Should MLB have another round of expansion? (Hardball Times)

[HMARK Center]

There's news that the NHL may well be on its way to adding two expansion teams to the league soon; one seems destined for Las Vegas, and, God willing, one of them will be the Quebec Nordiques, and I can get to brushing up on my French and adopting them as my official "Second Favorite Team" (sorry, my grandmother's family is from La Belle Province).

However, way back in January of this year, the ever-interesting HardballTimes.com published a series of articles detailing "10 Wishes" that some writers at the site had for then-new MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred. Wish #5? Expansion.

I hear arguments against expansion a lot, with the main argument being "It dilutes the talent in the league". According to this article...that isn't really a bad thing.

"Major League Baseball Needs to Expand", by Jeff Zimmerman

I really can't argue with most of the logic used in this article, namely that more expansion teams would bring back an era where we could have potential dynasty teams rather than the around-the-league mediocrity we're beginning to get (see the AL Wild Card race), that we are now in the longest expansion drought since World War II, and that the number of teams in the league needs to go up simply to keep pace with the growth of the overall population in North America (mainly US and Canada).

There's more to it, including a link to an article that cites which cities would make good expansion targets. I'm inclined to agree with the overall findings: MLB should look to set down a plan whereby they add a couple of teams every few years until we get to 36 teams total; it'd make it easy to retain the current three divisions-per league breakdown by just adding one club to each.

Anybody have a thought on this, or other articles that give a good argument for or against? Or any ideas/studies/materials that point to locations you'd want to see new teams placed? I know I'd kill for the Montreal Expos to return to the NL East (I'll take any excuse for a near-annual summer trek up to St. Catherine's Street), and it'd make a ton of sense to add a club down near the Carolinas and possibly Vegas, but let's spitball.

Hell, go ahead and add expansion ideas for the other leagues, too, why not?

[Biggtone23]

I think once the stadium situations in Oakland and Tampa are settled baseball will start looking into it more, or maybe even during the process so they can use the candidate cities as leverage. The biggest issue right now is that its getting harder and harder to get public money to build stadiums. The logical part of me says that's a good thing but the part of me who has a masters in sports management (yeah for a useless degree and debt) says that the first cities to crack and put up money for a stadium are going to be the most likely candidates even if they are not the best candidate. While its easy to say that owners should pay for new stadiums the expansion fee new owner would be paying will probably over a billion dollars.

[Deleted]

Part of the problem that I see is the fact that is there enough interest in people wanting to see taxpayer money spent on these stadiums? Also, locations are easy (like Montreal) to consider, but let's say an Indianapolis or the state of New Jersey would want a team of their own? Those regions would be fought tooth and nail by a bunch of other teams in those areas.

And, I'd agree on Biggtone's comment that it should be looked into only after Tampa and Oakland get upgraded into actual stadiums, and not places where the Astroturf looks in poor condition and the toilets get backed up. For Oakland, Selig always sided with the Giants, so hopefully the new guy will at least listen.

[Deleted]

If anything there should be retraction. The talent pool is watered down as is.

[HMARK Center]

Good calls on the public financing issue, though I suppose for the purposes of this thought exercise it's less "who will pay up?", and more of a "what would you rather see?", pretending for a moment that hurdles like that aren't as big as they currently are. It certainly is so weird to read about how much easier it was to get public financing when you'd get those big 1960s-1980s multipurpose stadiums like Veterans or the Kingdome, since you were guaranteed at least 81 baseball dates and at least 10 football dates a year...nowadays, baseball stadiums are at least slightly better investments, given the number of home dates a year, but study after study shows how little a return communities get when they front the funds for a new venue.

As for expansion fees, believe me, I know one spot that would be next to impossible, because I live in it: Northern New Jersey. Every study indicates that Northern NJ would be the best baseball expansion spot, bar-none, given every possible factor to consider...but there isn't any way on God's green Earth that the Mets, Yankees, and Phillies would allow it to happen without being paid an ungodly sum in fees...random thought, but if it ever DID happen, I'd hope that club would be an AL team; I'd rather not have to choose between that theoretical new club and the Mets.

Sept 2, 2015 16:20:02 GMT -5 @akeem said:

If anything there should be retraction. The talent pool is watered down as is.

Thing is, there isn't much evidence to back that up (as cited in the article).

Expansion has happened at a pretty regular clip since the 1960s, and it's largely correlated with changes in overall population. We're now in uncharted waters on that, though; no teams have been added in nearly 20 years, the population continues to grow, and the talent base in the league is so large that the teams tend to be pretty even...parity can be good, but we're pushing it right now. Adding teams would keep the size of the league at a more equitable pace with population changes (don't forget the influx of Cuban talent that's probably going to be on the way, soon), and would also spread talent out a bit more, allowing for a bit less of a backup of teams that are all mingling around .500, with few clubs breaking out beyond that point.

[Lupin the Third]

Only if we get the Expos back. If not, GTFO.

[Urethra Franklin]

The Trop is a dump, but the situation in Tampa really isn't that dire even with the terrible attendance. The team has a great TV deal and does great local numbers.

[Reflecto]

Sept 2, 2015 16:37:50 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Good calls on the public financing issue, though I suppose for the purposes of this thought exercise it's less "who will pay up?", and more of a "what would you rather see?", pretending for a moment that hurdles like that aren't as big as they currently are. It certainly is so weird to read about how much easier it was to get public financing when you'd get those big 1960s-1980s multipurpose stadiums like Veterans or the Kingdome, since you were guaranteed at least 81 baseball dates and at least 10 football dates a year...nowadays, baseball stadiums are at least slightly better investments, given the number of home dates a year, but study after study shows how little a return communities get when they front the funds for a new venue.

As for expansion fees, believe me, I know one spot that would be next to impossible, because I live in it: Northern New Jersey. Every study indicates that Northern NJ would be the best baseball expansion spot, bar-none, given every possible factor to consider...but there isn't any way on God's green Earth that the Mets, Yankees, and Phillies would allow it to happen without being paid an ungodly sum in fees...random thought, but if it ever DID happen, I'd hope that club would be an AL team; I'd rather not have to choose between that theoretical new club and the Mets.

This really ties to the bigger problem than "who will pay up" and "what would you rather see?" is "what places would be possible given how draconian the baseball markets are?"- we see the issue already with the A's and Giants (where the only reason San Jose doesn't have a team and give money to the A's or Giants is due to that turf war where neither team would let the other have it.) This can get even harder, with cities that seem like they'd be a mere formality to get a team like Indianapolis (one of the best matches for a potential expansion team of "big city" and "one of the largest minor league stadium capacity") should, on paper, have no problems- but due to the messed up baseball market problems, they'd have Detroit and both the Chicago claim Indianapolis is their territory to stop it...and it's likely the same for pretty much any other conceivably good place for an expansion club, even if it makes absolutely no sense for them to claim it in any way except the map that MLB uses (Portland would have the Mariners claim it's theirs, Charlotte would have the Braves claim it's theirs, etc.)

Either way, expansion absolutely should happen to at least 32, if not 34 or 36, to make it easy- just the bare minimum of 32 to take the interleague issues away would be for the best.

[Drillbit Taylor]

Anything but New York area. Im sorry but no to adding more there. I would rather see Cody, Wyoming have a team over more in that area. The media is bad enough as it is, adding more to that oversaturated pool(and sure it COULD handle it etc) would only make things worse. The only way I would even say it would be a good idea is if BOTH teams constantly sold out, or even came to high 80s+ for attendance.


What I want is go back to East-West (8-8) for AL/NL. Add Mexico City to AL and Montreal,Vancouver or Portland to the NL.

[RadcapRadsley]

Baseball and hockey too are largely now regional as opposed to national sports like Football and Basketball. If you think their is another market that can sell a shit load of seats and get a cushy local tv deal might as well add some teams.