Why MLB should go to 28 teams

[kenyan_cheena]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Give this man a prize.

Baseball should add a third team to NY and a second team to Philly. Would never happen, but they have the markets to handle it.

Interestingly, looking at metropolitan size, the biggest unserved markets right now for baseball are Puerto Rico and Portland (with metro sizes in the same ballpark as Denver and Pittsburgh).. Is there any doubt an expansion team in San Juan would do well?

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Questdog

From 1994 to 2012, MLB failed at that (and didn't seem to give a hoot)....

Leagues with three divisions inherently are difficult to schedule for, and especially if some or all of the divisions contain an odd number of teams.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Baseball should add a third team to NY and a second team to Philly. Would never happen, but they have the markets to handle it.

In regards to Philadelphia, it was only about ten years ago the Phillies were not doing well and were in fact receiving revenue sharing. There were a number of complaints at the time from other clubs how a team in such a big market needed revenue sharing.

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Is there any doubt an expansion team in San Juan would do well?

Yes, there is. I can sum it up in three words: per capita income. According to the 2000 census, the Milwaukee metropolitan statistical area had a population of 1.69 million (the smallest in MLB) while the San Juan area had a population of 2.45 million. Looks good for San Juan, doesn't it? Now take a look at the per capita income figures for each area: Milwaukee, $23,003; San Juan, $9,140. That's a huge difference. If you take the per capita income and multiply it by the population, yielding the total amount of income earned in the statistical area, and then compare the two places, San Juan comes out at just 57.6% of the Milwaukee value.

And per capita income matters as various studies have demonstrated a link between higher per capita incomes in an area and greater revenue for a ball club.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Baseball should add a third team to NY and a second team to Philly. Would never happen, but they have the markets to handle it.

I agree with New York.

I so don't agree with Philly. The only three metros with two teams is New York, Chicago, and LA. All are 10mil plus. That seems to be the cutoff line for support for two teams in a metro area. Philly is nowhere near that, plus what LGO said.

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Interestingly, looking at metropolitan size, the biggest unserved markets right now for baseball are Puerto Rico and Portland (with metro sizes in the same ballpark as Denver and Pittsburgh).. Is there any doubt an expansion team in San Juan would do well?

Huge doubts, as LGO pointed out earlier. However, I wondered where you got your data form, and if it was US centric sources, because here's the top 40 metros not serviced by a pro ball team in North America at present.

• 1 - Mexico City - 21,163,226 *
• 13 - Guadalajara - 4,434,252 *
• 16 - Riverside-San Bernardino - 4,224,851 **
• 19 - Monterrey - 4,080,329 *
• 20 - Montreal - 3,824,221
• 27 - El Paso-Juarez - 2,700,000 ***
• 29 - Puebla - 2,668,347 *
• 30 - San Juan - 2,617,089 *
• 32 - Vancouver - 2,313,328
• 36 - Charlotte - 2,296,569
• 37 - Portland - 2,289,800
• 39 - Sacramento - 2,149,127
• 40 - San Antonio - 2,142,508

* - Listed in Mexico. Their peso is currently 1/10th the value of the American dollar, and the same reasons for why Puerto Rico isn't a viable market are only amplified here.
** - Not entirely familiar with where this is in California, are they serviced by the Angels?
*** - Cross border area. Would have similar problems with a certain section being in Mexico, and border fun to add to the mix.

Taken from here. I've excluded central american teams for ease of reading, since the list would be a bit longer with them in it, and they all suffer from the same problem that San Juan would have.). The bolded cities are the ones that would be in areas with high enough GDP, and markets that aren't handicapped by a very depressed currency compared to the US.Portland comes in 5th of what's available (4th if Riverside is serviced by the Angels)

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

I agree with New York.

I so don't agree with Philly. The only three metros with two teams is New York, Chicago, and LA. All are 10mil plus. That seems to be the cutoff line for support for two teams in a metro area. Philly is nowhere near that, plus what LGO said.



Huge doubts, as LGO pointed out earlier. However, I wondered where you got your data form, and if it was US centric sources, because here's the top 40 metros not serviced by a pro ball team in North America at present.

• 1 - Mexico City - 21,163,226 *
• 13 - Guadalajara - 4,434,252 *
• 16 - Riverside-San Bernardino - 4,224,851 **
• 19 - Monterrey - 4,080,329 *
• 20 - Montreal - 3,824,221
• 27 - El Paso-Juarez - 2,700,000 ***
• 29 - Puebla - 2,668,347 *
• 30 - San Juan - 2,617,089 *
• 32 - Vancouver - 2,313,328
• 36 - Charlotte - 2,296,569
• 37 - Portland - 2,289,800
• 39 - Sacramento - 2,149,127
• 40 - San Antonio - 2,142,508

* - Listed in Mexico. Their peso is currently 1/10th the value of the American dollar, and the same reasons for why Puerto Rico isn't a viable market are only amplified here.
** - Not entirely familiar with where this is in California, are they serviced by the Angels?
*** - Cross border area. Would have similar problems with a certain section being in Mexico, and border fun to add to the mix.

Taken from here. I've excluded central american teams for ease of reading, since the list would be a bit longer with them in it, and they all suffer from the same problem that San Juan would have.). The bolded cities are the ones that would be in areas with high enough GDP, and markets that aren't handicapped by a very depressed currency compared to the US.Portland comes in 5th of what's available (4th if Riverside is serviced by the Angels)

San Bernardino is the Inland Empire, west of LA. It would basically be a 3rd LA team.

Montreal has already proven they aren't full of big baseball fans and a big chunk of Vancouver's residents are Chinese, who are not known as rabid baseball cranks.

Charlotte, Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio are the best choices. I think San Antonio is #1, since they have the Austin metro-area right next door to add to their base.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

This always brings a warm smile to my face. P. Rico is a forum legend.


On a more serious note, Puerto Rico has about 37% of the income per household vs the US average and about half of Mississippi.
Despite the market size, I don't think it can economically sustain a franchise.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Questdog

San Bernardino is the Inland Empire, west of LA. It would basically be a 3rd LA team.

Cool thanks. They sure do have the population for it, if being right next door to LA.

Originally Posted by Questdog

Montreal has already proven they aren't full of big baseball fans...

Correction, Montreal proved their baseball fans don't enjoy being denied playoffs due to player greed, being stuck with the dumbest owner in recent memory, and a league that did everything it could to **** the team into oblivion, and dared to speak with their wallets. Recent events have shown if proper ownership existed (and Bud Selig was drawn and quartered and replaced with a comishioner that had the IQ higher then a raisin), it works.

Originally Posted by Questdog

...and a big chunk of Vancouver's residents are Chinese, ....

Less then 20%. Big whoop.

Originally Posted by Questdog

Charlotte, Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio are the best American choices.

A more fitting description, which fortunately fits the current mentality of the MLB.

[rudel.dietrich]

I hate when LGO beats me to an economic argument

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Less then 20%. Big whoop.



A more fitting description, which fortunately fits the current mentality of the MLB.

I have nothing against Canada, just saying that Vancouver's metro-population should be viewed at about 75% of its reported size for real baseball purposes, which clearly drops them below the other cities in the list. And San Antonio's should be augmented by at least 25% due to Austin being so close.

In my fictional leagues, I always include our Northern neighbors (at least in the minors if I can't find room in the majors).

The Edmonton Eskimos are legendary in one of my strat leagues from the 1970's....

In my current solo league that is gearing up to debut in 1876, Montreal, Toronto, London and Guelph are all represented.

[kenyan_cheena]

Would be cool if they put a team in New Jersey and based them in Hoboken.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Questdog

I have nothing against Canada, just saying that Vancouver's metro-population should be viewed at about 75% of its reported size for real baseball purposes, which clearly drops them below the other cities in the list. And San Antonio's should be augmented by at least 25% due to Austin being so close.

I didn't mean to imply that you did, just pointing out my side of the argument. And I disagree with the percentage, as it's a lot of assuming that ethnic group x would never be customers. Opens up doors that shouldn't be. Now if you stated that Charlotte would get the nod over Vancouver due to the latters proximity to an existing market, dollar concerns, and the former owning a market that would consist of the Carolinas, Southern Virginia, and a bit of the Southern Appalachians, that would make more sense.

[Tram2Whitaker]

The problem with San Juan, is who will build the stadium. There's no major corporate entity there.

Portland doesn't want to build the stadium: They don't want to tear down the old basketball arena, and the city won't put up the funds. They're also a bit too artsy fartsy for baseball anyway.

Vancouver is also a bit artsy fartsy, but there is a corporate presence. They may be a bit gunshy after the Grizzlies experience.

San Antonio is a small market in the NBA, but they damn near stole the Saints from New Orleans, so that's something.

Vegas has the negative specter of gambling, and many point out that it's too touristy; but there are over 1.5 million full time residents. Also, as the economy gets stronger, there'll be some fat wallets opening up over there.

Nashville is hardly mentioned in consideration, but I like it, as it bridges the gap between Cincinatti and Atlanta, St. Louis and the East coast. It's also a reasonable drive from sizeable towns like Knoxville and Chattanooga (as opposed to Memphis, which is kind of by itself)

The third New York market should be Newark. (read in a Jersey accent) What, we're good enough for your airport, but not a baseball team?

The Rays really should be in Tampa rather than St. Pete; They consider Orlando part of their market (in truth the Orlando games have been some of their most popular) It's so much easier to get to Tampa from Pinellas County, than St. Pete from Hillsborough or Polk County; fans from Pasco and Manatee counties can go either way. Steinbrenner Field is in the ideal location, a land swap would likely be agreeable to both clubs and cities: St. Pete gets Yankees ST and A level clubs (in a renovated Al Lang, or even the Trop) and Tampa gets the ML games; Financially a wash.

The A's should fight to get San Jose. Rename them the California Athletics (I do in OOTP) since the Angels want to identify with wherever the hell they are.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

IThe only three metros with two teams is New York, Chicago, and LA. All are 10mil plus. That seems to be the cutoff line for support for two teams in a metro area.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that as two clubs in one city can both benefit from the greater interest generated over having a single team. Because in a two-team city the product is mutually exclusive (i.e. both clubs are not playing home games at the same time), that means a baseball fan can indulge their passion the entire season rather than only half the season (since in a single-team city the team is away for half its games).

What that means is that, measured in an aggregate basis, a city will have more baseball attendance with two clubs than with a single club. This is true even in the case of a city hosting two minor league clubs at the same time (which has happened a few times). The question there is whether the boost in aggregate attendance is enough to financially support both clubs.

The rule-of-thumb with two-club markets is to divide the market size in half. But that assumes the interest in each club is exclusive and that there is no larger synergy created by the presence of a second team. From the economic studies I've seen, a more accurate way to do it is to assign 70%-80% of the size of the market to each club rather than half. That accounts for the mutual increase in interest in the sport created by a second club in a city.

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Montreal proved their baseball fans don't enjoy being denied playoffs due to player greed, being stuck with the dumbest owner in recent memory, and a league that did everything it could to **** the team into oblivion, and dared to speak with their wallets.

Olympic Stadium didn't help either. It wasn't exactly a great place to watch a baseball game, plus it was running into structural issues by the mid-1990s. (Some may remember the Expos having to play several home series on the road in 1991 because some chunks of concrete came off the structure, forcing it to be closed for awhile.)

The decline of the Canadian dollar against the American, especially into the late 1990s and early 2000s, hurt the Expos a lot as well. The club earned revenue in CAD but had to pay player salaries in USD. When the CAD was worth only $0.65 of the US, that was a big hole to be in right off the bat.

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I hate when LGO beats me to an economic argument

The benefit of having done research into the economics of professional sports a few years ago.

[Le Grande Orange]

Using 2010 census data, here are the 12 metropolitan statistical areas that do not have a major league baseball team. The numbers are based on the total income in the MSA (i.e. population times per capita income) and then scaled such that the area with the lowest value which currently has an MLB team is rated at 100.

                                                     2010
Metropolitan Statistical Area                       Market
                                                     Size
----------------------------------------------------------
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA                  187
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA                    158
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA                   133
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA                 129
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX                         113
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL                         110
Columbus, OH                                          105
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV                                105
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC                   103
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN                               102
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC            101
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX                      100

Below are the 10 metropolitan statistical areas that had the highest ratings immediately below 100.

                                                     2010
Metropolitan Statistical Area                       Market
                                                     Size
----------------------------------------------------------
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA              100*
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT                        99
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN           96
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT               92
Jacksonville, FL                                       80
Richmond, VA                                           78
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA                        75
Memphis, TN-MS-AR                                      74
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN                     71
Oklahoma City, OK                                      71

*Actual value 99.6, rounded to 100 for display

[cephasjames]

I'd rule out Riverside, San Jose, and Sacramento because they are all too close to existing MLB teams. San Antonio, Orlando, and Columbus could potentially fall into that category too, but they don't have to. Texas could support another team. I'm not so sure about Florida or even Ohio. Portland seems viable, as well as Las Vegas, and Charlotte. Though, I guess if San Antonio could be considered too close than so could Portland. Indianapolis could be a possibility too - they've proven that they can keep a franchise in town successfully - though I think they'd struggle some because of the Chicago teams.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The decline of the Canadian dollar against the American, especially into the late 1990s and early 2000s, hurt the Expos a lot as well. The club earned revenue in CAD but had to pay player salaries in USD. When the CAD was worth only $0.65 of the US, that was a big hole to be in right off the bat.


The benefit of having done research into the economics of professional sports a few years ago.

It should be noted that the Blue Jays were receiving several million dollars in currency equalization payments each season during that time so I'd think that the Expos got it too.

[Raidergoo]

For God's sake, you don't contract teams when the country is going to add the population and wealth the equivalent of the nation of Canada in the next decade.

San Juan will never get a team. Puerto Rico is dirt poor in comparison to the mainland. There is practically no industry. Government employs 25% of the workforce. Their debt load is $70 billion dollars and the population is emigrating to the mainland.

San Jose and Sacramento may never get the A's. The Giants will keep the A's out of their territory and the A's ownership is very dismissive of moving there.

No one is going to permit a new franchise in LA or NYC. That would threaten the TV revenues of the existing clubs.

I struggle with believing that Portland would build a $500 million dollar stadium downtown.

It may sound strange, but, the best chance to see MLB expansion in the next decade might be in Canada (welcome back to Montreal) and Mexico. Mexico might end up with a few hundred billion dollars a year in extra revenue if they are serious about liberalizing their oil industry.

[Le Grande Orange]

A possible item to consider with candidate cities is to look at how minor league clubs in those cities do in terms of attendance relative to other teams in the league and to the league average.

The ten highest-drawing teams in terms of per game average attendance in the U.S. minor leagues for the 2013 season:

Columbus Clippers (International League); 9,212
Lehigh Valley IronPigs (International League); 9,016
Indianapolis Indians (International League); 8,980
Sacramento River Cats (Pacific Coast League); 8,435
Dayton Dragons (Midwest League); 8,405
Buffalo Bisons (International League); 8,273
Louisville Bats (International League); 8,185
Round Rock Express (Pacific Coast League); 8,181
Albuqueque Isotopes (Pacific Coast League); 7,994
Pawtucket Red Sox (International League); 7,827

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I'd rule out Riverside, San Jose, and Sacramento because they are all too close to existing MLB teams.

Land distances between cities according to Google Maps:

Baltimore-Washington, DC, 39 miles;
Philadelphia-New York, 97 miles;
Los Angeles-San Diego, 120 miles.

Sacramento-Oakland, 81 miles;
Sacramento-San Francisco, 87 miles;
San Antonio-Houston, 197 miles.

[Caporegime]

Now that Joffrey is dead, I think King's Landing should be awarded an expansion team.

[Green & Gold Heart]

Originally Posted by Caporegime

Now that Joffrey is dead, I think King's Landing should be awarded an expansion team.

SPOILER ALERT