A's back to Philadelphia, Marlins to New York... could it ever happen?

[Cubs1945]

To bad MLB has an anti trust exemption. I've always believed a third team in New York would be a good idea. Move the Marlins there. Move the A's back to Philadelphia or move them to Boston. You want more balance take away the edge that the Yanks and Red Sox have with another team in their market. The owners could block any move. The anti trust laws protect big markets.

[compaq]

Both the A's and Marlins are getting new Stadiums. Blaming other teams for having money is just making excuses.

[sflnyc]

Not going to happen, plus where are they going to play?

Plus remember in the good old days, there was something as a NL town or an AL town. All the teams in the two-team cities that were not favored by the fans moved (Boston NL; Philadelphia AL, St, Louis AL). Philadelphia was the most surprising because the A's were historically a much better team than the Phillies, but they left town. The A's coming back... as the phrase says, you can't go home again.

NYC was always said to be NL town because it had 2 NL teams to the AL's one. I believe that was the case prior to the Dodgers and Giants leaving for California, but after the 1960's Mets craze (ie. jilted NL fans) waned, I think NY's allegiance has flipped flopped depending on which team was successful at the time. That being said, the Marlins aren't moving to NY (or NJ) either.

[Brandon]

Move every major league team to Los Angeles, Boston, New York, or Chicago.

Problem solved.

The rest of the stadiums will be used for team handball.

[tugger]

Move every major league team to Los Angeles, Boston, New York, or Chicago.

Problem solved.

The rest of the stadiums will be used for team handball.

To be continued at: teamhandball-fever.com

[JMC Bomber]

that would be cool.

[Cubs1945]

I was just throwing an Idea out there. I want the vast majority of small markets teams to stay where they are at. I hate the Marlins because of the 2003 NCLS. That was a very painfull moment for me. They don't draw flies there. Maybe a new ballpark will be the cure. I've heard the A's to Freemont may not happen in the end.

[Chevy114]

What did it matter back before the dh rule whether a team was al or nl?

I think it would be cool to have more towns with multiple teams, but with contraction talks in the early 2000s they wont add any new teams and with all the new stadiums they wont move teams.

[Ralf]

Marlins should move to the pacific northwest and play in the NL West. They should then move the Pirates into the NL East.

[TJH1923]

I don't think it will happen, but I do believe if the Marlin ballpark some how falls through, I think there is a good chance they will be on the move. http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/columnists/linda-robertson//story/610125.html
Take a look at this article from the Miami Herald. Is there any update to this lawsuit?

The A's I believe will stay in California. They see opportunity there. They just want out of Oakland.

[TJH1923]

The only way I believe a third team ends up in the NY Metro area is if MLB is truly committed to level the revenue playing field. The Yankees and Mets are a revenue juggernaut that few franchises can approach. Both LA teams, the Cubs and the Red Sox are there but the NY teams have a little deeper well to draw from. A third team could potentially tilt the playing field some what. More than likely it won't happen, but never say never.

[The House That Ruth Built]

Marlins should move to the pacific northwest and play in the NL West.

There was talk of the Marlins moving to Portland, but they backed out upon learning that the city has no interest paying for a new stadium.

[Ralf]

There was talk of the Marlins moving to Portland, but they backed out upon learning that the city has no interest paying for a new stadium.

I thought the legislative approved the plan but ultimately the MLB decided to move the Expos to Washington DC. Dumb imo. Portland is a great city and would support a franchise with similar seating capacity to PNC. If the Marlins had any other owner than Loria, I would think it was possible but.....

[The House That Ruth Built]

You could be right, I just caught that info when I was in Florida a few years back and they said something like that on the news. I'm not too sure, though.

Portland is a very nice city, i'm sure they can build a stadium on the Wilmalette River. If i'm not mistaken, there is a big vacant lot between the Marquam and Ross Island bridges, kinda like PNC Park.

[PeteU]

Move every major league team to Los Angeles, Boston, New York, or Chicago.

Problem solved.

The rest of the stadiums will be used for team handball.

Post of the day. :rofl:

I honestly saw team handball at the Olympics and thought I was dreaming up the whole thing.

So it's like basketball meets socce---wha?!?!?! Honestly, until last week, I thought handball was that racketball type game that yuppie businessman played on their lunch breaks.

[PeteU]

To bad MLB has an anti trust exemption. I've always believed a third team in New York would be a good idea. Move the Marlins there. Move the A's back to Philadelphia or move them to Boston. You want more balance take away the edge that the Yanks and Red Sox have with another team in their market. The owners could block any move. The anti trust laws protect big markets.

In answering your question, no. First, there's the money. Second, there's the Yankees and Mets who will say no and hell no. Third, generations of Yankees and Mets fans aren't just going to give up their years of allegience to follow some third wheel team when they can keep following the Yankees and Mets at the ballpark and on TV with no sweat.

And fourth, NYC has a AL team. It has a NL team. That's quite enough for the rest of us, thank you very much.

[DrBear]

Maybe an AL team that the rest of the world could like? :)

Or maybe a team where the ticket prices wouldn't cost more than a house?

(PS-that doesn't count the house in Detroit that's being sold for $1 - and has no takers).

[six4three]

Third, generations of Yankees and Mets fans aren't just going to give up their years of allegience to follow some third wheel team when they can keep following the Yankees and Mets at the ballpark and on TV with no sweat.

New York grows every year. New people find baseball every day. Casual followers become die-hard fans. Even if no existing fan ever changes his or her allegiance, there are more than enough new fans in the area to support a third New York team.

[PeteU]

New York grows every year. New people find baseball every day. Casual followers become die-hard fans. Even if no existing fan ever changes his or her allegiance, there are more than enough new fans in the area to support a third New York team.

You make an interesting argument, but couldn't that also be used as a reason not to move the team? The casual fan to core fan transition is pretty much a universal in any market, not just New York.

[six4three]

Yes and no.

Not every city is a good baseball city. And not every city grows as much as New York does, nor does every city have enough potential support, fan and corporate, that New York has by virtue of its size.

[PeteU]

Yes and no.

Not every city is a good baseball city. And not every city grows as much as New York does, nor does every city have enough potential support, fan and corporate, that New York has by virtue of its size.

I would agree that if major league baseball were to expand to say, Minot, North Dakota, the team would probably not do so well. As such, you would probably not call it a "good baseball city", at least as much as major league baseball goes.

But I would argue that when it comes to any major metropolitian area in this country--any area that has at least 1 to 1.5 million people in the area--whether or not there is success at the gate depends in good part on the strength and stability of the ownership and the ties it is able to build with the community. As such, it is hard to write off a city as being a "bad baseball city" if it is the teams fault for not getting its stuff together and putting forth a good, stable product.

[mandrake]

1947, so called golden age of baseball in NYC. Yanks drew 2.2 mil, Dodgers 1.8 mil, Giants 1.6 mil Total 5.6 million Ah, the good old days.

2008 Yanks and Mets draw over 8.5 million

Put a third team in NJ and the metro area gate easily exceeeds 10 million.
Even with reduced capacity in 2009, Yanks will hit 4 million, Mets will hit 3.6 mil, and a new team in NJ would hit at least 2.5 or better.

I am getting tired of small market teams yakking, while they make a ton of money(see Twins, Royals). Red Sox, Yanks, Mets, Cubs, Angels, Dodgers, ChiSox, and Cardinals probably account for more revenue (home/away, TV, radio) than the rest of MLB combined. If the Marlins and A's need to come back east to make it, then do it. Oakland is not MAJOR league. Sorry Bay Area fans.

[Lions/Tigers@Cubs.OhMy!]

Marlins should move to the pacific northwest and play in the NL West. They should then move the Pirates into the NL East.

I second this move. I hate that the NL Central has six teams and then the AL West has four teams. However for balance, the Diamondbacks or Rockies would then have to go to the AL West (so the Marlins could stay in the NL).

someone call Selig.

[PeteU]

If the Marlins and A's need to come back east to make it, then do it.



Dude, please give me the contact information of your third grade geography teacher. I'd like to have a word with him or her.

And as I said before, I'm highly skeptical of the proposition that a longtime Yankee or Mets fan is going to give up on their team willy nilly like that, large population base or not.

But why am I talking about like this is going to happen? It's not. Neither NY team is going to stand for it.

[mandrake]

Dude, please give me the contact information of your third grade geography teacher. I'd like to have a word with him or her.

And as I said before, I'm highly skeptical of the proposition that a longtime Yankee or Mets fan is going to give up on their team willy nilly like that, large population base or not.

But why am I talking about like this is going to happen? It's not. Neither NY team is going to stand for it.

And they laughed at the Colorado Rockies (Kansas City Scouts) when they became the 3rd NHL team here in 1983, with an original six powerhouse team and another team in the middle of a dynasty already entrenched. All they have done in NJ is win 3 cups. And yes, my geography of going east was meant for the A's. The Marlins need to go north.

Yankee and Mets fan would go see a 3rd team if it was easier to get to; they could not get tickets to Citi or NYS; or to see the Yanks or Mets.

All it would take is for a NJ Senator to introduce a bill to lift baseball's exemption (like Missouri did in April 1968) and NJ would get a team. MLB has always blinked, always, when push came to shove.

[GuitarPunk2512]

I second this move. I hate that the NL Central has six teams and then the AL West has four teams. However for balance, the Diamondbacks or Rockies would then have to go to the AL West (so the Marlins could stay in the NL).

someone call Selig.

send the diamondbacks...i like the rockies better....i like their colors, thier stadium, and when they play the mets...let the D-backs fight with the angels.

[PeteU]

And they laughed at the Colorado Rockies (Kansas City Scouts) when they became the 3rd NHL team here in 1983, with an original six powerhouse team and another team in the middle of a dynasty already entrenched. All they have done in NJ is win 3 cups. And yes, my geography of going east was meant for the A's. The Marlins need to go north.



But IIRC, anti-trust wasn't a problem for the NHL at that time. Even if you believe it can be easily removed at the snap of a senator's fingers, currently it is still the law of the land for baseball and remains so for the forseeable future.



Yankee and Mets fan would go see a 3rd team if it was easier to get to; they could not get tickets to Citi or NYS; or to see the Yanks or Mets.



New York already has a cheap and local baseball alternative to the Yankees and Mets. They are the Brooklyn Cyclones, Staten Island Yankees and Newark Bears. Largest metro area or not, I prefer not to see one city have such a lion's share on major league franchises. Baseball is the national pasttime, not the tri-state area pasttime.

All it would take is for a NJ Senator to introduce a bill to lift baseball's exemption (like Missouri did in April 1968) and NJ would get a team. MLB has always blinked, always, when push came to shove.

That's easier said than done. There has long been talk about repealing the antitrust exemption for decades, but little such action.

Moreover, who's going to build the new ballpark? Last I heard, New Jersey had a significant budget crisis. Building a new ballpark might not be the first thing on their mind right now.

[GuitarPunk2512]

i no for a fact that if a team came to NJ ...i definetly will stay a mets fan ...but i along with millions of others will want to go see a game because its leik " WOW a third mlb team in NYC , i gotta go see this" its something different from the usually mets/yanks so i bet alot of people would go spend money to se them ....but then after a few years and being just an expansion team....attendance will drop down dramatically. i also think if a team is in nj ...i think fans will saty loyal to yanks/mets...but will rather travel to the new stadium in NJ since it is closer and they wouldnt have to deal with NYC traffic and stuff.

[GuitarPunk2512]

New York already has a cheap and local baseball alternative to the Yankees and Mets. They are the Brooklyn Cyclones, Staten Island Yankees and Newark Bears. Largest metro area or not, I prefer not to see one city have such a lion's share on major league franchises. Baseball is the national pasttime, not the tri-state area pasttime.



That's easier said than done. There has long been talk about repealing the antitrust exemption for decades, but little such action.

Moreover, who's going to build the new ballpark? Last I heard, New Jersey had a significant budget crisis. Building a new ballpark might not be the first thing on their mind right now.

-you forgot the Long Island Ducks, who play in the Atlantic League with the Newark Bears. i think ducks tickets are between $8-$11 and not a bad seat in the stadium.

-NJ major budget crisis is due to the billion dollar wasted money in the medowlands....Xanadu....seriuosly its probally going to be so expensive noone can get to it and im sure people from LI like me would not travel through NYC to go to a mega mall with an ugly ski mountain. the only thing i wanted to see be built was a new football stadium with a retractable roof so it can have superbowls and concerts and other stuff.....and the minor league baseball ballpark be built but that fell through, it was suppose to be for the Bergen Cliff Hawks to play in the Atlantic League. the whole xanadu project just seems liek an epic fail to me and huge waste of money. I hope the nassau coliseum redevelopment doesnt turn out like the xanadu disaster.

[TJH1923]

Dude, please give me the contact information of your third grade geography teacher. I'd like to have a word with him or her.

And as I said before, I'm highly skeptical of the proposition that a longtime Yankee or Mets fan is going to give up on their team willy nilly like that, large population base or not.

But why am I talking about like this is going to happen? It's not. Neither NY team is going to stand for it.


You are assuming all NYC Metrpolitan area fans are either Mets or Yankees fans.

[PeteU]

You are assuming all NYC Metrpolitan area fans are either Mets or Yankees fans.

If they aren't Mets or Yankees fans, their primary allegience is probably to some other existing team not in the area. I guess you can say they could adopt the third team as their "local" team (as I have with the Marlins), but they could just as well do that with the Mets or the Yankees, too.

[Anubis2051]

I am getting tired of small market teams yakking, while they make a ton of money(see Twins, Royals). Red Sox, Yanks, Mets, Cubs, Angels, Dodgers, ChiSox, and Cardinals probably account for more revenue (home/away, TV, radio) than the rest of MLB combined. If the Marlins and A's need to come back east to make it, then do it. Oakland is not MAJOR league. Sorry Bay Area fans.

I remember reading a report that the yankees are responsible for over 25% of all MLB merchandise sales. If this is true, then the yankees (and the other teams you listed, which, all together probably amount to over 50% of all sales) are responsible for a large amount of the profits of these small town teams, since all merchandise sales are split evenly between all 30 teams.

[Cubs1945]

We wouldn't even have to move teams just add two new teams. MLB should have 16 teams in both leagues. 8 four team divisions.
NL East
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Atlanta
Reds
Florida
Expansion team
NL West
Chicago
St Louis
Milwaukee
Houston
Colorado
LA
SD
SF
AL East
Boston
New York
Baltimore
Toronto
Tampa Bay
Cleveland
Detroit
Chicago
AL West
KC
Minnesota
Texas
Arizona
Oakland
Seattle
LAA
Expansion team

[wvkeeper]

Marlins should move to the pacific northwest and play in the NL West. They should then move the Pirates into the NL East.

They should move the Pirates to the East no matter what. FYI, Pittsburgh is East of Atlanta and Miami.

[metfan13]

We wouldn't even have to move teams just add two new teams. MLB should have 16 teams in both leagues. 8 four team divisions.
NL East
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Atlanta
Reds
Florida
Expansion team
NL West
Chicago
St Louis
Milwaukee
Houston
Colorado
LA
SD
SF
AL East
Boston
New York
Baltimore
Toronto
Tampa Bay
Cleveland
Detroit
Chicago
AL West
KC
Minnesota
Texas
Arizona
Oakland
Seattle
LAA
Expansion team

Aren't those 4 - 8 team divisions?

[Ralf]

They should move the Pirates to the East no matter what. FYI, Pittsburgh is East of Atlanta and Miami.

I'd love to see the Cubs and Pirates back in the same division as the Mets. Ship the Marlins and Braves out.

NL East
Cubs
Mets
Phillies
Pirates
Nationals

NL Central
Astros
Braves
Brewers
Cardinals
Reds

NL West
Dodgers
DBacks
Giants
Marlins (Portland)
Padres
Rockies

[Cubs1945]

There would be two division winners and two wild card winners in each league.
NL East
New York
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Washington
Reds
Pitt
Chicago
St Louis
NL West
Milwaukee
SF
Houston
LA
SD
Colorado
Arizona
Expansion team
AL East
New York
Boston
Baltimore
Toronto
Tampa Bay
Florida
Cleveland
Detroit
AL West
Chicago
Minnesota
Kansas City
Texas
LAA
Seattle
Expansion team

[reh303]

Yankee and Mets fan would go see a 3rd team if it was easier to get to; they could not get tickets to Citi or NYS; or to see the Yanks or Mets.

If they moved an NJ team into my own town I probably wouldn't go see them. Just saying.

[reh303]

You want more balance take away the edge that the Yanks and Red Sox have with another team in their market.

I wouldn't call balance an issue. Since the turn of the century (technically incorrectly including 2000), here are the World Series winners.

2000: Yankees
2001: Diamondbacks
2002: Angels
2003: Marlins
2004: Red Sox
2005: White Sox
2006: Cardinals
2007: Red Sox

Not exactly an era of monolithic dominance.

[mandrake]

If they moved an NJ team into my own town I probably wouldn't go see them. Just saying.

Even if they played the Yankees 9 times in your town? Like the Ranger and to a lesser extent, Islanders fans took over the Byrne Arena in the 80's ? And once you saw the Yankees there, maybe you would later go to a game to root against the Red Sox, or against the Angels. You would remain a Yankee fan, but your money would be staying in your town.

I recall reading stories how all the young people began loving the Yankees in the 1920's, and the Giants began to be known as the "team your dad rooted for". You can remain a Yankee fan for life, but the people coming up behind you may become fans of the team in your town. Times change, people don't.

[reh303]

Even if they played the Yankees 9 times in your town? Like the Ranger and to a lesser extent, Islanders fans took over the Byrne Arena in the 80's ? And once you saw the Yankees there, maybe you would later go to a game to root against the Red Sox, or against the Angels. You would remain a Yankee fan, but your money would be staying in your town.

Ok, you got me there, I would be willing to go see the Yankees there. But other than that? Probably not. I have no interest in going to a game to root against a particular team, but I may be in a minority on that one.

[Chevy114]

Just bring back the pacific coast league, that would get a lot more fun out of the west coast!

[Transic]

Even though the chances are still very remote, it has become a bit less remote with the collapse of the Fremont stadium plan. We don't know how things will shake out over in Oakland but the thought of having one of the historic franchises that moved out west returning to their roots is quite tempting right now.

At this point, I think that Philly and the Philly metro would support a 2nd team, especially a team going back to their roots. Yes, I have read that they couldn't support two teams back in the 1950s and one had to leave. However, in terms of differences in support of sports teams between the Delaware Valley and the New York metropolitan area, it is like night and day. While neither could even approach the fanaticism New England has for the Red Sox, a quick perusing would show the big differences in attitude in the way people view their sports teams. Watch the local news and one can tell which city is more of a "homer city" than the other. In the other city, even when the Yankees win, there are large sections that act as if nothing has ever happened (besides the obvious fan loyalty factor). Despite having a lot more people, many people couldn't care less about pro sports in general, unless it is one of the non-traditional sports supported by immigrants. It is only because of the relative wealth of those who buy tickets and watch the sports teams on the cable networks that they get attention in the media.

For Philly to gain a 2nd team they would have to overcome the perception that they can't support a 2nd team. Maybe if they gain at least 750k more people then there would not be any question. Also, the Steinbrenners would not look kindly at another New York team. They would probably even block the Mets if they had the chance. I think the passion Philly has for their sports teams is such that it may overcome the Phillies' objections to the A's moving back in. Now where would the hypothetical Philly A's play? Well, just browsing through I think the most likely realistic location would be across the river in Camden. From just checking some factoids, it is owned by the Rutgers-Camden campus. Obviously, they'll have their concerns addressed. But the ballpark is already there and can be made available with the right agreement. Private financing would have to be used to upgrade the ballpark to around 35,000 (about the right number needed to make money back). It would pay proper respect to the past Philly A's greats with displays on the ballpark entrance.

[mandrake]

Even though the chances are still very remote, it has become a bit less remote with the collapse of the Fremont stadium plan. We don't know how things will shake out over in Oakland but the thought of having one of the historic franchises that moved out west returning to their roots is quite tempting right now.

At this point, I think that Philly and the Philly metro would support a 2nd team, especially a team going back to their roots. Yes, I have read that they couldn't support two teams back in the 1950s and one had to leave. However, in terms of differences in support of sports teams between the Delaware Valley and the New York metropolitan area, it is like night and day. While neither could even approach the fanaticism New England has for the Red Sox, a quick perusing would show the big differences in attitude in the way people view their sports teams. Watch the local news and one can tell which city is more of a "homer city" than the other. In the other city, even when the Yankees win, there are large sections that act as if nothing has ever happened (besides the obvious fan loyalty factor). Despite having a lot more people, many people couldn't care less about pro sports in general, unless it is one of the non-traditional sports supported by immigrants. It is only because of the relative wealth of those who buy tickets and watch the sports teams on the cable networks that they get attention in the media.

For Philly to gain a 2nd team they would have to overcome the perception that they can't support a 2nd team. Maybe if they gain at least 750k more people then there would not be any question. Also, the Steinbrenners would not look kindly at another New York team. They would probably even block the Mets if they had the chance. I think the passion Philly has for their sports teams is such that it may overcome the Phillies' objections to the A's moving back in. Now where would the hypothetical Philly A's play? Well, just browsing through I think the most likely realistic location would be across the river in Camden. From just checking some factoids, it is owned by the Rutgers-Camden campus. Obviously, they'll have their concerns addressed. But the ballpark is already there and can be made available with the right agreement. Private financing would have to be used to upgrade the ballpark to around 35,000 (about the right number needed to make money back). It would pay proper respect to the past Philly A's greats with displays on the ballpark entrance.

What about the Phillies getting some $ from MLB for helping save a franchise. Then they would get rent from having the A's play in their ballpark, just like when the Phillies had to rent Shibe Park from the A's. They can try it for a few years before the A's look to NJ for their own place.

The Oakland area is dead for sports. At least the NHL used their brain (surprise)by putting a team in San Jose instead of Oakland. After the tree huggers tried to stop Cal-Berkely from improving their sports facilities, the handwriting is on the wall. The A's need to leave Oakland. They ruined the ballpark for the inept Raiders, and now they are stuck. Forget what Horace Greeley said, and "go east, young man".

[Mongoose]

If someone put a franchise in Brooklyn, it would be an immediate and overwhelming success. The historical and emotional link there is much stronger than whatever anyone in Philadelphia might feel for the Athletics. Even people who weren't born when the Dodgers left feel an almost congenital affinity for baseball in Brooklyn.

[Kentucky Bomber]

If someone put a franchise in Brooklyn, it would be an immediate and overwhelming success. The historical and emotional link there is much stronger than whatever anyone in Philadelphia might feel for the Athletics. Even people who weren't born when the Dodgers left feel an almost congenital affinity for baseball in Brooklyn.

Where in Brooklyn could you possibly build a major league baseball stadium? Why do you think O'Malley left? Remembering that the Yanks and Mets just spent a total of $2.1+ billion to build their parks, how could a Brooklyn team compete?

If you're going to move the Marlins, move them to Chicago. Then they'd have a NL team with a chance to win the World Series. :hide:

[Mongoose]

Where in Brooklyn could you possibly build a major league baseball stadium? Why do you think O'Malley left? Remembering that the Yanks and Mets just spent a total of $2.1+ billion to build their parks, how could a Brooklyn team compete?

If you're going to move the Marlins, move them to Chicago. Then they'd have a NL team with a chance to win the World Series. :hide:

Oh, I don't think the Yankees and especially Mets would like it at all...

The new stadiums were built to maximize profit from corporate types and season ticket holders; this hold true for "Citi Field" in particular, where seating capacity has been reduced by 15,000 to 41,000. Getting a decent, reasonably priced seat to a ballgame without committing money up front for a season plan will be a hard thing to do now.

A third team would be able to do very well just by handling demand to see baseball that the Yankees and Mets will not handle. It would also ease the stranglehold the Mets and Yankees have on baseball in New York and hopefully make seeing a game here more affordable.

The demand for a third team is there.

The reason O'Malley left Brooklyn was not because he couldn't get a stadium built: it was because Los Angeles was willing to give him several hundred acres of free land in downtown L.A. Robert Moses would not illegally use eminent domain to give O'Malley the exact parcel of free land he wanted, and O'Malley apologists trying to get him into the Hall of Fame used this as a justification for the move. All the talk about O'Malley not being able to get a stadium is recently invented fiction. The truth is O'Malley simply wanted to take the money and run, loyalty to community be damned - a place to play had nothing to do with it.

[VekterNYM]

Where in Brooklyn could you possibly build a major league baseball stadium?

In my dream world, Red Hook Brooklyn. It is getting redeveloped (Ikea, Fairway, a possible mall) a ballpark would be nice there, great views of Lower Manhattan - but 'tis a dream.

[J.R.]

What about the Phillies getting some $ from MLB for helping save a franchise. Then they would get rent from having the A's play in their ballpark, just like when the Phillies had to rent Shibe Park from the A's. They can try it for a few years before the A's look to NJ for their own place.

The Oakland area is dead for sports. At least the NHL used their brain (surprise)by putting a team in San Jose instead of Oakland. After the tree huggers tried to stop Cal-Berkely from improving their sports facilities, the handwriting is on the wall. The A's need to leave Oakland. They ruined the ballpark for the inept Raiders, and now they are stuck. Forget what Horace Greeley said, and "go east, young man".

I agree on both counts. The Philly government (and Phillies, depending on the arrangement) would benefit from the A's playing at CBP, and Northern California is an awful place to be in the sports business right now.

[redv]

What about the Phillies getting some $ from MLB for helping save a franchise. Then they would get rent from having the A's play in their ballpark, just like when the Phillies had to rent Shibe Park from the A's. They can try it for a few years before the A's look to NJ for their own place.

The Oakland area is dead for sports. At least the NHL used their brain (surprise)by putting a team in San Jose instead of Oakland. After the tree huggers tried to stop Cal-Berkely from improving their sports facilities, the handwriting is on the wall. The A's need to leave Oakland. They ruined the ballpark for the inept Raiders, and now they are stuck. Forget what Horace Greeley said, and "go east, young man".


How is the Oakland area dead for sports? The Raiders manage to sell out almost all of their home games despite a terrible record since going to the Super Bowl five years back.

There is only so much of an appetite for baseball in a given area. Philly has been drawing about 10-15k fans more per game in the last couple of years, but before that Oakland was close or exceeding the number of fans per game. The A's have been drawing a consistent mid 20k a game average over the past 6 years, except last year where they averaged just above 20k. How are you going to pull a consistent extra 30k fans a game while still supporting the Phils?

Oakland is a fine market, they just have an old stadium that has been destroyed by football. Smaller markets need teams too, and considering how *bad* their ballpark is and how small the potential market it (remember the Giants opened a new park which may have pulled fans away from going to A's games), the A's haven't done half bad.

[J.R.]

Not to speak for him, but to me the "dead" comment references the attitude toward sports in that region. The people are daring the 49ers, Raiders and A's to bolt.

[Philtration]

We wouldn't even have to move teams just add two new teams. MLB should have 16 teams in both leagues. 8 four team divisions.
NL East
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Atlanta
Reds
Florida
Expansion team
NL West
Chicago
St Louis
Milwaukee
Houston
Colorado
LA
SD
SF
AL East
Boston
New York
Baltimore
Toronto
Tampa Bay
Cleveland
Detroit
Chicago
AL West
KC
Minnesota
Texas
Arizona
Oakland
Seattle
LAA
Expansion team

No more teams please.
The league is watered down enough as it is and the only reason anyone is talking about teams moving in the first place is because there are too many teams that are lacking in fan support.

I would rather see the league contract than see another expansion.

[Dodgeboy]

The A's aren't leaving the bay area. Maybe sliding a bit south, but the odds of them leaving Cali altogether are pretty low.

I'll withhold judgement on the Fish until after the city and county vote on the ballpark plan in March.

Besides, there's plenty of teams in the northeast as it is, do we REALLY need two more? :waving

Contraction ain't happening - there's plenty of talent out there, the scouts just need to do their jobs better.

[BMF]

The A's aren't leaving the bay area. Maybe sliding a bit south, but the odds of them leaving Cali altogether are pretty low.

I'll withhold judgement on the Fish until after the city and county vote on the ballpark plan in March.

Besides, there's plenty of teams in the northeast as it is, do we REALLY need two more? :waving

Contraction ain't happening - there's plenty of talent out there, the scouts just need to do their jobs better.

new york is crowded enuff dont think that will hapn

[mandrake]

The A's aren't leaving the bay area. Maybe sliding a bit south, but the odds of them leaving Cali altogether are pretty low.

I'll withhold judgement on the Fish until after the city and county vote on the ballpark plan in March.

Besides, there's plenty of teams in the northeast as it is, do we REALLY need two more? :waving

Contraction ain't happening - there's plenty of talent out there, the scouts just need to do their jobs better.

Contraction could very well happen, in MLB, the NHL, and the NBA. Only the NFL is currently immune even in today's horrible economic climate.

Sorry, but there still is a huge population base on the east coast that could/would support sports teams. Oakland Raiders games do not sell out, and they are blacked out at home usually. The 49ers are threatening to leave SF. Have you ever tried to get NFL tickets to the Giants, Jets, Eagles, Patriots, or Redskins? You are talking about over 400 miles of sellout territory here.

The Oakland Raiders ranked 31st at the gate in 2008.

Baseball? The Yankees and Mets and Red Sox will play to about 99% of capacity this year. I am sure the defending WS champs will do well at the gate too. There are lots of AL fans in the NJ/PA area: that is one reason the Yankees moved their AAA team to Scranton.

The A's have been outdrawn by 10 million fans by the SF Giants since 2000. Their attendance remains in the bottom 25% of baseball. Their stadium is outdated. They had to put a tarp over the upper deck (????) ..because no body was sitting there (?? I'm not sure why they did that).

California is broke. The state has no plans to build any new stadiums. There are even demographics showing where the state is losing middle class citizens to neighboring states like AZ and NV.

The A's can show the country you can go home again. Yes, we can.:happy:

[Transic]

What about the Phillies getting some $ from MLB for helping save a franchise. Then they would get rent from having the A's play in their ballpark, just like when the Phillies had to rent Shibe Park from the A's. They can try it for a few years before the A's look to NJ for their own place.

The Oakland area is dead for sports. At least the NHL used their brain (surprise)by putting a team in San Jose instead of Oakland. After the tree huggers tried to stop Cal-Berkely from improving their sports facilities, the handwriting is on the wall. The A's need to leave Oakland. They ruined the ballpark for the inept Raiders, and now they are stuck. Forget what Horace Greeley said, and "go east, young man".

Depending on how the lease is structured. Even though the Phillies are a tenant, a lot teams have right-of-first-refusal clauses written into their leases. I don't know if that's the case here. Still, I don't think the city (the real owners of the ballpark) would turn down 81 extra home games, if that means that they get more rent money more quickly. The Phillies would get something, for sure. It'll give the A's a real chance to get reacquainted with the city. But it would only be temporary in any case.

I don't think Oakland is "dead" as a place for sports teams, just that current conditions are not favorable for a solution to the question of a future facility. Meanwhile, there's already a ballpark in place right across the river from Philly that could be turned into something even nicer with the right deal.

[redv]

Contraction could very well happen, in MLB, the NHL, and the NBA. Only the NFL is currently immune even in today's horrible economic climate.

Sorry, but there still is a huge population base on the east coast that could/would support sports teams. Oakland Raiders games do not sell out, and they are blacked out at home usually. The 49ers are threatening to leave SF. Have you ever tried to get NFL tickets to the Giants, Jets, Eagles, Patriots, or Redskins? You are talking about over 400 miles of sellout territory here.

The Oakland Raiders ranked 31st at the gate in 2008.

Baseball? The Yankees and Mets and Red Sox will play to about 99% of capacity this year. I am sure the defending WS champs will do well at the gate too. There are lots of AL fans in the NJ/PA area: that is one reason the Yankees moved their AAA team to Scranton.

The A's have been outdrawn by 10 million fans by the SF Giants since 2000. Their attendance remains in the bottom 25% of baseball. Their stadium is outdated. They had to put a tarp over the upper deck (????) ..because no body was sitting there (?? I'm not sure why they did that).

California is broke. The state has no plans to build any new stadiums. There are even demographics showing where the state is losing middle class citizens to neighboring states like AZ and NV.

The A's can show the country you can go home again. Yes, we can.:happy:


400 miles of sellout territory? Explain why the Pirates have drawn fewer crowds than the A's since 2002 despite having a brand new stadium.

The Nats moved from Montreal and have seen a steady decline in their attendance since they moved. They got a new stadium this year and only saw a 5k per game increase.

Most people, including me, go to a game to watch the sport being played. Yes, it would be nice to have a sparking new stadium but it's just not possible. The Giants have had more success (read: went to the World Series) lately than the A's have and got a brand new stadium. That is more than reasonable to see a disparity in attendance numbers. A's were 19th in 01, 18th in 02, 17th in 03, 19th in 04. In the bottom half yes, but not the bottom 25%. Their numbers haven't been great the last couple years, but waves happen... Phil's were 24th in 01 and 02, but now look where they are. Data from: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance They are a SMALL MARKET TEAM, they will never compete with the Yanks or Mets or Boston in number of sellouts or seats sold. Just isn't going to happen.

As far as the Raiders are concerned, they play in one of the smallest stadiums in the NFL, however they were at 91% capacity last year. I only could find attendance numbers on ESPN.com.

The solution is not to move every team that doesn't get between 90% and a sellout to the North East. In order for baseball or football to be successful, there needs to be teams spread out throughout the country. I'm sure you out there in NY would love to see a Mets Yankees or Boston Phillies World Series every year, but believe it or not there are fans out here on the West Coast too and the leagues need small market teams like teh A's, the Twins, the Rays and Padres. If anything they serve as pseudo minor league teams that the big market teams can harvest once the small markets can't afford them.

And a small note, A's are going to do much better this year... :D Lets go Oakland!

[Philtration]

400 miles of sellout territory? Explain why the Pirates have drawn fewer crowds than the A's since 2002 despite having a brand new stadium.

The Nats moved from Montreal and have seen a steady decline in their attendance since they moved. They got a new stadium this year and only saw a 5k per game increase.


Because MLB went against all common sense, ignored their own history lessons and put yet another major league team in D.C.
They keep trying to force feed baseball to D.C. (just like the NFL wants another team in L.A.) and the results are the same every time they do this.

They need to get a clue on this and a few other issues but as long as Orville Reckenbacher is running things.....:crazy

[TJH1923]

Because MLB went against all common sense, ignored their own history lessons and put yet another major league team in D.C.
They keep trying to force feed baseball to D.C. (just like the NFL wants another team in L.A.) and the results are the same every time they do this.

They need to get a clue on this and a few other issues but as long as Orville Reckenbacher is running things.....:crazy

Just like they are presently force feeding Florida.............

[Philtration]

Just like they are presently force feeding Florida.............

Right you are

[jnakamura]

(just like the NFL wants another team in L.A.)

Off topic, but L.A. didn't lose its teams because of attendance--When the Rams and Raiders were contending they drew very well--they both moved because they had lousy stadium deals with no luxury seating and no prospects for a new stadium. When they get a team back it will be with the guarantee of a new privately financed stadium by billionaire Lakers/Kings/Staples co-owner Ed Roski.

[Smirkman]

It is tough to say that there is any relationship between the Washington area of 1960 and 1971 compared to 2005. The area has seen growth rates that are only eclipsed by the sun belt communities. While it is true that attendance would be expected to be better, there are a few reasons for it.
1) Pathetic team - if the Nats win some games and don't draw better the following year, we have a problem.
2) The Orioles and retaining old fan loyalties - We already had a new ballpark in 1992 so the novelty of a new park didn't exist + there are still a ton of Orioles fans in the region so generating new fans may take a little longer than 4 years esp when losing 102 games. Luckily the O's stink too. Alot of people come here and keep their existing team. It has been far too easy since we didn't have a team and the current team stinks. Win a few and loyalties shift esp with those who plan to stay long term and /or have kids that will be Nats fans.
3) Terrible PR from the Nats - 1st MLB ran the show and didn't spend any money. Fans came out to the ballpark but there were constant complaints. The new owners haven't done much to improve things other than provide excuses. First it was getting RFK more fan friendly and then it was moving into the new ballpark. You almost never see or hear advertising even compared to the Orioles who aren't that good at it either IMO. They also did everything to dissuade fans from going to ballgames in 2008 (in addition to losing). Tickets are way too expensive and there is a lack of cheap seats. Look at the outfield prices for 2008. $35 WTF? They also didn't provide any parking and everyone was afraid of how they'd get to the ballpark. Stories ran rampid but really never materialized. + The ballpark experience is still about 1992 as far as treatment and 2020 as far as prices (assuming the economy comes back someday). The latest news regarding the DR skimming of bonuses doesn't help. There are alot of passionate Nats fans. We need more casual fans.

Basically what I am saying is the past in DC is not an indicator of the future and it will take about 10 years to see what kind of a fan base we'll have (assuming the reasons above are mitigated). Firing Bowden and moving on to the season and signing our #1 draft pick should start the ball rolling. If we screw any of these things up we may have a longer wait.

[SoxfanNH]

It is tough to say that there is any relationship between the Washington area of 1960 and 1971 compared to 2005. The area has seen growth rates that are only eclipsed by the sun belt communities. While it is true that attendance would be expected to be better, there are a few reasons for it.
1) Pathetic team - if the Nats win some games and don't draw better the following year, we have a problem.
2) The Orioles and retaining old fan loyalties - We already had a new ballpark in 1992 so the novelty of a new park didn't exist + there are still a ton of Orioles fans in the region so generating new fans may take a little longer than 4 years esp when losing 102 games. Luckily the O's stink too. Alot of people come here and keep their existing team. It has been far too easy since we didn't have a team and the current team stinks. Win a few and loyalties shift esp with those who plan to stay long term and /or have kids that will be Nats fans.
3) Terrible PR from the Nats - 1st MLB ran the show and didn't spend any money. Fans came out to the ballpark but there were constant complaints. The new owners haven't done much to improve things other than provide excuses. First it was getting RFK more fan friendly and then it was moving into the new ballpark. You almost never see or hear advertising even compared to the Orioles who aren't that good at it either IMO. They also did everything to dissuade fans from going to ballgames in 2008 (in addition to losing). Tickets are way too expensive and there is a lack of cheap seats. Look at the outfield prices for 2008. $35 WTF? They also didn't provide any parking and everyone was afraid of how they'd get to the ballpark. Stories ran rampid but really never materialized. + The ballpark experience is still about 1992 as far as treatment and 2020 as far as prices (assuming the economy comes back someday). The latest news regarding the DR skimming of bonuses doesn't help. There are alot of passionate Nats fans. We need more casual fans.

Basically what I am saying is the past in DC is not an indicator of the future and it will take about 10 years to see what kind of a fan base we'll have (assuming the reasons above are mitigated). Firing Bowden and moving on to the season and signing our #1 draft pick should start the ball rolling. If we screw any of these things up we may have a longer wait.

The Nationals got screwed in their compensation deal with Baltimore in order to allow them to move into their territory. This greatly affects the amount of revenue they're able to generate. I definitely agree Bowden has to go. I'd like to see the Nationals succeed. While I'm a Red Sox fan, I'm also a fan of baseball in general and hate to see teams fail. So, I don't want to see Oakland have to move either. Hopefully they can work out a deal in San Jose. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a team move back to Brooklyn just for old time sake.

[J.R.]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/02/28/2009-02-28_as_marlins_could_be_goners_as_contractio.html?p age=0

Bill Madden bangs the contraction drums for the A's and Marlins.

The Players Association will never go for the elimination of 50 big league roster slots. Co-habitation with strong ballclubs in strong markets is going to be on the table, IMHO.

[Yankees73]

I heard someone talk about a team to Charlotte. I think it would be a great baseball town!! There is like a baseball dead zone between Baltimore/ Washington and Atlanta. I've been to the area and its an awesome little city!! Florida is just not supportive of an MLB home. Look at the Rays. Before last year, have you ever heard of a Rays fan?

[SoxfanNH]

I honestly believe the Marlins have a chance to survive if they can get their new stadium. I don't want to see them or any other team contracted.

[majorleads]

I heard someone talk about a team to Charlotte. I think it would be a great baseball town!! There is like a baseball dead zone between Baltimore/ Washington and Atlanta. I've been to the area and its an awesome little city!! Florida is just not supportive of an MLB home. Look at the Rays. Before last year, have you ever heard of a Rays fan?


I've been living in Charlotte for 3 years now and if you talked about a team moving here when I first arrived, I would have said hell yes! The city was BOOMING then. Now that I've been here for 3 years, I say maybe some day but definitely not now. This city has been hit HARD by the recession because if you don't know, it is the second leading banking center in the country.

There is a AAA team here, well actually it's in Fort Mill which is in South Carolina close to the state line. The team draws lousy. I think worst attendance in the International League. Great for me because I buy the $5 seats and sit wherever I want. The teams owners want to move to a brand new stadium in uptown (they call downtown uptown here....weird yes) Charlotte but right now one of the city big wigs is trying to block the stadium being built because he wants that land for an eventual major league team. However, most of the other city officials want this minor league park built because they don't feel Charlotte can support a major league team right now and not in the near future. (This was before the recession hit that they said this, now there is no way) I say they are definitely right.

A NASCAR stadium in the middle of uptown Charlotte would sell out every day. :laugh

[SI Metman]

touching on some of the earlier topics in this thread:

Re: Brooklyn Baseball - Since the Atlantic Yards plan seems to be falling through for the Nets, that would be the most likely spot for a baseball stadium if it was ever built. In fact it was close to where O'Malley and the Dodgers wanted the new stadium in the 50's (They were offered Shea Stadium's site instead). The only draw back would be parking. If you thought driving and parking around Yankee Stadium was bad...

Re: Jersey Baseball - Are they imploding Giants Stadium in 2010 or could they just retrofit it? If you need the space for parking, just implode the Izod center since the Nets are going to have to get out of there by either moving in with the Devils again in Newark, going to Brooklyn or just leaving the Metropolitan area completely.

Re: Philly baseball - if it ever did happen, that team would have to play at Citizens Bank Park and play with the Phillies. It doesn't make sense for the city to build a 4th stadium in the last 20 years, and I don't think Jersey would go for a major league stadium in that part of the state.

[redv]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/02/28/2009-02-28_as_marlins_could_be_goners_as_contractio.html?p age=0

Bill Madden bangs the contraction drums for the A's and Marlins.

The Players Association will never go for the elimination of 50 big league roster slots. Co-habitation with strong ballclubs in strong markets is going to be on the table, IMHO.

There are a few exaggerate in his article, so don't take everything at face value. They have drawn in the mid-20k per game for the decade. If attendance and payroll were such strong negative factors then Pittsburg, Marlins, Royals should all be folded first as they draw less and haven't performed nearly as well (except for the Marlins World Series fluke). The A's have come in first or second place every time since 1999 except for two years. Despite being in a small market, they have done quite well.

The Pirates have the best new park in the country and still can't put a good team on the field or draw crowds... what more can they do?

The days of teams demanding new stadium deals from their cities/states is over. The grass isn't greener anywhere right now and they're going to be stuck in the Coliseum for a while. The A's still make MLB money, so they will be here.

Not everyone can be like the Yankees and Mets with billion dollar new stadiums and huge free agent signings.

[Dale_in_MN]

As a Twins fans (a team that was mentioned in contraction), I think its pretty sorry how all the east coasters want to contract or move some of these smaller revenue teams.

It really is about the stadium. Look across the bay to SF, and their attendance numbers were pretty sorry (mid to low 20's) until they got their new stadium. Now they get 35-40 thousand people a game every year. Did the fans get better? Did an infusion of New Yorkers drive up the attendance? No. They got a new stadium.

Even more ironically, some of these same people who say the A's should move back to Philly seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago that the Phillies were drawing mid to low 20's at the Vet.

I'm happy the Twins are getting a new park next year and think that the A's and Marlin's can be great franchises right where they are if they get new parks and have committed owners.

[J.R.]

20,000 avg. at PNC is miles ahead of a 20,000 avg. in Oakland because of all the additional revenue streams the Pirates have in place. The suites and amenities at the Coliseum, mostly concentrated in Mt. Davis, are not very helpful to the A's at all.

[DGDGBD]

Could contraction talk be MLB posturing for leverage in advance of the next CBA?

[redv]

20,000 avg. at PNC is miles ahead of a 20,000 avg. in Oakland because of all the additional revenue streams the Pirates have in place. The suites and amenities at the Coliseum, mostly concentrated in Mt. Davis, are not very helpful to the A's at all.

Additional revenues? The Pirates are the 3rd best bargain in all of baseball: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080611&content_id=2890105&vkey=news_pit&fext=.jsp&c_id=pit&partnerId=rss_pit

Only so many peopel are going to buy/use suites to watch a game and yes additional ones were added when the Raiders built Mt. Davis. Just curious... have you ever been to Oakland for a game? Or is your dislike for the city having a team just come from speculation?

[curb my enthusiasm]

My question is: What would they do with all of these new stadiums if they contracted teams like the Pirates, Twins, and Reds? Are they just going to demolish them only a few years after they were built? It doesn't make any sense to me. They can't contract the Royals either - they're doing a huge renovation job on Kauffman Stadium.

That's why the only teams who could possibly be contracted are teams who still play in antiquated facilities and haven't begun construction on new stadiums yet - A's, Rays, Marlins, Angels, Dodgers, Cubs, and Red Sox. And obviously the Dodgers, Cubs and Red Sox are here to stay.

As for Angel Stadium, I've heard that after the renovations it's one of the best stadiums in the league. And I saw plans for a renovation of Dodger Stadium too. As for the Cubs and Red Sox, I think we'll see new ballparks for them within the next 15-20 years. It's stupid for them to stay in those old parks, all in the name of history. Both of those teams have much more potential for revenue with new facilities.

[Transic]

If worse comes to worse, assuming that there are no more viable relocation cities available, then the league will have to revisit the issue of territorial rights and TV blackout rules, something they are loathe to do for the longest time. If, in the case of the Marlins, they are forced between barnstorming that club, because the new owner of Joe Robbie won't give them a lease extension, and shoehorning them in a large city (hint hint) then the cost of moving the players around in different cities will add up at a time when they're ill afford to do.

Another possibility would be to temporarily place them in a AAA facility somewhere in the state.

As for the A's, Philly won't need to build another stadium. There is already one that can be made available across the river in Camden. The new ownership would pay to upsize it to 30,000 seats and you're set.

[metfan13]

I heard someone talk about a team to Charlotte. I think it would be a great baseball town!! There is like a baseball dead zone between Baltimore/ Washington and Atlanta. I've been to the area and its an awesome little city!! Florida is just not supportive of an MLB home. Look at the Rays. Before last year, have you ever heard of a Rays fan?

I've been in Charlotte 17 years now. MLB isn't happening here.

Already one failed NBA franchise and the 2nd chance not doing well either. The Panthers do OK, but there's NASCAR here too, in a big way.

The market just isn't that big for baseball. There's not the population density to bring fans on Tuesday nights. The minor league team doesn't draw either.

Charlotte is a many years away from being a viable location for MLB.

[J.R.]

Additional revenues? The Pirates are the 3rd best bargain in all of baseball: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080611&content_id=2890105&vkey=news_pit&fext=.jsp&c_id=pit&partnerId=rss_pit

Only so many peopel are going to buy/use suites to watch a game and yes additional ones were added when the Raiders built Mt. Davis. Just curious... have you ever been to Oakland for a game? Or is your dislike for the city having a team just come from speculation?

There's more to a park than its base ticket prices. The Pirates have multiple levels of premium seating (and other revenue-generating features) that more than balance out those bargains in the bleachers and whatnot. You're being intentionally obtuse in denying the advantages designed into a park like PNC versus the current situation in Oakland.

I've never been to Oakland, and have no dislike for the city. To say that the Athletics' current situation is untenable is not the same as saying Oakland shouldn't have a team.