Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Bud Selig: Montreal ‘excellent’ choice for return

IF the build a fantastic new stadium.

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig can envision Montreal making a bid to return to the major leagues…

“I think they would be an excellent candidate in the future. No question about it. That was very impressive,” Selig said Tuesday during a question-and-answer session with the Baseball Writers’ Association of America.

“They have much work to be done,” he said. “There’s certainly in my case no hard or angry feeling toward Montreal. We tried to keep a team there. It’s a long story now. But I thought that was marvelous.”

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:26 AM | 123 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bud selig, expansion, expos, montreal, relocation

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: July 16, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4751997)
We tried to keep a team there.

In the same way Dr. Kevorkian tried to keep his patients alive.
   2. winnipegwhip Posted: July 16, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4752000)
We tried to keep a team there.


Eff ewe.
   3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4752023)
Cato the Elder:

Carthage seems like an excellent place to build a new city!
   4. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: July 16, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4752050)
Franz Joseph, July 28, 1914:
We tried not to start a war with Serbia. They chose to go to war with us.
   5. The_Ex Posted: July 16, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4752058)
Translation: we need a strawman (strawcity?) to beat up the other cities that have a team who might get out of line.
   6. SouthSideRyan Posted: July 16, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4752068)
Good to know he doesn't hold any hard feelings towards the city.
   7. Rusty Priske Posted: July 16, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4752104)
It isn't MLB's fault there is no team in Montreal.

It is 100% at the feet of Expos management that pretty much acted like the ownership in Major League as they did everything they could to make the team fail financially.
   8. frannyzoo Posted: July 16, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4752119)
I just visited what's left of this (sorta-kinda a tennis stadium) and it would be good to see a return there (in some retro fashion) instead of anything like this. That thing creeped me out.

It was also interesting to train ride past the fairly close to finished C$400m hockey stadium Quebec City is building on the hopes of getting another team. I don't know anything about how they lost the first one, but they be some rabid fans up there.
   9. Mark Armour Posted: July 16, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4752129)
One of the (many) things I liked about Jonah Keri's book on the Expos is that (despite being a massive fan of the team) he does not just fling the blame at major league baseball for the demise of his team. No one comes out looking like a saint, but the biggest problem was that no one in Montreal (including the mega-rich owners of the team) wanted to put up any money.

I would love the have a team back in Montreal, but the biggest hurdle is that they need moneyed investors willing to lose money, at least for a while.
   10. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: July 16, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4752155)
There's an alternate universe where Major League Baseball takes over from the Loria group, uses money from the secret slush fund to build Labatt Park, then sells the team for $320 million.
   11. Spahn Insane Posted: July 16, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4752162)
Good to know he doesn't hold any hard feelings towards the city.

Much like Mel Hall doesn't hold any hard feelings for "Jennifer Diaz."

   12. DL from MN Posted: July 16, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4752168)
Selig is right though, Montreal has terrific potential as a baseball market. They need a moneyed owner and public investment in a stadium.

Expansion is going to be necessary to continue the 9% annual revenue growth MLB has seen over the past 20 years. I fully expect to see the Athletics and Rays get new stadiums and then they will need to develop new markets. Tampa will get the stadium around 2027 when the current lease expires and the Athletics will probably resolve their situation before that.

I still like expansion to Monterrey to open up all of Mexico.
   13. The District Attorney Posted: July 16, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4752175)
They need... public investment in a stadium.
Let's not do it, then.
   14. DL from MN Posted: July 16, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4752178)
Let's not do it, then.


Then don't cry that baseball mistreated you. That's the bar now.
   15. alilisd Posted: July 16, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4752197)
Good to know he doesn't hold any hard feelings towards the city


Concur! I know if I were a citizen of Montreal, I would be greatly relieved.
   16. alilisd Posted: July 16, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4752198)
That's the bar now.


And one which should be changed. Don't be a dupe, don't be a pawn, make the fabulously wealthy owners and leagues pay their own way.
   17. NTP Nate Posted: July 16, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4752245)
Don't be a dupe, don't be a pawn, make the fabulously wealthy owners and leagues pay their own way.


Yes, we will all band together, and when MLB comes begging our fair burghs to host their unwanted expansion franchises, we will insist on substantial capital investments, and no sweetheart tax deals. Then we will ride our unicorns along rainbow highways to the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
   18. TerpNats Posted: July 16, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4752271)
#10: In your alternate universe, is Washington still without a team? Because even with a Labatt Park, a Montreal franchise wouldn't be as valuable as one with a Nats Park-like facility in D.C., an affluent, top 10 market.
   19. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: July 16, 2014 at 06:24 PM (#4752316)
In my alternate universe, Washington was probably awarded a team in 1998.
   20. AndrewJ Posted: July 16, 2014 at 06:47 PM (#4752331)
We tried to keep a team there.

"We tried to secure Dealey Plaza." -- Secret Service, November 22, 1963
   21. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: July 16, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4752335)
Let's not do it, then.

Ah, but it'd be Canadian public investment.
   22. Daniel in Toronto Posted: July 16, 2014 at 07:28 PM (#4752352)
Montreal is a much better place for a team than Tampa.
An AL east team in Montreal draw well against Boston (fans from Vermont), the Yankees (close to upstate NY), and Toronto.
A well run team (such as the 2008-2013 Rays) would be quite successful in Montreal.



   23. Sunday silence Posted: July 16, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4752364)
Goodness, I thought this was about how Selig was going to un-retire.
   24. cardsfanboy Posted: July 16, 2014 at 07:50 PM (#4752366)
I'm a Bud sycophant, but his handling of Montreal was atrocious and downright evil. It was on par with being a lawyer for examples of the crappiest things to happen to anything.

   25. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 16, 2014 at 08:02 PM (#4752375)
Selig is right though, Montreal has terrific potential as a baseball market.

More likely, Selig was just being diplomatic and/or positioning Montreal as leverage for Oakland and Tampa.

If "better than Tampa" is the best argument for Montreal, that's a weak case. Not only did Montreal lose its MLB team, but Ottawa, a city just two hours down the road, lost its Triple-A team due to lack of fan support. Montreal might have a small band of very ardent baseball supporters, but empirical evidence suggests the region isn't a great baseball market.
   26. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 16, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4752411)
I have difficulty believing that a country that can't properly safeguard its Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve deserves two MLB teams.
   27. bigglou115 Posted: July 16, 2014 at 09:32 PM (#4752424)
@24 LaRussa was a lawyer.
   28. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 09:46 PM (#4752429)
Not only did Montreal lose its MLB team, but Ottawa, a city just two hours down the road, lost its Triple-A team due to lack of fan support. Montreal might have a small band of very ardent baseball supporters, but empirical evidence suggests the region isn't a great baseball market.


I love this logic. Because it means that if the Tri-City Valley Cats ever struggle with attendance we can rightfully get major league baseball out of New York City.
   29. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 16, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4752434)
I love this logic. Because it means that if the Tri-City Valley Cats ever struggle with attendance we can rightfully get major league baseball out of New York City.

That's not what it means. Can you name another area like Montreal-Ottawa that's lost not one but two professional baseball teams in the same three-year period within the past 20 years? Professional baseball at all levels is absolutely booming in the U.S., with cities fighting with each other to keep or acquire even A-ball teams, and yet Montreal-Ottawa lost two teams at the highest two levels of the sport in the middle of the boom. Doesn't say much for the alleged love of baseball in that region.
   30. McCoy Posted: July 16, 2014 at 10:05 PM (#4752436)
I have difficulty believing that a country that can't properly safeguard its Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve deserves two MLB teams.

We had trouble safeguarding our Van Winkle supply!
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: July 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM (#4752437)
@24 LaRussa was a lawyer.

has a law degree...not sure he ever actually practiced...generally when you get your first pay check as a lawyer, all humanity immediately leaves your body and it takes at least ten years without practicing for you to become a non-useless piece of society.
   32. JRVJ Posted: July 16, 2014 at 10:47 PM (#4752457)
12, Monterrey, Mexico has been undergoing a terrible crime wave since last decade due to drug cartels duking it out.

I doubt that Monterrey is an option anymore.
   33. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 16, 2014 at 10:47 PM (#4752459)
Montreal-Ottawa lost two teams at the highest two levels of the sport in the middle of the boom. Doesn't say much for the alleged love of baseball in that region.

First of all, I didn't realize that Montreal and Ottawa were considered part of the same metro area. They are two distinct cities in different provinces with a lot of empty space in between. To me, they seem no more connected than, say, Los Angeles and San Diego, or New York and Philadelphia.

Second, this is entirely anecdotal and not really "proof" of anything, but Montreal is the only large city I have ever visited where I have seen adults playing "pick-up" softball in the park, just for fun. No teams, no organized league, just an assortment of guys who came to the park to play. This was in 2002, when it was supposedly a foregone conclusion that major-league baseball could not survive in Montreal.

Hockey will always be #1 in Montreal, but it seems like a sports-loving town and I think they would heartily support a baseball team if that team made an honest effort (and wasn't terrible).
   34. DL from MN Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:02 PM (#4752467)
12, Monterrey, Mexico has been undergoing a terrible crime wave since last decade due to drug cartels duking it out.

I doubt that Monterrey is an option anymore.


So you believe this will just continue forever? Chicago had a bad crime wave in the 20s but it kept two MLB teams.
   35. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4752468)
Can you name another area like Montreal-Ottawa that's lost not one but two professional baseball teams in the same three-year period within the past 20 years? Professional baseball at all levels is absolutely booming in the U.S., with cities fighting with each other to keep or acquire even A-ball teams, and yet Montreal-Ottawa lost two teams at the highest two levels of the sport in the middle of the boom. Doesn't say much for the alleged love of baseball in that region.


First of all, Montreal-Ottawa is by any reasonable definition two separate regions, not one. They are geographically, culturally, and even liguistically distinct. Combining the two is like imagining a Houston-New Orleans market or a Brussels-Amsterdam market.

What happened to the Expos was days away from happening to the SF Giants, who somehow now are one of the handful of most successful teams in the league.

How about this thought experiment: For 500 million dollars you can have an NBA franchise. You can choose to locate it in either Seattle or Oklahoma City, both of which are hypothetically vacant. Which do you choose?
   36. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4752469)
Can you name another area like Montreal-Ottawa that's lost not one but two professional baseball teams in the same three-year period within the past 20 years?

This is an oddly specific challenge, especially considering only one MLB team has moved in my lifetime. But how about the AAA Richmond Braves (last year 2008) and AA Carolina Mudcats (last year 2011)? They're approximately two hours apart so I guess that's considered the same "area."
   37. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4752471)
This is an oddly specific challenge, especially considering only one MLB team has moved in my lifetime. But how about the AAA Richmond Braves (last year 2008) and AA Carolina Mudcats (last year 2011)? They're approximately two hours apart so I guess that's considered the same "area."

Sorry, I guess that's actually a four-year period. I lose.
   38. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:14 PM (#4752475)
But how about the AAA Richmond Braves (last year 2008) and AA Carolina Mudcats (last year 2011)? They're approximately two hours apart so I guess that's considered the same "area."


Clearly the Richmond-Zebulon-Washington DC market cannot support baseball. Perhaps the Nationals should consider a move...
   39. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM (#4752477)
Clearly the Richmond-Zebulon-Washington DC market cannot support baseball. Perhaps the Nationals should consider a move...

Maybe the Washington team should move to Montreal... :)
   40. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM (#4752479)
The Vancouver(Canada)-Portland "area" lost both the Vancouver A's and the Portland Rockies in 2000 or so. What do I win?
   41. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:24 PM (#4752480)
First of all, I didn't realize that Montreal and Ottawa were considered part of the same metro area. They are two distinct cities in different provinces with a lot of empty space in between. To me, they seem no more connected than, say, Los Angeles and San Diego, or New York and Philadelphia.

I didn't say they were the same metro area; I said "region."

***
First of all, Montreal-Ottawa is by any reasonable definition two separate regions, not one. They are geographically, culturally, and even liguistically distinct. Combining the two is like imagining a Houston-New Orleans market or a Brussels-Amsterdam market.

And yet, both of them allowed their high-level baseball teams to leave within a three-year period.

Ottawa actually got a second chance last year, but they chose a low-level independent league team over a Double-A Eastern League team in order to save on stadium costs.

***
This is an oddly specific challenge, especially considering only one MLB team has moved in my lifetime. But how about the AAA Richmond Braves (last year 2008) and AA Carolina Mudcats (last year 2011)? They're approximately two hours apart so I guess that's considered the same "area."

Richmond lost its Triple-A team in 2008 but had a Double-A team by 2010; Zebulon, N.C., simply dropped down to the Carolina League from one year to the next. Neither really lost their teams in the same sense that Montreal and Ottawa have.

As for the example in #40, Portland moved up from the Northwest League in 2000 to the Pacific Coast League in 2001 while Vancouver is still in the Northwest League, so that's a bad example. (Portland subsequently lost its PCL team to El Paso (via Tucson), but I see Portland as worse candidate for MLB than Montreal.)
   42. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:27 PM (#4752482)
I didn't say they were the same metro area; I said "region."

What's your definition of "region" then? I bet the "Midwest" has lost two teams in a span of three years.
   43. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:34 PM (#4752485)
What's your definition of "region" then? I bet the "Midwest" has lost two teams in a span of three years.


You can certainly argue with Joe's point, but comparing Montreal-Ottawa to the entire Midwest is far more ridiculous than anything he's done.

And, of course, whatever geographical name you want to apply to the two cities that aren't an area or a region but are only 125 miles apart, it's also true it lost ALL of its teams,* not a few that moved from one Midwest locale to another.

   44. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:35 PM (#4752486)
And yet, both of them allowed their high-level baseball teams to leave within a three-year period.


This is completely ridiculous. Montreal no more "allowed" the Expos to leave than San Francisco "allowed" the Giants to leave in 1992.

In 1992 the Expos outdrew the Giants. They were a vastly more successful team on the field than the Giants. There were four separate ballot measures to build the Giants a stadium all of which were rejected by Bay Area voters. The team was sold to a group whose sole intention was to move to Florida, but the league stepped in and rejected the deal. The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason San Francisco has a team and Montreal does not is because the LEAGUE allowed one to happen and not the other.

In 1992 which is the more viable baseball market, by your definition -- San Francisco, or Montreal?
   45. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:37 PM (#4752488)
The league is a cartel; the comings and goings of teams do not necessarily relate to laws of supply and demand.
   46. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:39 PM (#4752489)
What's your definition of "region" then? I bet the "Midwest" has lost two teams in a span of three years.

The only recent Midwest League relocation that comes to mind is a team leaving Battle Creek, Michigan, and I haven't heard anyone clamoring to return professional baseball there. Regardless, I don't see how a few small cities in the Midwest losing A-ball teams would do anything to advance the notion that Montreal (metro pop. 3,800,000) and Ottawa (metro pop. 1,200,000) didn't get a fair shake when they had MLB and Triple-A teams, respectively.

***
In 1992 which is the more viable baseball market, by your definition -- San Francisco, or Montreal?

San Francisco, running away. The Bay Area has twice Montreal's population, more wealth, more baseball history, etc., etc.

Montreal had almost 20 years to get a better baseball facility built and it failed to do so. Even now, not a single potential owner has been identified in the region and a new baseball stadium remains nothing more than a fantasy.
   47. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:44 PM (#4752490)
Also, historically, what evidence is there that Houston is a more viable baseball market than Montreal? The only thing I can think of is that the county officials there were dumb enough to finance the upcycling of a train station into Enron Field.
   48. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:46 PM (#4752492)
You can certainly argue with Joe's point, but comparing Montreal-Ottawa to the entire Midwest is far more ridiculous than anything he's done.

Yes, that was kind of the point. Isn't that a normal rhetorical technique?

And, of course, whatever geographical name you want to apply to the two cities that aren't an area or a region but are only 125 miles apart, it's also true it lost ALL of its teams,* not a few that moved from one Midwest locale to another.

See, that's kind of why I wanted a definition of "region." If it's explicitly limited to 125 miles apart, fair enough. Except there's a team in Burlington, Vermont, which is closer to Montreal than Ottawa is. There's also a pro baseball team in Toronto, I think.
   49. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:46 PM (#4752493)
Also, historically, what evidence is there that Houston is a more viable baseball market than Montreal? The only thing I can think of is that the county officials there were dumb enough to finance the upcycling of a train station into Enron Field.

The fact that it's one of the five biggest cities in the U.S. and has had an MLB team since 1962?
   50. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:49 PM (#4752494)
San Francisco, running away. The Bay Area has twice Montreal's population, more wealth, more baseball history, etc., etc.


If this is true, then why did the people of San Francisco "allow" the Giants to leave for Florida?

Montreal had almost 20 years to get a better baseball facility built and it failed to do so.


Nice passive voice there. Who was offering to pay for this facility? Just because the people and politicians in Montreal aren't as stupid as the ones in Houston doesn't make it an inviable market for baseball.
   51. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:56 PM (#4752498)
If this is true, then why did the people of San Francisco "allow" the Giants to leave for Florida?

They didn't. They called the Giants' bluff re: building a new ballpark, but some local rich guys stepped up, bought the team, and built the new ballpark themselves. The latter two things obviously didn't happen in either Montreal or Ottawa.

Nice passive voice there. Who was offering to pay for this facility? Just because the people and politicians in Montreal aren't as stupid as the ones in Houston doesn't make it an inviable market for baseball.

Montreal didn't need to build anything. All it needed was one or more rich people to buy the team and keep it there. None did so.
   52. theboyqueen Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:57 PM (#4752499)
When did the Expos ever have a sorrier run performance and attendance wise than the current Astros? When did any team for that matter?

Your arguments are all tautological.
   53. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:58 PM (#4752501)
Yes, that was kind of the point. Isn't that a normal rhetorical technique?


A poor one.

See, that's kind of why I wanted a definition of "region." If it's explicitly limited to 125 miles apart, fair enough. Except there's a team in Burlington, Vermont, which is closer to Montreal than Ottawa is.


I don't think it's explicitly limited to 125 miles apart, but the idea that these are worlds apart is absurd. There was one pro team in Montreal, and it failed (and yes, for whatever reasons, it still failed there). Shortly thereafter, the next highest level of professional baseball, in a city not too far away, also bolted.

As for Vermont, really? His point is the audience for baseball in that part of Canada is not as strong as its supporters make it out to be. That an A Ball team on the other side of the border is thriving doesn't do anything to disprove that.


   54. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 16, 2014 at 11:59 PM (#4752502)
Montreal didn't need to build anything. All it needed was one or more rich people to buy the team and keep it there. None did so.

By this ongoing line of reasoning, would it also be true to say that Los Angeles can't support a pro football team? Because they had one (two) and they didn't do enough to keep it (them)?
   55. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:00 AM (#4752503)
When did the Expos ever have a sorrier run performance and attendance wise than the current Astros? When did any team for that matter?

Your arguments are all tautological.

The current Astros — which, incidentally, have a great facility and local owners — are an outlier historically and all but irrelevant to the discussion.
   56. theboyqueen Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:02 AM (#4752505)
They didn't. They called the Giants' bluff re: building a new ballpark, but some local rich guys stepped up, bought the team, and built the new ballpark themselves.


Good god. The LEAGUE rejected the first sale. Did you miss that part? You really can't see the difference here? The league rejected one move and endorsed another. That is the only reason SF has the Giants and Montreal does not have the Expos.
   57. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:05 AM (#4752506)
When did the Expos ever have a sorrier run performance and attendance wise than the current Astros? When did any team for that matter?


Is there another Expos franchise I'm not familiar with? The Expos finished last in NL attendance for seven straight years, bottoming out with a sizzling 642,745 paid customers in 2001.

Montreal had periods of decent attendance (also more periods of bottom of the pack attendance). In every other way, it was always one of the weaker franchises in the NL. It had terrible TV/radio deals. It couldn't keep players from leaving via free agency the first chance they got. Other franchises, like the Giants, may have stumbled into periods of crappitude, but the Expos were one of the weaker sisters of the NL for as long as I followed the sport (and I liked the Expos, and would love to see baseball return there).
   58. theboyqueen Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:07 AM (#4752508)
The current Astros — which, incidentally, have a great facility and local owners — are an outlier historically and all but irrelevant to the discussion.


The 1992 Astros were a .500 team that was dead-last in the league in attendance, below both the inviable Expos and the off-to-St. Pete Giants.
   59. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:09 AM (#4752509)
I don't think it's explicitly limited to 125 miles apart, but the idea that these are worlds apart is absurd. There was one pro team in Montreal, and it failed (and yes, for whatever reasons, it still failed there). Shortly thereafter, the next highest level of professional baseball, in a city not too far away, also bolted.

I'm still not sure why these two things are connected. Or why "that part of Canada" includes Ottawa but not Toronto.

Triple-A is kind of a weird level. If you give a AAA team to a city like Grand Rapids, Michigan, it would probably thrive. But if you put one in a city like Washington DC or San Antonio that considers itself "major league," the team might fail. Ottawa, as a world capital, may have deemed itself "too important" for a Triple-A team. Who knows?

I don't think the fact that a major league team and a AAA team left two Canadian cities 125 miles apart in a three-year span is strong proof that "that area" cannot possibly support a major league team.
   60. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:10 AM (#4752510)
As for Vermont, really? His point is the audience for baseball in that part of Canada is not as strong as its supporters make it out to be. That an A Ball team on the other side of the border is thriving doesn't do anything to disprove that.

Funny thing is, even Vermont hurts his argument. Vermont is a perennial bottom-five team in NY–P League attendance, but, unlike Montreal, the Lake Monsters have a rich local owner who's committed to keeping the team there, despite the fact he could make far more money elsewhere. (I believe he recently signed a 20-year (!) lease, which is all but unheard of at the A-ball level.)

***
Good god. The LEAGUE rejected the first sale. Did you miss that part? You really can't see the difference here? The league rejected one move and endorsed another. That is the only reason SF has the Giants and Montreal does not have the Expos.

Yes, and MLB assuredly would have rejected the move of the Expos if MLB thought things would have worked out in Montreal like they worked out in San Fran. It's not like the Expos bolted in the dark of night. The possible relocation of the Expos dragged out for years and years, with MLB rejecting Loria's attempts to relocate and giving Montreal chance after chance after chance to find a local owner and/or build a new stadium.
   61. theboyqueen Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:13 AM (#4752512)
From 1969-1993 Expos attendance looks to be about the same if not better than the Astros most years. The Astros never had a run of success quite like the early 80's Expos, who were 3rd in the league in attendance for three straight years.
   62. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:19 AM (#4752514)
I'm still not sure why these two things are connected. Or why "that part of Canada" includes Ottawa but not Toronto.


Because Toronto is much farther away from either of them than they are to each other.
Because (and this is just what I gather, never having been there) Ottawa has a stronger French-Canadian influence than what you'd find in Toronto, so it shares some similarities with Montreal in that regard.


But if you put one in a city like Washington DC or San Antonio that considers itself "major league," the team might fail. Ottawa, as a world capital, may have deemed itself "too important" for a Triple-A team. Who knows?


No one knows exact why it failed (likely a combination of a lot of things). But the simple fact that it did fail doesn't exactly scream "great baseball town." And I'd say the same thing about Portland.

I don't think the fact that a major league team and a AAA team left two Canadian cities 125 miles apart in a three-year span is strong proof that "that area" cannot possibly support a major league team.


He didn't say they can't possibly support a major league team. He said "empirical evidence suggests that it isn't a great baseball market." And he's right.
   63. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:20 AM (#4752516)
The 1992 Astros were a .500 team that was dead-last in the league in attendance, below both the inviable Expos and the off-to-St. Pete Giants.

And? The Astros had a super-rich local owner and built a new stadium later that decade.

***
I don't think the fact that a major league team and a AAA team left two Canadian cities 125 miles apart in a three-year span is strong proof that "that area" cannot possibly support a major league team.

It's not proof. But it's fairly strong evidence, especially when one considers the amount of time involved.
   64. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:21 AM (#4752517)
But if you put one in a city like Washington DC or San Antonio that considers itself "major league," the team might fail.

San Antonio has had a Texas League franchise basically forever. I agree with your bigger point about minor league baseball -- places like Zebulon, Pearl, Gwinnett, all three Burlingtons, etc. have baseball franchises instead of, say, Madison WI for reasons that don't at all translate to major league viability.
   65. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:26 AM (#4752520)
Funny thing is, even Vermont hurts his argument.

I'm not using Vermont as an argument for baseball in Montreal. Just as another piece of evidence that you guys are kind of making things up, e.g.:

* "Montreal-Ottawa is the only area that has lost not one but two professional baseball teams in the same three-year period within the past 20 years" - This is already one of those ultra-specific "the only players with 300 doubles, 260 HRs and 100 HBPs" types of groupings that ends up associating Mickey Mantle and Raul Ibanez, but most likely there are other "areas" that meet these qualifications, or come very close.

* "The Montreal-Ottawa '125-mile-radius area' lost ALL its pro teams" - Well, no, it didn't lose Vermont.

Anyway, I don't care about baseball in Vermont or Zebulon. But I don't understand why Triple-A's failure in Ottawa has anything to do with the viability of major-league baseball in Montreal.
   66. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:36 AM (#4752522)
San Antonio has had a Texas League franchise basically forever.

Yeah, what I meant to say is that it's almost paradoxical. It's not as simple as:

Major League: Biggest cities
AAA: Next biggest cities
AA: Medium-sized cities
A: Small cities

With bigger cities on the fringe of "major-league size" [EDIT: or in San Antonio's case, well above major-league size] it seems a AAA team is almost an insult -- but they'll happily support a lower-level team, because they still want a chance to watch pro baseball. So, for example, San Jose had/has a single-A team despite a population over 1 million. They'd happily take the Giants or A's, but I don't think they want a AAA team.

And Washington took the Expos/Nationals, but I doubt they would have supported a AAA team.

I don't know if Ottawa fits this description (honestly, they probably don't), but the failure of a AAA team could be for many reasons other than "the city doesn't like baseball enough."
   67. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:36 AM (#4752523)


* "The Montreal-Ottawa '125-mile-radius area' lost ALL its pro teams" - Well, no, it didn't lose Vermont.


I didn't say that. That area of CANADA lost both its pro teams. Hell, include Vermont and it doesn't change the point that comparing the loss of both (or 2/3) of a small geographical area's pro baseball teams is very different than losing 2/7ths of an area's teams.

Anyway, I don't care about baseball in Vermont or Zebulon. But I don't understand why Triple-A's failure in Ottawa has anything to do with the viability of major-league baseball in Montreal.


Surely there were fans (or could have been) fans of the Expos who lived somewhere between Montreal and Ottawa. Theoretically, when the Expos departed, they could have filled the pro baseball void by taking in a game in nearby Ottawa, thereby boosting attendance of that franchise. Yet that franchise also packed up and left. It's not proof of anything, of course, but it can be considered a data point in the question of that general area's viability as a baseball market.
   68. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:50 AM (#4752524)
Anyway, I don't care about baseball in Vermont or Zebulon. But I don't understand why Triple-A's failure in Ottawa has anything to do with the viability of major-league baseball in Montreal.

It's just a piece of evidence in the overall case against the region being a great baseball market.

In the last 40 years, only one city has lost an MLB team: Montreal.

In the last ~40 years, only three cities have lost International League teams: Ottawa, Richmond, and Portland, Maine (well, technically, Old Orchard Beach).

Richmond is a great MiLB market that only lost its IL team because its owner, the Atlanta Braves, wanted its 3A affiliate nearby; a Double-A team moved to Richmond a year after the IL team left. Portland has had a thriving Double-A team since 1994. Ottawa, on the other hand, now has ... a Can-Am League team.

When only two cities in the MLB/IL footprint have lost high-level professional baseball and not gotten it back, and both are within 125 miles of each other, that seems to speak volumes about the true level of baseball support in that region.

(There's been more movement in the PCL, almost all of which relates to three teams leaving Canada for the U.S., and two teams moving in and out of Tucson and Portland on a semi-regular basis.)
   69. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:53 AM (#4752525)
I didn't say that. That area of CANADA lost both its pro teams.

Oh, is THAT was you said? I apologize for my poor reading comprehension.

Surely there were fans (or could have been) fans of the Expos who lived somewhere between Montreal and Ottawa. Theoretically, when the Expos departed, they could have filled the pro baseball void by taking in a game in nearby Ottawa, thereby boosting attendance of that franchise. Yet that franchise also packed up and left.

This is true, but also see my points above about Triple-A -- I think that fans who have had a major-league team taken away from them are more likely to attend Single-A games than Triple-A games. And, frankly, I wouldn't blame Quebec/Eastern Ontario baseball fans if they felt like boycotting organized baseball altogether after the Expos left/were taken away.
   70. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:02 AM (#4752527)
So, for example, San Jose had/has a single-A team despite a population over 1 million. They'd happily take the Giants or A's, but I don't think they want a AAA team.

My guess is that San Jose has an A-ball team because that's what the Giants want more than what San Jose wants. I think those kinds of logistical issues are pretty common determinants for minor league franchise location. Once MLB took over the Expos, the future looked bleak for Ottawa, because nobody besides maybe the Blue Jays would want to deal with the international stuff for a minor league affiliate.

ETA: I live in Indianapolis, and I can say with some degree of certitude that we'd much rather have a AAA team than a Midwest League team.
   71. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:05 AM (#4752528)
Yeah, what I meant to say is that it's almost paradoxical. It's not as simple as:

Major League: Biggest cities
AAA: Next biggest cities
AA: Medium-sized cities
A: Small cities

For the most part, it is. There are fewer and fewer outliers at each level when it comes to market size, and several of those are due more to geography than anything else (i.e., they're not close enough to a league more commensurate with the city's market size, or they're blocked from moving into such a league for some reason).

With bigger cities on the fringe of "major-league size" [EDIT: or in San Antonio's case, well above major-league size] it seems a AAA team is almost an insult -- but they'll happily support a lower-level team, because they still want a chance to watch pro baseball. So, for example, San Jose had/has a single-A team despite a population over 1 million. They'd happily take the Giants or A's, but I don't think they want a AAA team.

When you look at the success of PCL baseball in places like Sacramento and Fresno, I'd bet San Jose would support a 3A team better than it supports its 1A team. The problem is, San Jose isn't going to spend $75 million on a 3A stadium while they're still trying to get the Athletics to move.
   72. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:06 AM (#4752530)
Oh, is THAT was you said? I apologize for my poor reading comprehension.


I figured it was obvious. I certainly didn't mention the radius from two different places to a third. (-:

This is true, but also see my points above about Triple-A -- I think that fans who have had a major-league team taken away from them are more likely to attend Single-A games than Triple-A games.


That's possible, but I'm curious if you have any evidence of this.

And, frankly, I wouldn't blame Quebec/Eastern Ontario baseball fans if they felt like boycotting organized baseball altogether after the Expos left/were taken away.


There's probably some truth to that. But as always, it's just one of many things going on.

That part of the country lost two professional baseball teams in a rather short period of time, including the only major league team to move in the last 40 years. Whether you want to call that an area or a market, whether that's happened somewhere else on the globe, whether some other cities had periods where they performed poorly or whether some other club may be surviving somewhere else somewhat close (if on a different side of an international border) really distracts from what seems like a pretty inarguable point Joe made - that those failures don't exactly speak well about Montreal as a baseball market.
   73. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:10 AM (#4752532)
In the last 40 years, only one city has lost an MLB team: Montreal.

In the previous 40 years, the cities that lost MLB teams included:

1. New York (two teams)
2. Washington (two teams)
3. Philadelphia
4. Boston
5. Kansas City
6. Milwaukee
7. Seattle
[EDIT] 8. St. Louis

The fact that a city lost a team does not mean that said city cannot support a team. Baseball has returned, fairly successfully, to Kansas City, Milwaukee, Seattle, and Washington.

When only two cities in the MLB/IL footprint have lost baseball and not gotten it back, and both are within 125 miles of each other, that seems to speak volumes about the true level of baseball support in that region.

But this Montreal-Ottawa thing seems like a largely artificial "region." Ottawa could just as easily be grouped with Toronto (it's a bit farther away, but it is in the same province and is anglophone). The Blue Jays are still around, and though they're not as popular as they were 20 years ago, they're still doing OK.
   74. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:25 AM (#4752536)
But this Montreal-Ottawa thing seems like a largely artificial "region." Ottawa could just as easily be grouped with Toronto (it's a bit farther away, but it is in the same province and is anglophone).


The shared province and language issues likely influence things, but it's a bit more than a bit farther away.

And there are all sorts of ways to group things, and this way is every bit as viable as any other. And in this grouping, the events that have taken place do not speak well for the grouping's interest in professional baseball. It's not definitive. But as evidence goes, it's definitely in the No column.

The fact that a city lost a team does not mean that said city cannot support a team. Baseball has returned, fairly successfully, to Kansas City, Milwaukee, Seattle, and Washington.


Definitely something to consider. That Montreal spent 40 years as one of the weakest franchises in the NL does distinguish it somewhat from the previous histories of KC and Seattle and Milwaukee, but it is worth noting.

Then again, I don't think he's saying that Montreal can't support MLB (and if he is, then that's where we part). Just that the evidence to date doesn't point to a great baseball market. Which strikes me as pretty incontrovertible, given Montreal's decades-long issues (problems that went well beyond simple attendance figures, which were generally poor outside one notable run).
   75. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:27 AM (#4752537)
In the previous 40 years, the cities that lost MLB teams included:

1. New York (two teams)
2. Washington (two teams)
3. Philadelphia
4. Boston
5. Kansas City
6. Milwaukee
7. Seattle

I thought "last 40 years" was a stretch, but I used it because that's how long it has been since the last pre-Expos move. Given how much MLB has changed, how expansion eliminated a lot of the relocation possibilities and restored baseball to cities that had lost it, etc., I don't see examples from pre-1970 as being very relevant.

The fact that a city lost a team does not mean that said city cannot support a team.

I agree. I haven't said that Montreal couldn't possibly support a team. But it seems inarguable that Montreal isn't a better MLB market than Washington, D.C., and "better than Tampa" isn't a great argument in favor of Montreal, especially when one considers Tampa's unresolved stadium problem. At best, we seem to be arguing whether Montreal should be first, second, or third on the list of potential expansion or relocation cities some five or 10 years from now.

But this Montreal-Ottawa thing seems like a largely artificial "region." Ottawa could just as easily be grouped with Toronto (it's a bit farther away, but it is in the same province and is anglophone). The Blue Jays are still around, and though they're not as popular as they were 20 years ago, they're still doing OK.

OK, but if we do that, then we also need to include the London Tigers, Hamilton Redbirds, St. Catharines Blue Jays, and Welland Pirates, all of which have moved to the U.S. That means your newly defined region has lost six out of its seven MLB and MiLB teams in the past ~25 years.
   76. theboyqueen Posted: July 17, 2014 at 02:13 AM (#4752545)
Joe, if you just define your regions as "Canada" and "The United States" I think you will win this argument.
   77. theboyqueen Posted: July 17, 2014 at 02:18 AM (#4752547)
And pardon me for not understanding how Montreal's era of SUCCESS as a baseball town gets waved away so easily. I don't see where Houston or San Diego (for instance) ever had an era of on-field or attendance success as robust as Montreal did in the early 80s.

Expos ca. 1982 is direct proof that Montreal can support major league baseball.
   78. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2014 at 02:27 AM (#4752548)
Joe, if you just define your regions as "Canada" and "The United States" I think you will win this argument.

Clearly, I would, but that's little more than a distraction from the narrower discussion re: Montreal and Ottawa. I'll happily concede that a lot of the earlier MiLB relocations from Canada to the U.S. might have been due more to the weak Canadian dollar ~25 years ago, high travel costs (esp. for Calgary and Edmonton), and the hassle of frequent border crossings. But none of those things are what led to MLB leaving Montreal in 2004, and they had little to do with Ottawa's weak performance and subsequent relocation in the 2000s.

And pardon me for not understanding how Montreal's era of SUCCESS as a baseball town gets waved away so easily. I don't see where Houston or San Diego (for instance) ever had an era of on-field or attendance success as robust as Montreal did in the early 80s.

Expos ca. 1982 is direct proof that Montreal can support major league baseball.

You're still arguing against something that no one, as far as I can recall, has claimed in this thread. The claim isn't that Montreal couldn't possibly support MLB; the claim is that Montreal did a relatively poor job of supporting MLB in the past, and that, as things stand in Montreal right now (e.g., no local ownership group, no ballpark plans, etc.), Montreal isn't remotely positioned to be a better market than any of the current MLB markets.
   79. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 02:30 AM (#4752550)
I don't see where Houston or San Diego (for instance) ever had an era of on-field or attendance success as robust as Montreal did in the early 80s.


First of all, its era of "success as a baseball town" was quite brief. It represented about a half dozen of its 35 years altogether.

More significant, attendance isn't the sole indicator of a market's strength. Even during its brief heydey, Montreal still had broadcast issues and difficulty retaining players (due to a variety of reasons). I'm not sure how you say small market in French, but Montreal always personified it in spirit, if not population.

Expos ca. 1982 is direct proof that Montreal can support major league baseball.


No one has said it couldn't. Joe merely questioned the hyper exuberance in the statement of Montreal's "terrific potential" as a baseball market. It can probably support MLB, but its rather long history of MLB participation, 1978-83 included, suggests it would be one of the league's bottom rung markets.
   80. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 17, 2014 at 02:42 AM (#4752552)
OK, but if we do that, then we also need to include the London Tigers, Hamilton Redbirds, St. Catharines Blue Jays, and Welland Pirates, all of which have moved to the U.S. That means your newly defined region has lost six out of its seven MLB and MiLB teams in the past ~25 years.

Yes, let's do that. So the Toronto/Ontario region has lost 86% of its pro baseball teams over the past 25 years, while the Montreal/Northern Vermont region has lost only 50% of its teams. Therefore, the Montreal region is clearly more viable for pro baseball. :)

I agree. I haven't said that Montreal couldn't possibly support a team. But it seems inarguable that Montreal isn't a better MLB market than Washington, D.C., and "better than Tampa" isn't a great argument in favor of Montreal, especially when one considers Tampa's unresolved stadium problem. At best, we seem to be arguing whether Montreal should be first, second, or third on the list of potential expansion or relocation cities some five or 10 years from now.

Listen, I'm not trying to argue that Montreal needs/deserves an MLB team. I just wanted to stand up for Montreal (a city that I've only visited twice, but really liked) and to snark a bit on the Ottawa-Montreal comment, which I still think is silly.

In my personal assessment of viable North American expansion cities, Montreal is probably not in the top 3, but is definitely in the top 10. It doesn't matter to me if Montreal gets an expansion team, but I would be happy for the former Expos fans who had their team taken away from them. (Fan non-support, IMHO, was not really the main reason the franchise left. A lot of that non-support was deserved, anyway -- the Expos clearly weren't making a great effort to build a fan base or even retain their fans.)

I definitely think a team could succeed in Montreal, given good ownership and management. It's a large population base, they're very much into sports and outdoor activities and entertainment, and the exchange rate is much more favorable now than it was when the Expos left. Plus, their strip clubs offer "contact dancing"! Shouldn't this be a big draw for free agents?!?
   81. Lassus Posted: July 17, 2014 at 09:05 AM (#4752590)
To me, they seem no more connected than, say, Los Angeles and San Diego, or New York and Philadelphia.

Ottawa is more connected with Watertown, NY than with Montreal.
   82. Ron J2 Posted: July 17, 2014 at 09:33 AM (#4752606)
#21 No, the US taxpayer pays for all MLB stadiums.
   83. Rusty Priske Posted: July 17, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4752609)
The Ottawa Lynx failed BECAUSE the Montreal Expos failed.

When Loria decided that there would be no TV coverage for the Expos any remaining Expos fans in Ottawa started blowing in the wind.

When Montreal had a popular team, Ottawa had a popular team.

When the Expos were gone, Ottawa now had a AAA team for Baltimore... and then Philadelphia. Is it a shock that the team didn't do as well once they were no longer affiliated with a major league team that the locals were cheering for already? (Having it be Baltimore was worse because they were a RIVAL of a team that locals were cheering for at that point...)

If, when the Expos started down the path to intentional failure, the Ottawa Lynx had becoem the AAA club for the Toronto Blue Jays, they might still be in operation today.


Oh, and that comment above that said the Ottawa chose not to have a AA team is incredibly misleading. The AA team demanded a huge financial commitment to stadium upgrades. Those upgrades ARE being done (I drive by the installation of a new walkway to the Transit station every day), but they couldn't meet the schedule demanded by the AA backers.

There is some hope it will still happen... but I stand by this: if they aren't affiliated with the Jays, the team will fail. If they ARE affiliated with the Jays, they won't.
   84. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4752626)
In my personal assessment of viable North American expansion cities, Montreal is probably not in the top 3, but is definitely in the top 10.


Assuming you're not including markets that already have team(s) (which have their own issues which make them very unlikely as expansion options), then I'd say Montreal is definitely in the Top 3. There really aren't any obvious expansion markets.

   85. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: July 17, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4752649)
I'd say Montreal is definitely in the Top 3. There really aren't any obvious expansion markets.
That's probably true.

Off the top of my head, the other North American candidates would be San Antonio/Austin, Portland, Charlotte, Monterrey, San Juan...and then...Vancouver? Las Vegas? Salt Lake City? Oklahoma City? Nashville? Columbus and Indianapolis are too close to Cincinnati, so they're out.

I think maybe you could make a case for Montreal being not as desirable as San Antonio/Austin, Portland, or Charlotte. I'm not sure I'd buy into it, but you wouldn't sound like a completely crazy person.

But you'd probably sound like a nut if you tried to make a case for Salt Lake City or Nashville over Montreal.
   86. Ron J2 Posted: July 17, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4752651)
#33 When I first started going to Expo games I could grab a bus and ticket (very reasonably priced) and be in my seat inside 2 hours. Dunno if that makes it one market.

It was only after Brochu took over that these packages ceased to be available and the Expos basically stopped marketing in Ottawa. And largely lost the town to the Blue Jays.
   87. Ron J2 Posted: July 17, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4752657)
Further to #83 (we're both from Ottawa), Ottawa initially set league attendance record.

I don't think anybody would argue against the notion that Ottawa sports fans are front runners. They did support an interesting team. And pretty much bailed on the team when the Expos started mailing in every aspect of running an organization.
   88. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4752671)
Assuming you're not including markets that already have team(s) (which have their own issues which make them very unlikely as expansion options), then I'd say Montreal is definitely in the Top 3. There really aren't any obvious expansion markets.

Well, this thread has taken an odd turn. I thought you and Joe K. were arguing that Montreal was not a viable expansion city. :)

Anyway, here are some cities that could potentially be considered before Montreal, not in any particular order:

* Portland
* Las Vegas
* Charlotte (or somewhere "Carolina")
* San Antonio
* Sacramento
* Monterrey
* Vancouver

All of them obviously have their drawbacks and I agree that there aren't any obvious expansion markets except for markets that already have teams.

FYI, here are the other Metropolitan Statistical Areas that are larger than the smallest baseball MSA (#39 Milwaukee):

13. Riverside-San Bernardino (probably too close to Anaheim/L.A.)
26. Orlando (MLB already has two struggling teams in Florida)
32. Columbus
33. Indianapolis
34. San Jose (usually lumped together with San Francisco/Oakland; more likely a relocation destination)
35. Austin-Round Rock
36. Nashville
37. Virginia Beach-Norfolk
38. Providence

Looking at all the cities listed above, the natural spot for an expansion team might be somewhere between Washington DC, Atlanta, and St. Louis. There's a lot of population there, but I don't think any one city stands out above the rest.
   89. alilisd Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4752672)
Then we will ride our unicorns along rainbow highways to the Big Rock Candy Mountain.


Watch out for the Bulls!
   90. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:16 AM (#4752687)

Anyway, here are some cities that could potentially be considered before Montreal, not in any particular order:

* Portland
* Las Vegas
* Charlotte (or somewhere "Carolina")
* San Antonio
* Sacramento
* Monterrey
* Vancouver


All might be viable to some degree. All would likely be one of the worst markets in baseball for a long time - just like Montreal.

That's been the argument the entire time. In Posts 78 and 79 we made it perfectly clear we weren't arguing that Montreal couldn't support MLB, just that Montreal's history doesn't support anything other than the idea that it's not a great baseball market.
   91. Joey B. Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4752688)
And one which should be changed. Don't be a dupe, don't be a pawn, make the fabulously wealthy owners and leagues pay their own way.

I've never quite understood exactly why Montreal would agree to build that hideous giant waffle iron, but wouldn't agree to build a decent modern baseball stadium. The waffle iron was built specifically for the Olympics, and the freaking Olympics are a million times the wasteful boondoggle that Major League Baseball is.
   92. Greg K Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4752693)
I've never quite understood exactly why Montreal would agree to build that hideous giant waffle iron, but wouldn't agree to build a decent modern baseball stadium. The waffle iron was built specifically for the Olympics, and the freaking Olympics are a million times the wasteful boondoggle that Major League Baseball is.

Perhaps the experience of the Olympics and the waffle iron soured them on paying for stuff like that.
   93. Random Transaction Generator Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4752701)
The waffle iron was built specifically for the Olympics, and the freaking Olympics are a million times the wasteful boondoggle that Major League Baseball is.


It wasn't always the case. The Olympics used to make money for the host city, until...well...Montreal.

"The Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby." - Jean Drapeau, Mayor of Montreal, talking about the upcoming 1976 Summer Olympics.
   94. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4752718)
Triple-A is kind of a weird level. If you give a AAA team to a city like Grand Rapids, Michigan, it would probably thrive. But if you put one in a city like Washington DC or San Antonio that considers itself "major league," the team might fail. Ottawa, as a world capital, may have deemed itself "too important" for a Triple-A team. Who knows?

Trivia question: What city had an American League team and an American Association team in the same year?

Click for the answer.
   95. theboyqueen Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4752720)
I've never quite understood exactly why Montreal would agree to build that hideous giant waffle iron, but wouldn't agree to build a decent modern baseball stadium. The waffle iron was built specifically for the Olympics, and the freaking Olympics are a million times the wasteful boondoggle that Major League Baseball is.


I want to play poker with you.
   96. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 17, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4752722)
Trivia question: What city had an American League team and an American Association team in the same year?


Kansas City, 2011-present. (-:
   97. esseff Posted: July 17, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4752788)
Kansas City, 2011-present. (-:


Actually not.
   98. Joey B. Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4752815)
I want to play poker with you.

I can't, at least not right now. I'm too busy going to Washington Nationals games.
   99. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4752820)
Trivia question: What city had an American League team and an American Association team in the same year?
The guy who owned both the AL and AA teams in question put them both in the same city in order to prevent this from moving in on his turf.
   100. DL from MN Posted: July 17, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4752858)
San Antonio is a prime NFL expansion target with Austin close by. They even have a stadium to play in while the new one is built. The NFL can still put a stadium in between the cities and have it work. Baseball works best in dense, urban areas; no more parks surrounded by parking lots. You'd need to be downtown in San Antonio for MLB.

Not sure if they have the population to support MLB, NFL and NBA but they're trending in that direction. If you include the eyeballs in Austin for the TV contract it looks pretty appealing for baseball.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(34 - 12:29pm, Dec 18)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4650 - 12:28pm, Dec 18)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(42 - 12:27pm, Dec 18)
Last: Monty

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(650 - 12:26pm, Dec 18)
Last: Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor

NewsblogOpening of Relations Could Bring Cuban Stars to Major League Baseball
(3 - 12:25pm, Dec 18)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogSource: Myers to Padres in 11-player deal with Rays, Nats | MLB.com
(8 - 12:24pm, Dec 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(78 - 12:04pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(50 - 11:49am, Dec 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9154 - 11:44am, Dec 18)
Last: zenbitz

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(156 - 11:32am, Dec 18)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(9 - 11:19am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals Celebration Tour
(2 - 11:17am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogNew York Mets Top 20 Prospects for 2015
(20 - 11:15am, Dec 18)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(10 - 10:36am, Dec 18)
Last: Hal Chase School of Professionalism

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(302 - 9:51am, Dec 18)
Last: I am going to be Frank

Page rendered in 0.8158 seconds
48 querie(s) executed