Baltimore Nationals?

He doesn't own the stadium, so he has no say. The article implied that the
stadium would charge a ripoff rent to the Nationals, however.

"Silas Grunch" <silasgrunchxx.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mXYwd.176227$6w6.132705@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> And Orioles owner Peter Angelos would approve this?
>
> He voted against a team in DC, 50 miles away.
>
>
> "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" <greekgod.TakeThisOut@yeahright.com> wrote in message
> news:y_udncHo-PlN01ncRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>> Today's Washington Post had an article that suggested the team might play
>> the 2005 season in Baltimore if the DC deal is not executed. The
>> schedule
>> is already set, and other candidate cities (ie Las Vegas, Norfolk,
> Portland)
>> either do not have adequate ballparks in 2005 or are already committed
> with
>> minor league games. The players union would reject Monterrey, and the
>> league does not want to return to San Juan due to lack of attendance.
>>
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

"Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" <greekgod RemoveThis @yeahright.com> wrote in message
news:y_udncHo-PlN01ncRVn_vA@giganews.com...
> Today's Washington Post had an article that suggested the team might play
> the 2005 season in Baltimore if the DC deal is not executed. The schedule
> is already set, and other candidate cities (ie Las Vegas, Norfolk,
> Portland) either do not have adequate ballparks in 2005 or are already
> committed with minor league games. The players union would reject
> Monterrey, and the league does not want to return to San Juan due to lack
> of attendance.
>

From all I've read, the team will play next season in D.C. regardless of
what transpires between now and 31 December in the City Council. MLB says
things have progressed too far to go back to Montreal, and Washington has
already approved refurbishing of RFK Stadium. So there WILL be a Washington
Nationals team -- but whether it's one year or an endless stream of years is
yet to be determined.

Jack
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

"Jack Bagley" <jack.bagley.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:C75xd.3754$yK.2546@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" <greekgod.TakeThisOut@yeahright.com> wrote in message
> news:y_udncHo-PlN01ncRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>> Today's Washington Post had an article that suggested the team might play
>> the 2005 season in Baltimore if the DC deal is not executed. The
>> schedule is already set, and other candidate cities (ie Las Vegas,
>> Norfolk, Portland) either do not have adequate ballparks in 2005 or are
>> already committed with minor league games. The players union would
>> reject Monterrey, and the league does not want to return to San Juan due
>> to lack of attendance.
>>
>
> From all I've read, the team will play next season in D.C. regardless of
> what transpires between now and 31 December in the City Council. MLB says
> things have progressed too far to go back to Montreal, and Washington has
> already approved refurbishing of RFK Stadium. So there WILL be a
> Washington Nationals team -- but whether it's one year or an endless
> stream of years is yet to be determined.
>
> Jack
>

Where are you from? Have you read the DC papers? They say that MLB has
expressed that the team will not play in DC (not even at RFK) in 2005 if the
100% publicly financed new ballpark is not approved by the city council by
December 31. Further, MLB has indicated that the team will not return to
Montreal. This is why I posted today's news. MLB is now looking at the
other candidates (Las Vegas, Norfolk, Portland, Monterrey), and given the
problems fielding the team in one of these other cities in April 2005, the
team just might play in Baltimore (for one season) until moved to Las Vegas,
Norfolk, or Portland. This is their way of punishing DC while minimizing
further disruption. They can't locate out west on such short notice due to
the way traveling works on the schedule, and the players association will
kill Monterrey as a candidate. The schedule assumed an east coast (DC)
location, so Baltimore apparently is a possibility. The article cited
precedent of two clubs in the same park (LA Angels/LA Dodgers,
NYMets/Yankees when Yankee stadium was being refurbished).
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:07:26 -0500, "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis"
<greekgod.RemoveThis@yeahright.com> spewed forth these words of wisdom:

>
>
>Where are you from? Have you read the DC papers? They say that MLB has
>expressed that the team will not play in DC (not even at RFK) in 2005 if the
>100% publicly financed new ballpark is not approved by the city council by
>December 31. Further, MLB has indicated that the team will not return to
>Montreal. This is why I posted today's news. MLB is now looking at the
>other candidates (Las Vegas, Norfolk, Portland, Monterrey), and given the
>problems fielding the team in one of these other cities in April 2005, the
>team just might play in Baltimore (for one season) until moved to Las Vegas,
>Norfolk, or Portland. This is their way of punishing DC while minimizing
>further disruption. They can't locate out west on such short notice due to
>the way traveling works on the schedule, and the players association will
>kill Monterrey as a candidate. The schedule assumed an east coast (DC)
>location, so Baltimore apparently is a possibility. The article cited
>precedent of two clubs in the same park (LA Angels/LA Dodgers,
>NYMets/Yankees when Yankee stadium was being refurbished).
>

Greenville, SC would gladly host the Expos/Nationals in our 20-year old stadium
that no longer meets AA standards.

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

Dimitrios Paskoudniakis wrote:
> He doesn't own the stadium, so he has no say. The article implied that the
> stadium would charge a ripoff rent to the Nationals, however.
>
>

Are you sure he has no say? Many leases limit the use of a stadium
during the season.


--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

"George Grapman" <sfgeorge.RemoveThis@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:Bj9xd.413$5R.276@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Dimitrios Paskoudniakis wrote:
>> He doesn't own the stadium, so he has no say. The article implied that
>> the stadium would charge a ripoff rent to the Nationals, however.
>>
>
> Are you sure he has no say? Many leases limit the use of a stadium during
> the season.
>
>
> --
> To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

Not sure, but the media are indicating that playing at Oriole Park is a
possibility. I don't think this would have been addressed if not feasible.
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

Dimitrios Paskoudniakis wrote:
> "George Grapman" <sfgeorge.TakeThisOut@paccbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Bj9xd.413$5R.276@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Dimitrios Paskoudniakis wrote:
>>
>>>He doesn't own the stadium, so he has no say. The article implied that
>>>the stadium would charge a ripoff rent to the Nationals, however.
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure he has no say? Many leases limit the use of a stadium during
>>the season.
>>
>>
>>--
>> To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
>
>
> Not sure, but the media are indicating that playing at Oriole Park is a
> possibility. I don't think this would have been addressed if not feasible.
>
>
In 1985 Giants owner Bob Lurie announced that the team would share
he Coliseum with the A;s for two years while a new park was built. He
forgot some details:

No location for the park.
No financing.
He never talked with the A's or the Coliseum.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

This is a "snowballs in hell" scenario, because the home schedules of the
Orioles and the Expos/Nats have too many dates in common -- like at least
half of them.

After the 2004 schedule was set up, there was serious consideration given
to playing a number of Expos home games in Fenway Park because the Sox and
'spos only had a handful of home dates in common, and given the demand for
Red Sox tickets (there are virtually none available) it might have made
financial sense to do it for one year.

The problem is that MLB always used "if you don't do this, we're gonna
move!" against any city that didn't say "uncle". But when they added
the last four teams, and San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago (WS),
Seattle, St. Louis, etc, etc, knuckled under and built new parks, they
now can't use that line anymore. There's no potential "we're gonna move
(to)" city left to use as a bluff card.

"Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" <greekgod.DeleteThis@yeahright.com> wrote in message
news:y_udncHo-PlN01ncRVn_vA@giganews.com...
> Today's Washington Post had an article that suggested the team might play
> the 2005 season in Baltimore if the DC deal is not executed. The schedule
> is already set, and other candidate cities (ie Las Vegas, Norfolk,
Portland)
> either do not have adequate ballparks in 2005 or are already committed
with
> minor league games. The players union would reject Monterrey, and the
> league does not want to return to San Juan due to lack of attendance.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

"Greg and Joan" <ggjn RemoveThis @sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:OiHxd.5255$Z47.1170@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> This is a "snowballs in hell" scenario, because the home schedules of the
> Orioles and the Expos/Nats have too many dates in common -- like at least
> half of them.
>

Sorry, this was addressed explicitly in the article. The schedule was
revised at the last minute to minimize the number of dates where both
Nats/Orioles have home games on the same day. The number is down to 13 or
so. The article stated that they would rearrange the game times so that on
these few dates, one club would play in the afternoon, the other in the
evening.
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

That's going to be a beaut in itself - having four clubs in the same
ballpark on the same day.

Up here in Boston, there are separate admission day-night doubleheaders
when a game has to be made up - e.g. Friday night is rained out, the
Friday night game is made up Saturday night at 7:00 or 7:30. But they
don't do it often *and* there are only two clubs in the park when it's done.

When the Red Sox and Expos were (reportedly) talking about sharing Fenway,
there were only nine dates in common, during which the Expos would have to
find another place to play.


"Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" <greekgod RemoveThis @yeahright.com> wrote in message
news:VP-dnTiSJPnJ1VrcRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>
> "Greg and Joan" <ggjn RemoveThis @sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:OiHxd.5255$Z47.1170@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > This is a "snowballs in hell" scenario, because the home schedules of
the
> > Orioles and the Expos/Nats have too many dates in common -- like at
least
> > half of them.
> >
>
> Sorry, this was addressed explicitly in the article. The schedule was
> revised at the last minute to minimize the number of dates where both
> Nats/Orioles have home games on the same day. The number is down to 13 or
> so. The article stated that they would rearrange the game times so that
on
> these few dates, one club would play in the afternoon, the other in the
> evening.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

"Greg and Joan" <ggjn RemoveThis @sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:uCIxd.5291$Z47.4578@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> That's going to be a beaut in itself - having four clubs in the same
> ballpark on the same day.
>
> Up here in Boston, there are separate admission day-night doubleheaders
> when a game has to be made up - e.g. Friday night is rained out, the
> Friday night game is made up Saturday night at 7:00 or 7:30. But they
> don't do it often *and* there are only two clubs in the park when it's
> done.
>
> When the Red Sox and Expos were (reportedly) talking about sharing Fenway,
> there were only nine dates in common, during which the Expos would have
> to
> find another place to play.
>
>
> "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" <greekgod RemoveThis @yeahright.com> wrote in message
> news:VP-dnTiSJPnJ1VrcRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Greg and Joan" <ggjn RemoveThis @sprynet.com> wrote in message
>> news:OiHxd.5255$Z47.1170@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> > This is a "snowballs in hell" scenario, because the home schedules of
> the
>> > Orioles and the Expos/Nats have too many dates in common -- like at
> least
>> > half of them.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, this was addressed explicitly in the article. The schedule was
>> revised at the last minute to minimize the number of dates where both
>> Nats/Orioles have home games on the same day. The number is down to 13
>> or
>> so. The article stated that they would rearrange the game times so that
> on
>> these few dates, one club would play in the afternoon, the other in the
>> evening.
>>
>>
>
>

Again, there is precedent. When the Angels were the LA Angels, they briefly
shared the same park with the Dodgers. When Yankee Stadium was renovated in
the 70s, they shared Shea Stadium with the Mets for something like two
seasons. Four clubs played in the same park on the same day on some
occasions.

This is temporary, for only one season until MLB relocates the club (to Las
Vegas, Portland, Norfolk, ...), there are only a handful of dates where both
clubs play at home on the same date, and this minimizes disruption to
traveling visiting teams vs relocating the club immediately. Washington
could be used, but MLB wants to punish Washington for not honoring its deal
to provide a 100% publicly financed ballpark.
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

that wont happen

if the washington stadium thing cant be resolved, the Nationals will
play all 164 games on the road
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals? 

Got Any Gum? wrote:
> that wont happen
>
> if the washington stadium thing cant be resolved, the Nationals will
> play all 164 games on the road
>
You think the union would agree to that?

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
 >> Stay informed about: Baltimore Nationals?