alxy8s

The Montreal-Tampa Rays?

Recommended Posts

This strikes me as just absolutely cuckoo. You'll be playing in two bad stadium situations and be half-committed to each market?

 

 

Share this post


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

This strikes me as just absolutely cuckoo. You'll be playing in two bad stadium situations and be half-committed to each market?

 

 

5382.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Permission to explore” = blackmail for Tampa Bay stadium. They’ve finally escalated to the blackmail phase! Let’s see if the market cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like the most godawful idea ever. Why would people in Tampa bother to turnout for a team that would spend the latter half of the season in Montreal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Under the plan, the Rays would play in new stadiums in both the Tampa Bay area and Montreal, according to sources. The ability to play games early in the season in Florida would preclude the need for a domed stadium, cutting the cost of a new building. A month ago, Bronfman -- who along with Montreal businessman Mitch Garber has expressed interest in taking a minority stake in the Rays alongside owner Stuart Sternberg -- reached an agreement with a developer on a site in Montreal's Point-Saint-Charles neighborhood to potentially build a new stadium.

We can’t get a new stadium, so we’ll build two!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tampa wouldn’t show up (before everyone makes a funny original reply to this comment, yes, there are Rays fans in Tampa and the rest of Florida and they show up for games) for a team that “left”, and Montreal wouldn’t show up because the team isn’t “fully theirs”.

 

This is quite possibly the worst solution they could’ve come up with. Either stay or leave. You can’t have both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This just seems like an unworkable situation.  Teams have played parts of the schedules in other cities before (White Sox in Milwaukee, Expos in San Juan, Bullets in Baltimore, Dodgers in Jersey City). Teams have also shared/rotated among cities (Virginia Squires, Floridians, Carolina Cougars, Kansas City-Omaha Kings).  However, the latter situations all involved either one primary city (more or less) and/or teams with some regional/geographic connection (usually being within one state).  This would involve a team playing in two cities located about 1,500 miles apart with no apparent/realistic connection.

 

If you're a fan in Florida, it seems like it would be difficult to retain an attachment to a team that you know won't be in town for the home stretch of any playoff race.  Meanwhile, if you're a fan in Quebec, you know you won't be able to watch your team in person for several months of the season.

Edited by crashcarson15
MOD EDIT: Removing background info from duplicate thread, keeping opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is 100% a negotiating tactic, I think, but the idea isn't really that far from workable. If you want an outside park in Montreal and are concerned about early-season weather, just have the team play 3 or 4 home series in wherever their Spring Training park is, then have "home" Opening Day in May or whatever. Home slate of 69ish games, which is fine and balances the need to have a clear home city with scheduling concerns (and also keeping something as egregiously stupid as this from happening).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you squint the “elb” could kind of be a stingray shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see a share like Montreal and San Juan worked in the 2000s, but this will not work full time.

 

I dont want to lose the Rays, and have set my personal expectations that over the next 5-6 years it will only get worse before it gets better.  Montreal to the Rays is what Tampa Bay/St Pete was to places like Seattle, San Francisco, and Chicago in the 90s.  Its the threat of actual relocation that causes movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only will fans hate it, but how terrible would this be for the players and employees of the organization? Imagine having to move your family 1500 miles away to a different country in the middle of the baseball season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

Not only will fans hate it, but imagine how terrible this would be for the players and employees of the organization. Imagine having to move your family 1500 miles away to a different country in the middle of the baseball season.

This....all this.  Players union will hate this type of scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crashcarson15 said:

This is 100% a negotiating tactic, I think, but the idea isn't really that far from workable. If you want an outside park in Montreal and are concerned about early-season weather, just have the team play 3 or 4 home series in wherever their Spring Training park is, then have "home" Opening Day in May or whatever. Home slate of 69ish games, which is fine and balances the need to have a clear home city with scheduling concerns (and also keeping something as egregiously stupid as this from happening).

 

Even a weaker players’ union would tell MLB and Stu to get bent with this idea. One of the biggest themes I noticed when researching the Expos’ San Juan games was how thoroughly the players hated it. No way that this gets approved.

 

It’s stadium blackmail after the Ybor City failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

This just seems like an unworkable situation.  Teams have played parts of the schedules in other cities before (White Sox in Milwaukee, Expos in San Juan, Bullets in Baltimore, Dodgers in Jersey City). Teams have also shared/rotated among cities (Virginia Squires, Floridians, Carolina Cougars, Kansas City-Omaha Kings).  However, the latter situations all involved either one primary city (more or less) and/or teams with some regional/geographic connection (usually being within one state).  This would involve a team playing in two cities located about 1,500 miles apart with no apparent/realistic connection.

 

If you're a fan in Florida, it seems like it would be difficult to retain an attachment to a team that you know won't be in town for the home stretch of any playoff race.  Meanwhile, if you're a fan in Quebec, you know you won't be able to watch your team in person for several months of the season.

It would HAVE to be a blended split, or one where one team remains primary (probably TB).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the Jaguars proposal to half relocate to London a few years back, where they would have a "US base" in Jacksonville and play their playoff and primetime games there, and every other game in London. It was dumb then, and it's still dumb now.

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.