Oso

Portland and other MLB expansion name possibilities

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I agree. Mexico City would be a disastrous expansion decision. 

 

I'm not convinced the baseball really needs to expand. All of the ideal markets have teams (and some aren't exactly ideal), and any potential markets come with difficulties. Portland doesn't have a temporary venue and has a spotty history with post-1958 minor league baseball, Indianapolis is right in the middle of several teams' territory, Charlotte got a brand new AAA ballpark that's not expandable, and Montreal has the demographic and economic issues already mentioned. I don't think it's as dead as @the admiral said it is, but reviving baseball full-time in Montreal would be an uphill battle. 

 

Maybe the expansion bubble in the MLS has soured me on the idea, but expansion is not the best of plans right now. Let the A's and Rays resolve their stadium issues, then talk about it and scout the expansion groups to make sure we're not getting another Vince Naimoli in the majors.

 

Agreed. 15 years ago, they were talking about contraction. They're in no position to expand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Lankford said:

The thing about Monterey is that while it's probably big enough to support a team, it'd still be a small market team.

No.

 

Monterrey has a city popilation of roughly 1.1 million. Their metro is more than 4.5 million.

 

As the 31st team, they would have the 8th largest city, in the league (if you split Chicago in half, they're 7th). Their metro rank would be 12th, in the league (11th if you split the SF/Oakland MSA).

 

There are plenty of arguments to be made against Monterrey. Market size is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Per-game attendance averages:

 

1990 Miami Miracle (A) - 686
1991 Miami Miracle (A) - 870
1993 Florida Marlins - 37,838
1994 Florida Marlins - 32,838

1991 Denver Zephyrs (AAA) - 7640
1992 Denver Zephyrs (AAA) - 4826
1993 Colorado Rockies - 55,350
1994 Colorado Rockies - 57,570

1996 Phoenix Firebirds (AAA) - 3718
1997 Phoenix Firebirds (AAA) - 2932
1998 Arizona Diamondbacks - 44,571
1999 Arizona Diamondbacks - 37,280

 

 

14 hours ago, Jimmy! said:

And those three cities had stable minor league franchises for over 50 years. Portland has had five different franchises in a forty year span. Not convinced.

 

The Arkansas Travelers have been around in some form since the 1800s and averaged 5,000 per game this year. Little Rock shoots to the top of the expansion list! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 12:39 PM, grubstreet said:

 

I'm sorry.... but did BigIdea Entertainment (A Christain Animation Studio, now owned by Dreamworks) buy a baseball team? That pickle looks a lot like how Larry The Cucumber used to with a baseball hat on: 

 

latest?cb=20160313045839

 

 

Also, it 100% has to be the Portland Beavers if we did get a expansion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DeFrank said:

Portland Cascades

I've heard this idea name as a possibility quite a bit, actually. I like it. 

 

Normally I'm one to lean on historic references when it comes to team names, but I really dislike the Beavers as a MLB brand. I wish I could pinpoint why. Their most recent iteration in AAA was gorgeous, but I can't escape the feeling that it would be a total letdown if the MLB club took on that identity. 

 

Also, there's a bit of slagging going on about Portland's history with minor league clubs, and I get it. There's a trail of failed franchises here and it would be easy to jump the knee-jerk conclusion that this is a dead baseball city. But here's a thing I really like about this place: Portland's an odd town — odd as in atypical, not just the "Keep Portland Weird" thing.

 

The AAA Beavers and the iterations before that didn't draw well; I went to a few games and it felt a bit drab and lifeless. Zero personality, a kind of corporate baseball. Yet back in the '70s, the old Portland Mavericks — the great independent minor league experiment immortalized in the "Battered Bastards of Baseball" — were a big draw. That club had personality from the top down, but its independence made it something locals could buy into. There's a formula there that worked. 


To me, that says you can't judge all markets by the same measurements. It's not a black-and-white situation. Portland can be a great success with the right venue and ownership that can find the right formula to appeal to this market. I don't think it's that tall of an order. I mean, Portland can be a pretty great sports town when it finds something to rally behind. This is the same city in which its women's soccer team outdrew 15 NBA clubs, 13 NHL clubs and one MLB club in per-game attendance this year. That's pretty remarkable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I agree. Mexico City would be a disastrous expansion decision. 

 

I'm not convinced the baseball really needs to expand. All of the ideal markets have teams (and some aren't exactly ideal), and any potential markets come with difficulties. Portland doesn't have a temporary venue and has a spotty history with post-1958 minor league baseball, Indianapolis is right in the middle of several teams' territory, Charlotte got a brand new AAA ballpark that's not expandable, and Montreal has the demographic and economic issues already mentioned. I don't think it's as dead as @the admiral said it is, but reviving baseball full-time in Montreal would be an uphill battle. 

 

Maybe the expansion bubble in the MLS has soured me on the idea, but expansion is not the best of plans right now. Let the A's and Rays resolve their stadium issues, then talk about it and scout the expansion groups to make sure we're not getting another Vince Naimoli in the majors.

 

Couldn't agree more. I'm personally opposed to a league expanding when there's already existing franchises that are financially struggling, or are stuck in a poor venue and unable to strike a stadium/arena deal. Case in point, the NHL expanding anywhere (much less Vegas) while having to prop up the Coyotes was egregiously irresponsible to me.

 

The Rays are not in great shape financially, are struggling to draw, and are trapped in a mausoleum in a terrible location. Maybe they'll be in a better situation financially if they're able to strike a much larger TV deal (their existing deal expires after 2018, per Fangraphs). But while TV revenue will be the most important factor to bring that franchise into a profitable situation (if they're able to strike a favorable TV deal), they still have the problems of low attendance and being tied down to a terrible lease in St. Pete for another decade.

 

Given the fact that there are very few viable relocation destinations, if any, the last thing baseball should do is take away two potential relocation destinations before the Rays have both a good TV deal and a good ballpark deal. Nobody wants to rip a franchise away from its fans, but the fact is that the Rays cannot afford to stay in Tampa Bay without those two things.

 

Even once those things are resolved, I think baseball needs to have two strict criteria for any possible expansion teams: will the new teams be at the bottom of the table in terms of TV revenue and advertising revenue, and will they be near the bottom of the table in ticket revenue? If the answer to either question is "yes," then chances are that the franchise won't be profitable.

 

Baseball has been batting .500 on expansions in the last 3 decades - the Rockies and D-Backs have been successful; the Rays and Marlins really have not been. Adding one or two more unsuccessful expansion franchises would be terribly stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KittSmith_95 said:

 

I'm sorry.... but did BigIdea Entertainment (A Christain Animation Studio, now owned by Dreamworks) buy a baseball team? That pickle looks a lot like how Larry The Cucumber used to with a baseball hat on: 

 

latest?cb=20160313045839

 

 

Also, it 100% has to be the Portland Beavers if we did get a expansion. 

 

Well, in their defense ... there are only a few ways to draw a pickle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

I've heard this idea name as a possibility quite a bit, actually. I like it. 

 

Normally I'm one to lean on historic references when it comes to team names, but I really dislike the Beavers as a MLB brand. I wish I could pinpoint why. Their most recent iteration in AAA was gorgeous, but I can't escape the feeling that it would be a total letdown if the MLB club took on that identity. 

 

Also, there's a bit of slagging going on about Portland's history with minor league clubs, and I get it. There's a trail of failed franchises here and it would be easy to jump the knee-jerk conclusion that this is a dead baseball city. But here's a thing I really like about this place: Portland's an odd town — odd as in atypical, not just the "Keep Portland Weird" thing.

 

The AAA Beavers and the iterations before that didn't draw well; I went to a few games and it felt a bit drab and lifeless. Zero personality, a kind of corporate baseball. Yet back in the '70s, the old Portland Mavericks — the great independent minor league experiment immortalized in the "Battered Bastards of Baseball" — were a big draw. That club had personality from the top down, but its independence made it something locals could buy into. There's a formula there that worked. 


To me, that says you can't judge all markets by the same measurements. It's not a black-and-white situation. Portland can be a great success with the right venue and ownership that can find the right formula to appeal to this market. I don't think it's that tall of an order. I mean, Portland can be a pretty great sports town when it finds something to rally behind. This is the same city in which its women's soccer team outdrew 15 NBA clubs, 13 NHL clubs and one MLB club in per-game attendance this year. That's pretty remarkable. 

 

 

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:41 AM, SilverBullet1929 said:

Beavers is a goofy cartoon looking animal, doesn't imply any strength or grace, and then there's the obvious sexual innuendo that comes with that name. I don't care what the baseball history behind it is, the majority of the world won't care about the history of the name, it'll just be a named to be mocked and made fun of. It won't fit for a major league team. And it's definitely not the same as Angels and Padres, not even close. 

 

 

This. "Beavers" just lacks the level of grace, majestic quality, and classiness usually found with MLB brands. It's just an ugly, bumbling, goofy animal. I'll feel sorry for their fans if they name them that.

Image result for beaver teeth

Image result for fat beaver

Image result for fat beaver

 

 

 

This is just something people would laugh at. Baseball fans in Portland need an identity they can actually take pride in.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, kroywen said:

 

Couldn't agree more. I'm personally opposed to a league expanding when there's already existing franchises that are financially struggling, or are stuck in a poor venue and unable to strike a stadium/arena deal. Case in point, the NHL expanding anywhere (much less Vegas) while having to prop up the Coyotes was egregiously irresponsible to me.

 

The Rays are not in great shape financially, are struggling to draw, and are trapped in a mausoleum in a terrible location. Maybe they'll be in a better situation financially if they're able to strike a much larger TV deal (their existing deal expires after 2018, per Fangraphs). But while TV revenue will be the most important factor to bring that franchise into a profitable situation (if they're able to strike a favorable TV deal), they still have the problems of low attendance and being tied down to a terrible lease in St. Pete for another decade.

 

Given the fact that there are very few viable relocation destinations, if any, the last thing baseball should do is take away two potential relocation destinations before the Rays have both a good TV deal and a good ballpark deal. Nobody wants to rip a franchise away from its fans, but the fact is that the Rays cannot afford to stay in Tampa Bay without those two things.

 

Even once those things are resolved, I think baseball needs to have two strict criteria for any possible expansion teams: will the new teams be at the bottom of the table in terms of TV revenue and advertising revenue, and will they be near the bottom of the table in ticket revenue? If the answer to either question is "yes," then chances are that the franchise won't be profitable.

 

Baseball has been batting .500 on expansions in the last 3 decades - the Rockies and D-Backs have been successful; the Rays and Marlins really have not been. Adding one or two more unsuccessful expansion franchises would be terribly stupid.

 

 

 

Rob Manfred has already addressed the Rays and A's situations in relation to expansion:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/04/21/mlbs-rob-manfred-says-as-rays-need-new-stadiums-before-any-expansion/?utm_term=.bedd4efff63d

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-baseball-expansion-manfred-20160421-story.html

 

https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2017/7/11/15953060/expansion-mlb-new-stadiums-rob-manfred

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Portland Pickles are awesome.  I've been to a few games, they're wildly fun, the crowd is great, the mascot is hilarious, and the baseball is pretty bad.  If they could transform into an MLB franchise and maintain some of the Portland weirdness they currently posess, they'd succeed here.

 

I'm personally partial to the Portland Cascades (annoyed it has already been mentioned because I was came up with that yesterday while brainstorming names . . . ), it's classy, local, and timeless.

 

I'm against the Beavers coming back as an major league team, too much minor league history.  I love the "Loggers" whoever said that.  Lumberjacks make so much sense (swinging wood), but "Loggers" is a nice twist on the obvious.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun Fact- Beaver's anal glands get milked and used as artificial vanilla, strawberry and raspberry flavoring. It is also used in many popular perfumes.

 

Nope, not making this up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bowld said:

Fun Fact- Beaver's anal glands get milked and used as artificial vanilla, strawberry and raspberry flavoring. It is also used in many popular perfumes.

 

Nope, not making this up

 

giphy.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bowld said:

This dude legit has me laughing out loud. What a load

 

cc08029d72d9ccb24327126b8d12a4cf.jpg

 

 

The Beaver is just a rodent that can swim.

 

Image result for beaver gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

That's certainly a good thing. Though I can't help but wonder if even the talk of expansion from the commissioner helps undercut the Rays' and A's leverage in ballpark negotiations. Probably not, though.

 

Either way, any discussion of expansion needs to be tabled by MLB until both the Rays and A's have new ballpark deals - and only if MLB is satisfied with the Rays' next TV deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Montreal Dragons. That's a cool name for a baseball team. But I'm 100% certain they'll stick with the Expos' moniker.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GeorgesL said:

I like Montreal Dragons. That's a cool name for a baseball team. But I'm 100% certain they'll stick with the Expos' moniker.

 

The name "Dragons" fulfills the requirement of being the same in French as in English. But, like you, I assume that any new team would use the name "Expos".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2017 at 4:22 PM, kroywen said:

 

That's certainly a good thing. Though I can't help but wonder if even the talk of expansion from the commissioner helps undercut the Rays' and A's leverage in ballpark negotiations. Probably not, though.

 

Either way, any discussion of expansion needs to be tabled by MLB until both the Rays and A's have new ballpark deals - and only if MLB is satisfied with the Rays' next TV deal.


If anything, I think the cities that step to the forefront as expansion hopefuls can be used by the Rays and A's as the "sweetheart who is eyeing me up" leverage deal to get Oakland and Tampa/St. Pete to crap or get off the pot in terms of getting the groundwork for new stadiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2017 at 4:26 PM, GeorgesL said:

I like Montreal Dragons. That's a cool name for a baseball team. But I'm 100% certain they'll stick with the Expos' moniker.

 


I like it too, however like you, I am almost 100 percent certain any MLB team that calls Montreal home will be named Expos. Dragons might not be an awful name for Portland..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Oso said:

Dragons might not be an awful name for Portland.

 

It's been done, sort of:

 

latest?cb=20120202215738

 

The Portland Forest Dragons were in the Arena Football League.  Of course, this does not preclude the name "Dragons" being used for a different sport, as evidenced by the names "Charlotte Hornets", "Colorado Rockies", and "Philadelphia Stars".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.