Can Boston, St. Louis, or Philadelphia support a second team again?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I was wondering if Boston, St. Louis, or Philadelphia could support a second team again? Can New York City support a third team again? What say you BBF?

[Elvis]

LA and NY could easily support a 3rd team. I think Boston could possibly support a 2nd team, although they would be perennial 2nd fiddle to the Red Sox, so I doubt it would ever happen. Philly and St. Louis?...no.

[Elvis]

I was wondering if Boston, St. Louis, or Philadelphia could support a second team again? Can New York City support a third team again? What say you BBF?

How about adding L.A. and Chicago to the 3rd team option?

[OleMissCub]

Move the Marlins to NY and the Devil Rays to LA

Florida fans don't deserve a baseball team:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1044/1379723371_60a1aa76fa.jpg

[Ubiquitous]

LA and NY could easily support a 3rd team. I think Boston could possibly support a 2nd team, although they would be perennial 2nd fiddle to the Red Sox, so I doubt it would ever happen. Philly and St. Louis?...no.

Out of the three Philadelphia has the largest population.

[Wade8813]

Out of the three Philadelphia has the largest population.

But it's not just about population. Otherwise, Florida teams would be doing a lot better, attendance-wise.

[Elvis]

The Phillies draw well, but I just don't get the feeling Philadelphia is a "baseball town" that could support two franchises.

[NineWorldSeries]

No, No, No, No

[DoubleX]

I don't think having another team physically in Boston would be a good idea, but I think New England in general could support another team. Perhaps putting a team somewhere in the Boston suburbs, or Providence, or Hartford, or southern New Hampshire.

St. Louis and Philadelphia are less attractive, as both have declining populations. Though a team outside of Philly, perhaps in southern or central NJ would do ok, though northern NJ is probably the best place for an NJ team because it's in the NYC metro area.

[Ubiquitous]

But it's not just about population. Otherwise, Florida teams would be doing a lot better, attendance-wise.

No it isn't just about population it is also about the quality of the team. The Marlins would draw well if they actually tried to field a team. Tampa Bay has been run badly from the start.

[DoubleX]

No it isn't just about population it is also about the quality of the team. The Marlins would draw well if they actually tried to field a team. Tampa Bay has been run badly from the start.

It's not that simple down there. Let's not forget that the Marlins have won two World Series championships in the past decade and it hasn't done much for attendance. For the team to succeed down there it needs a new smaller stadium meant for baseball, preferably one with a roof so as to avoid the summer humidity and daily downpours, and ideally locate the stadium somewhere north of Miami where it can attact residents from Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach and so forth, and the owner needs to stop pocketing revenue sharing and actually spend it on the team.

[Ubiquitous]

It's not that simple down there. Let's not forget that the Marlins have won two World Series championships in the past decade and it hasn't done much for attendance. For the team to succeed down there it needs a new smaller stadium meant for baseball, preferably one with a roof so as to avoid the summer humidity and daily downpours, and ideally locate the stadium somewhere north of Miami where it can attact residents from Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach and so forth, and the owner needs to stop pocketing revenue sharing and actually spend it on the team.

And why do they not draw well? Is it because Wayne after the first world series gave the area the finger and destroyed the team? How about after the second one? Attendance was up while they were good and then Loria dsimantled the team again and attendance went down.

The team could succeed right now with their current stadium situation they choose not to but that doesn't mean they can't do it. With revenue sharing and the national contract money they can spend vastly more money then they currently are and still make money.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

And why do they not draw well? Is it because Wayne after the first world series gave the area the finger and destroyed the team? How about after the second one? Attendance was up while they were good and then Loria dsimantled the team again and attendance went down.

The team could succeed right now with their current stadium situation they choose not to but that doesn't mean they can't do it. With revenue sharing and the national contract money they can spend vastly more money then they currently are and still make money.

I was listening to KNBR on the way to work a few days ago when it was mentioned that with the Marlins trading Cabrera and Willis their payroll will about $8 million in 2008. That would be about 25X less than the Yankees. :(

[Sirmudgeon]

The Marlins should be penalized half of the $52M (before gate receipts) they stand to profit by dumping their best players to save money. Of course, so few see them anyway, why would it matter?

NO MORE BOSTON OR NY TEAMS, PLEASE. Golly, we the rest of the country hear more than enough about them as is.

Philly and St. Louis have committed, loyal and knowledgeable fans, but are too invested in their current teams.

A solution: combine the two Florida franchises, and give one of the spots to one of the nation's baseball hotbeds: Portland, OR. That's right, follow the Oregon trail. Hold an expansion draft, have the other owners kick in for stadium expansion and/or building, and wait five years. The West Coast could use another rivalry, NL or AL, it almost wouldn't matter what league you put the ******* child of the Floridas in, Portland would fill the other nicely.

[DoubleX]

And why do they not draw well? Is it because Wayne after the first world series gave the area the finger and destroyed the team? How about after the second one? Attendance was up while they were good and then Loria dsimantled the team again and attendance went down.

The team could succeed right now with their current stadium situation they choose not to but that doesn't mean they can't do it. With revenue sharing and the national contract money they can spend vastly more money then they currently are and still make money.

Sure they'd be doing better in terms of attendance if the team showed a greater committment to winning, but they'd still likely draw poorly. It's just not a good place at all to see a baseball game. The stadium is terrible for watching baseball, it's not in the most opportunistic of locations, and the weather is just terrible for sitting and watching baseball. If it's not too hot and humid, it's downpouring.

Look at 2003 when they won they won the WS. They finished 15th in the NL in attendance for the 5th straight season, drawing just over 16,000 a game. That team was not dismantled the following year as the '97 team was, so you'd think the fans might be energized by the previous season's win. Well they jumped all the way up to 14th in attendance with just over 21,000 a game in 2004, before falling back to 15th in 2005 and then to 16th in 2006 and 2007. Winning didn't really make much of a difference in 2003. Since 1999, the Marlins have only had two years where they drew more than 20,000, and those were the two years after the 2003 championship. So even when they were coming off a championship, they werne't drawing well.

For the team to survive in south Florida it really needs a new stadium. Preferably one with a roof, that is meant for baseball, and in a more opportunistic location.

[Ubiquitous]

I don't see drawing 2 million to be poor which is something they most certainly can do rather easily with a good team. That is 25,000 a game. I think that is easily achievable with more possible.

Look at 2003 when they won they won the WS.

Historically surprise type teams tend to see their attendance go up the year after they win big and not so much the year of. And yes the Marlins saw their attendance go up dramatically and stay up for two years after 2003. The rankings are meaningless what matters is tickets and revenue. If Loria had taken the next step and added players on to his team instead of dismantling the team the attendance would have kept going up.

[DoubleX]

Historically surprise type teams tend to see their attendance go up the year after they win big and not so much the year of. And yes the Marlins saw their attendance go up dramatically and stay up for two years after 2003. The rankings are meaningless what matters is tickets and revenue. If Loria had taken the next step and added players on to his team instead of dismantling the team the attendance would have kept going up.

The increase wasn't that dramatic at all, less than 5000 people, bringing the total to just over 21,000 in 2004. And of course that's what the Marlins and MLB reported, the number actually showing up to games (and thereby making secondary expenditure), was likely much lower. For instance, do you really think 16,900 people were showing up on average to Marlins games this year? That figure was probably much closer to 10,000.

It's just first and foremost, not a good place to see baseball. That's why attendance figures declined each year after their initial year (when there was a novelty), with a one year spike in 1997 for the WS title. The fans quickly realized that watching a game there is just not enjoyable. Compare the Marlins to the Rockies who joined the league at the same time as the Marlins. The Rockies, despite being in a smaller and much colder market, drew consistently very well for the first 10 years of their existence (1st in attendance from '93-'99, drew over 40,000 through 2000 and over 33,000 through 2002), irrespective of how the team was playing. That has much to do with the fact that their stadium is much more suited for baseball, is situated in a better location in terms of access, and while cold, does not have to deal with the heat, humidity, and sporadic downpours that Florida fans would have to deal with. If the Rockies were forced to play for the past 15 years in Mile High Stadium, which was a football stadium, chances are they, like the Marlins, would have seen a sharp decline in attendance after the initial novelty wore off. Stadiums can make a big difference, and it really did in the case of the Rockies.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The increase wasn't that dramatic at all, less than 5000 people, bringing the total to just over 21,000 in 2004. And of course that's what the Marlins and MLB reported, the number actually showing up to games (and thereby making secondary expenditure), was likely much lower. For instance, do you really think 16,900 people were showing up on average to Marlins games this year? That figure was probably much closer to 10,000.

It's just first and foremost, not a good place to see baseball. That's why attendance figures declined each year after their initial year (when there was a novelty), with a one year spike in 1997 for the WS title. The fans quickly realized that watching a game there is just not enjoyable. Compare the Marlins to the Rockies who joined the league at the same time as the Marlins. The Rockies, despite being in a smaller and much colder market, drew consistently very well for the first 10 years of their existence (1st in attendance from '93-'99, drew over 40,000 through 2000 and over 33,000 through 2002), irrespective of how the team was playing. That has much to do with the fact that their stadium is much more suited for baseball, is situated in a better location in terms of access, and while cold, does not have to deal with the heat, humidity, and sporadic downpours that Florida fans would have to deal with. If the Rockies were forced to play for the past 15 years in Mile High Stadium, which was a football stadium, chances are they, like the Marlins, would have seen a sharp decline in attendance after the initial novelty wore off. Stadiums can make a big difference, and it really did in the case of the Rockies.
You made many good points. I think this is the reason the Giants have continued to draw well at AT&T even as the Giants have fallen in the NL West standings. Attending a game at AT&T is just plain fun. With Caltrain running from as far south as Gilroy (80 miles away) a fan can go see a Giants' game without having to deal with driving through Bay Area traffic or parking at the ballpark. Once at At&T there and many things to do, the weather is mild (compared to old Candlestick Park), and the seats are very close to the action on the field.

[hellborn]

I don't think having another team physically in Boston would be a good idea, but I think New England in general could support another team. Perhaps putting a team somewhere in the Boston suburbs, or Providence, or Hartford, or southern New Hampshire.

...

AAAAHHHHH!!!
Are you trying to kill me?!?!?
When we lived near Chicago (Elgin), there was talk of the Bears or White Sox moving very close to our home...would have made our already crowded lives much worse. A team around here would be devastating.
The problem with putting another team elsewhere in New England is that the population density is low, and the cities other than Boston are quite small. Boston suburbs might work, but a place like Manchester, NH (120,000), or Providence (175,000) is not going to provide nearly enough local fans to support a ML franchise. You'd be counting on the vast majority of attendees per game coming from a fairly great distance. If the Bosox were in Providence, I sure wouldn't attend more than 1 or 2 games a year, if that. Boston is really only workable for me because it has effective mass transit.
Nashua, NH's independent league team is already failing, and Manchester seems to be supporting an AA team fairly nicely, although they aren't selling out every game by a longshot. A ML team around here would be nothing like having a team in Oakland or San Jose near SF, or adding a team to NJ near NYC...New England, outside of Boston, has a much lower population density than those areas.

[Ubiquitous]

The increase wasn't that dramatic at all, less than 5000 people, bringing the total to just over 21,000 in 2004. And of course that's what the Marlins and MLB reported, the number actually showing up to games (and thereby making secondary expenditure), was likely much lower. For instance, do you really think 16,900 people were showing up on average to Marlins games this year? That figure was probably much closer to 10,000.

That is how many tickets were sold and that helps fill the coffers.

The year after attendance went up 420,000 people, a year later it went up another 130,000, and that was without the Marlins adding anybody or really trying to be a legit good team. What if they had kept Derrek Lee and Ivan Rodriguez?


It's just first and foremost, not a good place to see baseball. That's why attendance figures declined each year after their initial year (when there was a novelty), with a one year spike in 1997 for the WS title.

And what do you think would have happened if Wayne hadn't blown the team up immediately after winning that world series?



The fans in Miami have been spit on many times by the Marlins, the Marlins have done a very poor job building a fan base. Is it any wonder that when the Marlins don't try the fans don't come out?


Am I saying that a new and better stadium wouldn't help the Marlins? No I am not. What I am saying is that if the Marlins built a good team they could draw fans in their current locale. If the Marlins had tried to build a good team and didn't screw their fans for years they would have a good fan base that would come out (not in insane amount of numbers) when they were not winning.

Pittsburgh got a new and great park and their attendance collapsed back to Three Rivers days because they can't win, the Brewers have a new park and their attendance dwindled back to County Stadium days until they started winning. The same will happen SF or anywhere else. If you don't build a good team the fans don't come out.

[DoubleX]

That is how many tickets were sold and that helps fill the coffers.

The year after attendance went up 420,000 people, a year later it went up another 130,000, and that was without the Marlins adding anybody or really trying to be a legit good team. What if they had kept Derrek Lee and Ivan Rodriguez?


And what do you think would have happened if Wayne hadn't blown the team up immediately after winning that world series?



The fans in Miami have been spit on many times by the Marlins, the Marlins have done a very poor job building a fan base. Is it any wonder that when the Marlins don't try the fans don't come out?


Am I saying that a new and better stadium wouldn't help the Marlins? No I am not. What I am saying is that if the Marlins built a good team they could draw fans in their current locale. If the Marlins had tried to build a good team and didn't screw their fans for years they would have a good fan base that would come out (not in insane amount of numbers) when they were not winning.

Pittsburgh got a new and great park and their attendance collapsed back to Three Rivers days because they can't win, the Brewers have a new park and their attendance dwindled back to County Stadium days until they started winning. The same will happen SF or anywhere else. If you don't build a good team the fans don't come out.

I agree with you that if the Marlins fielded better teams, they would draw more fans, but it would only go so far. The increases you cited aren't that great, and likely would have been greater if the team had a better stadium situation. I don't know if you've been down there, but their stadium situation just cannot be understated. It's in a crappy location in which you have to compete with the horrendous Miami-area traffic to get to for a game during the week, and that traffic is just downright terrible. Once there, it's just a terrible stadium to watch baseball in. And then if you don't mind sitting out there in the 90 degree heat during the summer with the near 100% humidity, there's a good chance you'll get thoroughly soaked by the downpours that pass through the area almost daily, forcing you to have to sit through countless rain delays. It's just a terrible experience and beyond the quality of the team, there's just very little motivation to go there, it's just too much of a hassle and fielding a better team would only go so far.

If you doubt any of this and have never been to a Marlins game, then I'd recommend you go down to Miami next summer and go to a few weekday games and report back what the experience was like for you and whether you'd be apt to do want to do it again, even if the team were better. Fans just don't want to be subjected to the experience of going to a game - the location, the traffic, the stadium, the weather are all huge turnoffs.

If you gave them a new baseball-only stadium, preferably north of Miami and around the Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach area and gave it a roof, I think they'd almost certainly have a noticeable increase in attendance, perhaps superior to what they experienced in 2004 and 2005, and irrespective of the quality of the team.

Also, with the Pittsburgh and Milwaukee examples you mentioned, those are two cities and areas that have experienced steadily declining populations in recent decades and don't even approach the metro population in south Florida. The Pittsburgh and Milwaukee metro areas combined have about 2 million less people than what's around Miami (which is the 7th biggest market in the U.S.). Yet in Pittsburgh they still draw 5,000 more a game than the Marlins, and Milwaukee has consistently been 5-10,000 higher than the Marlins since the new ballpark opened. Certainly attendance figures will decline in places when teams stop winning, such as in Baltimore and perhaps in San Francisco now that Bonds is gone, but the attendance in Miami is well beyond such a decline, as the figures in Pittsburgh and Milwaukee should indicate - much smaller markets, with recently bad teams that have been outdrawing the Marlins by several thousand.

[Ubiquitous]

I agree with you that if the Marlins fielded better teams, they would draw more fans, but it would only go so far. The increases you cited aren't that great, and likely would have been greater if the team had a better stadium situation.
Yes, I don't disagree. If the team had a better stadium and a better team they would draw better. Don't dispute that. What I said was that a)the Marlins can afford to spend vastly more money then they are right now and their financial situation would be able to afford it and and B) by building a better team attendance would rise allowing them to spend even more. Right now with the miserable attendance the Marlins bring in about 120 to 130 million a year. With their low attendance last year they brought in about 19 million from the gate. National contracts in medias and merchandise brought in about 60 to 70 million.

According to Forbes this team could have spent 75 million on payroll and not have lost money.

[KCGHOST]

St. Louis couldn't and Boston wouldn't, but Philly and NY could each support another team.

Whatever you do don't broach the idea of moving the Marlins to Brooklyn.

[DoubleX]

Yes, I don't disagree. If the team had a better stadium and a better team they would draw better. Don't dispute that. What I said was that a)the Marlins can afford to spend vastly more money then they are right now and their financial situation would be able to afford it and and B) by building a better team attendance would rise allowing them to spend even more. Right now with the miserable attendance the Marlins bring in about 120 to 130 million a year. With their low attendance last year they brought in about 19 million from the gate. National contracts in medias and merchandise brought in about 60 to 70 million.

According to Forbes this team could have spent 75 million on payroll and not have lost money.

The Marlins definitely need to spend more, and a better team would draw better. I agree with that. What Loria is doing is a complete travesty and MLB should do something (perhaps suspend the money he receives in revenue sharing). But as I was trying to point out in my last post (as edited) is that building a better team would only go so far for the Marlins, because their stadium situation is really that bad. If the Marlins had a better team, maybe they'd draw 20-25,000 a game and be in the same area that Pittsburgh, a much smaller market, is drawing now with dismal teams. My point is that even with a good team, the Marlins will likely never draw well over a season in that stadium. Like I said, if you doubt this and haven't been to a Marlins game, try going to a few weekday games there next year and see what the experience of going to a Marlins game is like. The traffic is killer because of the location, the stadium is terrible, and the weather is worse - if you don't mind sweltering in the heat and extreme humidity, maybe you'll mind the rain delays that often occur.

[Ubiquitous]

Attendance is rapidly becoming a minimal amount of revenue for a lot of teams. Minimal is of course is a bit of a hyperbole but for a lot of teams the real money is the national money which is getting handed out in the bucket fulls with another new revenue source (MLBAM) expanding rapidly. The Marlins last year could have spent the NL average on payroll they did not. The Marlins current stadium situation still allows them to compete with the rest of the league. With a good team they could do that even more. With the way revenue is drawing 2 million fans is drawing well and I believe the Marlins with a good team and an ownership that doesn't project hatred or apathy towards the fans could do that.

A Marlins in a better stadium can expect to draw somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 2.5 million as long as the team is decent. And for that higher attendance we would see gate revenue be about 40 to 50 million instead of 19 million. Certainly more money but nothing earth shattering and it certainly didn't allow Pitts or Milwaukee to spend gobs of money.

[Sirmudgeon]

Pittsburgh got a new and great park and their attendance collapsed back to Three Rivers days because they can't win, the Brewers have a new park and their attendance dwindled back to County Stadium days until they started winning. The same will happen SF or anywhere else. If you don't build a good team the fans don't come out.[/QUOTE]

I dunno, Wrigley and Fenway fill up all the time, and until recently, both teams were continual disappointments. Is there too much to do in Florida, what with the weather and other distractions? Is there not that traditional Chi/Bos rabid fan base? Not sure, the Dodgers always fill up. I think part of the solution has to do with marketing (a cool park, like the Gi'nts have, is great when made for the whole family, not just the baseball fan- concessions, games, memorabilia, etc.), part of it is visible commitment to the community (outreach programmes, long-term leases/investments), part of it is fan-centred (field views, scoreboarding, ticketing policies, promotional events), and part of it is building a winning team.

It will be interesting to see how the Giants draw sans Bonds, yet I can tell you, as a former long-time Bay Area resident, that going to the new park is seen as a treat by most folks, not just baseball fans (this was assuredly NOT the case at the 'Stick), doesn't matter how the boys are going. When I lived in Key West, I met lots of folks from throughout Florida that would have loved MLB, yes with a roofed stadium. 99 degrees and 99% humidity is no fun, trust me.

I think these same issues would prevail anywhere.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

It's hard to imagine a team competing with Red Sox Nation.

[Elvis]

It's hard to imagine a team competing with Red Sox Nation.

That's what I thought. Hard to believe that there are baseball fans in New England that aren't Sox fans.

But the same could be said for L.A. in the early 80s with the Lakers. What basketball fan in L.A. in 1983 wasn't a Laker fan? Answer: not too many. It took the Clippers 20+ years and a 1st class building, but they have finally managed to establish a nice healthy fan base, althouight they're still 2nd fiddle.

Perhaps the same thing could happen in Boston someday.

[Ubiquitous]

I dunno, Wrigley and Fenway fill up all the time, and until recently, both teams were continual disappointments. Is there too much to do in Florida, what with the weather and other distractions? Is there not that traditional Chi/Bos rabid fan base? Not sure, the Dodgers always fill up. I think part of the solution has to do with marketing (a cool park, like the Gi'nts have, is great when made for the whole family, not just the baseball fan- concessions, games, memorabilia, etc.), part of it is visible commitment to the community (outreach programmes, long-term leases/investments), part of it is fan-centred (field views, scoreboarding, ticketing policies, promotional events), and part of it is building a winning team.
.

Boston was never a continual disappointment in the last 3 to 4 decades.

The Cubs started to draw when the Trib bought the team, brought on Dallas Green and Harry Caray. In between 1984 and 1989 attendance went down. Attendance stayed around the same until as the team stayed just below average. 1993 the Cubs saw a big uptick in attendance and then it went down until Sammy Sosa and the 1998 Cubs got the wild card. The cubs took a walk into the wilderness and the attendance went down until the team gave the fans hope.

The Cubs definitely enjoy good marketing which definitely helps keep attendance up, but even the Cubs are not immune to bad teams.

[64Cards]

St. Louis-no way, there was minimal interest in the Browns during their 50 years in STL. The place isn't close to being big enough.

Same thing with Boston, NE is crazy about the Sox, I couldn't see much attention being paid to an expansion team or if you had the Marlins move in.

Philly has had good but not great attendance, can't see an AL franchise drawing much attention.

The LA area may have enough population in the Riverside, San Bernadino area, but unless you could get a popular and established franchise [Cubs, Yanks, Cards, Red Sox, which wouldn't happen] I would have trouble believing there would be much support for an expansion team or someone like the Royals or Marlins.

NY area may also have the population numbers but the NY fans have grown up as either Yankee or Met fans, quite a bit of tradition. Why would they give a hoot about the NY Marlins or Rays?

In any case trying to put another franchise in NY or LA would happen over the dead bodies of the Yanks, Mets, Dodgers and Angels. And the last thing MLB needs is to add more teams.:eek:

[Fuzzy Bear]

What would have happened, however, if the Boston Braves stayed in Boston?

The Braves went from 7th to 2nd their first year in Milwaukee. They won a World Championship and another pennant in the fifties, and were perennial contenders. It was said that the Sox had Teddy Ballgame, and that was true, but Teddy was aging, and the Braves of the fifties had Eddie Mathews, Hank Aaron, and Warren Spahn.

The Braves were a front line team in the fifties, while the Red Sox went from sorta contenders to the second division. And stayed there.

Much has been said about the ballpark situation; how Fenway was better for baseball than Braves field, etc., but if Boston had this CONTENDER in town with THREE SUPERSTARS, would that not have had an effect? Would SOMETHING have been done to address the ballpark situation?

I think it is possible that had the Braves stayed in Boston, they would have overtaken the Red Sox. The Braves were a team with stars, and a team that blew a few pennants; what if they had won 1 or 2 more pennants? That's hardly far-fetched; the Braves of the middle and late fifties COULD have become what the Dodgers became.

They didn't, of course. They moved from a big market to a small market whose intial enthusiasm faded after 13 short years, resulting in a move to an only slightly bigger (at the time) market whose only advantage was that it was relatively untapped. What if they had stayed in the big Boston market? Would the team have been able to sustain its success like the Dodgers.

[joeclark]

joeclark replies: I just posted my opinons in the poll. I am not sure if we, here in Philadelphia could support a second team. Population at least when compared to Boston
and Saint Louis would suugest that we could. However since 1950 we have lost over
600,000 and our ranking has dropped from 3rd to 6th. On the other hand the population
of the region as a whole has skyrocketed.

In the cases of Boston and Saint Louis population is not the only reason, there is the
reality that the Red Sox and Cardinals are instutions.

[Silver Blaze]

I don't think having another team physically in Boston would be a good idea, but I think New England in general could support another team. Perhaps putting a team somewhere in the Boston suburbs, or Providence, or Hartford, or southern New Hampshire.




What brings you to this conclusion? It's called Red Sox Nation for a reason. All of New England is passionate about the Red Sox; I don't see a snowball in hell's chance of a second team making any significant inroads.

Truthfully, I don't think Boston, St Louis or Philadelphia NEEDS a second team, whether they can support it or not. It dilutes the identity associated between the city and the team. It's possible to get away with that in the far larger cities like New York, Chicago and greater LA area, but I doubt a second team is really going to be viable in an existing market, and if anything, teams should be moved to new markets first.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

What would have happened, however, if the Boston Braves stayed in Boston?

The Braves went from 7th to 2nd their first year in Milwaukee. They won a World Championship and another pennant in the fifties, and were perennial contenders. It was said that the Sox had Teddy Ballgame, and that was true, but Teddy was aging, and the Braves of the fifties had Eddie Mathews, Hank Aaron, and Warren Spahn.

The Braves were a front line team in the fifties, while the Red Sox went from sorta contenders to the second division. And stayed there.

Much has been said about the ballpark situation; how Fenway was better for baseball than Braves field, etc., but if Boston had this CONTENDER in town with THREE SUPERSTARS, would that not have had an effect? Would SOMETHING have been done to address the ballpark situation?

I think it is possible that had the Braves stayed in Boston, they would have overtaken the Red Sox. The Braves were a team with stars, and a team that blew a few pennants; what if they had won 1 or 2 more pennants? That's hardly far-fetched; the Braves of the middle and late fifties COULD have become what the Dodgers became.

They didn't, of course. They moved from a big market to a small market whose intial enthusiasm faded after 13 short years, resulting in a move to an only slightly bigger (at the time) market whose only advantage was that it was relatively untapped. What if they had stayed in the big Boston market? Would the team have been able to sustain its success like the Dodgers.
Good points all. Let's not forget the Boston Braves won the 1948 NL pennant. They led the National League in attendance with 1,455,439. That was only sightly less than the Red Sox attendance of 1,558,798. Had the Red Sox beaten the Indians in the playoff game we would have had an all Boston World Series. That would have been interesting. By 1951 the Braves' attendance fell to under 500,000.

[Silver Blaze]

Had the Red Sox beaten the Indians in the playoff game we would have had an all Boston World Series. That would have been interesting.


And the Red Sox would still have found a way to lose in 7 games.... :laugh

[Avg_Hr_Rbi]

The Phillies draw well, but I just don't get the feeling Philadelphia is a "baseball town" that could support two franchises.

couldn't support 2 teams imho, but trust me it's a baseball town, slightly behind the Eagles of course but the Phills are represented pretty good as well.

[2Chance]

Pittsburgh got a new and great park and their attendance collapsed back to Three Rivers days because they can't win, the Brewers have a new park and their attendance dwindled back to County Stadium days until they started winning. The same will happen SF or anywhere else. If you don't build a good team the fans don't come out.
The same thing happened in Detroit. Back then they looked at what happened with the Indians and Orioles, who built new parks and attendance went way up despite having fewer seats. What these other clubs didn't look at was that the clubs had been developing their players and trying to win. The owners thought the model was, "If you build it, they will come."

It only works like that in the movies.

When they built Bennett Park, Navin Field, and Briggs Stadium they couldn't fit all the fans in the seats. The first Opening Day at Comerica Park, granted was 40 degrees, but attendance was less than the 40,000 seating capacity, and half of them were gone by the 3rd inning. It was practically 7 years from the time they built CoPa before they fielded a competitive team! And until 2006 I could sit anywhere I wanted; now I'm waiting for somebody to give up their season tix to get a decent seat.

I voted no to everybody but NYC. By their sheer numbers, they could support another team, but I don't see the logic behind someone actually doing it. If any franchise were to move, it would more likely be to a new market.

[NYMets523]

Boston couldn't. Everyone is a Red Sox fan, it'd be hard for a 2nd team to attract a fan base.

Philly could, IMO. Not sure about St. Louis.

[Williamsburg2599]

Boston couldn't. Everyone is a Red Sox fan, it'd be hard for a 2nd team to attract a fan base.

Philly could, IMO. Not sure about St. Louis.

While I agree, I don't understand the logic. Is everyone in St. Louis not Cardinal fans? Are a lot of people who are baseball fans in Philly not Phillies fans?

[plask_stirlac]

Austin or San Antonio could use one. I would say Austin because it is between SA and Dallas, so SA fans or disgruntled Rangers fans can check out the new team.

[NYMets523]

While I agree, I don't understand the logic. Is everyone in St. Louis not Cardinal fans? Are a lot of people who are baseball fans in Philly not Phillies fans?

Baseball isn't as big in those cities as it is in Boston. The Red Sox are a huge part of Boston and New England culture because of the team's history.

[cardsfanatic]

Baseball isn't as big in those cities as it is in Boston. The Red Sox are a huge part of Boston and New England culture because of the team's history.

???

I'm not questioning the fact that the Redsox are huge in Boston... however, for anyone to suggest that St. Louis isn't a huge baseball town and the Cardinals aren't top billing is crazy. We're just as avid fans as the Redsox, Yankees, Cubs... you name it. Perhaps we don't have the "hard luck" story that ESPN plays marathons about 16 times a year... and we don't get Sportscenter segments devoted to our fandom like the "big three", but perception often doesn't go hand in hand with reality.

EDIT: As for the question? No second/third team for ANY of those cities, please. Why water down a good thing? If a team is going to move or we're going to expand baseball, let's branch out.

[NYMets523]

We're just as avid fans as the Redsox, Yankees

Maybe you and some people you know are, but that's definitely not the case overall.

[cardsfanatic]

Maybe you and some people you know are, but that's definitely not the case overall.

And you're basing this on what, exactly? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact you live in the Northeast, right?

[NYMets523]

And you're basing this on what, exactly? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact you live in the Northeast, right?

I do, but I hate the Yankees and don't care much for the Red Sox either.

[NickU]

Maybe you and some people you know are, but that's definitely not the case overall.

Dude, are you crazy? STL has one of the biggest fan bases in America, for a long time, before the Dodgers pilgrimmed west, STL was the team furthest west, and their games were the only ones broadcasted around the United States. On a clear night the games could be listened to in Maine and LA alike. Thus making them the unofficial home team for many people without a team in their city. There is a reason that the unoffical nickname of STL is 'Baseball USA'. You are either ill-informed, or badly misguided. I can understand being from New York that you think the only teams that exist are the Mets, Yanks, and Boston, but that's one small area. Look at the mid-west, what other teams are there? STL is the offical team in every state north of texas, west of chicago, east of Nevada, and south of Canada. That's a little bigger than the metro-area and the New England area.

[NineWorldSeries]

Dude, are you crazy? STL has one of the biggest fan bases in America, for a long time, before the Dodgers pilgrimmed west, STL was the team furthest west, and their games were the only ones broadcasted around the United States. On a clear night the games could be listened to in Maine and LA alike. Thus making them the unofficial home team for many people without a team in their city. There is a reason that the unoffical nickname of STL is 'Baseball USA'. You are either ill-informed, or badly misguided. I can understand being from New York that you think the only teams that exist are the Mets, Yanks, and Boston, but that's one small area. Look at the mid-west, what other teams are there? STL is the offical team in every state north of texas, west of chicago, east of Nevada, and south of Canada. That's a little bigger than the metro-area and the New England area.

Really? I guess the Rockies, Royals, and Twins might as well not even exist, then. :rolleyes:

[omnivore]

The Cardinals fans are truly devout. In the years living down there, I never saw a place that could sellout meaningless day games early in the season, but STL does consistently. It's a great, knowledgable fan base and the most welcoming of any city I've seen a game and that's about 20.

I think a team in Hartford would do well, so long as they were successful and in the National League. People forget that we've seen teams that were supposed "institutions" moved to remote locales in other sports and as long as those teams won early, the people rallied around them.

I think the Clippers example as a good one, too.

Baseball's current revenue sharing scheme (aka, the lack of one really) prevents baseball for going to more exotic locales. Not places that will probably eventually get teams like Portland, but places like Austin/San Antonio or Norfolk. The TV markets are too small and as a result, the team there would be DOA.

No matter what, baseball team's thrive when they're in downtown areas with access to highways and public transport.

A Hartford team might do better than a NYC-metro team in New Jersey, because a second National League team there would provide New England with access to the National League again all year, rather than just during interleague and would also give fans a place to see MLB games since Fenway is almost always sold out. With Hartford being close to Springfield, Mass., and still within the NYC nexus, so long as the team was owned by someone who was committed to win, a rivalry would erupt over time and it would be the perfect antidote to some of the media market dominance of the Red Sox and Yankees over time.

A team in New Jersey would be an afterthought, even if it were feasible. Hartford doesn't have that, plus it'd be the only game in town...and that would be a huge boon to people supporting them, without having to pay anyone for the right to move into the market.

Not realistic, but...I do think since we're having the hypothetical discussion it's worth talking about.

[SilentKiller]

I say definitely to all, I would love to see a 3rd team in New York at least in the Northern New Jersey area.

[gojays]

Of course New York could have a third team. NYC has enough resources to support six teams, which is why everybody just goes to see the Yankees, to give them even more money to waste.

[bluezebra]

LA and NY could easily support a 3rd team. I think Boston could possibly support a 2nd team, although they would be perennial 2nd fiddle to the Red Sox, so I doubt it would ever happen. Philly and St. Louis?...no.

No matter what the Angels' owner calls his team, there is ONE (1) MLB team in Los Angeles. Anaheim is about 27 miles from LA, is an incorporated city, and is in a different county. The Angels couldn't compete with the Dodgers in LA, and that's why they moved.

Bob

[Bazookadale]

While I agree, I don't understand the logic. Is everyone in St. Louis not Cardinal fans? Are a lot of people who are baseball fans in Philly not Phillies fans?

It seems to me that there are as many Phillie haters as Phillie fans - maybe I'm just too sensitive. There might be as many Mets fans in Philly as Phillies fans.