Next Round of MLB Expansion Thread - Nashville, Portland, Salt Lake, Charlotte, Montreal, Orlando all on radar

[mmc]

It’s been known for awhile that Manfred wants to add 2 more teams to match what the NHL and NFL currently have, and with the A’s nearing a move to Vegas and the Rays and MLB focused on them remaining in the Tampa area as their current lease nears its expiration, the expansion process could begin pretty soon.  Over the past year or two reports of forming ownership groups in multiple markets have come out, with Orlando today being the most recent, along with Charlotte, Nashville, Portland, Salt Lake City, and Montreal.  Decided to make an all encompassing thread as there will be a lot of storylines to follow here over the next few years.  Who do you want to see become MLB’s 31 and 32?

 

[Make Angels Great Again]

Orlando has to be by far the lowest probability in this list.

my money is on Nashville and Montreal

[James]

2 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Orlando has to be by far the lowest probability in this list.

my money is on Nashville and Montreal

I think it is fair to say another team in Florida would be incredibly dense all things considered. 

[Taylor]

Only Portland and Charlotte. 

[mmc]

7 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Orlando has to be by far the lowest probability in this list.

my money is on Nashville and Montreal

It makes a lot more sense as a backup option for the Rays.  I certainly can’t see the Rays (remaining in Tampa) AND an Orlando team coexisting and being profitable ventures

[James]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

Only Portland and Charlotte. 

Portland? Salt Lake would be better and lets not help Seattle with travel at all. Nashville has too much behind it for it not to happen at some point. 

[Lou]

Nashville and Montreal

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, James said:

Portland? Salt Lake would be better and lets not help Seattle with travel at all. Nashville has too much behind it for it not to happen at some point. 

Salt Lake would be crappy because of the elevation. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

Antifa would assault fans wearing non portland gear

[arch stanton]

10 minutes ago, Lou said:

Nashville and Montreal

Obvious answer 

[mmc]

Unless their stance on public stadium funding changes I don’t have much faith in Montreal getting anything done.  This process may ultimately come down to who can get stadium deals done first.  

[Second Base]

Generally speaking, locations with a lower tax structure, in areas of considerable population growth are going to be prime targets for expansion because of higher degree of a stadium being built. 

A prime counter example of those would be Oakland. The owner is cheap and greedy and the city is already overtaxed and the Democratic leadership preferred to focus on social programs instead of sports based tourism. 

So which cities have the necessary factors? 

Nashville, Orlando, Charlotte (to a degree) and Salt Lake (to a degree). 

However, there's also the human element to consider. Which populations would support a franchise? Montreal would because of nostalgia, but working with local Canadian government can be more burdensome, they already gave away their funded plan for an MLB team. But they do have Olympic Stadium to serve as a temporary home. Portland would, but again, local government would make it difficult to get a stadium fully funded. 

On the flip side, teams on Florida haven't been that well supported over the years. So Orlando may be a difficult sell. 

So considering all factors, here are the destination ranked in order of likeliest to unlikely. 

1. Nashville

2. Charlotte

3. Montreal

4. Portland

5. Orlando

6. Salt Lake

Edited May 4, 2023 by Second Base

[Taylor]

26 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Antifa would assault fans wearing non portland gear

Nashville would have to have metal detectors and pat down everyone who entered the stadium.

[Hubs]

Portland and Nashville for me. They need an 8th team on the west coast, to replace Colorado and make it so all the teams are in the Pacific time zone.

If both teams end up back east, then you have re-alignment concerns.

I'd re-align the divisions, going to 4 divisions of 4 per league, and getting 6 playoff teams, two wild cards and 4 division winners.

There are 4 natural teams in the NL West, and then Colorado, which is closer to LA than Seattle is, but mountain time. There are three in the AL West in LA, OAK/LV, and SEA.

If you add Portland or Vancouver, you can add that team to the NL West and move the D'backs to the AL West. This gives most teams a natural rival in the West. Portland, SF, SD, and LA is the NL West. 

Colorado, Texas, Kansas City and Minnesota make up the AL Central. Detroit, Cincinnati, Chicago, and Toronto make up the AL Midwest. New York, Baltimore, Tampa and Boston is the new AL East.

Houston heads back to the NL where they should never have been allowed to leave. They, Atlanta, Miami and Nashville make up the NL South. St. Louis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Milwuakee is the NL Midwest, and NL East is New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Pittsburgh is the NL East.

 

 

[Lazorko Saves]

Nashville is a slam dunk yes.

Portland is a slam dunk no.  Nothing in Portland is anywhere close to being in place.  Potential ownership with money, economic situation, population trends, any prospects for a ballpark, city/state government officials who would have a interest.  There's nothing positive here.

Ya'll can scratch Portland from your lists.

[T.G.]

Orlando?  Really? 

Nashville is easily #1

After that, I assume they'd have to have one out west...  the choices aren't ideal, but I'd say SLC.  If geography doesn't matter for setting up divisions, I'd say Montreal.

 

[Second Base]

I don't have a problem with Portland having an MLB team. Yeah, the population is strange and seemingly unhappy, and yes, they have had some pretty gnarly riots, but the town loves baseball. 

The problem with Portland is going to be convincing the population to increase taxes to the point where they can raise 3-4 billion it will require to build the ballpark at Terminal 2. I just don't see it happening at all. 

Conversely, Nashville already has community support, a site picked out and an agreement in place to follow through on a plan to fund a state of the art stadium similar to Texas and Atlanta's area (whole venues, not just stadium) at 1.2 billion, which is supported by local government. 

Really at this point, when expansion happens, it's going to be Nashville as one, and whoever else for two. 

[ScottT]

Nashville and Charlotte.

I'd like one to be in the west, but those aren't good options.

[James]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

Salt Lake would be crappy because of the elevation. 

Considering a team exists in Denver, I dont think elevation will be much of a factor in this decision.

[mmc]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

Generally speaking, locations with a lower tax structure, in areas of considerable population growth are going to be prime targets for expansion because of higher degree of a stadium being built. 

A prime counter example of those would be Oakland. The owner is cheap and greedy and the city is already overtaxed and the Democratic leadership preferred to focus on social programs instead of sports based tourism. 

So which cities have the necessary factors? 

Nashville, Orlando, Charlotte (to a degree) and Salt Lake (to a degree). 

However, there's also the human element to consider. Which populations would support a franchise? Montreal would because of nostalgia, but working with local Canadian government can be more burdensome, they already gave away their funded plan for an MLB team. But they do have Olympic Stadium to serve as a temporary home. Portland would, but again, local government would make it difficult to get a stadium fully funded. 

On the flip side, teams on Florida haven't been that well supported over the years. So Orlando may be a difficult sell. 

So considering all factors, here are the destination ranked in order of likeliest to unlikely. 

1. Nashville

2. Charlotte

3. Montreal

4. Portland

5. Orlando

6. Salt Lake

SLC shouldn’t be anywhere near the bottom, I would have them as one of the favorites at this point.  They have a notable group coming together, endorsement from the governor, and with the upcoming Olympic bid we know the city is fully prepared to dump money into sports right now.

[cals]

1 hour ago, Lazorko Saves said:

Nashville is a slam dunk yes.

Portland is a slam dunk no.  Nothing in Portland is anywhere close to being in place.  Potential ownership with money, economic situation, population trends, any prospects for a ballpark, city/state government officials who would have a interest.  There's nothing positive here.

Ya'll can scratch Portland from your lists.

Portland used to have a AAA team.  I used to go to those games in the mid-aughts. There would be like 500 people there, tops. 

[Justin]

I went to a Portland Beavers game once. It was an excuse for people to get drunk and taunt the players. Years later the Beavers had moved to El Paso and the Timbers of Major League Soccer took over the stadium. I went to one of those games once, too. It was an excuse for people to get drunk and yell racist chants.

That city may have been fantastic in the 90s but those days are long gone. It does not deserve a new stadium of any kind. 

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, James said:

Considering a team exists in Denver, I dont think elevation will be much of a factor in this decision.

Do we really want Coors Field and Coors Light Field?

[Make Angels Great Again]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

Nashville Memphis would have to have metal detectors and pat down everyone who entered the stadium.

ftfy

[Tank]

montreal and salt lake city

i chose SLC mostly so the angels would have another team reasonably close by.