This whole Marlins moving to San Antonio thing doesn't make any sense to me. For one thing, they keep talking about building a new ballpark for $300 million (with the county kicking in two-thirds of that). Really? The new Busch Stadium cost $345 million ... and that's without a roof, which I'm assuming is going to be a requirement in southwest Texas. And for another -- and here's the real problem -- unless my math is wildly off, the San Antonio market simply isn't large enough to support Major League Baseball. According to Nielsen, San Antonio ranks No. 37 in the U.S ... behind (among others) Sacramento, Calif.; Portland, Ore.; Indianapolis; Charlotte, N.C.; Columbus, Ohio; and Salt Lake City. Perhaps it's simplistic to say the Marlins are simply using Bexar County for leverage, but I think that's exactly what they're doing.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/col..._rob&id=2411138

I sure hope he's right.

This whole Marlins moving to San Antonio thing doesn't make any sense to me. For one thing, they keep talking about building a new ballpark for $300 million (with the county kicking in two-thirds of that). Really? The new Busch Stadium cost $345 million ... and that's without a roof, which I'm assuming is going to be a requirement in southwest Texas

 

My understanding is it wasn't SA who came up with the $300MM mark, it was the Marlins applying market cost. I can only assume that the marlins low ball in order not to scare SA. However, we in SA are aware that the $300MM is low. San Antonio folks are calling for a fully loaded stadium, and not one that will be obslete in 10 yrs.

 

And for another -- and here's the real problem -- unless my math is wildly off, the San Antonio market simply isn't large enough to support Major League Baseball. According to Nielsen, San Antonio ranks No. 37 in the U.S ... behind (among others) Sacramento, Calif.; Portland, Ore.; Indianapolis; Charlotte, N.C.; Columbus, Ohio; and Salt Lake City. Perhaps it's simplistic to say the Marlins are simply using Bexar County for leverage, but I think that's exactly what they're doing.

 

No matter how you slice it South Florida is still larger than SA. However, SF Columnist like to spin the facts to please their readers, and rightfully so. But, beware of stats as my college prof. once told us. By applying the 80-100 mile rule (Miami-North Palm Beach County) SA becomes the 15th largest TV market, granted still smaller than SF. I understand that the TV revenue is much larger in SF, but don't think for a second that SA would stand alone as far as TV market/revenue.

 

Therefore, from 8th to 15th isn't as significant as 8th to 37th???

 

If the Marlins do end up in SA, is not because the city has surpass Miami in any way shape or form. As a business person I certainly wouldn't want to leave SF. However, no stadium, no Marlins. Beside if the MLB does find SA to be a viable market, and things work out in SF for the Marlins, there are other smaller markets with struggling teams, of course using 80-100 mile rule (true stats).

This whole Marlins moving to San Antonio thing doesn't make any sense to me. For one thing, they keep talking about building a new ballpark for $300 million (with the county kicking in two-thirds of that). Really? The new Busch Stadium cost $345 million ... and that's without a roof, which I'm assuming is going to be a requirement in southwest Texas. And for another -- and here's the real problem -- unless my math is wildly off, the San Antonio market simply isn't large enough to support Major League Baseball. According to Nielsen, San Antonio ranks No. 37 in the U.S ... behind (among others) Sacramento, Calif.; Portland, Ore.; Indianapolis; Charlotte, N.C.; Columbus, Ohio; and Salt Lake City. Perhaps it's simplistic to say the Marlins are simply using Bexar County for leverage, but I think that's exactly what they're doing.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/col..._rob&id=2411138

 

It was Samson who gave the $310 mil figure back in December as a quick and dirty rough estimate of an open air stadium. And if the new Busch cost $345 mil there, $310 is a good figure for here if no roof is involved, which Samson also said he didn't think would be necessary.

 

And the Neilsen DMA's are messed up anyway. Most cities are near the center of their DMA's, SA is on the far northeast of its (it stretches all the way down to the Mexican border). That's because of Austin. If Austin did not qualify as an MSA, the area would belong in SA's DMA. You would be an idiot to think that McAllen is in your territory and Austin wasn't, especially with the sites being discussed (Longhorn Quarry and Thousand Oaks are the best spots). If the two cities were 20 miles closer together they'd be considered a single MSA. And with the ASA and SH 137 going through, the cities will have even more interchange in 3-4 years. There's already something like 100k commuters a week between the 2 cities.

 

Obviously from a business standpoint the preference is to keep the Marlins in SFl. But that involves needing a money generating facility, etc, which the Marlins have been trying since their inception to get.

 

The situation is the same as it has been. If a stadium deal gets done in Fl, they stay. If not, they leave, most likely to here since we're the best poised right now.