the next MLB city

[Gothamite]

If MLB was smart, they would move a team to the New Jersey Meadowlands.

Are you kidding?

Most of the other teams are dying to get out of the Meadowlands. It's a terrible place for a stadium.

[BBM]

If MLB was smart, they would move a team to the New Jersey Meadowlands.

Are you kidding?

Most of the other teams are dying to get out of the Meadowlands. It's a terrible place for a stadium.

Well the Devils are moving to Newark and the Nets to Brooklyn, but actually the Jets and Giants are staying put, and plans for a new stadium in the Meadowlands is already underway.

To be honest I have a much harder time getting to Yankee Stadium and the Nassau Colleseum than the Meadowlands (and I live on Long Island). I don't think it's a terrible place for a stadium. Not saying a baseball team should ever go there, but still not a bad place.

[Ron Mexico]

Okay, I guess the Panthers do well, but would Charlotte really support an MLB team? Talking to anyone I know who lives down in NC, the people are way too fairweather about non-college hoops related sports. Though if the Hurricanes play well, I could see the Trianglr becoming another Dallas (great attendance in a place you don't think of as being a hockey city).

[rams80]

If MLB was smart, they would move a team to the New Jersey Meadowlands.

Are you kidding?

Most of the other teams are dying to get out of the Meadowlands. It's a terrible place for a stadium.

Well the Devils are moving to Newark and the Nets to Brooklyn, but actually the Jets and Giants are staying put, and plans for a new stadium in the Meadowlands is already underway.

To be honest I have a much harder time getting to Yankee Stadium and the Nassau Colleseum than the Meadowlands (and I live on Long Island). I don't think it's a terrible place for a stadium. Not saying a baseball team should ever go there, but still not a bad place.

You should remember that the Jets first tried to get a stadium in NYC...

[Mac the Knife]

What exactly did you buy?

And how do you expect to sell several (I imagine hundreds) of pieces of "old school" and by your premise, obsolete merchandise and actually make a profit off of your huge initial investment?

I mean, lets face it, eBay is filled with tons of old sports stuff that don't even get sold with auctions starting at $0.99.

Your story intrigues me, but sounds like it was a silly idea.

Reply and justify yourself!

No offense, but you obviously don't know about sports memorabilia collecting.

Everything I bought that day was exclusive to their inaugural game: from my tickets to photoballs to pennants to programs to bats to whatever. Every piece has the date and the words "inaugural game," and each was produced for, and sold only at, one game - their first. That in and of itself makes the stuff valuable.

Just one example: the last time I checked (and this was back in '97, just 4 years after I bought 'em), the game programs from that day, which sold for $5 each, were being bought by reputable dealers for $25 each. I have about, oh, 250 of 'em.

eBay schmee-Bay. When I sell this stuff (about 30 years from now), it's going through a sports auction house.

[Mac the Knife]

Okay, why is Charlotte considered such a good possibility?  I remember they were close to landing the Twins, but they couldn't even come close to a stadium deal.  Wouldn't this already overload a market that has yet to prove it can support a team (I know the issue with the Hornets was with management).  The Panthers haven't been a consistent draw until recently, and you still don't really know about the NBA.  Is there something about Charlotte I am missing?

Panthers Attendance:

Year......Rank................Games.....Total..............Avg..........%Cap

2000.......6.....Carolina.......8.......583,489.........72,936........99.6

2001.......8.....Carolina.......8.......579,080.........72,385........98.8

2002.......8.....Carolina.......8.......572,015.........71,501........97.6

2003.......9.....Carolina.......8.......582,566.........72,820........99.4

2004.......6.....Carolina.......8.......586,259.........73,282........100.0

2005.......6.....Carolina.......8.......587,700.........73,462........100.3

I couldn't find the numbers for 1995-1999, but I'm pretty confident that they would look similar. This seems consistently good attendance to me, considering their records during those years were 7-9, 1-15, 7-9, 11-5, 7-9, 11-5.

I think Charlotte really could work with an intimate, 40,000-seat stadium.

You're comparing apples and watermelons here.

The Panthers draw for a total of 8 regular season home games a year, each of which is an event, whether the team's winning or losing.

The Bobcats aren't a realistic barometer yet either, as they're an expansion team coming in after a few years of no NBA basketball in the city.

Want to use some real numbers? Check out the Charlotte Knights attendance figures. Even if you doubled them, they still wouldn't be enough to justify an MLB team going there.

Raleigh, on the other hand, if you combine the numbers from the Durham Bulls and Carolina Mudcats average attendance, is closer to the mark.

[jkrdevil]

If MLB was smart, they would move a team to the New Jersey Meadowlands.

Are you kidding?

Most of the other teams are dying to get out of the Meadowlands. It's a terrible place for a stadium.

Well the Devils are moving to Newark and the Nets to Brooklyn, but actually the Jets and Giants are staying put, and plans for a new stadium in the Meadowlands is already underway.

To be honest I have a much harder time getting to Yankee Stadium and the Nassau Colleseum than the Meadowlands (and I live on Long Island). I don't think it's a terrible place for a stadium. Not saying a baseball team should ever go there, but still not a bad place.

I'm sure it isn't bad for a weekend sunday football game. But if you are someone lives in NJ and wroks in the City and want to take go to the game it is a bitch to do because traffic is terrible and the only way to get there is by car. That's the reason why the Devils are building their new arena in Newark near Penn Station (Besides the fact that they are getting a sweet deal). With it next to a mass transit station they should benift by having an increased attendance.

[DrBear]

Maybe not the Meadowlands, but the only place that could really provide support to an MLB team is somewhere in the suburban NY area. Granted, they have to sell Steinbrenner and Wilpon on it - fat chance - but look at the economics. What's the NY market, conservatively? 10 million. And it's divided by two. Add another team and it's divided by three, and you still have three-plus million, which is a lot more than most teams have.

If not there, my other choices would be Canadian - Montreal (with decent ownership and a new ballpark) or Vancouver (which needs a ballpark but has a long triple-A tradition and a temporarily usable stadium in BC Place until a new one is built).

[winters in buffalo]

I would think a warm weather city would get one over a northern city.

In that case, I'll nominate Charlotte.

Actually, WiB, despite their posturing, our area is probably better suited than Charlotte is to have an MLB club, if we ditched the Bulls and the Mudcats for it.

Charlotte has a larger metro population, sure, but an MLB team there would face stiffer competition (from the NFL and NBA teams, plus NASCAR) than Raleigh (from the NHL and to lesser extent college basketball). Local TV revenue would be about the same, as would local radio.

Per-capita income levels are actually higher here if I'm not mistaken, meaning that the team'd be able to fetch a higher ticket price (provided they didn't build some 50,000 seat monstrosity). Raleigh'd also draw at least some fans from Greensboro, Fayetteville, etc., while Charlotte historically hasn't (just ask the Bobcats).

You're right, I just didn't want to sound like a homer. Given the area's population explosion and projected growth, I could see us sustaining an MLB team.

That'd give us a chance to make amends for the RBC Center by putting a ballpark downtown.

[bricknivy]

Portland. Makes the most sense.

[harperdc]

I've always figured there were three kinds of minor-league cities:

1. Cities with poor attendance, which should therefore not receive a big-league team.

It's notable that Portland has been in category one for a long time now.

yes. have you ever been to (or seen pictures of) Civic Stadium (now known as PGE Park)? here's a picture. even though it has a decent aesthetic to it, it's a 3/4 bowl below street level in downtown Portland. and it's also dillapidated. And nobody cares about the three minor league teams we have in Portland - the Timbers only have a good solid core because tickets are cheap and soccer fans are crazy like that.

the telling number as to why the Rose City should get a baseball team: We care more about the Mariners than Seattle does! We get at least 3/4 of the Seattle games on TV, and have outdrawn the Seattle metro area in ratings on numerous occasions, and generally have as great of a TV audience as Seattle when the season ends. there are baseball fans here - they just don't feel like going to a :censored:hole that is impossible to park at to watch AAA ball!.

I'm saddened that Portland is getting a bad rep as a sports city. When Allen cared about the Blazers and had good people running the show (for our 21-year playoff run) Memorial Collisseum was the place to be and the Rose Garden drew really good crowds. I'm still a believer McMillan can get the franchise turned around in a couple years, but that will only be pertinent when it happens and Portland fans return to the Garden.

I think baseball would draw well there - if somebody made a huge push for it. In so many other aspects of life the happy-go-lucky, come-what-may relaxed point of view the whole city seems to have is endearing, but not when you're trying to draw a big-league team into the area. If somebody cared the Blazers would be back in the playoffs, we'd have an awesome baseball stadium and a good team (hopefully playing in the NL West - that'd create an *awesome* interleague rivalry with the Mariners, and I could still be a Mariner and Portland diehard) and somebody would buy Portland International Raceway from the city and turn it into a top-notch racing facility. If only somebody took initiative.

[edit] also take note that the two sports programs in the state that A) are being run well and the fans care about - Oregon and Oregon State's respective football programs - sell out every game, and that's at ~58k and ~44k seats respectively. If Oregon sports fans can be motivated to drive an hour or an hour and a half to go see a football game for a team they care about, those same sports fans would gladly pay to see baseball in Portland.

[end Portlander rant]

[Gamingboy]

There are only a few cities out there with stadiums that could hold a MLB team for at least the short term:

Buffalo (The stadium is expandable to 40,000 + people, but Western New York is fighting for the long-term existance of the Bills right now and we needed a local billionaire to save the Sabres, so I'd say that a MLB team is out of the question for now)

New Orleans (Superdome has/had a Baseball configuration that was used for exhibition games... but now, well, let's just say, no chance in heck)

Honolulu (Aloha Stadium has a baseball configuration and was actually used for a regular season series a few years back. But to save money, the homestands and road trips would both be extremely long. There'd be like 2 week homestands followed by 2 week road trips.)

Vancouver (BC Place I believe has a Baseball configuration, but given the proximity to Seattle and the fact that it'd essentially be Metrodome west makes it less likely. Not to mention the general problems of Canadian baseball outside of Toronto recently)

Montreal (No... It's just not going to happen)

Various Mexican cities, primarily Monterrey and Mexico City (I'd say Monterey would be better. Monterey is one of the more modern cities in Mexico and Baseball is the most popular sport in Monterrey, as opposed to Mexico City, where Soccer is king. Not to mention Mexico City would make Denver look like a pitcher's paradise.)

San Juan, Puerto Rico (The economic situation there is, needless to say, probably not able to support a MLB team.)

Kansas City, Missouri (They need Major League Baseball! O wait...)

Charlotte (But their Minor League ballpark, which is expandable like Buffalo's I think, is in SOUTH CAROLINA!)

Vegas (Well, they DON'T have a stadium that could come even close to having MLB baseball, but even if they did, it's all fun and games until someone gets banned from Baseball for gambling on Baseball)

Omaha, Nebraska (The stadium there is the biggest in the Minors, it has to be to hold the College World Series. But is the market big enough? Probably not.)

Just about every other AAA city (Every AAA stadium, I think, has to have a plan in place in case a Major League team has to play there because of a disaster or emergency. But what those details are and such I have no idea.)

I'd say Monterey should get a team. But just make sure the players don't drink the water.

[The_Admiral]

The Wild Card is not good, it allows teams to suck for significant periods of the season, turn it on a little, luck into the playoffs, and then get hot for two weeks to show up in the World Series. I'm sure a four division setup would allow for plenty of exciting divisional races.

Four divisions just means you're gonna have some really weak division champs. Did the Red Sox tying the Yankees REALLY bother you more than the Padres going to the postseason? Let's be honest here. I mean, three divisions + wild card or four divisions, you're still allowing 8 of 30 teams. It's better to have one strong second-place team than one or two really weak division "champions."

It's not like the Red Sox just came outta nowhere and won themselves a World Series. They were neck-and-neck with New York all year long. Face it. The wild card has been a rousing success. The 2005 Padres were a punchline. If you think they'll scrap the wild card for four divisions, you're high.

[jkrdevil]

Let's not forget why the Wild Card got put in. The 1993 SF Giants won over 100 and missed the playoffs. I'm sorry you just can't go back to having that possibility. The Wild Card prevents that.

[bterreson]

I've always figured there were three kinds of minor-league cities:

1. Cities with poor attendance, which should therefore not receive a big-league team.

It's notable that Portland has been in category one for a long time now.

yes. have you ever been to (or seen pictures of) Civic Stadium (now known as PGE Park)? here's a picture. even though it has a decent aesthetic to it, it's a 3/4 bowl below street level in downtown Portland. and it's also dillapidated. And nobody cares about the three minor league teams we have in Portland - the Timbers only have a good solid core because tickets are cheap and soccer fans are crazy like that.

the telling number as to why the Rose City should get a baseball team: We care more about the Mariners than Seattle does! We get at least 3/4 of the Seattle games on TV, and have outdrawn the Seattle metro area in ratings on numerous occasions, and generally have as great of a TV audience as Seattle when the season ends. there are baseball fans here - they just don't feel like going to a :censored:hole that is impossible to park at to watch AAA ball!.

I'm saddened that Portland is getting a bad rep as a sports city. When Allen cared about the Blazers and had good people running the show (for our 21-year playoff run) Memorial Collisseum was the place to be and the Rose Garden drew really good crowds. I'm still a believer McMillan can get the franchise turned around in a couple years, but that will only be pertinent when it happens and Portland fans return to the Garden.

I think baseball would draw well there - if somebody made a huge push for it. In so many other aspects of life the happy-go-lucky, come-what-may relaxed point of view the whole city seems to have is endearing, but not when you're trying to draw a big-league team into the area. If somebody cared the Blazers would be back in the playoffs, we'd have an awesome baseball stadium and a good team (hopefully playing in the NL West - that'd create an *awesome* interleague rivalry with the Mariners, and I could still be a Mariner and Portland diehard) and somebody would buy Portland International Raceway from the city and turn it into a top-notch racing facility. If only somebody took initiative.

[edit] also take note that the two sports programs in the state that A) are being run well and the fans care about - Oregon and Oregon State's respective football programs - sell out every game, and that's at ~58k and ~44k seats respectively. If Oregon sports fans can be motivated to drive an hour or an hour and a half to go see a football game for a team they care about, those same sports fans would gladly pay to see baseball in Portland.

[end Portlander rant]

I agree, I dont think people know that Portland is acctually a huge baseball town. I'd love to see them get a team.

[Mac the Knife]

I would think a warm weather city would get one over a northern city.

In that case, I'll nominate Charlotte.

Actually, WiB, despite their posturing, our area is probably better suited than Charlotte is to have an MLB club, if we ditched the Bulls and the Mudcats for it.

Charlotte has a larger metro population, sure, but an MLB team there would face stiffer competition (from the NFL and NBA teams, plus NASCAR) than Raleigh (from the NHL and to lesser extent college basketball). Local TV revenue would be about the same, as would local radio.

Per-capita income levels are actually higher here if I'm not mistaken, meaning that the team'd be able to fetch a higher ticket price (provided they didn't build some 50,000 seat monstrosity). Raleigh'd also draw at least some fans from Greensboro, Fayetteville, etc., while Charlotte historically hasn't (just ask the Bobcats).

You're right, I just didn't want to sound like a homer. Given the area's population explosion and projected growth, I could see us sustaining an MLB team.

That'd give us a chance to make amends for the RBC Center by putting a ballpark downtown.

Nah. Knowing TPTB around here, it'd wind up in Morrisville or Knightdale...

[Mac the Knife]

Let's not forget why the Wild Card got put in. The 1993 SF Giants won over 100 and missed the playoffs. I'm sorry you just can't go back to having that possibility. The Wild Card prevents that.

Why not? It was like that all the way up until 1969. If a team didn't finish at the top, too bad, so sad, go call your dad.

A four division setup (4x4 in each league) would work provided you tipped the schedule heavily in favor of divisional play, i.e.:

26 games against the 3 other teams in your division (78 games);

6 games against the other 12 teams in your league (72 games); and

3 games against the four teams from a division of the other league, rotated annually (12 games).

By playing almost half of your regular season against divisional opponents, I'd think you'd be less likely to see a 2005 San Diego Padre-like team make the post-season unless the entire division just blew chunks - in which case, they'd fare in the first round... about as well as the 2005 San Diego Padres did.

[rams80]

The Wild Card is not good, it allows teams to suck for significant periods of the season, turn it on a little, luck into the playoffs, and then get hot for two weeks to show up in the World Series.  I'm sure a four division setup would allow for plenty of exciting divisional races.

Four divisions just means you're gonna have some really weak division champs. Did the Red Sox tying the Yankees REALLY bother you more than the Padres going to the postseason? Let's be honest here. I mean, three divisions + wild card or four divisions, you're still allowing 8 of 30 teams. It's better to have one strong second-place team than one or two really weak division "champions."

It's not like the Red Sox just came outta nowhere and won themselves a World Series. They were neck-and-neck with New York all year long. Face it. The wild card has been a rousing success. The 2005 Padres were a punchline. If you think they'll scrap the wild card for four divisions, you're high.

I just feel that baseball plays a 162-game marathon regular season unbalanced towards division competition that should clearly establish who is the best team in the division and therefore should be in the playoffs (If you use the Mad Mac's schedule, it becomes even more apparent). The Wild Card strikes me (and in practice has been used as) the "I'm so sorry you were not good enough to win the division, lets make it up for you and send your team that's built more for the postseason than the regular season to the playoffs." Shoot, abolishing the Wild Card might serve to boost some rivalries (imagine Yankees/Red Sox if they knew only one team would get into the playoffs).

[harperdc]

I like the playoff setup that the Wild Card has established though, and would be fearful of changing the playoffs *again* to abolish it. I'm too young to remember the old playoff style, but I know that I like the wildcard, its race leading into the post-season, and everything else it has brought to the playoffs.

and unless you go to a strictly regular season-based points format ala major soccer leagues, and as long as you have a playoff for the championship, there are going to be upsets in those playoffs and sometimes the 'worst' team is going to go through on head to head play. because that's why they actually play the game.

[The_Admiral]

The Wild Card strikes me (and in practice has been used as) the "I'm so sorry you were not good enough to win the division, lets make it up for you and send your team that's built more for the postseason than the regular season to the playoffs." Shoot, abolishing the Wild Card might serve to boost some rivalries (imagine Yankees/Red Sox if they knew only one team would get into the playoffs).

1)When was the last year a wild card had a markedly worse record than all three division champions?

2005: New York/Boston/LAA all won 95 games, Houston won 7 more than SD

2004: Boston won 7 more than Minnesota and LAA, Houston won 1 fewer than LAD

2003: Boston won 5 more than Minnesota, Florida won 3 more than Chicago

2002: LAA won 5 more than Minnesota (trend?), SF won 2 fewer than St. Louis

2001: Oakland won 7 more than New York, ELEVEN more than Cleveland, St. Louis and Houston both won 93 games (most)

These wild card teams aren't crappy teams getting a free pass. They're BETTER than other division champs. Just think of the wild card as the fourth division. But hey, if you think the 102-win 2001 Oakland A's didn't deserve a spot in the playoffs, OK!

2)I dunno, man, I think those 2003 and 2004 ALCSes did a hell of a lot to advance the Sawx/Yanks rivalry.