Author Topic: Mets are buying the Chiefs  (Read 3339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #125: November 02, 2017, 06:40:12 PM »
I'd love a PCL team just because that means they'd come through Omaha a couple times a year.

I miss having a PCL team.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 7
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #126: November 02, 2017, 09:41:34 PM »
I'm wondering whether the A's might be heading to San Antonio once Colorado Springs moves there.  It's a bit closer and the A's AA team is in the Texas League.  That would leave the Nats to fight over Nashville with the Brewers, with the loser getting Vegas.

Nothing can be official until the PDC negotiating period opens next September, but it's a poorly kept secret that the Rangers are going to shift AAA from Round Rock to the new San Antonio team, and the Astros will move from Fresno to Round Rock.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 7
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #127: November 02, 2017, 10:20:27 PM »
The biggest issue with Vegas has been its outdated stadium.  They're set to open a new one in 2019, which I think will probably make them a lot more desirable.  Yeah, it's an extreme hitter-friendly location, but the same can be said for other PCL cities like Albuquerque, Reno, El Paso and SLC (who all have newer and/or nicer facilities).  I think someone will jump at LV because of the new park, so it's not a given to say the Nats will be "stuck" in Vegas. 

Fresno will probably be the city nobody wants.  Sounds like the park is pretty meh and the fan support is sub par.  It would've made sense for the A's to go to Fresno when Sacramento booted them in favor of the Giants a few years back, but instead the A's opted to move the team halfway across the country to Nashville.

Rochester is probably the best bet to stay in the International League.  The relationship there with the Twins isn't bad, but there's not a lot of history there, either.  I also wonder if Minnesota might have eyes on Nashville.  They moved their AA team from Connecticut to Chattanooga before the 2015 season, so they may look to make the same Northeast to Tennessee move with AAA.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #128: November 03, 2017, 12:18:42 AM »
The biggest issue with Vegas has been its outdated stadium.  They're set to open a new one in 2019, which I think will probably make them a lot more desirable.  Yeah, it's an extreme hitter-friendly location, but the same can be said for other PCL cities like Albuquerque, Reno, El Paso and SLC (who all have newer and/or nicer facilities).  I think someone will jump at LV because of the new park, so it's not a given to say the Nats will be "stuck" in Vegas. 

Fresno will probably be the city nobody wants.  Sounds like the park is pretty meh and the fan support is sub par.  It would've made sense for the A's to go to Fresno when Sacramento booted them in favor of the Giants a few years back, but instead the A's opted to move the team halfway across the country to Nashville.

Rochester is probably the best bet to stay in the International League.  The relationship there with the Twins isn't bad, but there's not a lot of history there, either.  I also wonder if Minnesota might have eyes on Nashville.  They moved their AA team from Connecticut to Chattanooga before the 2015 season, so they may look to make the same Northeast to Tennessee move with AAA.

Pretty sure the biggest issue is altitude.

Online dcpatti

  • Posts: 1581
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #129: November 03, 2017, 01:03:34 AM »
The extreme heat and extremely arid conditions also make Vegas less attractive. A guy like Strasburg or Cespedes who already has hydration issues would wither into a tiny little wrinkled pile in that climate. It’s tough on player development and also tough on rehabbing players.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 7
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #130: November 03, 2017, 01:48:44 AM »
I understand; I'm well aware of the geographic issues playing there.  And I'm not arguing that Vegas would be good, let alone better than Syracuse.  But the reason Vegas is always the last site standing when it comes to aligning, even though it's at a lower altitude than a number of PCL sites (though certainly drier than most), is because of the ballpark.  If they get the new park, and the Nats are stuck looking at PCL, Vegas won't be the worst option.  And I wouldn't be surprised if a team based out west jumps on Vegas.  The Padres were in Vegas for years before the Dodgers bumped them.  Now they're in El Paso, but they have no real link to the city.  Vegas is larger, a better geographic fit, and a better hub for travel and getting players where they need to be.  If the Padres moved to Vegas and the Nats were left with El Paso, I think that would be a worse fit.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/22/mets-triple-a-park-is-filled-with-crap-and-league-is-pissed/


Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 24000
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #131: November 03, 2017, 08:33:34 AM »
Twins history in Rochester only goes back to when the O's left for Norfolk, so a shift along the lines of Twins to Nashville, As to the new Las Vegas, and Nats to Rochester makes abundant sense.

I was trying to figure out cities west of the Mississippi  without AAA or MLB that might make sense for an AAA franchise relocation a few days ago and stumbled across what the Dodgers have done in Oklahoma.  They ended up with an AA team in Tulsa and a AAA in Oklahoma City.  I don't know how long they had that set up, but I guess there's an advantage to having your AA and AAA teams close to each other for player shuttling purposes.  That would be a reason for the Twins to do the consolidation LincolnDD is suggesting.

Other than Portland, which is angling for MLB when it goes to 32, there's no great city out west to move an AAA franchise to. Boise might be the biggest, but it is in a traditional short-season league.  Tulsa has AA.  Tuscon would have the same problems with climate as Vegas only moreso.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 1830
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #132: November 03, 2017, 09:38:16 AM »
Nothing can be official until the PDC negotiating period opens next September, but it's a poorly kept secret that the Rangers are going to shift AAA from Round Rock to the new San Antonio team, and the Astros will move from Fresno to Round Rock.

Thanks.  That makes a lot of sense for both, especially given that Nolan Ryan's with the Astros now.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 7
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #133: November 03, 2017, 12:05:01 PM »
Twins history in Rochester only goes back to when the O's left for Norfolk, so a shift along the lines of Twins to Nashville, As to the new Las Vegas, and Nats to Rochester makes abundant sense.

I was trying to figure out cities west of the Mississippi  without AAA or MLB that might make sense for an AAA franchise relocation a few days ago and stumbled across what the Dodgers have done in Oklahoma.  They ended up with an AA team in Tulsa and a AAA in Oklahoma City.  I don't know how long they had that set up, but I guess there's an advantage to having your AA and AAA teams close to each other for player shuttling purposes.  That would be a reason for the Twins to do the consolidation LincolnDD is suggesting.

Other than Portland, which is angling for MLB when it goes to 32, there's no great city out west to move an AAA franchise to. Boise might be the biggest, but it is in a traditional short-season league.  Tulsa has AA.  Tuscon would have the same problems with climate as Vegas only moreso.

Don't know if the Twins are aggressive enough, but St. Paul seems like an ideal spot for a backyard AAA team (like what Atlanta's done with Gwinnett); the Indy St. Paul Saints have been really successful there.  Otherwise, maybe a city like San Jose could host AAA (current High A team there; big enough to host a NHL team and mentioned in the past as a location for the A's if they were to relocate).  A few years ago, the Astros were trying to relocate a team (rumored to be New Orleans) to the Houston suburbs, but those plans fell through.

Portland and Tucson are both failed AAA locations; funny to hear Portland as a MLB expansion city when they couldn't keep a AAA team!  Anyway, expansion may be the best opportunity for the Nats to get back into the International League, assuming they end up on the PCL next year.  If MLB expands, then all levels of MiLB will expand, too.  I wouldn't be surprised if Richmond is one of the locations that gets a AAA team under expansion.  Jacksonville (currently AA) would also be a good spot.  Maybe Ottawa tries to get back in, especially if MLB expands into Montreal.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 7
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #134: November 03, 2017, 12:14:21 PM »
Thanks.  That makes a lot of sense for both, especially given that Nolan Ryan's with the Astros now.

NP.  One of Ryan's sons is the president of the Astros, and the other is part of the ownership group and front office of Round Rock, so the move of the Astros to Round Rock has probably been in the works for a while.  Nobody will say anything, but I imagine the Rangers were probably pushing behind the scenes to make the San Antonio team happen because they knew they were losing Round Rock and didn't want to move to a place like Fresno. 

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 7
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #135: November 30, 2017, 12:46:08 PM »
Tampa re-upped with Durham today; the new PDC runs through 2020.  Cincinnati /Louisville and Cleveland/Columbus also extended through 2020 earlier this month.

Excluding Syracuse, these are the current IL teams with deals expiring after 2018:

Buffalo (Toronto)
Norfolk (Baltimore)
Pawtucket (Boston)
Rochester (Twins)
Scranton (Yankees)
Toledo (Tigers)

Back in early October, a Brewers podcast (hosted by the guy who does Milwaukee's radio post games shows) reported that Nashville will probably look to cut ties with the A's.  I don't know how reliable a source this is, so fwiw.  But something to keep an eye on.   Nashville and Rochester look like the best case scenarios right now.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 9861
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #136: November 30, 2017, 12:53:59 PM »
Tampa re-upped with Durham today; the new PDC runs through 2020.  Cincinnati /Louisville and Cleveland/Columbus also extended through 2020 earlier this month.

Excluding Syracuse, these are the current IL teams with deals expiring after 2018:

Buffalo (Toronto)
Norfolk (Baltimore)
Pawtucket (Boston)
Rochester (Twins)
Scranton (Yankees)
Toledo (Tigers)

Back in early October, a Brewers podcast (hosted by the guy who does Milwaukee's radio post games shows) reported that Nashville will probably look to cut ties with the A's.  I don't know how reliable a source this is, so fwiw.  But something to keep an eye on.   Nashville and Rochester look like the best case scenarios right now.
Haven't been tracking this. Will the Nats be in Syracuse in 2018?

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 7
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #137: November 30, 2017, 01:09:46 PM »
Haven't been tracking this. Will the Nats be in Syracuse in 2018?

Most likely, yeah.  They've got a contract with Syracuse through the 2018 season, and both sides would have to agree to break it.  I can't imagine the Nats would do that.