I hear Vegas is looking.

Move the Rays to Montreal and the Marlins to Mexico City. Internationalize the game and be rid of the Florida problem in one fell swoop.

What was MLB even thinking when they awarded those two franchises? Did it think that those Winter vacationers who fill the stands in Spring training were going to come back in the Summer? The Rays have never drawn 2 million since their first year, and have been under 1.5 million for 17 of their 25 years of existence. And the last time the Marlins even drew a bleeping million was in 2017.

What was MLB even thinking when they awarded those two franchises? Did it think that those Winter vacationers who fill the stands in Spring training were going to come back in the Summer? The Rays have never drawn 2 million since their first year, and have been under 1.5 million for 17 of their 25 years of existence. And the last time the Marlins even drew a bleeping million was in 2017.

You know a lot of people actually live there year round, right. It's not 1945.

The Rays' TV ratings are fine. Their radio ratings are fine. They have a decent fanbase. They don't draw in large part because they have the league's worst ballpark, by far, in a bad location. And the Marlins have spent most of their existence giving the finger to their fans.

I don't know if the Marlins can ever overcome that history or if a great location for a ballpark even exists in Tampa, but your assumption that these markets had no chance for success is just nonsense. There are seven other professional sports teams (including two hockey franchises) in Florida - the third most populous state. Not putting a single baseball team there would have been ridiculous.

The Rays in Miami would probably draw well enough to not be a problem. But since they can't move to Miami they should leave the state (or go to Orlando)

You know a lot of people actually live there year round, right. It's not 1945.

So how many more years of bottom of the league attendance will it take to convince you that population alone is no guarantee of gate success?

The Rays' TV ratings are fine. Their radio ratings are fine. They have a decent fanbase. They don't draw in large part because they have the league's worst ballpark, by far, in a bad location. And the Marlins have spent most of their existence giving the finger to their fans.

Maybe that just says that MLB was seriously derelict in putting a franchise in St. Pete, knowing what the the park and its location were like. You can argue that a better stadium in a better location would resolve the issue, but how much longer should good money be thrown after bad? Oakland fans have demonstrated far more often than Marlins or Rays fans that they're willing to support their team, but that didn't stop the A's from relocating.

I don't know if the Marlins can ever overcome that history or if a great location for a ballpark even exists in Tampa, but your assumption that these markets had no chance for success is just nonsense. There are seven other professional sports teams (including two hockey franchises) in Florida - the third most populous state. Not putting a single baseball team there would have been ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as handling it the way that they did. MLB's entire line of reasoning seems to have begun and ended with simply counting the population numbers and assuming all else would fall in place.

So how many more years of bottom of the league attendance will it take to convince you that population alone is no guarantee of gate success?

You're the one who brought up snowbirds as if they're the only people who live in Florida.

Maybe that just says that MLB was seriously derelict in putting a franchise in St. Pete, knowing what the the park and its location were like. You can argue that a better stadium in a better location would resolve the issue, but how much longer should good money be thrown after bad? Oakland fans have demonstrated far more often than Marlins or Rays fans that they're willing to support their team, but that didn't stop the A's from relocating.

The park was built 10 years before they got there. It probably wasn't meaningfully worse than a lot of parks at that time, and I'm not sure MLB could predict how the location would affect attendance.

You can argue that a better stadium in a better location would resolve the issue, but how much longer should good money be thrown after bad?

For at least as long as it's been thrown at Oakland, Cleveland, etc. Some teams are going to draw fewer fans than other teams. It's baked in. Tampa will probably lag in attendance until it gets a new park, and even then it will probably be in the lower half. But if you move them, you're just creating another small market team elsewhere (as much as BTFers love to mythologize Montreal, but the market, overall, was MLB's weakest for decades).

Oakland fans have demonstrated far more often than Marlins or Rays fans that they're willing to support their team, but that didn't stop the A's from relocating.

Oakland has rarely supported the A's in 50-plus years there.

Not as ridiculous as handling it the way that they did. MLB's entire line of reasoning seems to have begun and ended with simply counting the population numbers and assuming all else would fall in place.

Pretty much. And the idea Miami shouldn't have been granted an MLB franchise is inane.

MLB gave Tampa Bay a team because they were sued when they blocked the Giants from moving there.

Oakland has rarely supported the A's in 50-plus years there.

To wit:

1971-1975 attendance: 7th (out of 12), 5th, 8th, 11th, 6th.

1988-1992: 7th (out of 14), 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Much better

2000-2004: 11, 7, 8, 6, 7

2012-2014: 13, 9 (out of 15), 10

2018-19: 13, 10

Their most successful seasons. Usually 1st place. Some WC playoff appearances. They were well supported during the bash brothers era. The rest of the time, not so much, rarely cracking the 50th percentile. 11th out off 12 teams in 1974, their 4th straight division title and 3rd straight championship. They were a playoff team in 2020, won 86 in 2021 and drew 700,000. The Rays are worse attendance wise, but it is a leap to say that the A's, outside of one small window, were well supported. And that window was longer ago than the Rays have been in existence.

When exactly did the idea arise that Miami can't support a team? I don't remember anyone saying that when they were awarded a franchise - Miami/Fort Lauderdale was the 11th largest MSA in 1990, and the area was supposed to have a rich baseball tradition between spring training and the Cuban league. Then, out of the gate, they ranked 5th, 5th, 8th, 10th and 5th (those are all NL-only) in attendance, which I don't think anyone pointed to as problematic. (Here's a fun fact for you: In their first three years of existence, the Marlins outdrew the Yankees every single year.)

Attendance collapsed after Huizenga's fire sale in the 1997-98 off-season and has never recovered. Was it ever written before 1998 that South Florida couldn't support a team?

Attendance collapsed after Huizenga's fire sale in the 1997-98 off-season and has never recovered. Was it ever written before 1998 that South Florida couldn't support a team?

No. It's just Andy and his hatred or everything Florida.

that didn't stop the A's from relocating.

I wouldn't tear up my "Las Vegas plan fizzles" ticket just quite yet

It probably wasn't meaningfully worse than a lot of parks at that time

I went to a Devil Rays game at Tropicana Field in 1998.

I didn't think any park could make Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium look decent. I was wrong.

I fully believe that if they could have built an open-air stadium on the water in Tampa/St Pete, baseball in central Florida would have been a lot different. It's a shame, really.

who fill the stands in Spring training

I've often wondered about the effect of spring training on MLB attendance in Florida. People in Florida definitely like to watch baseball but maybe they prefer watching it in person in March when the weather is nice and stay home during the summer when it's hot out. I can't imagine Twins attendance would be as good if it had to compete with spring training and 14 minor league teams.

Internationalize the game and be rid of the Florida problem in one fell swoop.

Despite Andy’s antipathy toward all things Florida, it would be quite foolish for MLB to give up on the 3rd largest state in the country (and still growing!).

Maybe that just says that MLB was seriously derelict in putting a franchise in St. Pete, knowing what the the park and its location were like. You can argue that a better stadium in a better location would resolve the issue, but how much longer should good money be thrown after bad?

The park was built 10 years before they got there. It probably wasn't meaningfully worse than a lot of parks at that time, and I'm not sure MLB could predict how the location would affect attendance.

Really? No good public transportation, and backed up bridges that separate the Trop from Tampa? That was unknown? Have you ever tried crossing those bridges during the rush hour?

----------

Misirlou,

As you note, the A's draw well when they've competed, and poorly when they don't. They've also been stuck with a series of tightfisted owners and a ballpark....well, no need to pile on about the Coliseum.

Whereas the Rays haven't been able to draw even when for the past 16 years they've been competitive nearly every year, with fresh talent showing up on a regular basis. Big difference.

The problem with the Rays may be more the park / location than the potential fan base, but what exactly is Tampa / St. Pete doing to address that? The article above is vague about specifics.

And yes, Miami has been the victim of dreadful ownership. But again, why does MLB tolerated situations like this, and let them go on unresolved for year after year after year?

--------

It's just Andy and his hatred or everything Florida.

I'll freely concede that my love for the entire state is about on the level of my love for its governor. It's a bush league state with Hungarian-style politics. But unless someone addresses the Rays' stadium problem and the Marlins' ownership, if I were MLB I'd be seriously looking at Montreal and Mexico City, if for no other reason than to make the seriousness of the problem clear to all concerned. Those attendance figures don't lie.

-------

I've often wondered about the effect of spring training on MLB attendance in Florida. People in Florida definitely like to watch baseball but maybe they prefer watching it in person in March when the weather is nice and stay home during the summer when it's hot out. I can't imagine Twins attendance would be as good if it had to compete with spring training and 14 minor league teams.

That was my initial reaction when Florida was awarded those two franchises. It's still an open question. You have to wonder what it's like being a Rays player and knowing that the only times your team seems to draw, half the fans are cheering for your opponents.

It's not a heat thing, its a central/south Florida thing. We have a huge sample size in the minors that shows that teams in places that are hot as #### can draw fine, even with outdoor stadia.

https://ballparkdigest.com/2022/10/12/2022-milb-attendance-by-league/

But look at the FSL - the attendance sucks, even compared to other Single A leagues. Either its a "rainy season in Florida is really rainy" thing, which I doubt because there aren't THAT many storms in the evenings; or it's something else that's pretty much unique to Central/South Florida.

The first Miami AAA franchise lasted all of five years, after which it was relocated----to San Juan, Puerto Rico.

rainy season in Florida is really rainy

An open air stadium would be really interesting. In the summer months you are guaranteed a 30 minute rain between 4:00-6:00pm, rarely any longer than that but also rarely a day missed and it is a downpour.

Really? No good public transportation, and backed up bridges that separate the Trop from Tampa? That was unknown? Have you ever tried crossing those bridges during the rush hour?

What is interesting when talking to people who were around when the stadium was built was that they thought a lot of game day traffic would be coming from the south (Bradenton/Sarasota, which would not be affected by rush hour) and the drive would not be too bad from Tampa/St Pete. They were wrong, not a ton of people drove from the south and the Tampa/St Pete area grew a lot more and it grew away from the stadium making the drive worse and worse as the years went by.

I think a stadium just east or west of the I75/I4 split, after expanding both, would get the most people in the park.

In the American League, the White Sox (17,587), Guardians (16,685), Tigers (16,693), Royals (15242), and Athletics (8,695), all currently have worse per game attendance than the Rays (18,045). The Rays are actually up 5,252 per game this year.

ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 22, 2023 at 07:50 AM (#6129452)
Move the Rays to Montreal and the Marlins to Mexico City. Internationalize the game and be rid of the Florida problem in one fell swoop.

What was MLB even thinking when they awarded those two franchises?

1 - oh we just LUVVVVV all that $$$ expansion fees
2 - rich state, lots of zillionaires, lots of public $$$ for big stadiums to make zillionaires even richer

Did it think that those Winter vacationers who fill the stands in Spring training were going to come back in the Summer?

- who cares? all the vacationers who come in the spring/summer/fall will do just as well. and miami is filled with hispanics and you know how Those Peeple are about baseball. and if nobody comes, like so what? theres tv $$$$

The Rays have never drawn 2 million since their first year, and have been under 1.5 million for 17 of their 25 years of existence. And the last time the Marlins even drew a bleeping million was in 2017.

- so they can't draw flies. does not matter. the owners care about making lots of $$$ and they are gettin what they want without hardly no people in the seats. if they cared they would do things different

Las Vegas is even more transient/visitor-heavy than Central FL, and MLB is drooling to put a team there.

In the American League, the White Sox (17,587), Guardians (16,685), Tigers (16,693), Royals (15242), and Athletics (8,695), all currently have worse per game attendance than the Rays (18,045). The Rays are actually up 5,252 per game this year.

Imagine the Rays attendance if they were in last place!

The location's only a problem if you live in Tampa. Great local bus service from downtown St. Pete.

In the American League, the White Sox (17,587), Guardians (16,685), Tigers (16,693), Royals (15242), and Athletics (8,695), all currently have worse per game attendance than the Rays (18,045). The Rays are actually up 5,252 per game this year.

I typically don't believe any of these figures.

I was 17 when Thurman Munson died (uniform number 15).

announced crowd for the next Yankees home game was 51,151.

I went hook, line, and sinker in - for maybe 5 years.

and I still don't object to the schmaltz there btw. it WAS a huge crowd - not like it was really 15,151.

what's interesting to me here is that on the one hand, the Rays want to claim awful attendance numbers so the public has to build them a new stadium - but if the numbers are TOO bad, then it's hopeless so why bother.

these numbers coincidentally (of course) thread the needle.

Despite Andy’s antipathy toward all things Florida, it would be quite foolish for MLB to give up on the 3rd largest state in the country (and still growing!).

It's not working.

In the American League, the White Sox (17,587), Guardians (16,685), Tigers (16,693), Royals (15242), and Athletics (8,695), all currently have worse per game attendance than the Rays (18,045). The Rays are actually up 5,252 per game this year.

Do the last ten years for all those and see if it holds.

Do the last ten years for all those and see if it holds.

The Rays are up, but the fact the Guardians and A's are drawing poorly is a fairly regular occurrence (and despite Andy's mischaracterization of Misirlou's post above - the's A's don't draw well when they win. They drew well when they won once. The rest of the time they've been below average to poor).

I get it. Florida is easy to hate, never more so than now. But the idea the Rays are uniquely poorly supported is just not true. They don't draw well to the league's worst park at a difficult to get to site, but they offset that with decent TV and radio ratings (which is absolutely another test of support). It's a well below-average market. Move them and you've just exchanged one below average market for another.

I get it. Florida is easy to hate, never more so than now. But the idea the Rays are uniquely poorly supported is just not true. They don't draw well to the league's worst park at a difficult to get to site, but they offset that with decent TV and radio ratings (which is absolutely another test of support).

I watch approximately 140 regular games a year on TV, pretty much every game but Saturday nights and West Coast night games. The last game I attended in person was maybe 6 or 7 years ago, and I was comped the ticket.

I pay $129.95 a year for the Extra Innings TV package that includes mlb.tv. We park in our driveway and get our food at the grocery store. I mute all the commercials and read a book between innings.

If I went to just 5 games a year, I'd likely be spending about $250 for tickets (my wife goes with me whenever I attend), about $100 for parking and $50 for food and drink, maybe a bit more.

If everyone were like me, what sort of shape would baseball be in? To what extent am I "supporting" baseball?

P. S. Attendance for last night's Rays-Toronto game: 8,857.

If everyone were like me, what sort of shape would baseball be in? To what extent am I "supporting" baseball?

I feel fairly confident in saying baseball would be very different if it had to rely strictly on in-person revenue to support operations.

If everyone were like me, what sort of shape would baseball be in? To what extent am I "supporting" baseball?

I feel fairly confident in saying baseball would be very different if it had to rely strictly on in-person revenue to support operations.

That completely ducks the question. If everyone "supported" baseball the way I have for the past 6 or 7 years, the game might as well be moved to TV studios with cardboard spectators and simulated cheering soundtracks. There'd be no need for ballparks or the countless number of local businesses that are dependent on live attendance to supply their customers.

Obviously I'm not proposing going back to 1946, with no TV, and live attendance being the prime source of revenue. But without a live audience, baseball would be even more "different" than it would be without television. Just imagine if the early 2020 Covid restrictions were to be enforced on a permanent basis, and you'll get the idea.

If TV revenue was completely shared and in-person attendance revenue was completely kept by the team you would see more in-person attendance. There is no incentive for the small-market teams to increase attendance when they're sharing that revenue league wide.

That completely ducks the question. If everyone "supported" baseball the way I have for the past 6 or 7 years, the game might as well be moved to TV studios with cardboard spectators and simulated cheering soundtracks.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of people do support baseball the way you do. And I doubt that in-person support is going to suddenly become more important in the coming years.

Your objection to the Florida teams (including the ridiculous proposition they should have never been located there in the first place), while ignoring the other markets that have similar "support" issues reveals this to be just as Misirlou noted, your hate of all things Florida. And while Florida is also 53rd on my list of favorite U.S. states, it doesn't blind me the way it does you.

Tampa is a below-average market, and I'm sure it will remain that way for a long time. However, so too was Montreal, which you seem to have forgotten. So too has Oakland been for 50-plus years. So too has Cleveland been for most of the last 50 years, save the completely out-of-character mid-90s run. And, unlike Tampa, Cleveland has little hope of improving as a market (it already has a great stadium in a fine location and has been competitive for much of the previous two decades, but since the sellout streak ended, in-person support has been terrible). But only one of these below-average markets earns your eternal scorn.

If Camden Yards had been built in Tampa, and The Trop built in Baltimore, we'd be having the opposite discussion.

That completely ducks the question. If everyone "supported" baseball the way I have for the past 6 or 7 years, the game might as well be moved to TV studios with cardboard spectators and simulated cheering soundtracks.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of people do support baseball the way you do. And I doubt that in-person support is going to suddenly become more important in the coming years.

"Lots and lots and lots and lots" is not "everyone", which was the basis of my hypothetical. And I never addressed your second point, although I will say that robust attendance figures are a better gauge of fan enthusiasm than TV ratings, even if attendance figures are dependent on a variety of factors such as ticket prices, accessibility, and team performance.

And while Florida is also 53rd on my list of favorite U.S. states,

Well, I'm glad we can at least agree on something....(smile)

Tampa is a below-average market, and I'm sure it will remain that way for a long time. However, so too was Montreal, which you seem to have forgotten. So too has Oakland been for 50-plus years. So too has Cleveland been for most of the last 50 years, save the completely out-of-character mid-90s run. And, unlike Tampa, Cleveland has little hope of improving as a market (it already has a great stadium in a fine location and has been competitive for much of the previous two decades, but since the sellout streak ended, in-person support has been terrible). But only one of these below-average markets earns your eternal scorn.

Just to pick on one of those comparisons: Since the Rays came into the league in 1998, if you eliminate its first honeymoon year, the A's have had eight years where their attendance was greater than Tampa Bay's second best year (2009). This in spite of a godawful stadium and having to compete with a far more glamorous team in a State of the Art stadium across the Bay.

I hope that the Rays can resolve their stadium issue, if only for the sake of the players. And maybe that'll help. But I'm not holding my breath.

If Camden Yards had been built in Tampa, and The Trop built in Baltimore, we'd be having the opposite discussion.

And yet the Orioles also drew well in ancient Memorial Stadium from 1979 through their last year there in 1991. Even in 1988, when they began 0-21 and ended at 54-107, their attendance exceeded anything the Rays have drawn from 2011 through 2022.

although I will say that robust attendance figures are a better gauge of fan enthusiasm than TV ratings,

I'm sure you would say that, as your whole premise is predicated on that. But I suspect you're very wrong. In addition to the fact more people are watching at home than at the game, game attendance hinges on so many factors - time, quality of stadium, cost, state of economy, traffic, capacity, etc. - whereas turning the game on is a more direct reflection of interest in the club.

But I've got to give you credit here. You don't see many "crowd size tells all" arguments outside a Trump Wuz Robbed post, so kudos for that.

Plot twist: The Rays and Marlins both move to...Oakland, as do the AAA Las Vegas Aviators. Chaos!