Portland and other MLB expansion name possibilities

[kroywen]

The overwhelming majority of transplants are going to have existing loyalties, no matter where they're coming from. The father of two from Scranton seeking new employment in San Antonio isn't likely to become a [insert San Antonio MLB team here] fan, just as the wide-eyed girl from Montana who strikes out to NYC to 'make it in the big city' isn't likely to become a Yankee fan.

 

Take Tampa Bay, for example. There are a ton of Yankees, Mets, Phillies, and Red Sox fans down there. A lot of those are retirees whose kids are still up north, and likely also root for their hometown team. Of those transplants who are younger and brought their families, I'd bet there's a mix of Rays fans and kids who take after their parents' rooting interests (which is much easier now given that you can watch out-of-market games anywhere). The next generation, there will probably be more Rays fans, and so on.

 

Thing is, it takes 18 years until kids really have buying power, so having your fanbase skew super-young is going to further hurt attendance and advertising revenue. Ask the New Jersey Devils (or the Rays) about that.

[SFGiants58]

3 hours ago, kroywen said:

The overwhelming majority of transplants are going to have existing loyalties, no matter where they're coming from. The father of two from Scranton seeking new employment in San Antonio isn't likely to become a [insert San Antonio MLB team here] fan, just as the wide-eyed girl from Montana who strikes out to NYC to 'make it in the big city' isn't likely to become a Yankee fan.

 

Take Tampa Bay, for example. There are a ton of Yankees, Mets, Phillies, and Red Sox fans down there. A lot of those are retirees whose kids are still up north, and likely also root for their hometown team. Of those transplants who are younger and brought their families, I'd bet there's a mix of Rays fans and kids who take after their parents' rooting interests (which is much easier now given that you can watch out-of-market games anywhere). The next generation, there will probably be more Rays fans, and so on.

 

Thing is, it takes 18 years until kids really have buying power, so having your fanbase skew super-young is going to further hurt attendance and advertising revenue. Ask the New Jersey Devils (or the Rays) about that.

 

Ah yes, I believe we touched upon something similar in the "Will the Rays move to Las Vegas" thread:

 

Here are a few choice quotes from that thread:

 

On 8/30/2017 at 8:34 AM, SFGiants58 said:

I know that it may seem tough, but it would be good for us to show a little compassion towards Rays fans. They've spent almost a decade hearing the "they couldn't draw flies, even when they went to the World Series" and "you should lose your team" epithets. The former ignores that it was the first season that the team was worth a damn in the standings. They didn't have the same kind of entrenchement in the area that an older, historically more successful franchise would have (I might also cite poor marketing as a reason for this). The latter is just plain insulting. Put yourself in their shoes, and try to understand why they're sick of people from outside of the area telling them that the team they've poured their heart into should go away.

 

On 8/30/2017 at 8:26 PM, Magic Dynasty said:

Look. I made this thread for discussion about that (pretty trash IMO) article saying the Rays could be moving to Vegas. However, just like every time the Rays come up, the conversation turns into a hatefest with people saying they wish the team would move. I mean, seriously? The Indians, who are World Series contenders, are 24th in the league in attendance. During Game 7 of the WS last year you could hear on the TV the "Go Cubbies Go" chants. No one is using the "even though the team is successful, they aren't drawing well, so they they should leave" argument for them. Also, Montreal, the main place where people are saying the Rays should go, was never a good draw either. The New Expos would have good attendance the first year due to the hype and then it would go back to the normal old 8,000 a year Expos, which the Rays have already outdrawn by over 7,000 (their attendance figures to date are 15,614 - undeniably a bad number but not nearly as bad as the beloved Expos, who according to everyone should come back immediately).

 

On 8/30/2017 at 7:38 PM, McCarthy said:

 

Their issues are bigger and more complicated. It doesn't mean it's not true, though, because the entirety of the professional sports model depends on child fans growing up to become adult ticket buyers. That's how it works. I used to a kid who was a fan of the Cincinnati Reds and now I'm an adult who buys tickets to watch the Cincinnati Reds. It's happened in Tampa - The Tampa Bay Lightning have season ticket holders right now who were kids in 1992.

 

not sure why that's regarded as this big myth on this message board. 

On 8/30/2017 at 9:56 PM, McCarthy said:

 

Those stains do wash out. I can't speak for Raleigh, but I can speak for Columbus where I'm from and my experience, right now, is people in their mid 20's recently out of OSU or OU or Miami or Bowling Green who were the children of Blackhawks and Penguins and Red Wings fans or, most likely, no team, are now Columbus Blue Jackets ticket and merch buyers because we grew up with them. It's very real. I don't get why it's so thoroughly brushed aside as fallacy on this board when the number of successful expansion and relocated franchises operating right now in North American sports proves my point for me. Look at the Tampa Bay Lightning.

 

I just want to talk about why "when the kids grow up" is off the table here. Is it because it didn't/hasn't taken in Phoenix? Man, Phoenix. 

 

These are all important points about handling expansion after the rise in national networks and services like MLB.tv, Sunday Ticket, NBA League Pass, etc. It has to be taken into account whenever expansion occurs, and "It'll be a success about 15-20 years from now" is enough to drive many an investor away.

 

Expansion is a terrible idea in baseball, as it demands so much from its market and it necessitates the creation of more minor-league teams (which creates more issues with stadium and infrastructure costs). Thirty teams is pretty good, and while there may be nostalgia for baseball in Montreal (I can't emphasize that word enough) and a desire to see an MLB in "growing" markets, it's just not a smart economic decision.

[daveindc]

9 hours ago, kroywen said:

The overwhelming majority of transplants are going to have existing loyalties, no matter where they're coming from. The father of two from Scranton seeking new employment in San Antonio isn't likely to become a [insert San Antonio MLB team here] fan, just as the wide-eyed girl from Montana who strikes out to NYC to 'make it in the big city' isn't likely to become a Yankee fan.

 

Take Tampa Bay, for example. There are a ton of Yankees, Mets, Phillies, and Red Sox fans down there. A lot of those are retirees whose kids are still up north, and likely also root for their hometown team. Of those transplants who are younger and brought their families, I'd bet there's a mix of Rays fans and kids who take after their parents' rooting interests (which is much easier now given that you can watch out-of-market games anywhere). The next generation, there will probably be more Rays fans, and so on.

 

Thing is, it takes 18 years until kids really have buying power, so having your fanbase skew super-young is going to further hurt attendance and advertising revenue. Ask the New Jersey Devils (or the Rays) about that.

 

 

I don't quite understand your first paragraph. The father of two from Scranton is going to have such strong loyalty to some other team (what team would that even be?), that he's going to refuse to go to a baseball game with his kids in San Antonio? People will become fans of their city's team over time. I've seen this first hand with the Nationals here in D.C., another rapidly growing metro area. Will it be perfect like the fan bases in cities like Boston and Chicago? No, but that shouldn't be a factor when deciding on expansion cities. The Rays and the retirees who move down to Tampa is the worst example to give. 

 

 

I came across this pic the other day, which I think is relevant here:

 

I think people are overestimating "fan loyalty" in this discussion. People will adopt their city's team over time.

 

Also, it's not as if these metro areas have seen growth only within the last couple years. These areas have seen steady, sustainable growth over a long period of time. They already have a generation who grew up without teams. They're ready.

 

 

 

 

[kroywen]

2 minutes ago, daveindc said:

I don't quite understand your first paragraph. The father of two from Scranton is going to have such strong loyalty to some other team (what team would that even be?), that he's going to refuse to go to a baseball game with his kids in San Antonio? People will become fans of their city's team over time. I've seen this first hand with the Nationals here in D.C., another rapidly growing metro area. Will it be perfect like the fan bases in cities like Boston and Chicago? No, but that shouldn't be a factor when deciding on expansion cities. The Rays and the retirees who move down to Tampa is the worst example to give. 

 

The father of two from Scranton is far more likely to continue following his existing favorite team, whoever that might be (probably the Yankees or Phillies) than shifting loyalties just because he moved to a new city. I'm not saying he'd never go to games in his new city, but the chances of him being a regular attendee are pretty slim. Again, both Florida teams are a good example - transplanted Northerners generally aren't going to random Rays/Rangers or Marlins/Rockies games (but they are filling up the stands when the Yanks, Sox, or Mets are in town).

 

If we want to use anecdotal evidence, I'm from a metropolitan area that has (a.) a ton of natives who have stayed, (b.) a ton of transplants, and (c.) a ton of natives who have moved elsewhere. I don't think I've ever met a single transplant that had a rooting interest in another team that suddenly adopted the Yankees or Mets because they came here. And I don't know a single person I grew up with who moved elsewhere in the country who ditched the Yankees or Mets for their new city's local team. 

 

We're living in an age where you can follow any team from anywhere at any time. I could follow the Yankees just as easily from Boston or Tampa or Austin as I can from New York. The days of "well, I can't watch [favorite team], so let me turn on the [local team] game and see how they're doing" are long gone (insomuch as they ever existed). 

[daveindc]

2 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

The father of two from Scranton is far more likely to continue following his existing favorite team, whoever that might be (probably the Yankees or Phillies) than shifting loyalties just because he moved to a new city. I'm not saying he'd never go to games in his new city, but the chances of him being a regular attendee are pretty slim. Again, both Florida teams are a good example - transplanted Northerners generally aren't going to random Rays/Rangers or Marlins/Rockies games (but they are filling up the stands when the Yanks, Sox, or Mets are in town).

 

If we want to use anecdotal evidence, I'm from a metropolitan area that has (a.) a ton of natives who have stayed, (b.) a ton of transplants, and (c.) a ton of natives who have moved elsewhere. I don't think I've ever met a single transplant that had a rooting interest in another team that suddenly adopted the Yankees or Mets because they came here. And I don't know a single person I grew up with who moved elsewhere in the country who ditched the Yankees or Mets for their new city's local team. 

 

We're living in an age where you can follow any team from anywhere at any time. I could follow the Yankees just as easily from Boston or Tampa or Austin as I can from New York. The days of "well, I can't watch [favorite team], so let me turn on the [local team] game and see how they're doing" are long gone (insomuch as they ever existed). 

 

 

Retirees who move to Florida with no kids, and with decades of rooting interests in some historical NE team, is not a good example. And one doesn't have to "ditch" their hometown team to become a fan of the team in their new city. That Astros/Dodgers fan I just posted is a prime example.

NY is a transient city. People move there for few years, then move out. Areas like Portland and San Antonio have shown steady, sustainable growth over a long period of time.

 

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, daveindc said:

I think people are overestimating "fan loyalty" in this discussion. People will adopt their city's team over time.

 

 

Florida’s baseball teams say “hello.”

[daveindc]

54 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Florida’s baseball teams say “hello.”

 

 

This quote from my post directly above yours says hello:

 

3 hours ago, daveindc said:

Retirees who move to Florida with no kids, and with decades of rooting interests in some historical NE team, is not a good example.

 

Florida is a whole different animal.

 

 

[kroywen]

15 minutes ago, daveindc said:

This quote from my post directly above yours says hello:

 

Florida is a whole different animal.

 

I don't think it's nearly as different an animal as you think. First, there's a good number of retirees transplanting to any fast-growing, low-tax, warm-weather region. Texas, the Carolinas, Arizona, etc., are all taking in many retirees from the rest of the country. Likewise, Florida is not just taking in retirees from up north, but also a good number of working people. So it's not like Texas is taking in exclusively young workers and Florida is only taking in retirees.

 

And why would an established adult fan of a team at any age change their allegiance just because they move? (Not talking about children here, who tend to have very transient and shifting allegiances.) Those young transplants are more likely to leverage technology to follow their team back home than retirees are. They're more likely to transplant multiple times, to wherever there might be good employment, rather than intending to settle in their new home until they die. They're more likely to see a move to another city as being "for now" rather than "forever" - "until I get married," "until I have kids," "until I retire," "for as long as I'm at this job," etc.

 

There are absolutely some transplants who adopt their new home's team as a second team. That's still not going to drive a ton of revenue or attendance. You can't just look at a transplant-heavy population and expect to find a baked-in fanbase waiting to embrace a new team, to the point that said team would be profitable.

[daveindc]

33 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

I don't think it's nearly as different an animal as you think. First, there's a good number of retirees transplanting to any fast-growing, low-tax, warm-weather region. Texas, the Carolinas, Arizona, etc., are all taking in many retirees from the rest of the country. Likewise, Florida is not just taking in retirees from up north, but also a good number of working people. So it's not like Texas is taking in exclusively young workers and Florida is only taking in retirees.

 

And why would an established adult fan of a team at any age change their allegiance just because they move? (Not talking about children here, who tend to have very transient and shifting allegiances.) Those young transplants are more likely to leverage technology to follow their team back home than retirees are. They're more likely to transplant multiple times, to wherever there might be good employment, rather than intending to settle in their new home until they die. They're more likely to see a move to another city as being "for now" rather than "forever" - "until I get married," "until I have kids," "until I retire," "for as long as I'm at this job," etc.

 

There are absolutely some transplants who adopt their new home's team as a second team. That's still not going to drive a ton of revenue or attendance. You can't just look at a transplant-heavy population and expect to find a baked-in fanbase waiting to embrace a new team, to the point that said team would be profitable.

 

 

You say "transplant-heavy" as if these areas are mostly populated by transplants. Again- these are major metropolitan areas that have always had comparable populations to areas with pro teams, and have seen steady, sustainable growth over a long period of time. You already have generations who suffered without a team. The younger generation right now is suffering without a team. So yeah, you do have "baked-in" fan bases waiting for teams.

 

But that's all I have to say about this. I would rather discuss potential uniforms/brands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

I think lots of us want expansion in baseball but just don't know where to put teams. Baseball asks the most of its markets (NBA the least) and that may be too much for what's left.

[KGeeX5]

On 10/29/2017 at 9:53 AM, kroywen said:

The overwhelming majority of transplants are going to have existing loyalties, no matter where they're coming from. The father of two from Scranton seeking new employment in San Antonio isn't likely to become a [insert San Antonio MLB team here] fan, just as the wide-eyed girl from Montana who strikes out to NYC to 'make it in the big city' isn't likely to become a Yankee fan.

 

Take Tampa Bay, for example. There are a ton of Yankees, Mets, Phillies, and Red Sox fans down there. A lot of those are retirees whose kids are still up north, and likely also root for their hometown team. Of those transplants who are younger and brought their families, I'd bet there's a mix of Rays fans and kids who take after their parents' rooting interests (which is much easier now given that you can watch out-of-market games anywhere). The next generation, there will probably be more Rays fans, and so on.

 

Thing is, it takes 18 years until kids really have buying power, so having your fanbase skew super-young is going to further hurt attendance and advertising revenue. Ask the New Jersey Devils (or the Rays) about that.

 

My father and his family moved from New York as a teenager down to Miami. Before the Marlins came around in 1993 he told me they would show the Mets on the super station (WGN?) and broadcast the Mets games over the radio. That all went away after 93 but he stuck with the Mets and passed it onto me (unfortunately? lol) My uncle still likes the Mets but follows the Marlins more closely. 

 

As a kid growing up, i liked the Marlins, even played Little League with a players son (pitcher Alex Fernandez.) With the internet beginning to really flourish just as I was actually starting to follow baseball in the early 2000s in really kindled my love for the Mets and really let me follow the team like my dad did in the 80s. I expect one day to curse pass onto my future children my Mets fandom. 

 

It really does take years for the real "die hard" loyal fans to come around, there are soooo many transplants down here and the retailers no it. In the sports sections 9 out of 10 times the Yankees gear is equal to or greater then Marlins gear. Even at Walmart I'll see Marlins, Dolphins, Heat, UM, FSU and ....Yankees. Hell the Marlins are being run by Mr Yankee himself lol. I hope they can get the franchise going in the right direction so baseball can really flourish down here. Kids born during the Marlins era are getting into their 20s-30s so there can be a huge crop of new young fans with possibly children of their own soon to bring in.

[SFGiants58]

I forgot this earlier, but another point against using the name "Portland Beavers" is this:

 

 

There's already a popular "Beavers" team in the state (since the 1910's), and calling an MLB the "Beavers" alienates potential fans (i.e., University of Oregon fans, who might travel into Portland for games if they don't live there already). It's just bad marketing.

[RichO]

53 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I forgot this earlier, but another point against using the name "Portland Beavers" is this:

 

 

There's already a popular "Beavers" team in the state (since the 1910's), and calling an MLB the "Beavers" alienates potential fans (i.e., University of Oregon fans, who might travel into Portland for games if they don't live there already). It's just bad marketing.

 

I'm sure they'd really suffer from the dozen baseball fans who are so far gone into their college allegiance that they'll refuse to put money into a baseball team that happens to have the same locally relevant name as their unrelated chief rival.

[jmoe12]

Don't want to identify too strongly with either of the main universities in the state?

 

 

Problem solved.

 

[upperV03]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

I forgot this earlier, but another point against using the name "Portland Beavers" is this:

 

 

There's already a popular "Beavers" team in the state (since the 1910's), and calling an MLB the "Beavers" alienates potential fans (i.e., University of Oregon fans, who might travel into Portland for games if they don't live there already). It's just bad marketing.

I really don’t see that being an issue considering the history of the “Portland Beavers” name, and the fact that the beaver is Oregon’s state animal (people sometimes refer to Oregon as the Beaver State, even). Hell, there’s even a beaver on the back of the state flag. If there are Ducks fans ignorant enough to not support a potential Portland MLB franchise because the team name, which also happens to be the state animal, is the same as OSU’s mascot, then I don’t think that franchise would want those people as fans anyways. Now I’m aware that the beaver didn’t become the state state animal until the late-60’s, and the flag dates back to 1925, but the beaver has a much more significant meaning to the state which predates OSU’s adoption of the beaver as its mascot in 1910. Before Oregon became a state, their provincial government even had Beavers on their money, and Beavers were an integral part of early exploration into the Northwest, and fur trade dominated the area. 

[Gothamite]

30 minutes ago, jmoe12 said:

Don't want to identify too strongly with either of the main universities in the state?

 

 

Problem solved.

 

 

Without a doubt, my favorite rivalry trophy.

 

[leopard88]

34 minutes ago, jmoe12 said:

Don't want to identify too strongly with either of the main universities in the state?

 

 

Problem solved.

 

 

Brilliant!  This makes the gold stripes on the original Falcons helmets look like child's play.

[The_Admiral]

3 hours ago, KGeeX5 said:

Before the Marlins came around in 1993 he told me they would show the Mets on the super station (WGN?)

 

WWOR had the Mets, WGN is in Chicago. I think Chicago cable systems had WWOR up until maybe 1994, 1995, but I never watched the Mets on it.

[KGeeX5]

1 minute ago, the admiral said:

 

WWOR had the Mets, WGN is in Chicago. I think Chicago cable systems had WWOR up until maybe 1994, 1995, but I never watched the Mets on it.

 

WWOR sounds right, I know WGN always had the Cubs.  Couldn't remember it, thanks!

[Slammersman]

Not 100 on topic but Birmingham Al has been looking to jump to Triple A this could be a shot.