Not really....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....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.
Kellso said:
If MLB expands to 34 teams the best two cities to add for expansion would be Montreal and Dallas.
cmon, Montreal Ehs, the jokes right themselvesbluefire579 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.
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 moneybluefire579 said: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.W said:
Las Vegas is a no-brainer.
can't believe any team would seriously consider Portland
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.W said: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 moneybluefire579 said: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.W said:
Las Vegas is a no-brainer.
can't believe any team would seriously consider Portland
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.rdunham98 said:
Vegas
Nashville
Mexico City
Charlotte
In that order.
if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?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.
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.
Dallas has never had a Major League Baseball team.hedge said:
Dallas ? Y'all have a team
I thought their were already 32 teams instead of 30.Wicked Good Ag said:if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_areahedge said:
Look it up
New York Cityhedge said:
Does the DFW metro area not have a baseball team ?
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.Kellso said:I thought their were already 32 teams instead of 30.Wicked Good Ag said:if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?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.
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.
bluefire579 said: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.Kellso said:I thought their were already 32 teams instead of 30.Wicked Good Ag said:if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?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.
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.
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.
But will these small cities still have the corporate sponsors and backing if they are losing 90 plus games a year?Quote:
4. With very few exceptions, just about any team will suffer in attendance when not winning. "
Who cares about the past?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.
Quote:
5. San Antonio and Portland in particular have shown a propensity to support their pro teams, even when they are not doing well.
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.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.
The Rangers have always sucked, and have a horrible gameday atmosphere.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.
Two months ago I never thought I would see the Baylor Bears win a National Title in a major sport, but here we are.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.
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.Kellso said:Two months ago I never thought I would see the Baylor Bears win a National Title in a major sport, but here we are.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.
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.
Kellso said:bluefire579 said: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.Kellso said:I thought their were already 32 teams instead of 30.Wicked Good Ag said:if they expand to 34 teams what two other cities would you have assuming no relocation of current teams?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.
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.
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.But will these small cities still have the corporate sponsors and backing if they are losing 90 plus games a year?Quote:
4. With very few exceptions, just about any team will suffer in attendance when not winning. "
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.Who cares about the past?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.
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.