Ohhh...DC is the #1 Primo spot for a new team, hands DOWN!
The original Senators played in a dilapidated park at the end of the 1950's, the old Grif', and were traditionally talentless until the great young core they shifted to the Twin Cities.
The expansion Senators were handicapped by the worst ownership in the league - the General who wouldn't spend money and Bob Short who was a complete @**. If that team had built a winner, I suspect they would have drawn fans. DC is a baseball town, was in the past, still is today.
...
...as a former resident of middle TN, I'd say Nashville would get the nod before Memphis. I'm not as familiar with the tendencies of Memphis fans as are Cooley and others, but I suspect the support for a "professional" sports team is stronger in Nashville whereas Memphis tends to decline into indifference after any period of time. Heck, prior to the Griz (lol) there was what, the USFL Showboats?
Portland is a good choice...
I would hate to see the MLB in Vegas...but that is just me.
A team in Brooklyn is a nostalgic choice, but I'm not sure about it. NY might be able to support three franchises again, but part of the reason the Giants and Dodgers headed west was an inability to compete financially with the Bombers. The Yankees had a bigger stadium, attracted bigger crowds, whereas O'Malley and Stoneham needed new parks (so they said) that the city couldn't provide and attendence was on the wane as TV and other factors drew off the crowd.
However, I love the notion of a team that belongs to a burrough rather than a city...so I'd enjoy seeing a Brooklyn team.
Indianapolis, not a bad choice...
Charlotte...mmm...maaaaybeee
Rochester (++), Buffalo, they both work...
In a fantasy universe, there are many options that work.
Real MLB...move the Expos to DC, keep the Twins...and concentrate on fixing what you have not expanding again or cutting back.
__________________
History isn't really about the past - settling old scores. It's about defining the present and who we are."
|