Jump to content

would MLB be better if it was only 20 teams?


Blackout
 Share

Recommended Posts

take away:

1&2: both Florida teams (even Joe Maddon says Tampa has more double Yankee fans than Rays fans)

3: Royals

4: Rockies

5: D-backs

6: Reds

7: Athletics

8: Pirates (Steelers town)

9: Rangers

10:Nationals (no comment)

these are based on MLB attendance over the last 3 years or so

4 divisons of 5 teams, the league would be more talented (less bottom feeders)

agree or bash it, just a thought i had. MLB has too much "bottom level" talent in my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think contraction is the answer, I think many of the teams could be in pretty good situations with a few changes.

For one, places like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Washington, Texas, and Kansas City are great sports towns, what they need is a competitive team to bring the fans back. Those are towns that could draw 2.5-3 million easily down the line if the fans had reason to go to the games.

The Marlins need A) New Ownership and B) The New Ballpark. They had a great fanbase when they first opened up but the firesales of ownership has soured the fans on the team (understandably so). They also need a Dome stadium as the weather in South Florida during the summer can be awful at times between the Rain and the Unreasonably Hot Temperatures. If their stadium was climate controlled they could draw alot better.

The Rays need better facilities, their stadium is a dump. Still, I expect to see a huge spike in attendance next year now that fans have a reason to go to the games.

I think the only team I would really look to move would be Oakland, and that's just because they're in an overpopulated market with Los Angeles x2, San Diego, San Francisco right in their backyard. Of course, they're talking about a new ballpark as well now so it's doubtful that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think contraction is the answer, I think many of the teams could be in pretty good situations with a few changes.

For one, places like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Washington, Texas, and Kansas City are great sports towns, what they need is a competitive team to bring the fans back. Those are towns that could draw 2.5-3 million easily down the line if the fans had reason to go to the games.

The Marlins need A) New Ownership and B) The New Ballpark. They had a great fanbase when they first opened up but the firesales of ownership has soured the fans on the team (understandably so). They also need a Dome stadium as the weather in South Florida during the summer can be awful at times between the Rain and the Unreasonably Hot Temperatures. If their stadium was climate controlled they could draw alot better.

The Rays need better facilities, their stadium is a dump. Still, I expect to see a huge spike in attendance next year now that fans have a reason to go to the games.

I think the only team I would really look to move would be Oakland, and that's just because they're in an overpopulated market with Los Angeles x2, San Diego, San Francisco right in their backyard. Of course, they're talking about a new ballpark as well now so it's doubtful that happens.

great post, atleast we got a few nice posters in here besides myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only team I would really look to move would be Oakland, and that's just because they're in an overpopulated market with Los Angeles x2, San Diego, San Francisco right in their backyard. Of course, they're talking about a new ballpark as well now so it's doubtful that happens.

Oaklands new ballpark got ax. Doesn't look like it's going to happen, at least in Freemont, CA.

Also the distance from Oakland to Los Angeles is 354 miles. The distance from Oakland to San Diego is 454 miles. That's like New York to Virginia and New York to Cleveland. Completely different markets. Oakland shares the same market with San Francisco, but that's an NL team anyways. A's are a storied franchise, they just need a new ballpark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oaklands new ballpark got ax. Doesn't look like it's going to happen, at least in Freemont, CA.

Also the distance from Oakland to Los Angeles is 354 miles. The distance from Oakland to San Diego is 454 miles. That's like New York to Virginia and New York to Cleveland. Completely different markets. Oakland shares the same market with San Francisco, but that's an NL team anyways. A's are a storied franchise, they just need a new ballpark.

The distance argument is a fair point, but I don't think for a minute that there is a high density of A's fans that are located more then 50 miles from Oakland. They're pretty much a regional team in that area in a market that is dominated by San Francisco and Los Angeles x 2.....and San Diego has the new ballpark so they're not going anywheres.

I'm just saying, it might be the best thing for their franchise if they were the Las Vegas A's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distance argument is a fair point, but I don't think for a minute that there is a high density of A's fans that are located more then 50 miles from Oakland. They're pretty much a regional team in that area in a market that is dominated by San Francisco and Los Angeles x 2.....and San Diego has the new ballpark so they're not going anywheres.

I'm just saying, it might be the best thing for their franchise if they were the Las Vegas A's.

Northern California is large enough to have 2 teams. Especially one AL team, and one NL team. San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Fresno, Sacramento, there's plenty of people. A's might leave Oakland, but it will probably be for San Jose.

Edited by Tyler Durden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otter, what about the Arena league?

they had a Vegas team

People bet on Arena football???

The major sports leagues want to avoid any suspicion of gambling influence. Look at how MLB treated Pete Rose. If it was ever discovered that individuals involved in any of these sports leagues fixed games it would undermine the entire league. That's why I don't think any major league would put a team in Las Vegas, the sports gambling capital of the country.

Edited by Otter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any major professional sports league would ever put a team in Las Vegas. These leagues are scared to death of gambling accusations.

I really don't think it's that big of an issue anymore. It's so easy to gamble nowadays from anywhere in the world today thanks to the Internet that if anybody was inclined to do so that they can.

The only thing that avoiding a major market like Las Vegas accomplishes is maybe a little symbolism against gambling. But realistically speaking, there's really no benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

take away:

1&2: both Florida teams (even Joe Maddon says Tampa has more double Yankee fans than Rays fans)

3: Royals

4: Rockies

5: D-backs

6: Reds

7: Athletics

8: Pirates (Steelers town)

9: Rangers

10:Nationals (no comment)

these are based on MLB attendance over the last 3 years or so

4 divisons of 5 teams, the league would be more talented (less bottom feeders)

agree or bash it, just a thought i had. MLB has too much "bottom level" talent in my eyes.

Never happen unless the economy continues to tank.

As for the bootom level talent comment.

Rays just won the East over "top level talent" (at least payroll wise) and went to the WS.

Rockies were in the WS the year before.

Florida and the DBack's have both won WS this decade over "top level" talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never happen unless the economy continues to tank.

As for the bootom level talent comment.

Rays just won the East over "top level talent" (at least payroll wise) and went to the WS.

Rockies were in the WS the year before.

Florida and the DBack's have both won WS this decade over "top level" talent.

I don't think you got the point, dude. He's not saying that the Rays don't have top talent, he's saying that there isn't enough talent to go around (at least, not at the level of competition we'd hope for as fans). He's suggesting cutting the teams that aren't economically viable, not the teams without talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you got the point, dude. He's not saying that the Rays don't have top talent, he's saying that there isn't enough talent to go around (at least, not at the level of competition we'd hope for as fans). He's suggesting cutting the teams that aren't economically viable, not the teams without talent.

What he said was " 4 divisons of 5 teams, the league would be more talented (less bottom feeders). You could say that about ANY sport but if I am a owner of a team on that list of his and I have already dismissed team payroll on the way to winning a division or WS this decade , I think I should be allowed to decide if my franchise folds or not because of it's economics. There's plenty of talent to go around and it is just a matter of whether all teams "purchase" the talent in the manner of the upper echelon payroll teams or not.

Besides as we've debated and pointed out here in the past, the players union would never go for salary caps as it limits players possible income. Why would they ever agree to less teams which would mean less Major League Jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you got the point, dude. He's not saying that the Rays don't have top talent, he's saying that there isn't enough talent to go around (at least, not at the level of competition we'd hope for as fans). He's suggesting cutting the teams that aren't economically viable, not the teams without talent.

It depends on what you mean by 'economically viable'.

While I am probably one of the biggest proponents of a salary cap in here. I also believe that all teams make money. I mean all teams. Jesse Ventura was speaking of the small market teams, but I think it applies to all teams. Owners did not get rich by being dumb.

I would disagree with the level of competition. Baseball is the only professional sport without a salary cap. Yet, we have small market teams winning the title as pointed out earlier in this thread. Yes, the Red Sox and Yankees are usually at the very least good. You also have the Rays coming through and winning the division. Teams like Minnesota and Oakland with some decent success.

While contracting 10 teams will increase the talent level, it will not make the league more competitive. There will still be rich and poor teams. Just at a different level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...