Author Topic: Expansion cities (breakout from former nats thread)  (Read 7302 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Those Souza clips show an entirely empty park.  And people want to add another Canadian team?  Not a good idea.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93630
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #1: April 16, 2015, 09:07:46 AM »
Those Souza clips show an entirely empty park.  And people want to add another Canadian team?  Not a good idea.
QFT. I noticed the same thing last night when watching the Jays/Rays game.

I know there was hockey on but people in Toronto don't root for the Habs or Sens do they?

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17674
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #2: April 16, 2015, 09:08:40 AM »
QFT. I noticed the same thing last night when watching the Jays/Rays game.

I know there was hockey on but people in Toronto don't root for the Habs or Sens do they?

They don't even root for the Leafs.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14956
  • I am Djour Djilios.
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #3: April 16, 2015, 10:11:44 AM »
QFT. I noticed the same thing last night when watching the Jays/Rays game.

I know there was hockey on but people in Toronto don't root for the Habs or Sens do they?

You've got to keep in mind that the weather in Toronto was pretty nice yesterday and looks to be for the next week or so.  When you live in an area where you have truly horrible winters (Toronto isn't Minneapolis or Winnipeg, but it's also not DC) you tend to want to start doing yard projects and enjoying the outdoors since they've been covered in snow for the past two to six months.  A lot of kids are also just now getting into their Little League and soccer seasons as well so between the nice weather and spring commitments baseball is taking a back seat until June. 

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #4: April 16, 2015, 12:55:43 PM »
They don't even root for the Leafs.

Yeah they do!

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #5: April 16, 2015, 12:56:25 PM »
You've got to keep in mind that the weather in Toronto was pretty nice yesterday and looks to be for the next week or so.  When you live in an area where you have truly horrible winters (Toronto isn't Minneapolis or Winnipeg, but it's also not DC) you tend to want to start doing yard projects and enjoying the outdoors since they've been covered in snow for the past two to six months.  A lot of kids are also just now getting into their Little League and soccer seasons as well so between the nice weather and spring commitments baseball is taking a back seat until June.

Nowhere I'd rather be on a pleasant day than the park. But good point.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25308
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #6: April 16, 2015, 01:14:22 PM »
Toronto I think is one of the only teams to draw > 4MM in its current park. they did it 3 times.  Toronto is also pretty rich and populous. 

There's a nice couple of articles on Hardball Times's website right now on potential expansion cities.  The writer plugged in various demographic factors to rank MSAs with > 1.5MM people in the US and then discusses Canadian, Mexican, and Caribbean cities, too.  Says that, after Toronto, Vancouver might be the next best city rather than Montreal.  As for US cities, the big WTF is how well Providence does.  Of course, San Jose is first, but Sacramento and Austin do very well.  Charlotte, Portland, and Knoxville do not.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17674
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #7: April 16, 2015, 01:22:25 PM »
I think Towson should get a team

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56989
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #8: April 16, 2015, 01:23:35 PM »
I think Towson should get a team

 :roll:

Some folks are trolls.    You're droll.     :)

droll:    curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #9: April 16, 2015, 04:41:20 PM »
Toronto I think is one of the only teams to draw > 4MM in its current park. they did it 3 times.  Toronto is also pretty rich and populous. 

There's a nice couple of articles on Hardball Times's website right now on potential expansion cities.  The writer plugged in various demographic factors to rank MSAs with > 1.5MM people in the US and then discusses Canadian, Mexican, and Caribbean cities, too.  Says that, after Toronto, Vancouver might be the next best city rather than Montreal.  As for US cities, the big WTF is how well Providence does.  Of course, San Jose is first, but Sacramento and Austin do very well.  Charlotte, Portland, and Knoxville do not.

Vancouver would be a better choice that Montréal, but I still think it's a bad idea. Plus Seattle would crap.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 26513
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Re: Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2015)
« Reply #10: April 16, 2015, 04:50:11 PM »
Any new market is going to take away fanbase from an existing team, but I'd think MLB would give preference to teams that are at least a few hours drive from existing clubs.  Given that, I'd think Nashville or Memphis would be a great location for a team. Cincy would complain, but it's not that close.  Sacramento is pretty far from Oakland/SF. and could be a good choice, but it's a pretty small market (maybe it pulls in from Reno).  I don't see any way San Jose gets a team given that Oakland can't even move their existing team to that location.  Vancouver is too close to Seattle.

Montreal is the most natural place to place a team IMHO.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19485
Watching the Nats/Os I wonder if any team will surrender territorial rights without some kind of enormous compensation? The Os have screwed the nats and helped themselves and the Giants have successfully blocked Oakland from moving to a more viable city

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14956
  • I am Djour Djilios.
Sacramento isn't getting an MLB team for the same reasons Oakland isn't moving. The only city that has a viable chance of getting an MLB team if the Rays get moved is Portland. Minimal TV revenue impact (the Mariners have almost all of the Pacific NW), plenty of overpaid white people ("young families", SF escapees) looking to be outside, and a mayor looking to make it a "world class city" (:lmao:). 

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 14416
Sacramento isn't getting an MLB team for the same reasons Oakland isn't moving. The only city that has a viable chance of getting an MLB team if the Rays get moved is Portland. Minimal TV revenue impact (the Mariners have almost all of the Pacific NW), plenty of overpaid white people ("young families", SF escapees) looking to be outside, and a mayor looking to make it a "world class city" (:lmao:). 

what about nashville or charlotte? i could see either getting some traction.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56989
  • We had 'em all the way.
what about nashville or charlotte? i could see either getting some traction.

Nashville (or Memphis) before Charlotte only because of location.    I'm sure the Oreos, Nats and Barves do not want a franchise in Charlotte.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Sacramento isn't getting an MLB team for the same reasons Oakland isn't moving. The only city that has a viable chance of getting an MLB team if the Rays get moved is Portland. Minimal TV revenue impact (the Mariners have almost all of the Pacific NW), plenty of overpaid white people ("young families", SF escapees) looking to be outside, and a mayor looking to make it a "world class city" (:lmao:).

I back this.

Portland has almost no black people, and yet EVERYONE there is obsessed with the Trailblazers because it's the only major sport.  Obsessed.

They also love their soccer team.  Soccer!

Give them some baseball.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 15622
  • pissy DC sports fan
Nashville (or Memphis) before Charlotte only because of location.    I'm sure the Oreos, Nats and Barves do not want a franchise in Charlotte.

The only one I'd imagine having any kind of valid gripe with that is the Barves.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56989
  • We had 'em all the way.
The only one I'd imagine having any kind of valid gripe with that is the Barves.

I believe the Nats are thinking about this area as well.     It's big 'skin's country (even with the Panthers) and the Nats would be a natural.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 15622
  • pissy DC sports fan
This could have been erroneous, but I read recently that Nats games aren't even broadcast to most of Charlotte thanks to TWC.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14956
  • I am Djour Djilios.
I back this.

Portland has almost no black people, and yet EVERYONE there is obsessed with the Trailblazers because it's the only major sport.  Obsessed.

They also love their soccer team.  Soccer!

Give them some baseball.

Portland is the whitest city in the US and only getting whiter. If the Rays want to move and get a nice new stadium let the people of PDX blow their money.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25308
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
here are the hardball times articles that I mentioned.

First, explaining the methodology:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/examining-potential-mlb-expansion-cities-part-1/

Quote
1) Cities with higher incomes and lower levels of poverty draw more fans
2)  Cities with a higher percentage of black and/or Hispanics/Latinos draw fewer fans
3) After accounting for income, cities with more college-educated individuals draw fewer fans.
4) Cities with a higher percentage of males draw more fans
5) Warmer cities tend to draw more fans
6) Cities with an NFL team draw fewer fans, but the hit isn’t as big if the city also has an NBA team
7) Cities with older populations tend to draw more fans
There's explanations for each of these factors in the article.  The caveat with older populations is that cities with more 65+ fans do well on TV but worse on live gate.  Hello, Tampa Bay.

The second article focuses on US cities without teams currently first, then discusses NYC/LA/CHI, and also international cities.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/examining-potential-mlb-expansion-cities-part-2/
Top 5 are San Jose, by a lot, then Vegas, Austin, Sacramento, and Providence.  He throws in the reality check of how the minor league teams draw. 

San Jose has it all.  But for the Giants blocking the city, it is ideal in almost all respects.  Overeducated is the main drawback. 
Vegas is heavily male, warm, and populous, but reality is that there may be too many distractions.   Austin does very well, and I think is the most interesting city that is not usually talked about.  Round Rock draws very well, Austin is one of 3 cities > 50% male (the others are #1 and #2), lots of money floating around, climate, and older but < 65.  Sac'to is something of a surprise because it is never mentioned as an alternative to San Jose.  In addition to the demographics, the River Cats are a great draw.  This could be an alternative landing spot for the As if San jose is not feasible. Providence is just a weird result, but it gets helped in part because median age is 39+ and it is, to say it directly, very white. 

There are some nice critiques of the analysis in the comments.  Many point to Charlotte as being close to a number of population centers outside the MSA.  Providence might be a result that should lead to skepticism about the methodology.  That said, the skepticism about some cities like Indy and Portland is interesting, and flagging Austin I think is a nice bit of sifting data to come up with an option that should get some attention.
Quote
Portland does have a few things going for it. Like Charlotte, its age demographic is ideal. It also has few black and Hispanic residents, which bodes well for the city’s attendance figures. However, the city rates no better than average in every other category, with its cold climate acting as its biggest detractor.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 26513
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
interesting.  I do think Tampa would be doing fine if they had a retractable roof stadium in downtown on the Bay.   The Trop is in the middle of nowhere and is an eyesore.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Portland is the whitest city in the US and only getting whiter. If the Rays want to move and get a nice new stadium let the people of PDX blow their money.

I'd go see them. That would push Houston or Texas into the central and, what, Minnesota? Detroit? into the East. Really shakes things up.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
here are the hardball times articles that I mentioned.

First, explaining the methodology:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/examining-potential-mlb-expansion-cities-part-1/
There's explanations for each of these factors in the article.  The caveat with older populations is that cities with more 65+ fans do well on TV but worse on live gate.  Hello, Tampa Bay.

The second article focuses on US cities without teams currently first, then discusses NYC/LA/CHI, and also international cities.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/examining-potential-mlb-expansion-cities-part-2/
Top 5 are San Jose, by a lot, then Vegas, Austin, Sacramento, and Providence.  He throws in the reality check of how the minor league teams draw. 

San Jose has it all.  But for the Giants blocking the city, it is ideal in almost all respects.  Overeducated is the main drawback. 
Vegas is heavily male, warm, and populous, but reality is that there may be too many distractions.   Austin does very well, and I think is the most interesting city that is not usually talked about.  Round Rock draws very well, Austin is one of 3 cities > 50% male (the others are #1 and #2), lots of money floating around, climate, and older but < 65.  Sac'to is something of a surprise because it is never mentioned as an alternative to San Jose.  In addition to the demographics, the River Cats are a great draw.  This could be an alternative landing spot for the As if San jose is not feasible. Providence is just a weird result, but it gets helped in part because median age is 39+ and it is, to say it directly, very white. 

There are some nice critiques of the analysis in the comments.  Many point to Charlotte as being close to a number of population centers outside the MSA.  Providence might be a result that should lead to skepticism about the methodology.  That said, the skepticism about some cities like Indy and Portland is interesting, and flagging Austin I think is a nice bit of sifting data to come up with an option that should get some attention.

Austin? I dunno if Texas can do 3 teams. That's football country.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25308
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
I'll let HoustonNat chime in on that since he has lived in Houston and Dallas.  One thing a commenter points out about Austin is that it is a UT sports town and may not be pro-oriented.  They have a huge college baseball tradition in Austin and in Texas generally.  I could imagine guys like Clemens might find it appealing to play for the Lake Travis Tritts, or whatever they would be called.