Author Topic: Can't the Nats get a AAA team closer to home ?  (Read 3178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28222
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
I think the minimum now is 10,000.  Also, Newark is too close to the NY so the NYY and NYM have veto rights.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66080
  • We had 'em all the way.
I think the minimum now is 10,000.  Also, Newark is too close to the NY so the NYY and NYM have veto rights.

...  and Newark is still Newark.     Of course, upon further review, Fresno ain't exactly the Ritz.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 50
A few years ago, the Yankees' AAA team in Scranton was displaced for a year due to a massive renovation of their home park.  They ended up playing the entire season away from Scranton (played their "home" games in the various stadiums of the International League North division teams).  Before their year-long road trip, they approached the Mets about using the stadium in Newark for a season.  The Mets exercised their shared territorial rights and denied the Yankees' request.  It may have been more of a New York rivalry, but the Mets also might not be too keen about a Nats' AAA team in their backyard, either.

And of course, it's hard to find an IL team that would be available to move to Newark.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28222
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Lincoln - I'm beginning to think Richmond, the ideal location for the Nats, cannot get back into AAA until there's expansion.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 3279
I can't imagine the Mets or Yankees would allow a AAA team in Newark.  Heck, the fans of them (and probably the Phillies) would hate a AAA team anywhere in Jersey.  It'd be like Nats fans would feel about a AAA team in Baltimore.

Oh, wait.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66080
  • We had 'em all the way.
I can't imagine the Mets or Yankees would allow a AAA team in Newark.  Heck, the fans of them (and probably the Phillies) would hate a AAA team anywhere in Jersey.  It'd be like Nats fans would feel about a AAA team in Baltimore.

Oh, wait.

Same problem as Richmond.    There's already a AA team in place.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 3693
  • Juan Soto aka Human Wildcat
Can’t Richmond just let the squirrels go? And start an aaa franchise.  There are so many good things for Richmond and the nats having the team here that I guess it just makes too much sense to happen. 

We can give Fresno the redskins training camp.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 21192
No.

Can’t Richmond just let the squirrels go? And start an aaa franchise.  There are so many good things for Richmond and the nats having the team here that I guess it just makes too much sense to happen. 

We can give Fresno the redskins training camp.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 50
Lincoln - I'm beginning to think Richmond, the ideal location for the Nats, cannot get back into AAA until there's expansion.

Agreed.  The IL is pretty stable now, so there really isn't a logical team that would be available to make the move.  I think it's going to be hard for us to get back into the IL for 2020, but the odds of that far outweigh the odds of AAA baseball in Richmond anytime soon. 

I could be way off, but Richmond (pending a new park) and Jacksonville (already have a AAA-caliber stadium) make the most sense if/when AAA expands, both in terms of potential locations (both are former AAA cities) and also geography, as both are near-perfect fits for the only two East teams currently in the PCL. 

I think MLB/MiLB expands eventually, but it's still some ways away.  Hopefully a Fresno/PCL exit happens before then.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2886
  • Too Stressed to care.
How about Newark? The independent Newark Bears were created and got a stadium built about 2000. The Bears folded -- two or three times -- but the stadium holds 6500. How many are needed for a AAA team? Or could the Senators be upped to AAA and Newark become the AA franchise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_%26_Eagles_Riverfront_Stadium
That's not how that works. The Nats don't own the Harrisburg team or control its franchise rights. They have an affiliation agreement that is 2-3 years long. Because they have a good relationship, they re-up that agreement when it expires (every 2-3 years).

For the Nats to move a AAA franchise to Newark, NJ, they would first need to find a AAA team in the International League - because it has to be AAA to play othe other AAA teams and it cannot be a Pacific Coast League team - too much travel.

http://www.milb.com/standings/index.jsp?lid=117

Then, if they bought a AAA team they'd need permission to move into the market controlled by both the Mets and Yankees.

Here's a list of the 2018-2019 affiliation changes:
https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/milb-2019-preview-tracking-all-affiliation-classification-changes/

And another article from before the affiliation shuffle:
https://ballparkdigest.com/2018/08/28/2018-affiliate-dance-preview/

Offline welch

  • Posts: 12689
  • 2019: The fight for .500
Since the Nats lost Syracuse when the Mets bought the franchise, could the Nats buy another IL franchise? Rochester or Buffalo? How about Charlotte, which was the Old Senators' (Griffith) A franchise? They are a White Sox franchise now.


Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20343
I’d like to see them buy and Indy team and compete there- it would be a fun test for the anti trust exemption

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 3279
Since the Nats lost Syracuse when the Mets bought the franchise, could the Nats buy another IL franchise? Rochester or Buffalo? How about Charlotte, which was the Old Senators' (Griffith) A franchise? They are a White Sox franchise now.

In theory, sure.  But you'd need to convince the owners to sell.  Rochester is community-owned, and they likely wouldn't sell because of fears the Nats would move the team (Syracuse had similar concerns, which is why it is likely the Mets were able to buy them but the Nats might not have had the same chance). 

Buffalo is owned by the Rich family, which used to own the Bills.  Their stadium lease is up this year, so it's a theoretical possibility, but there doesn't seem to be any chatter that the team is for sale.   Charlotte is also owned by an individual, and they have the best attendance of any minor league team anywhere and a long lease in a nearly-new downtown stadium; it's unlikely they'd be for sale at any price the Nats would consider. 

I’d like to see them buy and Indy team and compete there- it would be a fun test for the anti trust exemption

I'm not sure you'd get far enough for the antitrust exemption to play into things at all.  The problem for that would be assigning players to the independent league teams - the league agreements for those leagues don't allow players to be on contracts affiliated with a major league organization.  Nothing would prevent them from buying such a club, however.   

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 9948
How about Newark? The independent Newark Bears were created and got a stadium built about 2000. The Bears folded -- two or three times -- but the stadium holds 6500. How many are needed for a AAA team? Or could the Senators be upped to AAA and Newark become the AA franchise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_%26_Eagles_Riverfront_Stadium

Newark? That's a tough thing to do to your prospects.

Offline imref

  • Moderator
  • ***
  • Posts: 31150
  • Redemption - Uh..Hurt Neck
Has anyone not noticed we currently have an AAA team playing in DC now?

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 4610
Has anyone not noticed we currently have an AAA team playing in DC now?
A good one sir!!

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 4487
In theory, sure.  But you'd need to convince the owners to sell.  Rochester is community-owned, and they likely wouldn't sell because of fears the Nats would move the team (Syracuse had similar concerns, which is why it is likely the Mets were able to buy them but the Nats might not have had the same chance). 

Buffalo is owned by the Rich family, which used to own the Bills.  Their stadium lease is up this year, so it's a theoretical possibility, but there doesn't seem to be any chatter that the team is for sale.   Charlotte is also owned by an individual, and they have the best attendance of any minor league team anywhere and a long lease in a nearly-new downtown stadium; it's unlikely they'd be for sale at any price the Nats would consider. 

I'm not sure you'd get far enough for the antitrust exemption to play into things at all.  The problem for that would be assigning players to the independent league teams - the league agreements for those leagues don't allow players to be on contracts affiliated with a major league organization.  Nothing would prevent them from buying such a club, however.

Buffalo has a cool stadium. Those are my two cents.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28222
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Buffalo has a cool stadium. Those are my two cents.
I think it was designed so they could easily add capacity if they got an MLB team.  At one point in the 90s, they were in the running.

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 50
In theory, sure.  But you'd need to convince the owners to sell.  Rochester is community-owned, and they likely wouldn't sell because of fears the Nats would move the team (Syracuse had similar concerns, which is why it is likely the Mets were able to buy them but the Nats might not have had the same chance). 

Buffalo is owned by the Rich family, which used to own the Bills.  Their stadium lease is up this year, so it's a theoretical possibility, but there doesn't seem to be any chatter that the team is for sale.   Charlotte is also owned by an individual, and they have the best attendance of any minor league team anywhere and a long lease in a nearly-new downtown stadium; it's unlikely they'd be for sale at any price the Nats would consider. 

I'm not sure you'd get far enough for the antitrust exemption to play into things at all.  The problem for that would be assigning players to the independent league teams - the league agreements for those leagues don't allow players to be on contracts affiliated with a major league organization.  Nothing would prevent them from buying such a club, however.

There was reportedly another team making a play for Syracuse along with the Mets, though my internet sleuthing hasn't been strong enough to uncover said team.   Not sure if that would've been the Nationals, as there's little precedent for minor league team ownership there.  Rangers make some sense if they were aware of their eventual split with Round Rock; they own most of their teams.

But like you said, the Mets were seen as less likely to move the team (and have since signed a long-term lease). 

Offline LincolnDD

  • Posts: 50
Since the Nats lost Syracuse when the Mets bought the franchise, could the Nats buy another IL franchise? Rochester or Buffalo? How about Charlotte, which was the Old Senators' (Griffith) A franchise? They are a White Sox franchise now.

Not sure how accurate this site is, but...  http://www.thesportsadvisorygroup.com/teams-for-sale/

Someone pointed out a while back in another thread that the most logical move may be to buy a share of an existing AAA, as there doesn't appear to be any currently for sale. 

Offline welch

  • Posts: 12689
  • 2019: The fight for .500
Maybe partner with the owners of Buffalo, Charlotte, or the community of Rochester. Buffalo was the Expansion Senators AAA franchise; Charlotte was the Old Senators' A franchise. Incidentally, the Griffith family had no AAA team, so Harmon Killebrew was sent down to a team that belonged to the White Sox. The Chattanooga Lookouts were their original minor league team. They are still a AA team, a franchise of the Reds.

 

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66080
  • We had 'em all the way.
Thank you.

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 9948
Apparently Nashville wanted a 4 year agreement and Rizzo only wanted 2.

https://twitter.com/talknats2/status/1134451124554076166?s=21

Why in God’s name would you only want a two year agreement?

Quote
That is what our sources told us at the times that Nashville was looking for a commitment of more than 2 years. They had the leverage to do it. Our understanding was Rizzo wanted 2 years.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20343
:bang: what does he think will become available in two years?

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 3279
Apparently Nashville wanted a 4 year agreement and Rizzo only wanted 2.

https://twitter.com/talknats2/status/1134451124554076166?s=21

Why in God’s name would you only want a two year agreement?

Thinking that an IL team might come open in two years, I guess.  That possibility is not worth getting stuck in Fresno for 2 years.  Even though it's PCL, Nashville for 4 years would have been far better than 2 in Fresno and 2 in the musical chairs game again.