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

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Schulman: Selig’s office denies he has rejected A’s San Jose move

Bill Madden, off base? Jeepers…he hasn’t been wrong since ‘49 when he backed Newbold Morris for NYC mayor!

I’ve just been told by someone in the commissioner’s office that contrary to what a New York newspaper suggested yesterday, the A’s proposed move to San Jose is not on life support. And, it is not true that Commissioner Bud Selig and baseball owners have all but decided to uphold the Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose, which would preclude the A’s from going there.

Commissioner Bud Selig is here at Salt River Fields in Scottsdale to watch the Giants play the Diamondbacks, and I’m told he will not be addressing reporters. But the message I’m getting is that a column in the New York Daily News, which strongly suggested that Selig cannot get enough votes from owners to revoke the Giants’ territorial rights, does not accurately reflect the current situation.

The column quoted an unnamed baseball lawyer as saying other owners are reluctant to strip those rights and allow the A’s move to San Jose for fear of the precedent it would set in respect to their own teams.

Repoz Posted: March 04, 2012 at 04:39 PM | 102 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: athletics, business, media

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. Flynn Posted: March 04, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4073771)
Isn't the fact Selig has been sitting on this decision for years been enough proof that there's, at worst, a kernel of truth in what Madden's reporting?

But the message I’m getting is that a column in the New York Daily News, which strongly suggested that Selig cannot get enough votes from owners to revoke the Giants’ territorial rights, does not accurately reflect the current situation.


Yes, because the bewigged Satan so often rules decisively.
   2. Bhaakon Posted: March 04, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4073786)
But the message I’m getting is that a column in the New York Daily News, which strongly suggested that Selig cannot get enough votes from owners to revoke the Giants’ territorial rights, does not accurately reflect the current situation.


So then the current situation is that they have the votes, but are stalling indefinitely for some unknown reason?

   3. Danny Posted: March 04, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4073796)
From a Madden column last February:
If Sternberg is unable to secure a new stadium for the Rays in Tampa because of the depressed Florida economy and Wolff is denied in his effort to move the A's to San Jose, then baseball really needs to put both of them out of their misery and contract their clubs. Under those circumstances, Selig would be doing a positive service to the game. The very fact the Yankees had to resort to Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia as prospective starting pitchers to fill out their rotation is clear enough evidence as to how thin the talent level in baseball has become.

I certainly hope his source is wrong about San Jose. But, either way, #### that guy.
So then the current situation is that they have the votes, but are stalling indefinitely for some unknown reason?

I assume Selig would prefer to get as close to a unanimous vote as possible, like the 29-1 vote approving the Expos moving to DC.
   4. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: March 04, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4073798)
The very fact the Yankees had to resort to Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia as prospective starting pitchers to fill out their rotation is clear enough evidence as to how thin the talent level in baseball has become.
So, the Yankees--a smart team--paid less than $5 mil for 6 WAR...and this means that the talent level is thin?
   5. Dan Posted: March 04, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4073802)
Since this thread is about the A's, let me just say that I had no idea that Sean Doolittle is a pitcher now.
   6. Tripon Posted: March 04, 2012 at 07:09 PM (#4073806)
The column quoted an unnamed baseball lawyer as saying other owners are reluctant to strip those rights and allow the A’s move to San Jose for fear of the precedent it would set in respect to their own teams.


The precedent would be that it would allow teams to move in a certain geographical area WITH PERMISSION. I'm sure that even the owners realize that the less teams that need revenue sharing, the more money they can pocket from their teams.
   7. Danny Posted: March 04, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4073807)
Since this thread is about the A's, let me just say that I had no idea that Sean Doolittle is a pitcher now.
Yep. After missing two years with recurring knee problems, Doolittle came back last year and promptly tore a ligament in his right (non-throwing) wrist.

BA had him ranked as a top 200 prospect (#115) as a pitcher coming out of high school in 2004, but his bat surpassed his arm in college. The A's were high enough on him as a reliever to keep him on the 40 man roster, though I find it hard to believe that anyone would have claimed him had he been DFAd over the offseason.
   8. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4073813)
You'd think only a handful of large markets would oppose the As move to San Jose based on setting a precedent that the Nats already set anyway.
   9. TerpNats Posted: March 04, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4073817)
If Selig can't finesse an Athletics move to San Jose, what next? Keep the A's clinging on the vine in Oakland, where a stadium probably can't be built? Tell his college buddy to seek another market (Sacramento? Charlotte?)? Contract the A's (a pre-expansion franchise with a legacy dating back to Connie Mack) and Rays? (That would require yet another NL franchise to shift to the AL to keep things even.) Whatever, it's a real challenge.
   10. Tripon Posted: March 04, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4073825)
Welcome to your Portland A's.
   11. TerpNats Posted: March 04, 2012 at 08:25 PM (#4073827)
The Portland A's? Not if the Seattle Mariners can help it.
   12. Bhaakon Posted: March 04, 2012 at 08:33 PM (#4073830)
The precedent would be that it would allow teams to move in a certain geographical area WITH PERMISSION. I'm sure that even the owners realize that the less teams that need revenue sharing, the more money they can pocket from their teams.


They can already move into another team's territory with permission, the question is under what circumstances that permission is forthcoming. There are probably owners out there who would like that bar to be set very high, something like "with express permission, bought at considerable expense, from the current rights holder." While I'm sure that many owners would love for the A's to get a new park and thereby become exempt from receiving revenue sharing payments, the teams paying the most are also the ones most likely to be faced with a carpetbagging franchise down the road if the the reassignment of territorial rights becomes too easy.
   13. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4073840)
The very fact the Yankees had to resort to Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia as prospective starting pitchers to fill out their rotation is clear enough evidence as to how thin the talent level in baseball has become.


If only we could get to the halcyon pre-expansion years of seeing pitchers like Ed Whitson, Andy Hawkins, and Wade Taylor in pinstripes.


If Selig can't finesse an Athletics move to San Jose, what next? Keep the A's clinging on the vine in Oakland, where a stadium probably can't be built? Tell his college buddy to seek another market (Sacramento? Charlotte?)? Contract the A's (a pre-expansion franchise with a legacy dating back to Connie Mack) and Rays? (That would require yet another NL franchise to shift to the AL to keep things even.) Whatever, it's a real challenge.


The Honolulu A's? Although I think under MLB's arcane and ridiculous territorial rights system, technically they're in the Cincinnati Reds territory.
   14. fra paolo Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4073841)
You'd think only a handful of large markets would oppose the As move to San Jose based on setting a precedent that the Nats already set anyway.

The Nationals' precedent doesn't apply in this case. The Giants have territorial rights to Santa Clara County (of which San Jose is the county seat) as far as Major-League teams are concerned. The Orioles did not have territorial rights to the District of Columbia or any part of Virginia.

The dispute between the Orioles and Nationals was based on television territories. The Orioles were already broadcasting into Virginia, and the problem was easily solved by giving the Orioles the lion's share of the resultant combined sports network, MASN.

What I'd completely forgotten until doing some reading a few weeks ago was that at one point it was considered that the Angels might be contracted. The A's would have moved to Anaheim. At that time, Disney wanted to sell the Angels, so it made a sort of sense. Instead, Pohlad decided to cash in the Twins. I wouldn't be surprised if something like that solution was tried next time a team was for sale.
   15. Tripon Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4073845)
From the top of my head, the cities that are most viable for expansion are:

Las Vegas
Dallas
Portland
Oklahoma (You might laugh, but if the Thunder can work in OK, then we might need to revalue the entire midwest market.)
Nashville, Tenn.
   16. fra paolo Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4073847)
I think eight votes are needed to block such a decision. Let's guess at the following 'noes':

Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, White Sox, Giants

as big markets who wouldn't want a third interloper.

They only need to pick up one vote from any of the following:

Phillies (largest market not with a second team)
Nationals and Braves (Charlotte is probably close enough to cause television problems)
Rays and Marlins (keep a team out of Orlando)
Rangers and Astros (keep a team out of San Antonio)
Blue Jays (they have all Canada to themselves now, but Montreal could probably support a team if a new stadium were built)

It looks as if it is going to be very hard to get this done, even if one accepts that maybe a couple of those big-market teams aren't really worried about a team moving to their territory. (Eg, none of the LA or Chicago teams has much to fear.)
   17. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4073851)
From the top of my head, the cities that are most viable for expansion are:

Las Vegas
Dallas
Portland
Oklahoma (You might laugh, but if the Thunder can work in OK, then we might need to revalue the entire midwest market.)
Nashville, Tenn.


No way Vegas gets a team under Selig. Dallas already has a team. I think Portland, Oklahoma City and Nashville are all viable. So are New Orleans and Charlotte.

Rays and Marlins (keep a team out of Orlando)


With the current success of baseball in the Tampa area and the Miami area, I can't see a prayer of adding a third team in Florida.
   18. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4073857)

From the top of my head, the cities that are most viable for expansion are:

Las Vegas


"Hi, have we met?"

-Signed,
Housing Market Crash

I think Portland, Oklahoma City and Nashville are all viable. So are New Orleans and Charlotte.


Oklahoma City has the 44th largest MSA in the nation. New Orleans 46th. Both have just over a million people in their metro area, half the number of a metro like Kansas City, which is one of the smallest markets in MLB. That's viable?

Portland makes the most sense if you can get the Mariners on board. Charlotte is probably second, although that market is a bit stretched for sports now, and while there are a large number of good sized cities near Charlotte, they are too spread out to really count on for much support. If San Antonio continues to grow, they could support a team, but you'd be walking on Rangers/Astros territory.

IOW, expansion isn't happening. Interestingly, with no expansion on the horizon, we're about to surpass the longest stretch without any expansion since expansion began in 1961.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4073858)
Yep. After missing two years with recurring knee problems, Doolittle came back last year and promptly tore a ligament in his right (non-throwing) wrist.

BA had him ranked as a top 200 prospect (#115) as a pitcher coming out of high school in 2004, but his bat surpassed his arm in college. The A's were high enough on him as a reliever to keep him on the 40 man roster, though I find it hard to believe that anyone would have claimed him had he been DFAd over the offseason.


Is this a more recent trend, or has this always been the case of low a, double a players flaming out as hitters and being converted to pitchers? Growing up I had heard about Bob Forsch conversion, but it seems that past few years the number of players trying to change has increased dramatically. Maybe I'm more aware due to heavier reporting on the minors.
   20. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4073863)

Is this a more recent trend, or has this always been the case of low a, double a players flaming out as hitters and being converted to pitchers? Growing up I had heard about Bob Forsch conversion, but it seems that past few years the number of players trying to change has increased dramatically. Maybe I'm more aware due to heavier reporting on the minors.


I'm not sure when exactly they converted, but Mel Queen, Al Fitmorris, Dave Stieb, Troy Percival, and Trevor Hoffman all come to mind as position players that converted in the minors. Some of them may have been pretty early on.
   21. fra paolo Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4073868)
With the current success of baseball in the Tampa area and the Miami area...

They do reasonably well in television revenues, which is the all-important figure. Based on Doug Pappas' well-out-of-date numbers, even if you divided the combined revenues three ways, three Florida teams would still be making more than the likes of the Reds, Royals or Brewers.

I agree it is highly unlikely in the short term that Orlando would be an option. But we're talking about a long-term precedent here. In twenty years time, who knows? I suppose the LA teams would probably want the option to keep someone out of Las Vegas on that same principle.
   22. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4073870)
I'm convinced Portland is a viable market. Wealthy, educated, strong corporate base, good television ratings for baseball even without an existing team, no true alternative home team (I imagine most Oregon people would have no problem dumping the Mariners for a Portland home team). It wouldn't be a juggernaut, but it would work.
   23. Tripon Posted: March 04, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4073872)
The way I figure it, MLB should want a team in Portland before the NFL gets its act together and puts a team there.

   24. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4073878)
I agree it is highly unlikely in the short term that Orlando would be an option. But we're talking about a long-term precedent here. In twenty years time, who knows?


As an Orlando resident, this is a football town, first, last and always. There is about a zero percent chance we could get a true major league stadium built here unless it were 100% privately financed. The park the Rays use when they play their three games a year here is nothing more than a blown-up minor league park on Disney property.

I'd guess Orlando/Kissimmee is the biggest market in the US without either a major or minor league team (the nearest team is the Lakeland Flying Tigers).
   25. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4073879)

The way I figure it, MLB should want a team in Portland before the NFL gets its act together and puts a team there.


The mayor is on it.
   26. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4073882)
Welcome to your Portland A's.


Joke sports town. Couldn't even hold down a triple A team with a new park.
   27. Tripon Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4073883)

Joke sports town. Couldn't even hold down a triple A team with a new park.


They kicked out the Triple-A team for a MLS team. Which was the right decision.
   28. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4073884)
Las Vegas
Dallas
Portland
Oklahoma (You might laugh, but if the Thunder can work in OK, then we might need to revalue the entire midwest market.)
Nashville, Tenn.


I know we have this thread about every 4-5 months, Salt Lake and Utah are right at the top of the list, along with North Carolina (somewhere). When planting a team you have to look at income and pop growth trends. Utah is pretty high in both. NC is already pretty good, just lacking an obvious city.

As far as OKC, probably one of the few local economies that has done well in the past 5 years. As far as looking at the entire midwest market, the Midwest is already pretty well saturated with pro sports.....I don't think region matters as much as city/market. The midwest has a dozen or so cities/markets with +1.5 million residents (generally the bottom threshold for a franchise). A lot more than the Northeast.
   29. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4073887)
I'm convinced Portland is a viable market. Wealthy, educated, strong corporate base,


Portland wealthy? No it isn't. Stylish for hipsters maybe, but Portland and Oregon have had a poor decade economically.
   30. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4073888)
^ with especially poor unemployment rates.
   31. asinwreck Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4073891)
Time to do something bold. Ladies and gentlemen, your 2013 Havana Athletics!

Cespedes might not be too happy about that.
   32. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4073894)

They kicked out the Triple-A team for a MLS team. Which was the right decision.


There you go. This isn't a baseball town. If this was the right decision, this reflects on the fact Soccer is more viable than baseball in that town.

Salt Lake and Utah is a much better bet. It is growing much more rapidly and it actually is wealthier than Portland. It will be much larger in 2030 as well. In North Carolina, I actually think Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill is a better baseball market than Charlotte. But it's close.
   33. DL from MN Posted: March 04, 2012 at 11:02 PM (#4073898)
None of those markets is as good as Oakland
   34. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: March 04, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4073899)
#33 agree. San Jose is even better. It seems to me that would be a very good new baseball city. Better than Tampa and even Phoenix. The best reason is because SJ is actually wealthy but the TV market is basically unchanged. So fans can stay. MLB is just improving the ticket sales.

Being a little familiar with that area, I can see why SF Giants oppose. I took the train from SJ to Pac Bell for a game, it worked nicely, I was joined by many fans. I'm sure it would hurt the Giants ticket demand, even if just a little.
   35. Urkel's Boner Posted: March 04, 2012 at 11:58 PM (#4073917)
Austin Athletics has a nice ring to it.
   36. Adam M Posted: March 05, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4073921)
The biggest issue with Portland is that there is no way the city will build a publicly-funded stadium, and there is no way the Athletics will move somewhere without a publicly-funded stadium.
   37. Rennie's Tenet Posted: March 05, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4073925)
I'm not sure when exactly they converted, but Mel Queen, Al Fitmorris, Dave Stieb, Troy Percival, and Trevor Hoffman all come to mind as position players that converted in the minors. Some of them may have been pretty early on.


The Pirates converted Wakefield and a lefty reliever named Scott Ruskin in the late 80s/early 90s.
   38. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 05, 2012 at 12:42 AM (#4073929)
Other than San Jose, Montreal is probably a better option than any of the U.S. cities mentioned in this thread.

Portland, Nashville, and Las Vegas haven't even been able to get new Triple-A stadiums built (and an effort to get a ~$5 million short-season stadium in a Portland suburb recently failed).

For MLB's sake, I hope Madden is wrong, but the fact three-plus years have elapsed — in a situation involving Lew Wolff, Selig's college frat brother — tells us this isn't half as easy as a lot of pundits want us to believe.
   39. The District Attorney Posted: March 05, 2012 at 12:44 AM (#4073930)
I believe Sergio Santos was a shortstop, like, two years ago. And I think Bob Lemon came to the majors as a third baseman. Less impressively, Ron Mahay made the majors as an outfielder.

Oklahoma (You might laugh, but if the Thunder can work in OK, then we might need to revalue the entire midwest market.)
I dunno, is this expansion team going to almost immediately become a perennial powerhouse? I'm sure that factor has made a very large difference.
   40. Walt Davis Posted: March 05, 2012 at 01:39 AM (#4073937)
I dunno, is this expansion team

I know the A's are bad but ...

no, actually, that sounds about right.
   41. Tripon Posted: March 05, 2012 at 01:49 AM (#4073941)

For MLB's sake, I hope Madden is wrong, but the fact three-plus years have elapsed — in a situation involving Lew Wolff, Selig's college frat brother — tells us this isn't half as easy as a lot of pundits want us to believe.


Except Selig doesn't move even when he has the required votes, he only moves when he has consensus or near consensus among the owners. If anything is taking so long, its because there's only a few stragglers, not because there actually is a majority against the A's moving to San Jose.
   42. drdr Posted: March 05, 2012 at 01:58 AM (#4073942)
The best solution last year would have been to contract Dodgers and Astros and establish LA A's and Houston Rays.
   43. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:06 AM (#4073945)
Montreal getting a team again would be nice. What's the state of baseball fandom in that city right now? Are people clamoring for a team or have the fans just accepted the Jays and moved on?
   44. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:09 AM (#4073946)
Except Selig doesn't move even when he has the required votes, he only moves when he has consensus or near consensus among the owners. If anything is taking so long, its because there's only a few stragglers, not because there actually is a majority against the A's moving to San Jose.

Perhaps, but there was supposedly quite a bit of internal opposition to Jim Crane buying the Astros, but that deal went through. With all of the money at stake in Oakland, I doubt this is a matter of trying to get a 28-2 vote instead of a 25-5 vote.

The interesting thing is that, if Madden is right, the biggest-city teams would rather keep subsidizing Oakland than create some sort of precedent for changing territorial rights. This seems difficult to believe — Oakland and Tampa are the only real candidates for relocation, and San Jose would eliminate Oakland from that list — but obviously something is holding up the decision.

Montreal getting a team again would be nice. What's the state of baseball fandom in that city right now? Are people clamoring for a team or have the fans just accepted the Jays and moved on?

If there's any real clamor for a team, I haven't seen it in the media anywhere. A study commissioned by Montreal last year concluded that Montreal could only support an MLB team if it received revenue-sharing money.
   45. tshipman Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:13 AM (#4073947)
If Canada is an option for MLB, why not Mexico City? Most of Mexico probably roots for Los Dodgers, but Mexico City has something like 13 million people. As a long term growth bet, you can't get better than that.
   46. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 05, 2012 at 03:14 AM (#4073956)
Mexico City or Monterrey probably could support an MLB team, especially since the team would essentially become Mexico's team rather than the city's team, but Mexico is far too unstable right now for MLB to consider moving a team there.

With the U.S. economy in the crapper, this could have been Mexico's big opening, but the violence in Mexico has likely set the idea back five or 10 years.
   47. Flynn Posted: March 05, 2012 at 05:02 AM (#4073964)
If there's any real clamor for a team, I haven't seen it in the media anywhere. A study commissioned by Montreal last year concluded that Montreal could only support an MLB team if it received revenue-sharing money.


There are plenty of people in Montreal who would be overjoyed to have the Expos back and the media writes Expos articles all the time. A baseball stadium would need to fall out of the sky, but then again none of the other proposed MLB cities have one either. Montreal has the major advantage of not being poor, in a country riddled with drug war violence, needing a 100 mile wide "metropolitan area" to get to 2 million people, or being full of transplants. Considering the number of Sun Belt franchises across all sports that struggle to get butts in seats or eyes on TV, I think that's a major point in Montreal's favor.

Plus they would have access to the greater Canadian market beyond just the Montreal metro area, which are millions of eyeballs for TV.
   48. Lassus Posted: March 05, 2012 at 06:24 AM (#4073966)
I cannot for the life of me see one benefit to expansion anyhow. Why?
   49. Something Other Posted: March 05, 2012 at 08:33 AM (#4073979)
Montreal getting a team again would be nice. What's the state of baseball fandom in that city right now? Are people clamoring for a team or have the fans just accepted the Jays and moved on?
SSS, but when I was there a couple of years ago it seemed to me like there was still a real fondness for the Expos (and a real disgust with MLB). A .500 team would probably bottom out at 2 million in attendance. Montrealers do like their baseball. I suppose a team there could be crippled by a change in the exchange rate, and assuming they'd be going into the NL they'd have their hands full even with $ parity and a rotten Mets franchise.
   50. Flynn Posted: March 05, 2012 at 08:47 AM (#4073984)
The exchange rate is 1:1 right now, that's not going to be a problem. Taxes would be though. You see this a lot with the Canadiens. A lot of their problems are self-inflicted, believe me, but they basically have to overpay a player by 10% or more to match his income in a low-tax US state. The Erik Cole signing was a good example of this. A lot of people thought it was a decent acquisition but that he was overpaid. I'd argue that was the premium they needed to offer to get him to consider Montreal over a lower-taxed US state.

Of course baseball doesn't have a salary cap (and a Montreal team would never realistically challenge the de facto cap anyway) so an owner with deep pockets could circumvent that.
   51. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 05, 2012 at 08:56 AM (#4073990)
A .500 team would probably bottom out at 2 million in attendance.


They had a .500 team in Montreal a decade ago and drew 800,000. I'm guessing that you're assuming a "stadium falling from the sky" scenario, but I'm still skeptical.
   52. TerpNats Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4073995)
Would a Research Triangle location be deemed less of a threat to Atlanta than a Charlotte-based North Carolina team? (I know MASN has tried to enter some NC markets, but that likely could be settled with some sort of indemnity from a new franchise.) While Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill is certainly growing, with an affluent high-tech core fueled by UNC/NCSU/Duke and state government, my one qualm with the Triangle is proximity to secondary markets. You have the Triad to the west, but eastward you have largely rural eastern North Carolina. In contrast, Charlotte gives you the Triad to the north, Asheville to the west and Greenville-Spartanburg to the south.
   53. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:03 AM (#4073997)

Mexico City or Monterrey probably could support an MLB team, especially since the team would essentially become Mexico's team rather than the city's team, but Mexico is far too unstable right now for MLB to consider moving a team there.

With the U.S. economy in the crapper, this could have been Mexico's big opening, but the violence in Mexico has likely set the idea back five or 10 years.


That, and Mexico has a third world economy. If Canadian NHL clubs had to struggle with a slightly weaker Canadian dollar to the US dollar in the 90s, there is no way a Mexican ballclub can sell tickets in pesos, and pay contracts in US dollars.

From what I have heard, the way MLB dicked Montreal around pretty much killed interest in the city for baseball. And who is going to build the stadium?

The Research Triangle is too spread out IMO to really support a baseball team over 81 dates. You need a concentrated metro area, to try to rely on support from more than 30-60 minutes away is folly. Besides, they already rejected a public stadium initiative in a good economy when MLB was pretty much handing them an existing team (the Twins). Can't imagine they'd build one now.

SLC is way too small right now (half the metro size of KC) although it does have good long-term trends, its probably a decade or two away.

There really are no viable markets right now. Portland has some good long-term trends and should be viable soon if it isn't already. But I don't really see a great partner to go with it. And there's the matter of who would build a stadium in the People's Republic of Portland. NYC/New Jersey still makes the most sense for a third team, although that would face pretty huge obstacles of who would build a stadium and the territorial rights issues.

I still don't see what is wrong with Oakland besides the stadium.
   54. Lassus Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:14 AM (#4074005)
I don't mean to be a broken record, but what would be the current benefit to an MLB expansion? Other than more baseball, which we all love. Doesn't the current state of things and the economy dictate that oversaturation bears a greater harm than an tepid expansion good?

I can't figure out why anyone would even talk of expansion, but I admit freely I could be missing something.

I personally don't think that more teams translates to greater national interest and therefore what, more club teams? MLB would be better off setting up a league in China for the long game at this point. (Which I think they've started on, not the league, but the long game, as far as some limited baseball academies.
   55. TerpNats Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:15 AM (#4074006)
The Research Triangle is too spread out IMO to really support a baseball team over 81 dates. You need a concentrated metro area, to try to rely on support from more than 30-60 minutes away is folly. Besides, they already rejected a public stadium initiative in a good economy when MLB was pretty much handing them an existing team (the Twins). Can't imagine they'd build one now.
The Twins would have moved to the Triad area (Winston-Salem/Greensboro/High Point), which is neither as large or as affluent as the Triangle. Your comment about a "concentrated metro area" is certainly the biggest problem North Carolina has in attracting MLB, but either Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham could work, given some imaginative marketing.

And to Lassus: I think the angle here isn't so much expansion as it is finding a landing spot for the Athletics if the San Jose plans fall through entirely and staying in Oakland is dismissed.
   56. Danny Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:19 AM (#4074008)
The biggest issue with Portland is that there is no way the city will build a publicly-funded stadium, and there is no way the Athletics will move somewhere without a publicly-funded stadium.

The proposed stadium in San Jose would be privately financed, with the city selling the land to the A's at a ~50% discount.
   57. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:26 AM (#4074014)
Just to pile on Bill Madden for a minute, in his Gary Carter obituary, he claimed that "by all accounts", he'd given himself the "Kid" nickname. Really? Because it sure wasn't by all the accounts I was reading.
   58. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:31 AM (#4074016)
The Twins would have moved to the Triad area (Winston-Salem/Greensboro/High Point), which is neither as large or as affluent as the Triangle. Your comment about a "concentrated metro area" is certainly the biggest problem North Carolina has in attracting MLB, but either Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham could work, given some imaginative marketing.

If memory serves, before he died and went to Miser Hell, Pohlad admitted the whole Triangle thing was a ruse and a scam.
   59. just plain joe Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:37 AM (#4074021)
The Pirates converted Wakefield and a lefty reliever named Scott Ruskin in the late 80s/early 90s.


Hall of Fame pitcher Bob Lemon was an outfielder in the minors and actually made it to Cleveland as a backup OF after WWII before the Indians realized he wasn't going to make it as a hitter. They converted him to pitching and he won over 200 games.

Bucky Walters made the majors as a third baseman and had over 400 PAs in 1934 but the 77 OPS+ he put up convinced the Phillies (who had nothing to lose) to try him on the mound. Walters won 198 games in his career and had three straight seasons (1939-41) where he threw over 300 innings/year.

I'm sure there are others who would fall into this category as well. Baseball has a long history of taking players with a strong arm who can't hit and seeing if they can become a pitcher.
   60. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:40 AM (#4074024)
The Twins would have moved to the Triad area (Winston-Salem/Greensboro/High Point), which is neither as large or as affluent as the Triangle.

Which was either a bluff or one of the dumber ideas of my lifetime (speaking as a then resident of that area).
I don't think Charlotte (market already has NFL and NBA) or the Triangle (too spread out, already has hockey and a very vibrant college sports scene) are viable.

As far as Portland is concerned, MLS is more profitable than AAA ball - so the guy who owned both clubs sent one packing to make the facility (PGE) less multipurpose - the market could've supported both. The bigs might be pushing it, but they're more viable than most... if there were support to build a stadium.

Wish we hadn't salted the earth in Montreal.

More generally, AG#1F and Kehoskie have this about pegged.
   61. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4074030)
Isn't the government kicking in some for the new Quebec City hockey arena that the Coyotes will likely use? Montreal strikes me as the best choice for a new team, but there would have to be government money kicked in for a stadium, as everyone knows.

The barebones park in Montreal that was on the drawing board when they threw in the towel had some public money in it, if memory serves. And since the late 90s/early 00s, Canadian governments seem a little more persuadable to open up the checkbook for pro sports. There was some public money involved in the return of NHL hockey to Winnipeg, which has been an unqualified success MLB should look to if and when it thinks about Montreal again.
   62. TerpNats Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:46 AM (#4074031)
The Twins would have moved to the Triad area (Winston-Salem/Greensboro/High Point), which is neither as large or as affluent as the Triangle.

Which was either a bluff or one of the dumber ideas of my lifetime (speaking as a then resident of that area).
The concept probably was that it could draw from both Charlotte and the Triangle. But the distance would have resulted in three peripheral markets instead of one principal one.

In a way, it reminds me of those two Bill-and-Ted type guys who had a short-lived campaign to get the Expos to move to Norfolk. One wonders if they were funded by Cuban Pete as a dumbfounded way to keep baseball out of Washington.
   63. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4074033)
Salt Lake and Utah is a much better bet. It is growing much more rapidly and it actually is wealthier than Portland


SLC occurred to me as well. What sort of facility do they have there?

Same question with San Antonio.
   64. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: March 05, 2012 at 09:51 AM (#4074037)
How the hell can the Giants have territorial rights over a team a few miles away? Do the Yankees have territorial rights that would preclued the Mets from moving to certain parts of New York?
   65. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:03 AM (#4074043)
I don't mean to be a broken record, but what would be the current benefit to an MLB expansion? Other than more baseball, which we all love. Doesn't the current state of things and the economy dictate that oversaturation bears a greater harm than an tepid expansion good?
I don't think so. MLB is massively profitable and revenues keep growing. If there were an obvious market to expand into, I don't think there would be any problem with it, in general. As laid out, though, there aren't really any markets out there with the right combination of (a) market size (people + $$), (b) stadium plan, and (c) lack of territorial rights problems. But if MLB didn't have a team in Seattle or Miami or Minneapolis, expanding there would be a great idea.

I don't know where LionoftheSenate is getting his information about metro area size and affluence, but he's pretty much wrong about everything he's said. Portland is above average in median income and has a significant commercial base. The problem there is getting a park, as has been said. Salt Lake City is no richer than Portland and has about half as many people in a less dense metro area. Oklahoma City is the second-poorest metro area in the US with a population >1000000.

EDIT: Also, on Oakland, is there really actually anything wrong with the stadium? Obviously Lew Wolff would prefer to be given tons of free money by San Jose to build a park there that he gets to own, but would Oakland (a vibrant, growing city in its own right in a huge, wealthy metro area) really not be a huge draw if they won and marketed the team and the stadium?
   66. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:06 AM (#4074045)
I don't mean to be a broken record, but what would be the current benefit to an MLB expansion?


Every owner gets a piece of that sweet expansion fee, and there are always a line of billionaires waiting to be MLB owners.

What's in it for us fans? Oh probably nothing.
   67. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4074046)
If world history had been different, a team in Havana would be pretty perfect. I hope that there's an MLB club there in, I dunno, 25 years?
   68. SoSH U at work Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4074049)
I don't mean to be a broken record, but what would be the current benefit to an MLB expansion?


What's in it for us fans? Oh probably nothing.

Just one that I can think of: Each league having an even number of teams, so as to avoid the impending ugliness of interleague play every damn day of the year.
   69. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4074053)
What's in it for us fans? Oh probably nothing.
Well, for "us fans" who live in cities where we can go watch baseball games this summer, not a lot. For "us fans" who live in Portland or Montreal or wherever, they get baseball. Baseball's great.
   70. JE (Jason) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4074058)
EDIT: Also, on Oakland, is there really actually anything wrong with the stadium? Obviously Lew Wolff would prefer to be given tons of free money by San Jose to build a park there that he gets to own, but would Oakland (a vibrant, growing city in its own right in a huge, wealthy metro area) really not be a huge draw if they won and marketed the team and the stadium?

The Coliseum was a gorgeous place to play/watch a game until G*d-awful Mount Davis was constructed in order to secure the return of the Raiders.
   71. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4074061)
Mel Queen

Mel Queen converted in the majors, which is even more impressive. He was a position player in the majors in 64, spent most of 1965 as a hitter in AAA (not pitching an inning), and then in 1966 both pitched and played outfield in the majors. The next year, his first as a fulltime pitcher, he won 17 games with a 137 ERA+. That was the peak of his career, though.
   72. The District Attorney Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4074062)
I don't mean to be a broken record, but what would be the current benefit to an MLB expansion?
As mentioned, it of course would not primarily be done for the benefit of fans of the existing teams. But I do think the leagues and divisions line up better for various reasons with 32 teams than with 30.

I'll throw Louisville into the mix. I think baseball fanaticism is more important than sheer market size. Plus it'd probably make Sam M. happy. Sacramento's AAA team draws very well -- I think that'd work also. Hard to see them building another sports stadium any time soon, of course.

Speaking of stadia, this of course is the big problem. I think there has been a real sea change in the public's attitude toward financing them. I think the evidence that it don't help none has largely sunk in. And, although I'm sure a full economic recovery would encourage some people to open up the wallets, I don't think it's primarily about that; I think the objection has become philosophical. I suppose betting on corruption and robber barons banding together to fleece the public is usually a safe bet, but I'm still not sure it's gonna happen.
   73. Lassus Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4074068)
And to Lassus: I think the angle here isn't so much expansion as it is finding a landing spot for the Athletics if the San Jose plans fall through entirely and staying in Oakland is dismissed.

Dur. Kind of missed that part of it.

Everyone else, thanks, may or may not counter-argue when I read.
   74. zack Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4074073)
I always wonder how cheaply you could make a stadium if you didn't go for all the frills, and how much the frills actually affect attendance.

Telcom Park in SF is the only largely-privately funded stadium I can think of, but that's pretty frilly despite paying with their own money, no?
   75. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4074074)
Is there any reason at all to believe that minor league attendance translates to Major League success? Aren't they completely different animals?


Speaking of stadia, this of course is the big problem. I think there has been a real sea change in the public's attitude toward financing them. I think the evidence that it don't help none has largely sunk in. And, although I'm sure a full economic recovery would encourage some people to open up the wallets, I don't think it's primarily about that; I think the objection has become philosophical. I suppose betting on corruption and robber barons banding together to fleece the public is usually a safe bet, but I'm still not sure it's gonna happen.


I think your best bet is a city that is on the rise population-wise that wants to see itself as "major league." Portland would be a good candidate, except they just don't see subsidizing professional sports as part of their culture. I can see OKC or Vegas approving a stadium, but the demos and economies in those cities just isn't there. I don't know SLC politics very well, but they were behind the Olympics, so I can kind of see them pushing for a baseball stadium to put themselves on the map.

Certainly there has been a greater public resistance to corporate handouts, but you still see it happening in cities as they feel they have to compete with other cities to be the next great thing.
   76. just plain joe Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4074081)
I'll throw Louisville into the mix.


Louisville is only about 100 miles from Cincinnati, I suspect that the Reds would object to a team there even it it were economically viable.
   77. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4074082)
I always wonder how cheaply you could make a stadium if you didn't go for all the frills, and how much the frills actually affect attendance.

The way that makes the most sense to me is to have the public build the actual baseball part -- the normal seats, the press box, most or all of the foundation, everything necessary to stage a baseball game -- and have the team build all the parts that make a ballpark a mallpark -- including luxury suites and all the bars, "private clubs," food court stuff, and retail outlets.

I can see at least the outlines of something sensible for the public in that arrangement, but sensible doesn't have much to do with it.
   78. Bug Selig Posted: March 05, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4074086)
Baseball has a long history of taking players with a strong arm who can't hit and seeing if they can become a pitcher.


You hearing this, Leyland? Even last year - without pitching an inning! - Inge had 0.6 more WAR as a pitcher than as a position player.
   79. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4074092)
As far as Portland is concerned, MLS is more profitable than AAA ball


That's a sad commentary on Portland.
   80. The District Attorney Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4074102)
I always wonder how cheaply you could make a stadium if you didn't go for all the frills, and how much the frills actually affect attendance.
"Attendance" doesn't matter, only money.
   81. base ball chick Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4074106)
i know that buddy boy was all eagah to get a third team in tejas don't ask me why, but even he finally saw the light

1 - san antonio has a large POPULATION but most of it is poor and there is no corporate base. should i mention that the AA team doesn't draw flies? anyhow, i suppose they would try to build the stadium somewhere in the north and not too far from the airport although this doesn't have the "revitalization" thingy goin on. and it's well over an hours drive from downtown austin and the traffic on weeknights is BAD

2 - which is also the reason that a stadium in austin would be difficult. where you gonna put it?

3 - both the rangers and the astros gonna scream - not that buddy boy cares about the astros screaming as we are now an afterthought, but you can't get ol nolan ryan upset...
   82. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 05, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4074111)
That's a sad commentary on Portland.

Has more to do with the MLS financial model. Here's field of schemes coverage of how the Timbers came to be and the Beavers came to, um, un-be.
   83. DL from MN Posted: March 05, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4074271)
>> I cannot for the life of me see one benefit to expansion

> If there were an obvious market to expand into

There is one obvious motivation - increasing television audience and TV revenue with more programming. The slam-dunk best way to increase TV audience for MLB is expansion to Mexico. Carlos Slim is a baseball fan and he owns telecommunications firms who would benefit from showing games. He's also the one guy in Mexico who could fund the stadium by himself and not even notice it. His cousin Alfredo Harp Helu owns two baseball teams and would almost certainly be part of the ownership. The owners of TV Azteca and Televisa (Pliego and Jean) may also have interest but I imagine they would be outbid. Mexico City would make sense except the travel logistics are terrible and the city is at high elevation. Monterrey makes much more sense for the team location.

The other great way to increase TV audience is to put a third team in New York and get more mileage out of the New York television audience. The key is they would have to be put in a different division than the Yankees or the Mets. Three pennant races to follow in NY instead of two. More playoff games with New Yorkers watching.
   84. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4074298)
Thanks, bbc. I was somewhat curious, mainly because of the Spurs' success. I haven't been to San Antonio since I was 8, for HemisFair; I mainly remember lots & lots & lots of crickets. And what had to have been my first exposure to any version of Mexican food. And my mother being peeved because I somehow managed to lose 3 pairs of sunglasses that week.
   85. DL from MN Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4074306)
San Antonio isn't a good MLB market but my guess is it would be a fabulous NFL market. Texas can't get enough football. The NFL should consider expanding into just about every viable sports market. LA, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Portland, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Orlando and Las Vegas.
   86. The District Attorney Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4074310)
Carlos Slim is a baseball fan
And also my pimp name.
   87. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4074314)

San Antonio isn't a good MLB market but my guess is it would be a fabulous NFL market. Texas can't get enough football. The NFL should consider expanding into just about every viable sports market. LA, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Portland, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Orlando and Las Vegas


IIRC, the Alamodome was built for the express purpose of luring an NFL team.
   88. JE (Jason) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4074324)
San Antonio isn't a good MLB market but my guess is it would be a fabulous NFL market. Texas can't get enough football.

IIRC, the Alamodome was built for the express purpose of luring an NFL team.

Nine years have elapsed since the building opened. I think it's now safe to say that the NFL didn't get the memo.

   89. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4074330)
Its actually been nineteen years.

I remember the Vikings flirting with the idea of relocating there, but now with LA not having a team and possibly building a stadium, San Antonio will take a big back seat to La-La Land.
   90. TerpNats Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4074331)
There is one obvious motivation - increasing television audience and TV revenue with more programming. The slam-dunk best way to increase TV audience for MLB is expansion to Mexico. Carlos Slim is a baseball fan and he owns telecommunications firms who would benefit from showing games. He's also the one guy in Mexico who could fund the stadium by himself and not even notice it. His cousin Alfredo Harp Helu owns two baseball teams and would almost certainly be part of the ownership. The owners of TV Azteca and Televisa (Pliego and Jean) may also have interest but I imagine they would be outbid. Mexico City would make sense except the travel logistics are terrible and the city is at high elevation. Monterrey makes much more sense for the team location.
You'd end up with a Wilson Ramos situation several times each season; it's simply too dangerous in Mexico these days.

The only options I see in Latin America a few years down the road are San Juan (if the Puerto Rican economy recovers) and Havana (after a few post-Castro years, to evaluate stability). And even both of those are longshots.
   91. Nasty Nate Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4074341)
It seems that whatever boon the owners would get from the expansion fee etc, they would lose via salary inflation. I think the owners' greed with the '98 expansion backfired on them.
   92. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 05, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4074355)
think the owners' greed with the '98 expansion backfired on them.


Didn't they expand in part to cover the restitution fees from Collusion II? Or was that 1993? I also want to say Vince Namoli threatened litigation if they didn't expand to Tampa Bay.
   93. DL from MN Posted: March 05, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4074362)
You'd end up with a Wilson Ramos situation several times each season


I've seen that speculation but I don't see that is justified. There are professional athletes from Mexico who live there during the offseason. There have even been some isolated incidents but I have confidence that MLB can provide security for the athletes.
   94. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 06, 2012 at 01:32 AM (#4074794)
That's a sad commentary on Portland.


It's not even close to the top of the list of sad things about Portland.
   95. Juan V Posted: March 06, 2012 at 03:59 AM (#4074807)
DH baseball at Mexico City (a thousand metres higher than Denver, IIRC). Do it!
   96. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 06, 2012 at 06:15 AM (#4074811)
DH baseball at Mexico City (a thousand metres higher than Denver, IIRC). Do it!


Would be kinda cool, if they made an old school 500+ ft CF fence though...
   97. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 06, 2012 at 06:17 AM (#4074812)
It's not even close to the top of the list of sad things about Portland.

Yeah, the list of sad things about that place is pretty long... Wait! Did you say Portland? Never mind, I thought you said Pittsburgh...
   98. Lassus Posted: March 06, 2012 at 06:24 AM (#4074814)
It's not even close to the top of the list of sad things about Portland.

Portland deserves all the mockery, and is still a great place to live.
   99. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 06, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4074858)
"Do you remember the '90s? You know, people were talking about getting piercings and getting tribal tattoos? And people were singing about saving the planet and forming bands? There's a place where that idea still exists as a reality, and I've been there!
   100. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 06, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4074897)
It's not even close to the top of the list of sad things about Portland.


Man, if you read Elinor Langer's A Hundred Little Hitlers: The Death of a Black Man, the Trial of a White Racist, and the Rise of the Neo-Nazi Movement in America*, as I did a few weeks ago, you'll come to suspect the place (& indeed the whole of Oregon) is so steeped in racism that it makes darkest Alabama (where I am) look like the Shining City upon the Hill. I found that pretty interesting, especially considering the place's pwecious widdle hipster rep.


*Albeit an advance reader's proof, not that I expect much changed between then & publication.
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
rr
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4829 - 6:48pm, Dec 18)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogMatt Kemp's arthritic hips hold up deal with Padres
(37 - 6:47pm, Dec 18)
Last: Moe Greene

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(679 - 6:45pm, Dec 18)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(57 - 6:26pm, Dec 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(98 - 6:25pm, Dec 18)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogHow Will MLB Handle Big Changes With Cuba? - BaseballAmerica.com
(2 - 6:13pm, Dec 18)
Last: TDF, situational idiot

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(56 - 6:03pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(19 - 5:33pm, Dec 18)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(20 - 5:31pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1347 - 5:29pm, Dec 18)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(18 - 5:27pm, Dec 18)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogJoe Henderson's HOF Ballot
(49 - 5:15pm, Dec 18)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(13 - 5:11pm, Dec 18)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(38 - 4:52pm, Dec 18)
Last: God

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1901 Discussion
(29 - 4:50pm, Dec 18)
Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy

Page rendered in 0.7722 seconds
48 querie(s) executed