 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Las Vegas Marlins
rkinslow19
However, the idea sours when you consider that there really isn't anywhere to go.
The usual suspects are Portland, Las Vegas, and even San Antonio. I love Portland, but it doesn't have the resources or population to support a major league team.
San Antonio....does Texas really need a 3rd team? Also, with the rumors of the Saints moving there, which I think is much more likely than them moving here to LA, I doubt they would commit the $$$ for a baseball only stadium.
Which brings me to Vegas. I was watching cold pizza the other day, and they interviewed Mayor Goodman about bringing a team to LV. He responded that he thought that people should be able to bet on the team, that steroids were worse than betting on baseball, and that Pete Rose should be in the HOF. I bet you a $100 Selig has already moistened his approval stamp in ink....*cough cough*
With these options exhausted, I'd like to re-introduce folding both the Florida Marlins, and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. TB has been, is, and always will be a joke. The Marlins have had surprising, but unsustained success, in spite of their poor financial and fan support.
Do away with them!
Plus, imagine the excitement a player re-distribution draft would bring. Willis, Cabrera, Upton, Young, Baldelli, Crawford, Gathright, Hermida, Kazmir, Ramirez.....
There are 10+ legitimately good young players (prospects) there
Las Vegas Marlins
December 09, 2005 at 12:04PM View BBCode
I believe the Marlins' firesale is an attempt to force a relocation. Good idea.However, the idea sours when you consider that there really isn't anywhere to go.
The usual suspects are Portland, Las Vegas, and even San Antonio. I love Portland, but it doesn't have the resources or population to support a major league team.
San Antonio....does Texas really need a 3rd team? Also, with the rumors of the Saints moving there, which I think is much more likely than them moving here to LA, I doubt they would commit the $$$ for a baseball only stadium.
Which brings me to Vegas. I was watching cold pizza the other day, and they interviewed Mayor Goodman about bringing a team to LV. He responded that he thought that people should be able to bet on the team, that steroids were worse than betting on baseball, and that Pete Rose should be in the HOF. I bet you a $100 Selig has already moistened his approval stamp in ink....*cough cough*
With these options exhausted, I'd like to re-introduce folding both the Florida Marlins, and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. TB has been, is, and always will be a joke. The Marlins have had surprising, but unsustained success, in spite of their poor financial and fan support.
Do away with them!
Plus, imagine the excitement a player re-distribution draft would bring. Willis, Cabrera, Upton, Young, Baldelli, Crawford, Gathright, Hermida, Kazmir, Ramirez.....
There are 10+ legitimately good young players (prospects) there
barterer2002
December 09, 2005 at 03:40PM View BBCode
The problem with Las Vegas as a major league sports team is there there is too much else to do. The permanant population of the town is too small to generate enough fans for the 81 games a year. Add the gambling issues on top of that and Las Vegas won't have an MLB team in our lifetimes.
FuriousGiorge
December 09, 2005 at 04:01PM View BBCode
Contraction was never a real option, it was a negotiating ploy. But I'm sure any lingering fans of the two Florida teams appreciate all the vultures who circle their franchises, waiting for them to die so they can feast on the corpse. Everyone comes out a winner!
drunkengoat
Not sarcastic, not out of the question, but are we bringing back the Superbas? What will be the new franchise name were we to move it to Brooklyn?
December 09, 2005 at 07:47PM View BBCode
Heh, back to the days of a three-team New York. Nice one.Not sarcastic, not out of the question, but are we bringing back the Superbas? What will be the new franchise name were we to move it to Brooklyn?
barterer2002
December 09, 2005 at 08:08PM View BBCode
I think New York ought to have a third team but don't think George will allow it.
Cubsfan13
December 09, 2005 at 11:20PM View BBCode
The Saints aren't moving here. The Marlnis probably won't either, but I think there is a better chance that they do than the Saints.
rkinslow19
They definately can't stay in NewO, and not just because of the hurricane. They were on their way out before.
December 10, 2005 at 02:28AM View BBCode
What makes you think the Saints won't move to San Antonio?They definately can't stay in NewO, and not just because of the hurricane. They were on their way out before.
kujayhawks15
I wouldn't say definately. I think that it would have been alright and smart to leav ebefore the hurricane, but now Tom Benson and the orginization will look REALLY bad if they leave and bail out on the city. I think they stay for about 10 more years in NO, to prove that they won't leave for the hurricane, then leave. I agree, there shouldn't be a football team there, but it would be tough to leave right after the hurricanes.
December 10, 2005 at 05:43AM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
What makes you think the Saints won't move to San Antonio?
They definately can't stay in NewO, and not just because of the hurricane. They were on their way out before.
I wouldn't say definately. I think that it would have been alright and smart to leav ebefore the hurricane, but now Tom Benson and the orginization will look REALLY bad if they leave and bail out on the city. I think they stay for about 10 more years in NO, to prove that they won't leave for the hurricane, then leave. I agree, there shouldn't be a football team there, but it would be tough to leave right after the hurricanes.
Jedi_Pimp
December 10, 2005 at 05:44AM View BBCode
It would be sweet if the marlins moved to vegas. I would jump on that bandwagon. How could you get rid of the marlins? They have had more success in 10 years than the red sox or cubs had 86 years? Maybe we should do away with some of those non-winning teams before the marlins go away. But we can throw tampa bay in the trash cuz they really been there all along. Even their minor league team sucks, which is now part of the rangers now.
barterer2002
Well you've clearly been paying enough attention to realize that the marlins have won twice in the past decade. Do you know anything else about them at this point? Do the two firesales following their World Series wins mean anything? Would it possibly be relevant that the Marlins consistently rank in the bottom five in attendance, whether they win or not. Take last year for example. The Marlins were in the wild card chase up until the middle of September. They managed to out draw only Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Detroit. They are unable to extort Miami for a new stadium and are using the threat of leaving after the 2007 season as an incentive for Ft. Laud or Coral Gables to build a stadium to keep the club local.
December 10, 2005 at 06:01AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Jedi_Pimp
How could you get rid of the marlins? They have had more success in 10 years than the red sox or cubs had 86 years? Maybe we should do away with some of those non-winning teams before the marlins go away. But we can throw tampa bay in the trash cuz they really been there all along. Even their minor league team sucks, which is now part of the rangers now.
Well you've clearly been paying enough attention to realize that the marlins have won twice in the past decade. Do you know anything else about them at this point? Do the two firesales following their World Series wins mean anything? Would it possibly be relevant that the Marlins consistently rank in the bottom five in attendance, whether they win or not. Take last year for example. The Marlins were in the wild card chase up until the middle of September. They managed to out draw only Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Detroit. They are unable to extort Miami for a new stadium and are using the threat of leaving after the 2007 season as an incentive for Ft. Laud or Coral Gables to build a stadium to keep the club local.
KCLV
Nevada has been the 'fastest growing state for 17 straight years. Recent figures place the population for the Las Vegas metropolitan area, which includes all of Clark County, at around 1,950,000 people (2005 estimate [3]), the fastest growing in the United States.
December 10, 2005 at 09:58AM View BBCode
"The problem with Las Vegas as a major league sports team is there there is too much else to do. The permanant population of the town is too small to generate enough fans for the 81 games a year. Add the gambling issues on top of that and Las Vegas won't have an MLB team in our lifetimes."Nevada has been the 'fastest growing state for 17 straight years. Recent figures place the population for the Las Vegas metropolitan area, which includes all of Clark County, at around 1,950,000 people (2005 estimate [3]), the fastest growing in the United States.
rkinslow19
Luxury Boxes
The stadium built for the Marlins could have an exorbitant amount, and they would be a slam dunk (perhaps I should say home run) to be leased by the casinos for high rollers
Yes, the Marlins have had success (although completely unsustained), but that hardly makes them untouchable. In baseball, there are only a handful of untouchable teams, the crown jewels if you will. NYY, BOS, StL, SF, LA, ChC off the top of my head. The rest need to be financially viable, or they will move, or cease to exist. This is hardly a foreign concept, relocation was commonplace in the first half of the 1900's.
December 10, 2005 at 01:40PM View BBCode
In addition to the largest growing population in the nation, there is another, much more significant factor that would make the LV Marlins financially viable.Luxury Boxes
The stadium built for the Marlins could have an exorbitant amount, and they would be a slam dunk (perhaps I should say home run) to be leased by the casinos for high rollers
Yes, the Marlins have had success (although completely unsustained), but that hardly makes them untouchable. In baseball, there are only a handful of untouchable teams, the crown jewels if you will. NYY, BOS, StL, SF, LA, ChC off the top of my head. The rest need to be financially viable, or they will move, or cease to exist. This is hardly a foreign concept, relocation was commonplace in the first half of the 1900's.
rkinslow19
It is ignorant to believe that they could remain in NO. After you get past the emotional aspect, which is superficial, it all comes down to $$$. The state of Louisiana couldn't even support the team pre-Katrina, having failed to make their contractual payments to the Saints year after year.
Now, with a crippled economy, a wreck of a stadium, limited commerce, a lack of expendable income for the fan base, and an owner that doesn't want to be there, it makes as much sense to keep the Saints in New Orleans.....
.....as it would to move them to North Dakota.
December 10, 2005 at 01:43PM View BBCode
And a note on the Saints/Benson:It is ignorant to believe that they could remain in NO. After you get past the emotional aspect, which is superficial, it all comes down to $$$. The state of Louisiana couldn't even support the team pre-Katrina, having failed to make their contractual payments to the Saints year after year.
Now, with a crippled economy, a wreck of a stadium, limited commerce, a lack of expendable income for the fan base, and an owner that doesn't want to be there, it makes as much sense to keep the Saints in New Orleans.....
.....as it would to move them to North Dakota.
Jedi_Pimp
I am aware you can buy a marlin players like a bag of oranges on the side of the road right now. Yes i am aware they couldnt fill the stadium if it was a dome and katrina was coming back for florida. But on the first post folding the marlins was mentioned. That was what i was referring to. I think they should move but not fold completely. Oblviously management knows how to win. Or they are just the luckiest SOBs i know. Granted it would be horrible to be a fan and watch them sell the players like hot tamales. I wonder if mormons like baseball? salt lake city, doesnt seem to bad.
December 10, 2005 at 07:11PM View BBCode
Well you've clearly been paying enough attention to realize that the marlins have won twice in the past decade. Do you know anything else about them at this point? Do the two firesales following their World Series wins mean anything? Would it possibly be relevant that the Marlins consistently rank in the bottom five in attendance, whether they win or not. Take last year for example. The Marlins were in the wild card chase up until the middle of September. They managed to out draw only Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Detroit. They are unable to extort Miami for a new stadium and are using the threat of leaving after the 2007 season as an incentive for Ft. Laud or Coral Gables to build a stadium to keep the club local.
I am aware you can buy a marlin players like a bag of oranges on the side of the road right now. Yes i am aware they couldnt fill the stadium if it was a dome and katrina was coming back for florida. But on the first post folding the marlins was mentioned. That was what i was referring to. I think they should move but not fold completely. Oblviously management knows how to win. Or they are just the luckiest SOBs i know. Granted it would be horrible to be a fan and watch them sell the players like hot tamales. I wonder if mormons like baseball? salt lake city, doesnt seem to bad.
BrutusKhan
Doug
December 10, 2005 at 07:43PM View BBCode
Mormons like white people, so move Florida to Houston, and the Astros to Salt Lake City. That was the whitest team I've ever seen.Doug
yankeekid
Does George have a say in it?
December 11, 2005 at 12:03AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
I think New York ought to have a third team but don't think George will allow it.
Does George have a say in it?
Cubsfan13
Tagliabue doesn't want them here, and it seems unlikely that a new stadium will be built here. Jerry Jones is another big obstacle, because San Antonio has the most Cowboys fans outside of Dallas.
[Edited on 12-11-2005 by Cubsfan13]
December 11, 2005 at 12:57AM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
What makes you think the Saints won't move to San Antonio?
They definately can't stay in NewO, and not just because of the hurricane. They were on their way out before.
Tagliabue doesn't want them here, and it seems unlikely that a new stadium will be built here. Jerry Jones is another big obstacle, because San Antonio has the most Cowboys fans outside of Dallas.
[Edited on 12-11-2005 by Cubsfan13]
barterer2002
Yes, as do the Mets but its possible to overcome it like the league did with the Nationals.
December 11, 2005 at 02:14AM View BBCode
Originally posted by yankeekid
Does George have a say in it?
Yes, as do the Mets but its possible to overcome it like the league did with the Nationals.
yankeekid
December 11, 2005 at 01:06PM View BBCode
I see, so MLB asks their opinion or how exactly does that work?
rkinslow19
From what I've read, the Saints would play in the Alamodome. If I remember right, you are from there, and I'm not claiming to be an insider on the situation, but it sure makes a lot more sense to me than staying in NO.
Also, according to mapquest, Dallas and San Antonio are 275 miles apart. Quite a chunk, and not really comparable to the DC/Baltimore Area.
It was a little before my time, so I'd appreciate if someone refreshed my memory. Were there similar issues involved when the Raiders kept moving between Oakland and LA? The Niners are right across the bay, they shared LA with the Rams, and the Chargers were just down the road in San Diego. Off the top of my head, the commish had no say, and it was just a matter of getting city approval. But like I said, I was too young to remember
December 11, 2005 at 01:41PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Cubsfan13
Originally posted by rkinslow19
What makes you think the Saints won't move to San Antonio?
They definately can't stay in NewO, and not just because of the hurricane. They were on their way out before.
Tagliabue doesn't want them here, and it seems unlikely that a new stadium will be built here. Jerry Jones is another big obstacle, because San Antonio has the most Cowboys fans outside of Dallas.
[Edited on 12-11-2005 by Cubsfan13]
From what I've read, the Saints would play in the Alamodome. If I remember right, you are from there, and I'm not claiming to be an insider on the situation, but it sure makes a lot more sense to me than staying in NO.
Also, according to mapquest, Dallas and San Antonio are 275 miles apart. Quite a chunk, and not really comparable to the DC/Baltimore Area.
It was a little before my time, so I'd appreciate if someone refreshed my memory. Were there similar issues involved when the Raiders kept moving between Oakland and LA? The Niners are right across the bay, they shared LA with the Rams, and the Chargers were just down the road in San Diego. Off the top of my head, the commish had no say, and it was just a matter of getting city approval. But like I said, I was too young to remember
barterer2002
Its more than a matter of asking permission. In order to move a team a certain percentage (I can't remember if its 67%, 75% or 80%) of the team owners must approve the move. If such a move invades the "territorial rights" of another franchise, that team will get compensated.
This is what happened with the Nats when the owners voted 29-1 with Angelos being the only dissenting vote. In general, however, the other owners try not to stick it to one of their own. This is why the A's can't move to San Jose (Giant's territory).
December 11, 2005 at 02:46PM View BBCode
Originally posted by yankeekid
I see, so MLB asks their opinion or how exactly does that work?
Its more than a matter of asking permission. In order to move a team a certain percentage (I can't remember if its 67%, 75% or 80%) of the team owners must approve the move. If such a move invades the "territorial rights" of another franchise, that team will get compensated.
This is what happened with the Nats when the owners voted 29-1 with Angelos being the only dissenting vote. In general, however, the other owners try not to stick it to one of their own. This is why the A's can't move to San Jose (Giant's territory).
barterer2002
Its more than a matter of asking permission. In order to move a team a certain percentage (I can't remember if its 67%, 75% or 80%) of the team owners must approve the move. If such a move invades the "territorial rights" of another franchise, that team will get compensated.
This is what happened with the Nats when the owners voted 29-1 with Angelos being the only dissenting vote. In general, however, the other owners try not to stick it to one of their own. This is why the A's can't move to San Jose (Giant's territory).
December 11, 2005 at 02:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by yankeekid
I see, so MLB asks their opinion or how exactly does that work?
Its more than a matter of asking permission. In order to move a team a certain percentage (I can't remember if its 67%, 75% or 80%) of the team owners must approve the move. If such a move invades the "territorial rights" of another franchise, that team will get compensated.
This is what happened with the Nats when the owners voted 29-1 with Angelos being the only dissenting vote. In general, however, the other owners try not to stick it to one of their own. This is why the A's can't move to San Jose (Giant's territory).
Cubsfan13
San Antonio may make more sense than New Orleans, but LA makes more sense than either one. The majority of the city's football fans would probably still be Cowboys fans if the Saints moved here, and the Saints sucking so much won't help. And nobody wants to play in the Alamodome. Benson was already asking for a new stadium in New Orleans, and the Alamodome isn't that much better than the Superdome was pre-Katrina.
On a mildly related note, I'm going to the Christmas eve Detroit-New Orleans game in the Alamodome, and I'm fully prepared to cheer against the Lions if they still have a shot at a top 5 pick. It may just be the worst game ever.
December 11, 2005 at 04:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Originally posted by Cubsfan13
Originally posted by rkinslow19
What makes you think the Saints won't move to San Antonio?
They definately can't stay in NewO, and not just because of the hurricane. They were on their way out before.
Tagliabue doesn't want them here, and it seems unlikely that a new stadium will be built here. Jerry Jones is another big obstacle, because San Antonio has the most Cowboys fans outside of Dallas.
[Edited on 12-11-2005 by Cubsfan13]
From what I've read, the Saints would play in the Alamodome. If I remember right, you are from there, and I'm not claiming to be an insider on the situation, but it sure makes a lot more sense to me than staying in NO.
Also, according to mapquest, Dallas and San Antonio are 275 miles apart. Quite a chunk, and not really comparable to the DC/Baltimore Area.
It was a little before my time, so I'd appreciate if someone refreshed my memory. Were there similar issues involved when the Raiders kept moving between Oakland and LA? The Niners are right across the bay, they shared LA with the Rams, and the Chargers were just down the road in San Diego. Off the top of my head, the commish had no say, and it was just a matter of getting city approval. But like I said, I was too young to remember
San Antonio may make more sense than New Orleans, but LA makes more sense than either one. The majority of the city's football fans would probably still be Cowboys fans if the Saints moved here, and the Saints sucking so much won't help. And nobody wants to play in the Alamodome. Benson was already asking for a new stadium in New Orleans, and the Alamodome isn't that much better than the Superdome was pre-Katrina.
On a mildly related note, I'm going to the Christmas eve Detroit-New Orleans game in the Alamodome, and I'm fully prepared to cheer against the Lions if they still have a shot at a top 5 pick. It may just be the worst game ever.
skierdude44
December 11, 2005 at 04:35PM View BBCode
I could have gotten tickets for the Jets-Saints game a couple weeks back, but my dad decided he didn't want to pay $65 to see the Jets lose when he could do it for free on his couch. That game actually turned out to be halfway decent. Maybe the Saints-Lions game will be too since they both pretty much equally suck.Pages: 1 2