Commissioner Rob Manfred sees expansion in MLB's future

[The_Admiral]

MLB is the hardest sport for a city to support. Twice the capacity of NHL/NBA and twice the games. Also, likely more luxury boxes to sell. So you not only need a strong fanbase that doesn't mind 35,000 x 81 games, you also need a really strong corporate base to buy up the suites. Although NFL has the highest prices, it's by far the easiest to support. You're only inconveniencing people eight times a season. Buffalo can pretty easily support the Bills, but the Sabres have had difficulties, from my understanding. There's no way that city would be able to support a baseball team even if the Sabres weren't there.

I'd rank it MLB, NHL, NFL, NBA. It's not quite as hard as it used to be now that the blackout rules are gone or on indefinite hold, but getting at least 65,000 people into one place is still a pretty big ask. The NBA is the easiest because it lacks the unique demands of a huge schedule, a huge stadium, or a niche audience. I suppose the unique demand is caring about the NBA in places where the NBA doesn't care about you.

The Sabres' only difficulties came from being owned a guy who went to prison for embezzlement. Support has always been strong, even through these recent bad years, but anyone who thinks Western New York can handle a major-league baseball team is tripping balls.

[UnclearInitial]

If we're mentioning unrealistic markets where MLB will never come, what about Hampton Roads in Virginia? 1.7million metro area and the 42nd largest TV market in the US, with no other major teams. The problems would be a stadium obviously, and if it should be placed in Virginia Beach or in Norfolk. The corporate base also looks weak, only 4 Fortune 500 companies and none in the top 200. I know that they made a strong push to relocate the Expos there, but D.C. Being within driving distance is probably the death knell for the area.

[2001mark]

NHL is a tricky one because it's the most 'locally' supported of the 4. That's to say a team can do alright without national exposure. Bettman's life mission of course is to get out of that rut, & I don't entirely blame him.

Gate $/attendance seem to matter the most for NHL bottom lines. Hell... isn't that why NHL teams want to get into the playoffs at any cost? Extra inflated dates + not having to pay more salary.

NFL is pretty much just a tv show now. Talk is one day stadiums won't even exist as we know them... skyboxes & ppl watching the live games on giant HD monitors instead of the field.

[C's]

If we're mentioning unrealistic markets where MLB will never come, what about Hampton Roads in Virginia? 1.7million metro area and the 42nd largest TV market in the US, with no other major teams. The problems would be a stadium obviously, and if it should be placed in Virginia Beach or in Norfolk. The corporate base also looks weak, only 4 Fortune 500 companies and none in the top 200. I know that they made a strong push to relocate the Expos there, but D.C. Being within driving distance is probably the death knell for the area.

I don't think 1.7 million is quite enough for MLB, that puts them below every other market except Milwaukee. I also worry about VB having enough of a true urban core where they can put a stadium and get a good amount of people in the door on weeknights. (I haven't actually been there though so I might be talking out of my ass.) If you're MLB, why go to VB when you could just go to Charlotte and get a lot more population and corporate support?

And according to google, DC is 209 miles away and a 4 hour drive. That's a hell of a lot farther than DC-Philly and it's on par with DC-New York. Not really driving distance unless you're road tripping.

[The_Admiral]

I'd love 32 teams with two divisions of eight per league, but I don't know where to put two more teams. Durham really is the best bet for one, but I don't see a 32nd anywhere. I'm not feeling Nashville, San Antonio, Portland, or Montreal.

[BBTV]

Bring back the whale.

Wrong thread.

[CubsFan4Life]

What would you call a new team in Montreal?

[rams80]

What would you call a new team in Montreal?

*NotSureIfSerious.jpg*

[Gothamite]

Just so long as they get a good logo this time.

[1insaneguy]

I don't think Montreal is getting a team. Back in 2004, weren't the Expos playing half their home games in Puerto Rico?

[CubsFan4Life]

What would you call a new team in Montreal?

*NotSureIfSerious.jpg*

You mean you think they'll for sure call themselves the Expos again if this happened? Because that's what we need, more revisionist history. Why call back to a team that never won a division championship in their 35 year history, and only made the post-season once (because of an illogical playoff system during a strike year).

[sportzfan]

What would you call a new team in Montreal?

*NotSureIfSerious.jpg*

You mean you think they'll for sure call themselves the Expos again if this happened? Because that's what we need, more revisionist history. Why call back to a team that never won a division championship in their 35 year history, and only made the post-season once (because of an illogical playoff system during a strike year).

Because it's a name that already worked. I also don't think you know what revisionist history is since this wouldn't be a case of it, because the new Expos wouldn't be taking the old Expos history, which would stay with the Nats. And like you asked already, what else would you call them?

[TBGKon]

Another interesting quirk to think of is Minor League expansion when 2 teams are added. I could really see a few current teams relocating and new cities coming into the fray depending on where MILB places the new squads.

[TheOldRoman]

What would you call a new team in Montreal?

*NotSureIfSerious.jpg*

You mean you think they'll for sure call themselves the Expos again if this happened? Because that's what we need, more revisionist history. Why call back to a team that never won a division championship in their 35 year history, and only made the post-season once (because of an illogical playoff system during a strike year).

Because it's a name that already worked. I also don't think you know what revisionist history is since this wouldn't be a case of it, because the new Expos wouldn't be taking the old Expos history, which would stay with the Nats. And like you asked already, what else would you call them?

Also, this is a road baseball's already been down. After 1960, the Washington Senators left to become the Minnesota Twins. In 1961, a new Washington Senators team was playing in Griffith Stadium. Considering both moves happened in the same offseason and the first franchise changed its name anyway, the American League very easily could have officially declared the Twins a new franchise and sold the Senators name and records to Washington-based owners. They chose not to, even though it would have made sense to do so. Hell, with communication at the time paling to today, I imagine most fans thought the Twins were an expansion team and didn't even know the Senators were a different franchise.

So, the current-Rangers were officially the new Senators, but without the history which the Twins retained. It makes sense to do that again in this hypothetical, as the remaining Expos fans are certainly attached to the name. And, hell, the Brewers don't claim to be the old minor league Brewers. The Orioles don't claim to be the franchise that became the Yankees. It's only the stupid Padres that pretend to have anything to do with a defunct franchise, and that's only as a sad attempt to claim titles from a minor league to offset with how putrid the major league franchise has been.

I still don't have any issue with the Cleveland Browns situation. I'm glad the Charlotte Hornets are back, but it's stupid they're claiming to be the original version which played under the Hornets moniker in a different city while the current franchise existed. Still, that has nothing to do with this situation. I'd be thrilled to see an expansion Expos team, and I'd also have no issue with them hanging up the retired numbers which the National franchise started issuing again.

[OnWis97]

What would you call a new team in Montreal?

You mean you think they'll for sure call themselves the Expos again if this happened? Because that's what we need, more revisionist history. Why call back to a team that never won a division championship in their 35 year history, and only made the post-season once (because of an illogical playoff system during a strike year).

Because it's a name that already worked. I also don't think you know what revisionist history is since this wouldn't be a case of it, because the new Expos wouldn't be taking the old Expos history, which would stay with the Nats. And like you asked already, what else would you call them?

Also, this is a road baseball's already been down. After 1960, the Washington Senators left to become the Minnesota Twins. In 1961, a new Washington Senators team was playing in Griffith Stadium. Considering both moves happened in the same offseason and the first franchise changed its name anyway, the American League very easily could have officially declared the Twins a new franchise and sold the Senators name and records to Washington-based owners. They chose not to, even though it would have made sense to do so. Hell, with communication at the time paling to today, I imagine most fans thought the Twins were an expansion team and didn't even know the Senators were a different franchise.

So, the current-Rangers were officially the new Senators, but without the history which the Twins retained. It makes sense to do that again in this hypothetical, as the remaining Expos fans are certainly attached to the name. And, hell, the Brewers don't claim to be the old minor league Brewers. The Orioles don't claim to be the franchise that became the Yankees. It's only the stupid Padres that pretend to have anything to do with a defunct franchise, and that's only as a sad attempt to claim titles from a minor league to offset with how putrid the major league franchise has been.

I still don't have any issue with the Cleveland Browns situation. I'm glad the Charlotte Hornets are back, but it's stupid they're claiming to be the original version which played under the Hornets moniker in a different city while the current franchise existed. Still, that has nothing to do with this situation. I'd be thrilled to see an expansion Expos team, and I'd also have no issue with them hanging up the retired numbers which the National franchise started issuing again.

True. But that was not a "thing" yet. It's a "thing" now. The NFL did the Cleveland Deal and the NBA has doubled down.

So far, so good in MLB, but they really have not had the opportunity post Cleveland Deal.

But the point that the Expos as a new team with new history could work is correct. After all, MLB is on its second Milwaukee Brewers and Baltimore Orioles franchises; granted the first ones were a hell of a long time ago but the NHL's Jets are doing just fine.

[Mac the Knife]

Mac, just go by metro populations. A lot of those Southern and Western cities boosted their populations by eating their suburbs.

Maybe, but the bodies are still there.

The NBA is a fall/winter league, MLB a spring/summer league. The teams wouldn't be in direct competition. Overall? Sure, but it's better then going head to head.

Per his post, San Antonio, OKC, Indy, Raleigh, Nashville, and Columbus all have spring competition for potential MLB franchises, but Memphis and Portland don't. Not be a dink but I'm pretty sure he either forgot or didn't know that the latter two cities have major league teams just like the former six. Which was kinda my point (well that and correcting him).

And I know when each league is in season, thanks.

The NBA is a fall/winter league, MLB a spring/summer league. The teams wouldn't be in direct competition. Overall? Sure, but it's better then going head to head.

Per his post, San Antonio, OKC, Indy, Raleigh, Nashville, and Columbus all have spring competition for potential MLB franchises, but Memphis and Portland don't. Not be a dink but I'm pretty sure he either forgot or didn't know that the latter two cities have major league teams just like the former five. Which was kinda my point (well that and correcting him).

So not to be a dink...but you were a dink. Got it. There are more polite ways to correct someone.

And I know when each league is in season, thanks.

See the above re: politeness

I was merely pointing out that the Grizzlies and Blazers wouldn't be in direct competition with hypothetical MLB teams in Memphis and Portland due to the differences in schedule. Don't insinuate otherwise if you don't want people reminding you what times of the year the two leagues are in season for.

He's all right - no offense taken, dink to dink: I did forget that Memphis and Portland had NBA franchises, oddly enough. But the NBA nor NHL represents direct competition with Major League Baseball beyond about May 1, and definitely not during MLB's prime season for gate attendance (July 1 - September 15).

Raleigh-Durham is pure college land. There shouldn't be any major league teams there period. (same for Columbus)

BLASPHEMY. You'll smoke a turd in hell for that one.

Bring back the whale.

Wrong thread.

You get us Major League Baseball, and you can have them back. We'll even throw in a few Stanley Cup rings from when it was won down here.

What would you call a new team in Montreal?

If they played in Olympic Stadium? Bankrupt.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Another interesting quirk to think of is Minor League expansion when 2 teams are added. I could really see a few current teams relocating and new cities coming into the fray depending on where MILB places the new squads.

It might come with a reorganization of the whole setup. MLB could use some low-A out west... could lead to an AHL-type change.

And a lot of new teams, of course. But that's actually another reason I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[rams80]

Another interesting quirk to think of is Minor League expansion when 2 teams are added. I could really see a few current teams relocating and new cities coming into the fray depending on where MILB places the new squads.

It might come with a reorganization of the whole setup. MLB could use some low-A out west... could lead to an AHL-type change.

And a lot of new teams, of course. But that's actually another reason I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Ummmm....why? Almost all of those players are at best 2-3 years from MLB.

[CubsFanBudMan]

True, but it seems that there's a game of musical chairs between the AL West clubs and the Midwest League franchises every 2-4 years.

I don't think reorganization is needed, but it might be coming. Perhaps that wouldn't be the primary motivation. I might not have thought that through completely.

[rams80]

True, but it seems that there's a game of musical chairs between the AL West clubs and the Midwest League franchises every 2-4 years.

I don't think reorganization is needed, but it might be coming. Perhaps that wouldn't be the primary motivation. I might not have thought that through completely.

Ehh, the Midwest League affiliation switches are driven more by a combination of "who does or does not have updated facilities" and "which Major League parent has or has not absolute in the lower levels of their farm system". That combination makes for fairly frequent changes.