hedge said:

---

Do you know how long San Antonio has been fighting for another pro team ? We're the 7th largest city in the nation and we only have one pro team. It's pitiful.

---

Not really....

The A's will most likely relocated to Las Vegas if they do not get a downtown stadium built near the water.

If MLB expands to 34 teams the best two cities to add for expansion would be Montreal and Dallas.

All the other cities that are named as expansion possibilities are in small markets where Major League Baseball would struggle.

Look it up

Dallas ? Y'all have a team

I don't understand the obsession folks seem to have with bringing a team back to Montreal. It's been done before and their attendance was awful, including averaging under 10k in several years of the last decade in the city.

I think if you go to 34, Charlotte is your first answer, and I do think a place like Mexico City has potential - we've seen how the games have drawn when played south of the border. If they decide to keep it north of the Rio Grande, Vegas (assuming the A's don't move there) makes the most sense.

bluefire579 said:

---

I don't understand the obsession folks seem to have with bringing a team back to Montreal. It's been done before and their attendance was awful, including averaging under 10k in several years of the last decade in the city.

I think if you go to 34, Charlotte is your first answer, and I do think a place like Mexico City has potential - we've seen how the games have drawn when played south of the border. If they decide to keep it north of the Rio Grande, Vegas (assuming the A's don't move there) makes the most sense.

---

cmon, Montreal Ehs, the jokes right themselves

W said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

W said:

---

Las Vegas is a no-brainer.

can't believe any team would seriously consider Portland

---

It's only a city with a large metropolitan footprint that has shown an abundant willingness to support every professional sports team that's ever been there. Of course no team would seriously consider going there.

---

the city of Portland has, um, changed in recent years...and not in a positive way for businessmen that like to make a lot of money

---

People in certain groups like to paint Seattle and San Francisco in the exact same way, yet all their pro teams seem to be having very little trouble with it.

rdunham98 said:

---

Vegas
Nashville
Mexico City
Charlotte

In that order.

---

Always found it interesting that Charlotte's minor league team spent 15 years not only not playing in Charlotte, but not even playing in the state of North Carolina.

Kellso said:

---

The A's will most likely relocated to Las Vegas if they do not get a downtown stadium built near the water.

If MLB expands to 34 teams the best two cities to add for expansion would be Montreal and Dallas.

All the other cities that are named as expansion possibilities are in small markets where Major League Baseball would struggle.

---

if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?

Just an Ag said:

---

Interestingly, California has 5 MLB teams and total population of almost 40 million, or one team per 8 million. Texas has 2 teams and a population of almost 30 million. Florida and New York both about 20 million and each have 2 teams. Astros and Rangers may not like it, but rebalancing into Texas may make sense if you look at it in terms of population.

---

Austin Athletics

Portand sells out its basketball games and especially its MLS games with a huge rabid fan base. It would do quite well regardless of liberal market as many of you indicate.

Charlotte currently has a huge turnout for its minor league team with over 31K capacity for minor league stadium which could be redeveloped for another 8K fairly eassily from what i have heard. Those two plus Vegas and Nashville are the best possibilities IMO for two new franchises and Tampa and Oakland relocation if it were to occur

San Antonio >

Both Florida teams are struggling to draw fans, A new ballpark in an easier location for fans to get to would do wonders for the Rays. Right now the situation in Miami seems hapless. As for New York, it would silly to suggest the fan base of both the damn Yankees and the Mets comes solely from the state of New York. The whole northeast is rather densely populated with if not knowledgeable at least rabid baseball fan, MLB is going to have give a strong financial incentive for the Astros and Rangers to agree to a third team in the state.

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

Kellso said:

---

The A's will most likely relocated to Las Vegas if they do not get a downtown stadium built near the water.

If MLB expands to 34 teams the best two cities to add for expansion would be Montreal and Dallas.

All the other cities that are named as expansion possibilities are in small markets where Major League Baseball would struggle.

---

if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?

---

I thought their were already 32 teams instead of 30.

San Antonio, Portland, Austin, Nashville are all pretty mediocre options.

Charlotte is a big enough option for a new MLB franchise, but the best options for two brand new teams would be Dallas and Montreal.

Both cities not only have the population to support an MLB franchise, they also have the corporate backing
The Dallas metro area has 7.5 million people and growing rapidly. There are more people in the Dallas area than all but 13 states. DFW has the population(people and corporations) to support a 2nd team.

Montreal is the 2nd largest city in Canada, and has a metro population of 4 million.


I don't think the MLB will expand if they don't think the new cities will make them money in the long run. They are not going to want to add another Tampa or Oakland to the MLB

That's all I see San Antonio, Austin, Portland being. A small market team that won't do well financially if the team is not winning.

For a MLB team to be successful they have to have the corporate fan base that can lease a luxury suite for 81 games a year.

Does the DFW metro area not have a baseball team ?

hedge said:

---

Look it up

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

A cities proper population is meaningless. In determining how big a city is you always go with its metropolitan population.

San Antonio is somewhere between the 25-30th largest city in the United States which makes it one of the smaller cities to have a professional sports team.

San Antonio is not a bigger city than Atlanta, Dallas or Boston, but if you only compare the cities proper population then San Antonio is "bigger" than these very large cities that all have 4 major league sports franchises.

hedge said:

---

Does the DFW metro area not have a baseball team ?

---

New York City
Los Angeles
Chicago
Washington DC
San Francisco

All have multiple baseball teams in one metro area.

Why can't DFW?

The Dallas metro area is now hovering around 8 million people and has grown at a whopping 18% over the past 10 years.

There are more than enough people and corporations in Dallas to support an additional Major league team.

Dallas would be a way better option than some of these small market options that do not have the corporate base.
I would be very weary of expanding into a market that does not have at least 3 million people.

The El Paso Cartel....their pitchers deal and their fans don't squeal.

Kellso said:

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

Kellso said:

---

The A's will most likely relocated to Las Vegas if they do not get a downtown stadium built near the water.

If MLB expands to 34 teams the best two cities to add for expansion would be Montreal and Dallas.

All the other cities that are named as expansion possibilities are in small markets where Major League Baseball would struggle.

---

if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?

---

I thought their were already 32 teams instead of 30.

San Antonio, Portland, Austin, Nashville are all pretty mediocre options.

Charlotte is a big enough option for a new MLB franchise, but the best options for two brand new teams would be Dallas and Montreal.

Both cities not only have the population to support an MLB franchise, they also have the corporate backing
The Dallas metro area has 7.5 million people and growing rapidly. There are more people in the Dallas area than all but 13 states. DFW has the population(people and corporations) to support a 2nd team.

Montreal is the 2nd largest city in Canada, and has a metro population of 4 million.


I don't think the MLB will expand if they don't think the new cities will make them money in the long run. They are not going to want to add another Tampa or Oakland to the MLB

That's all I see San Antonio, Austin, Portland being. A small market team that won't do well financially if the team is not winning.

For a MLB team to be successful they have to have the corporate fan base that can lease a luxury suite for 81 games a year.

---

1. Rangers aren't exactly blowing out any attendance records. They lead this year only because the numbers are skewed by opening up the new stadium fully for opening day (weekend?), but in 2019, they ranked in the bottom half of attendance.
2. Sticking with the Dallas theme, 7.5 million is definitely on the low end for supporting two teams. Ignoring the fact that the Rangers would probably resist it *heavily*, it doesn't compare to other areas with multiple teams. New York and L.A. are orders of magnitude larger than any other city, so those don't work as a comparison. Chicago is historically based, and if the league was reformed today, would only have one. D.C. and Baltimore is probably the best comparison, but it's also a different situation. In addition to being a larger statistical area by about 2 million people, D.C. is constantly flooded with temporary residents and visitors, which expands its team's reach at any given time to a level that DFW can never compete with.
3. As I mentioned above, Montreal had a team move because it wasn't supported. In their last decade, they had multiple years of sub-10k per game averages. They have proven that they won't support a team.
4. With very few exceptions, just about any team will suffer in attendance when not winning.
5. San Antonio and Portland in particular have shown a propensity to support their pro teams, even when they are not doing well.

bluefire579 said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

Kellso said:

---

The A's will most likely relocated to Las Vegas if they do not get a downtown stadium built near the water.

If MLB expands to 34 teams the best two cities to add for expansion would be Montreal and Dallas.

All the other cities that are named as expansion possibilities are in small markets where Major League Baseball would struggle.

---

if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?

---

I thought their were already 32 teams instead of 30.

San Antonio, Portland, Austin, Nashville are all pretty mediocre options.

Charlotte is a big enough option for a new MLB franchise, but the best options for two brand new teams would be Dallas and Montreal.

Both cities not only have the population to support an MLB franchise, they also have the corporate backing
The Dallas metro area has 7.5 million people and growing rapidly. There are more people in the Dallas area than all but 13 states. DFW has the population(people and corporations) to support a 2nd team.

Montreal is the 2nd largest city in Canada, and has a metro population of 4 million.


I don't think the MLB will expand if they don't think the new cities will make them money in the long run. They are not going to want to add another Tampa or Oakland to the MLB

That's all I see San Antonio, Austin, Portland being. A small market team that won't do well financially if the team is not winning.

For a MLB team to be successful they have to have the corporate fan base that can lease a luxury suite for 81 games a year.

---

1. Rangers aren't exactly blowing out any attendance records. They lead this year only because the numbers are skewed by opening up the new stadium fully for opening day (weekend?), but in 2019, they ranked in the bottom half of attendance.
2. Sticking with the Dallas theme, 7.5 million is definitely on the low end for supporting two teams. Ignoring the fact that the Rangers would probably resist it *heavily*, it doesn't compare to other areas with multiple teams. New York and L.A. are orders of magnitude larger than any other city, so those don't work as a comparison. Chicago is historically based, and if the league was reformed today, would only have one. D.C. and Baltimore is probably the best comparison, but it's also a different situation. In addition to being a larger statistical area by about 2 million people, D.C. is constantly flooded with temporary residents and visitors, which expands its team's reach at any given time to a level that DFW can never compete with.
3. As I mentioned above, Montreal had a team move because it wasn't supported. In their last decade, they had multiple years of sub-10k per game averages. They have proven that they won't support a team.
4. With very few exceptions, just about any team will suffer in attendance when not winning.
5. San Antonio and Portland in particular have shown a propensity to support their pro teams, even when they are not doing well.

---

Quote:

---

4. With very few exceptions, just about any team will suffer in attendance when not winning. "

---

But will these small cities still have the corporate sponsors and backing if they are losing 90 plus games a year?
In large cities the corporations keep buying club and luxury suites. In small markets they don't.

I went to a New Orleans Pelicans game a few years ago, and the names of the companies that were listed outside their luxury suites paled in comparison (revenue, prestige) to what you would see at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, or the Toyota Center in Houston.

Quote:

---

3. As I mentioned above, Montreal had a team move because it wasn't supported. In their last decade, they had multiple years of sub-10k per game averages. They have proven that they won't support a team.

---

Who cares about the past?
This exact same argument was used to explain why Los Angeles did not need two NFL teams.

You are just blindly assuming that a metro area of 4 million people won't support a franchise because 20 years ago attendance was bad.

You are not taking into account why attendance was bad.

Quote:

---

5. San Antonio and Portland in particular have shown a propensity to support their pro teams, even when they are not doing well.

---

And???? So what? The trailblazers and Spurs are the only two teams in town. I don't think either of these cities has the population to support a Major League Franchise for 81 games.
This is about being profitable, not just expanding for the sake of expansion.

Portlands GDP is listed (in millions) at 164k and San Antonio at 133k. Montreal's GDP is around 188k.
More people, more $$$ = better option.

Quote:

---

2. Sticking with the Dallas theme, 7.5 million is definitely on the low end for supporting two teams. Ignoring the fact that the Rangers would probably resist it *heavily*, it doesn't compare to other areas with multiple teams. New York and L.A. are orders of magnitude larger than any other city, so those don't work as a comparison. Chicago is historically based, and if the league was reformed today, would only have one. D.C. and Baltimore is probably the best comparison, but it's also a different situation. In addition to being a larger statistical area by about 2 million people, D.C. is constantly flooded with temporary residents and visitors, which expands its team's reach at any given time to a level that DFW can never compete with.

---

Its now 8 million and growing rapidly. The Metro population has grown by 1.2 million in the last 10 years. That is insane growth.

Washington DC got a team 15 years ago. Why can't Dallas?

Ideally you want a MLB team in a metro area that has at least 3 to 3.5 million people. When you start getting to 7-9 million people in a metro area there is more than enough people to support a second franchise.

Quote:

---

1. Rangers aren't exactly blowing out any attendance records. They lead this year only because the numbers are skewed by opening up the new stadium fully for opening day (weekend?), but in 2019, they ranked in the bottom half of attendance.

---

The Rangers have always sucked, and have a horrible gameday atmosphere.

The Rangers lack of foresight has nothing to do with how Dallas can support a Major League team.

The A's lack of attendance has nothing to do with the San Francisco Giants, and the same in regards to the Orioles and the Nationals.

jkag89 said:

---

I think it is very unlikely that the state of Texas gets a third team and absolutely no way in the foreseeable future that the Metroplex gets a second team especially through expansion.

---

Two months ago I never thought I would see the Baylor Bears win a National Title in a major sport, but here we are.

Point being, that things change.

DFW has gained 1.2 million people in the last 10 years, and is still growing. Dallas has one of the biggest collections of Fortune 500 HQ's of any city in the United States.

Dallas is a way better option for MLB expansion than some of these small market cities.

Places with two teams in the same league generally go back a long time, and before TV was such a huge driver of revenues.

I know DC "recently" got a team even though Baltimore had the Orioles. I think its worth remembering that even though the can be considered the same area, they're fairly distinct places with their own cultures and own loyalties, in sports and otherwise.

They've long supported different NFL teams and there already had been a time period where they each had their own MLB team.

It helps that the smaller city (Baltimore) had had a MLB team since the 1950s. And it also helps that the Orioles only have one pro sports competitor in town (the Ravens). They can maintain a following amongst Baltimore residents who might like the NHL or NBA but probably aren't going to spend a lot of time and money on the DC teams.

I get the comparison to DFW, but it just feels different.

Kellso said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

I think it is very unlikely that the state of Texas gets a third team and absolutely no way in the foreseeable future that the Metroplex gets a second team especially through expansion.

---

Two months ago I never thought I would see the Baylor Bears win a National Title in a major sport, but here we are.

Point being, that things change.

DFW has gained 1.2 million people in the last 10 years, and is still growing. Dallas has one of the biggest collections of Fortune 500 HQ's of any city in the United States.

Dallas is a way better option for MLB expansion than some of these small market cities.

---

IMO, apples and oranges. Excluding football it is not at all that unusual for unexpected schools to win a Natty Championship. A lot of hurdles will need to be cleared for a second MLB team be placed in the Metroplex, the first being somehow getting the Rangers and even the Astros on board.

Build a stadium in San Marcos. Then you draw from both SA and Austin.

New Braunfels>

The Ft. Worth Rangers in Tarrant County and the Dallas Athletics in Dallas or Collin County? Interesting possibility.

Kellso said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

Kellso said:

---

The A's will most likely relocated to Las Vegas if they do not get a downtown stadium built near the water.

If MLB expands to 34 teams the best two cities to add for expansion would be Montreal and Dallas.

All the other cities that are named as expansion possibilities are in small markets where Major League Baseball would struggle.

---

if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?

---

I thought their were already 32 teams instead of 30.

San Antonio, Portland, Austin, Nashville are all pretty mediocre options.

Charlotte is a big enough option for a new MLB franchise, but the best options for two brand new teams would be Dallas and Montreal.

Both cities not only have the population to support an MLB franchise, they also have the corporate backing
The Dallas metro area has 7.5 million people and growing rapidly. There are more people in the Dallas area than all but 13 states. DFW has the population(people and corporations) to support a 2nd team.

Montreal is the 2nd largest city in Canada, and has a metro population of 4 million.


I don't think the MLB will expand if they don't think the new cities will make them money in the long run. They are not going to want to add another Tampa or Oakland to the MLB

That's all I see San Antonio, Austin, Portland being. A small market team that won't do well financially if the team is not winning.

For a MLB team to be successful they have to have the corporate fan base that can lease a luxury suite for 81 games a year.

---

1. Rangers aren't exactly blowing out any attendance records. They lead this year only because the numbers are skewed by opening up the new stadium fully for opening day (weekend?), but in 2019, they ranked in the bottom half of attendance.
2. Sticking with the Dallas theme, 7.5 million is definitely on the low end for supporting two teams. Ignoring the fact that the Rangers would probably resist it *heavily*, it doesn't compare to other areas with multiple teams. New York and L.A. are orders of magnitude larger than any other city, so those don't work as a comparison. Chicago is historically based, and if the league was reformed today, would only have one. D.C. and Baltimore is probably the best comparison, but it's also a different situation. In addition to being a larger statistical area by about 2 million people, D.C. is constantly flooded with temporary residents and visitors, which expands its team's reach at any given time to a level that DFW can never compete with.
3. As I mentioned above, Montreal had a team move because it wasn't supported. In their last decade, they had multiple years of sub-10k per game averages. They have proven that they won't support a team.
4. With very few exceptions, just about any team will suffer in attendance when not winning.
5. San Antonio and Portland in particular have shown a propensity to support their pro teams, even when they are not doing well.

---

Quote:

---

4. With very few exceptions, just about any team will suffer in attendance when not winning. "

---

But will these small cities still have the corporate sponsors and backing if they are losing 90 plus games a year?
In large cities the corporations keep buying club and luxury suites. In small markets they don't.

I went to a New Orleans Pelicans game a few years ago, and the names of the companies that were listed outside their luxury suites paled in comparison (revenue, prestige) to what you would see at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, or the Toyota Center in Houston.

Quote:

---

3. As I mentioned above, Montreal had a team move because it wasn't supported. In their last decade, they had multiple years of sub-10k per game averages. They have proven that they won't support a team.

---

Who cares about the past?
This exact same argument was used to explain why Los Angeles did not need two NFL teams.

You are just blindly assuming that a metro area of 4 million people won't support a franchise because 20 years ago attendance was bad.

---

Don't know if I'd be touting the two LA NFL teams as a success story. The chargers were only selling out their soccer stadium (yes small soccer stadium) because it looks like a chargers road game. I'll be surprised if they're there at the end of the decade.

I think it's all a moot point anyways. If I'm the rangers owner, I'm pooling every favor I've ever earned together to keep an expansion team out of my tv market