Author Topic: Mets are buying the Chiefs  (Read 6135 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: 12
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: 12
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The biggest issue with Vegas has been its outdated stadium.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The biggest issue with Vegas has been its outdated stadium.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.

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 2721
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: 12
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: 25003
  • 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: 1992
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: 12
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: 12
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: 12
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: 11485
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: 12
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.

Offline LoveAngelos

  • Posts: 756
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #138: January 06, 2018, 03:57:48 PM »
Guessing they'll push hard again to get Waldorf allowed


Angelos has and will continue to block any Nats affiliate on his so called turf. He won't even allow the Midshipmen to be entertained by the Nats playing an exhibition game..............BTW the Nats should still visit the academy that day. Do a lot of things for the Middies. Make it a real PR black eye for Mr. Toad aka Peter Angelos

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18707
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #139: January 06, 2018, 07:26:05 PM »
Great idea. Scrimmage against the Mids, don't sell tickets or allow coverage.. Nothing Angelos can do about that.


Angelos has and will continue to block any Nats affiliate on his so called turf. He won't even allow the Midshipmen to be entertained by the Nats playing an exhibition game..............BTW the Nats should still visit the academy that day. Do a lot of things for the Middies. Make it a real PR black eye for Mr. Toad aka Peter Angelos

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19297
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #140: January 06, 2018, 07:51:00 PM »
Great idea. Scrimmage against the Mids, don't sell tickets or allow coverage.. Nothing Angelos can do about that.


Or do it he same way they always do and dare him to sue

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 55768
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #141: January 06, 2018, 07:54:14 PM »
Old Pete must have pictures.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18707
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #142: January 06, 2018, 08:04:30 PM »
Or do it he same way they always do and dare him to sue

That would be fun.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 55768
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #143: January 06, 2018, 08:05:46 PM »
Or do it he same way they always do and dare him to sue
That would be fun.

The icing would be do it for charity and see what he does   ....   Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society or some such thing.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18707
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #144: January 06, 2018, 08:11:31 PM »
He'd sue. class action lawyers gonna class action lawyer. :)


The icing would be do it for charity and see what he does   ....   Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society or some such thing.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 12
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #145: January 31, 2018, 02:46:07 PM »
Here's something to keep an eye on: The Rochester club is currently operating under a month-to-month lease to use the stadium there, and the International League president is threatening relocation if the issue isn't resolved with a longer term deal reached. A negotiating tactic to be sure, but instability like that is typically a turn-off for Major League teams looking to affiliate, and the current PDC with Minnesota is up after the season.

Quote
“That type of situation has to be treated very carefully,” Mobley said. If it goes unresolved, he said, the league could “step in.”

What does that mean, “step in?”

“If you play it out to the one end of the spectrum, it means the league can revoke the franchise and take possession of it and relocate it and do whatever needs to be done to ensure it can play somewhere,” Mobley said.

“That’s the nuclear option,” he added. “But it can go to that extreme.”

His words shouldn’t be considered a threat. Relocating the Red Wings is not something Mobley wants to do. He knows what the Red Wings mean to Rochester and he said he has confidence the team and county can works things out.

But Mobley has an entire league to consider. He acknowledged exploring new homes for the Red Wings last year. Mobley declined to identify the cities, but said, “There are certainly options available to us.”

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/columnists/andreatta/2018/01/29/rochester-red-wings-frontier-field-lease-cheryl-dinolfo-naomi-silver-monroe-county/1076403001/

The Red Wings are community owned. I'm not sure how the "take possession" would work. Forced sale? The Chiefs were community owned, but obviously that wasn't a forced sale.  I remember reading that Syracuse had another team with serious interest in buying them, but they opted for the Mets because the Mets were viewed as more likely to keep the team local (at least in the short term). 

Think ownership would be aggressive in a move like this?  Nats seem like a logical fit as the other team that tried to buy Syracuse.  If so, could they try to get involved here?

Guesses as a new location?  Richmond and Jacksonville look like two logical spots. 

The current Richmond ownership seems pretty content where they are, but you'd have to think the opportunity to upgrade to AAA would be appealing.  They'd have to find a new owner and location for the Squirrels, though.  The owner in Wilmington, DE wants to upgrade from his current High A franchise to AA.  Rochester sold/moved to Richmond; Richmond sold/moved to Wilmington?  Any decent open locations in Carolina League country to take the Wilmington High A team?  I know the other Wilmington (NC) flirted with a team a few years ago, but couldn't get stadium approval.

The Jacksonville ownership has wanted AAA for a while, and they've got a really nice, AAA-quality stadium there.  There's been some movement in the Southern League in recent years (the Huntsville team moved to Biloxi, and it looks like the Mobile team will soon move to Huntsville), so there's an "open" spot (either Huntsville or Mobile) that could take the current Jacksonville AA team.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 1992
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #146: January 31, 2018, 04:19:36 PM »
Here's something to keep an eye on: The Rochester club is currently operating under a month-to-month lease to use the stadium there, and the International League president is threatening relocation if the issue isn't resolved with a longer term deal reached. A negotiating tactic to be sure, but instability like that is typically a turn-off for Major League teams looking to affiliate, and the current PDC with Minnesota is up after the season.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/columnists/andreatta/2018/01/29/rochester-red-wings-frontier-field-lease-cheryl-dinolfo-naomi-silver-monroe-county/1076403001/

The Red Wings are community owned. I'm not sure how the "take possession" would work. Forced sale? The Chiefs were community owned, but obviously that wasn't a forced sale.  I remember reading that Syracuse had another team with serious interest in buying them, but they opted for the Mets because the Mets were viewed as more likely to keep the team local (at least in the short term). 

Think ownership would be aggressive in a move like this?  Nats seem like a logical fit as the other team that tried to buy Syracuse.  If so, could they try to get involved here?

Guesses as a new location?  Richmond and Jacksonville look like two logical spots. 

The current Richmond ownership seems pretty content where they are, but you'd have to think the opportunity to upgrade to AAA would be appealing.  They'd have to find a new owner and location for the Squirrels, though.  The owner in Wilmington, DE wants to upgrade from his current High A franchise to AA.  Rochester sold/moved to Richmond; Richmond sold/moved to Wilmington? Any decent open locations in Carolina League country to take the Wilmington High A team? I know the other Wilmington (NC) flirted with a team a few years ago, but couldn't get stadium approval.

The Jacksonville ownership has wanted AAA for a while, and they've got a really nice, AAA-quality stadium there.  There's been some movement in the Southern League in recent years (the Huntsville team moved to Biloxi, and it looks like the Mobile team will soon move to Huntsville), so there's an "open" spot (either Huntsville or Mobile) that could take the current Jacksonville AA team.

Not really.  With the expansion before last year, the obvious one (Kinston) got a team, and the league had to stash the other franchise in a bandbox in Buies Creek, NC until a new stadium in Fayetteville is ready in 2019.  The CL also has the ongoing issue of the PNats' stadium to deal with, which also would be a potential relocation target.  If they're willing to keep the Wilmington team outside the traditional Carolina League territory, though, it might be a bit easier. 

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 12
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #147: February 02, 2018, 07:43:36 PM »
Yeah, it's really hard to pinpoint a good location.  There are some solid SAL cities here in South Carolina that could probably handle a Carolina League team, but kicking out a SAL team is just another moving piece (though Georgia is littered with former SAL cities that could potentially take a relocated team).  I'll be curious to see what happens if/when MLB expands and an additional 10-14 MiLB teams are added.

If the Eastern League isn't a picky as the IL when it comes to the stadium, Rochester is within the EL footprint, so would an org swap be possible?  Would Rochester take a league demotion in order to preserve baseball in the city? 

Of course, this could just be posturing by the IL President.  He reiterated today that he has an actual contingency plan, but wouldn't say what it was.  There's speculation that they'd play on the road all year, similar to what a few teams have done in recent years (Scranton, Biloxi, Hartford), playing a good chunk of games in Syracuse and Buffalo.

When the Scranton club was looking at a season on the road, the tried to temporarily move to Newark, NJ, for a year, but the Mets balked at having a Yankees affiliate within their shared market (sound familiar?).  But maybe they'd be less likely to protest an affiliate of a non-rival.  The Newark park is a much smaller capacity than other AAA parks, but could be a good temp spot.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25003
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #148: February 03, 2018, 12:43:46 PM »
Is there any movement in Richmond towards a stadium suitable for AAA again?  I know they are AA now, but somehow I can't imagine the Giants  could be convinced to swap affiliations if the new city had a decent airport and connections. 

One thing maybe to watch is whether the Red Sox move their AAA franchise from Pawtucket either to Worcester or Providence.  That would free up McCoy for an AA team, especially if the PawSox move to Worcester.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19297
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #149: February 03, 2018, 12:47:43 PM »
Is there any movement in Richmond towards a stadium suitable for AAA again?  I know they are AA now, but somehow I can't imagine the Giants  could be convinced to swap affiliations if the new city had a decent airport and connections. 

One thing maybe to watch is whether the Red Sox move their AAA franchise from Pawtucket either to Worcester or Providence.  That would free up McCoy for an AA team, especially if the PawSox move to Worcester.

Wouldn't boston have to give a waiver if another team wants to move to pawtucket? I think it's inside of Boston's home territory