hypothetical teams would undoubtedly be way, way smarter and have access to so much more (relevant) information than the Rays and Dbacks did, an expansion draft in this era would be much more fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 24, 2015 7:52:41 GMT -5
The median income in Mexico City is $2,429.91. It just isn't going to compete with Charlotte in terms of a TV deal. Fair. Charlotte is also one of the fastest growing cities in the country. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 24, 2015 8:34:05 GMT -5
The median income in Mexico City is $2,429.91. It just isn't going to compete with Charlotte in terms of a TV deal. Fair. Charlotte is also one of the fastest growing cities in the country. Being from in NC, I think there is almost no chance that NC can support a team. Probably less than half of the city populations are actually from here, no one really has local pride. I still identify myself as being from New England, not NC after living here for 20 years and leaving New England when I was 15. The NHL team, the Hurricanes still to this day has about half opposing fans for every single game after them being here for close to 20 years. I guess they can do whatever they want with TV deals, though I don't really get how a team that ends up with 10,000 fans a night gets billions in a tv deal. I'd rather that they contract two teams than expand, but I know that is never happening. I don't know why we have to just assume that expansion is inevitable though. The Twins at one point almost moved to Winston-Salem. Thank god that didn't happen, because the assumption that fans from Charlotte and Raleigh were going to drive 100 miles to see a lot of games is pretty ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 24, 2015 9:26:19 GMT -5
Mexico could definitely support a team and have a great TV deal. Look how much money Soccer makes there. Coke and Honda and other major brands aren't advertising things that millions of Mexicans wouldn't be able to afford. Plus, there are tons of very rich Mexicans as well who would buy luxury boxes and luxury paraphernalia. As someone mentioned, we're not just looking at the millions in MXCity, but also the millions in the rest of the country who would instantly be part of the fan base.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 24, 2015 9:31:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd have to imagine that a team in Mexico would get a national tv deal, like the Blue Jays get in Canada.
|
|
|
