The reason I ask is this. I love interleague play, it's chance to play teams you wouldn't normally play, and two cause it's a chance to play in other ballparks you wouldn't normally get to. But I hate that durring this portion of the season there's still NL-only play happening, an Expansion adding two AL more teams would resolve that. So what do you think? And if you like tell me where you would like to see those teams located, if no tell why.

I would rather just stop interleague play.

I would rather just stop interleague play.

 

 

Would you care to explain yourself?

I think MLB should have the same number of teams per divison (see NL Central) before they worry about expansion

I think MLB should have the same number of teams per divison (see NL Central) before they worry about expansion

 

 

Fair point.

I personally don't have a problem with interleague play. It keeps things interesting. I know there's many out there that hate interleague play for one reason or another. But I agree with CyggyMarlin, it would be more fair if there was an even number of teams per division.

How is the fact that there is always one NL series taking place during interleague season a problem big enough to warrant league expansion? Frankly, I think most would agree that it's entirely a non-issue.

 

One thing the leaked financial documents show is that there are a bunch of MLB teams already on welfare and are only staying afloat because of revenue sharing. The Rays are neck and neck with the Yankees because the Rays' team is funded by Yankees home game ticket sales and YES network revenue.

 

The problem isn't that the Yankees generate a ton of revenue but that teams like Tampa generate very little in their markets. Considering expansion is completely idiotic at this point when there are a couple of markets (particularly Oakland and Tampa) that have difficulty supporting the teams. Oakland is completely hopeless (and the rumor is that they've been talking to Las Vegas) and Tampa seems to be running into similar roadblocks that the Marlins faced in securing a stadium. However, one thing that might prevent Tampa from moving is that they have an ironclad contract that prevents them from moving for a pre-determined series of time.

 

Nevertheless, MLB does not help the problem (in fact it worsens it) of the disparity between large and small market teams by adding two new ML teams in lower tier markets.

Also- having equal teams in divisions will be incredibly difficult to achieve. It will require a lot of pieces to fall into place perfectly. An unbalanced schedule is just as "unfair" and applying a balanced schedule to an alignment of two leagues with equal numbers of teams and equal numbers of teams in each division will be next to impossible.

Interleague play needs to be much more exclusive. Like... 1 or 2 series a season. That way you can always cover the Subway Series, Chi Town Series, Citrus Series, LA, etc. etc.

Interleague play needs to be much more exclusive. Like... 1 or 2 series a season. That way you can always cover the Subway Series, Chi Town Series, Citrus Series, LA, etc. etc.

 

 

This would be most likely something I'd rather see.

 

At most 3 Inter-league series' a season is something I don't have a problem with.

Interleague play needs to be much more exclusive. Like... 1 or 2 series a season. That way you can always cover the Subway Series, Chi Town Series, Citrus Series, LA, etc. etc.

 

The "Natural Rivalries" just don't work out well, usually one team is really good and the other really sucks and you give a good team three extra wins a season most times. For instance in 2008 the Rays five wins against the Marlins was the difference in winning the division. I'm more in favor of a balanced schedule than interlague play. Also back to the original point of expansion, baseball talent pool appears too thin to expand at this point.

How is the fact that there is always one NL series taking place during interleague season a problem big enough to warrant league expansion? Frankly, I think most would agree that it's entirely a non-issue.

 

One thing the leaked financial documents show is that there are a bunch of MLB teams already on welfare and are only staying afloat because of revenue sharing. The Rays are neck and neck with the Yankees because the Rays' team is funded by Yankees home game ticket sales and YES network revenue.

 

The problem isn't that the Yankees generate a ton of revenue but that teams like Tampa generate very little in their markets. Considering expansion is completely idiotic at this point when there are a couple of markets (particularly Oakland and Tampa) that have difficulty supporting the teams. Oakland is completely hopeless (and the rumor is that they've been talking to Las Vegas) and Tampa seems to be running into similar roadblocks that the Marlins faced in securing a stadium. However, one thing that might prevent Tampa from moving is that they have an ironclad contract that prevents them from moving for a pre-determined series of time.

 

Nevertheless, MLB does not help the problem (in fact it worsens it) of the disparity between large and small market teams by adding two new ML teams in lower tier markets.

 

 

Move Oakland to Montreal. Montreal can pack a stadium again. They did so in 80's. Problem is they would need a new stadium right off bat or within a 3-5 year period after getting a new team, which is unlikely.

Interleague play needs to be much more exclusive. Like... 1 or 2 series a season. That way you can always cover the Subway Series, Chi Town Series, Citrus Series, LA, etc. etc.

 

The "Natural Rivalries" just don't work out well, usually one team is really good and the other really sucks and you give a good team three extra wins a season most times. For instance in 2008 the Rays five wins against the Marlins was the difference in winning the division. I'm more in favor of a balanced schedule than interlague play. Also back to the original point of expansion, baseball talent pool appears too thin to expand at this point.

 

Why does it matter who is better? You're just using the Citrus Series, which is a bad example. Go look at something like the Subway Series, where Yankee fans and Met fans can talk smack over their teams and actually settle something temporarily. The natural rivalries to work, as a fun environment where communities get together at the ballpark.

 

Works, more specifically, for the MLB. But stuff like the Marlins vs. Red Sox, for example, doesnt do anything. I'd say interleague should be a home-and-home series versus designated teams (Yankees-Mets, White Sox-Cubs, etc.) and then a toss-up series (midseason world series rematch).

If baseball adds anymore teams, they can just hold open tryouts to field them(that's pretty much what the Rays did until a few years ago:P). The talent pool is already too watered down. Adding any more teams would be just asinine.

The best way to do it would be to contract the Pittsburgh and Kansas City franchises and move the the Tampa Bay and Oakland franchises into their places.

 

I'd like to see Montreal get a team again but it isn't feasible. Maybe move the Blue Jays there at some point in the future. The Rogers Centre is no longer that impressive, but the location is nice.

Contracting two NL teams would do the same thing as expanding to add to more AL teams would in this case.

Contracting two NL teams would do the same thing as expanding to add to more AL teams would in this case.

 

 

Except contraction is counter-productive to creating a stronger league. Talent itself isnt becoming a rarity, actually it's becoming more abundant. There are certainly cities that can support these teams. Im 100% against contraction and relocation, I'm either an advocate forkeeping everything the same or expanding.

I would rather just stop interleague play.

 

 

Would you care to explain yourself?

Interleague Play is a novelty act whos novelty has worn off. It is generally pointless and uninteresting now and has been for the last several years.

The best way to do it would be to contract the Pittsburgh and Kansas City franchises and move the the Tampa Bay and Oakland franchises into their places.

 

I'd like to see Montreal get a team again but it isn't feasible. Maybe move the Blue Jays there at some point in the future. The Rogers Centre is no longer that impressive, but the location is nice.

 

 

OMG no. I honestly would expect Canada to have a mfer Civil War for real (I am not kidding) if Toronto was moved to Montreal. :thumbdown

I doubt Montreal would want the Blue Jays.

I highly doubt that an MLB expansion will be taking place anytime soon. One of the biggest issues with team relocation or team is expansion is deciding where the team will be located and if it infringes on another team's broadcasting territory. It's difficult to find a location that isn't an already saturated market and if a location is found, it is a risk in locating a team in that area because of the uncertainty of whether or not the team will find financial success. For instance, when the Marlins were considering relocation to San Antonio, they needed to contend with the issue that the market in Texas was already occupied by the Astros and the Rangers. According to what I've read, the Rangers were willing to allow the Marlins to move to San Antonio and infringe on their broadcasting territory (because he would be paid off) but the owner of the Astros was unwilling to allow the move and threatened to sue the MLB if such a move would occur. When the Expos moved to D.C. and became the Nationals the Baltimore Orioles owner also threatened to sue the MLB due to territory infringement. This is a pretty crappy and really simple overview on the topic but I'm super tired.

 

As for my personal opinion on the matter, I hate interleague play and find it to be completely irrelevant. I would prefer that we eliminate all interleague games and make us play more teams within our league.

 

 

Interesting articles on expansion and relocation (I love this subject).

http://books.google.com/books?id=HHMEsxxAv7oC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=sports+cartel+sports+finance&source=bl&ots=mgr8CFyRBv&sig=HqXt2l44W_P9tlAk6OoiSpM8luA&hl=en&ei=-dN5TI6BHoT7lwfY6qXrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sports%20cartel%20sports%20finance&f=false

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3897:lwib-mlbs-anti-trust-exemption-and-franchise-relocation-&catid=67:pete-toms&Itemid=155

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/relocation-as-vaporware/

http://www.maurybrown.com/?p=116

What about Kansas Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii. Other than the Marlins, Rays, and Braves, all the teams in the eastern half of the country are up North. There's plenty of unclaimed TV territory for other teams. A gaping hole between Goergia and Pennsylvania. I'm still against expansion.

What about Kansas Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii. Other than the Marlins, Rays, and Braves, all the teams in the eastern half of the country are up North. There's plenty of unclaimed TV territory for other teams. A gaping hole between Goergia and Pennsylvania. I'm still against expansion.

 

Noone lives in any of those places. That's so low that the Marlins attendance is higher than all those states.

What about Kansas Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii. Other than the Marlins, Rays, and Braves, all the teams in the eastern half of the country are up North. There's plenty of unclaimed TV territory for other teams. A gaping hole between Goergia and Pennsylvania. I'm still against expansion.

 

 

 

 

What about Kansas Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii. Other than the Marlins, Rays, and Braves, all the teams in the eastern half of the country are up North. There's plenty of unclaimed TV territory for other teams. A gaping hole between Goergia and Pennsylvania. I'm still against expansion.

 

Noone lives in any of those places. That's so low that the Marlins attendance is higher than all those states.

 

Like rab responded, just because places exist that aren't occupied territories that doesn't mean that it would be wise to locate a team in that area. For instance, a lot of the cities that have been mentioned in terms of relocation are usually deemed too small a market and that the team would be better off remaining in their current market. You mentioned an area in the East that isn't too up North as an unincorporated territory and others have considered locating their team in Charlotte, North Carolina. After research, it was deemed to be too small a market and therefore, it would be a risky move to relocate a team in that area.

After determining a market size, another common issue is locating stadium financing. Another city that has been given consideration when teams seek to relocate is Portland, Oregon but in the past they've had trouble securing public subsidies in order to build a facility.

I'm sure that along with revenue sharing and the MLB draft, relocation will probably come up in the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiations next year.

What about Kansas Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii. Other than the Marlins, Rays, and Braves, all the teams in the eastern half of the country are up North. There's plenty of unclaimed TV territory for other teams. A gaping hole between Goergia and Pennsylvania. I'm still against expansion.

 

Noone lives in any of those places. That's so low that the Marlins attendance is higher than all those states.

 

Just off the top of my head, places that have a substantial population that dont have a team (and in all honesty are too far to make it to their designated teams, if a new stadium were built it could be filled)

 

San Antonio

Memphis/Nashville/Tennesee

Las Vegas? Still waiting on the expirimental NBA for that one...

Portland

Raleigh/Durham - if they can support a hockey team they can support a baseball team.

New Orleans?

And then of course...

Montreal

Vancouver?

Calgary/Edmonton?

Going to Western Canada would be very risky, of course.