My RICO solution: Expansion!

jcb10.TakeThisOut@axe.humboldt.edu (John C. Baker) wrote in message news:<301d2ccf.0409292100.6a1fc651.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>...
> Let Washington have the current team. I think the RICO suit can be
> settled in one easy way: expansion! Let's take a page from our
> Washington team-stealers and get a new squad to replace one that left.
> The new team will also be called the Expos, to play here in Montréal.
> Another team can join elsewhere, say Portland or Tokyo.
>
> Everyone's happy. Washington, Montréal, the other expansion city and
> the former limited partners, who can run the new team. With all the
> Latin American and Asian players now in the game, I don't think a
> two-team expansion will severely dillute the talent pool.

It's happened before:

After New York lost the Giants and Dodgers, they got the Mets.
After Washington lost the old Senators, they got the new Senators.
After Kansas City lost the A's, they got the Royals.
After Seattle lost the Pilots, they got the Mariners.
After Milwaukee lost the Braves, they got the Brewers (not by
expansion, though).

I can't see it happening this time, but "bad baseball towns" have
received replacement teams in the past.
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

"Got Any Gum?" <gotanygum DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote in message news:<1096553462.377270.212880 DeleteThis @h37g2000oda.googlegroups.com>...
> and then the new Expos would only draw 4,000 a game
> Get real man,Montreal will get a new team
> but it will bee AA

I'm with you on this...

Montréal has been limp dicking with supporting Les Expos for over 10
years and getting another team (expansion franchise) is not going to
solve the problems that the team was having -- those being the Big O
and the city/province's lack of support for a new stadium.

The ultimate smack in the face for the Expos last night was Jeffery
Loria's Florida Marlin's closing out the history of Les Expos in
Montreal... Jeffery Loria who had a stadium plan but got kicked in
the gonads by the government up there and was then villified by those
who could talk about the team online (and there were many of these on
FanHome.com ) but not take the time to go to the ballpark and actually
support the team.
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

"John C. Baker" <jcb10.RemoveThis@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote in message
news:301d2ccf.0409292100.6a1fc651@posting.google.com...
> Let Washington have the current team. I think the RICO suit can be
> settled in one easy way: expansion! Let's take a page from our
> Washington team-stealers and get a new squad to replace one that
> left.
> The new team will also be called the Expos, to play here in
> Montréal.

To what end, John? I mean seriously, Montreal just won't support a
major league baseball team. There's a reason why this team's in the
position it's in. A triple-A team in the International League might
be a good fit, but the 35 year Montreal Expos experiment has proven to
be a failure. You had some good years there in the 1980s, but
overall, it just never worked.

--
Lance

"Teams that visit Busch Stadium are treated
as hospitably as Michael Moore at the Republican
National Convention." Bernie Miklasz 9/6/04
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

"Lance Freezeland" <freezelandlaw.nospam RemoveThis @consolidated.net> wrote in message news:<2s36hlF1gh57eU1 RemoveThis @uni-berlin.de>...
> "John C. Baker" <jcb10 RemoveThis @axe.humboldt.edu> wrote in message
> news:301d2ccf.0409292100.6a1fc651@posting.google.com...
> > Let Washington have the current team. I think the RICO suit can be
> > settled in one easy way: expansion! Let's take a page from our
> > Washington team-stealers and get a new squad to replace one that
> > left.
> > The new team will also be called the Expos, to play here in
> > Montréal.
>
> To what end, John? I mean seriously, Montreal just won't support a
> major league baseball team. There's a reason why this team's in the
> position it's in. A triple-A team in the International League might
> be a good fit,

I seriously doubt they'd support it. AAA rates to be a tough sell
after the fiasco of the last decade or so.

> but the 35 year Montreal Expos experiment has proven to
> be a failure. You had some good years there in the 1980s, but
> overall, it just never worked.

But they never tried to make it work after Brochu took over.

It's not a market that will support a second tier team, but put
an adequately financed, good team in there and it'll be well
supported. (actually that might not be true any longer. Still,
when the CFL revived a franchise that had been folded and put
a really good team in there, they drew quite well. I suspect
the same is true of baseball though there's no way to be sure)

Put a team in any market that's run by a guy who gets a bonus
for refraining from making cash calls (making the cash flow
situation murder) -- as the Expos did -- and it'll be a long-term
failure anywhere. Put them in a dump like the big Owe and ...

Then simply decide not to market (I like two hours from the stadium.
I haven't seen an Expos promotion in more than a decade. The Blue
Jays market here all the time. In the 80s the Expos used to package
a return bus ticket and game tickets. Nice deal and they got
significant support from Ottawa). And spend all your time pissing
and moaning rather than talking up the talent at hand.

And to be clear, I don't want the situation resolved by the former
partners ending up with control. No reason to think it will be
any better.

Sad, but hopefully the franchise will end up in the hands of
somebody who at least isn't actively sabotaging it.
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

>To what end, John? I mean seriously, Montreal just won't support a
>major league baseball team.

Neither will Washington. They've proven it over a period of 71 years.

Here is how well major league cities have supported their baseball teams since
1901. "Good support" is defined as being in the first half of their league in
attendance. The percentage number is the percentage of seasons that they have
had good support. Note which city is last, by no small margin. 2004 figures are
not included.

12.7% - WASHINGTON; AL 1901-1960, 1961-1971
16.7% - TAMPA; AL 1998-present
20.0% - MONTRÉAL; NL 1969-present
27.3% - MIAMI; NL 1993-present
28.6% - SEATTLE; AL 1969, 1977-present
31.4% - SAN DIEGO; NL 1969-present
31.7% - SAN FRANCISCO; NL 1958-present, AL 1968-present (Giants 32.6%, A's
30.6%)
33.3% - MILWAUKEE; AL 1901, NL 1953-1965, AL 1970-1997, NL 1998-present (Braves
61.5%, Brewers 23.5%)
34.9% - MINNEAPOLIS; AL 1961-present
35.0% - PHILADELPHIA; NL 1901-present, AL 1901-1954 (Phillies 33.0%, A's 38.9%)
36.9% - PITTSBURGH; NL 1901-present
38.1% - HOUSTON; NL 1962-present
39.8% - CINCINNATI; NL 1901-present
39.8% - CLEVELAND; AL 1901-present
43.2% - ST. LOUIS; NL 1901-present, AL 1902-1953 (Cardinals 60.2%, Browns 9.6%)
43.8% - KANSAS CITY; AL 1955-1967, 1969-present (A's 23.1%, Royals 51.4%)
47.4% - ATLANTA; NL 1966-present
52.3% - BOSTON, AL 1901-present, NL 1901-1952 (Red Sox 72.8%, Braves 11.5%)
53.1% - DALLAS; AL 1972-present
57.7% - BALTIMORE; AL 1901-1902 , 1954-present
63.0% - TORONTO; AL 1977-present
63.1% - CHICAGO; AL 1901-present, NL 1901-present (Cubs 69.9%, White Sox 56.3%)
68.9% - DETROIT; AL 1901-present
77.4% - NEW YORK; AL 1903-present, NL 1901-1957, NL 1901-1957, NL 1962-present
(Yankees 85.1%, Giants 89.5%, Robins/Dodgers 64.9%, Mets 59.5%)
80.9% - LOS ANGELES; NL 1958-present, AL 1961-present (Dodgers 100%, Angels
60.5%)
83.3% - PHOENIX; NL 1998-present
90.9% - DENVER; NL 1993-present


Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

On 01 Oct 2004 01:07:57 GMT, forlornh DeleteThis @aol.complicated (Lord Calvert)
wrote:

>>To what end, John? I mean seriously, Montreal just won't support a
>>major league baseball team.
>
>Neither will Washington. They've proven it over a period of 71 years.

I agree with you, Rich. But isn't it a moot point now? The Expos are
gone and frankly IMO, if they're not in Montreal, they don't exist. So
even if the Washington Whozits were to win the World Series next year,
it wouldn't mean anything to me.

Roberta
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

"Wombat" <eqiotii.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fc4f895.0409301023.52aa6cc9@posting.google.com...

> It's happened before:
>
> After New York lost the Giants and Dodgers, they got the Mets.
> After Washington lost the old Senators, they got the new Senators.

The 1960-1961 expansions were done for a variety of reasons -- (as was the
rubber-stamping of the move of the Giants and Dodgers to the west coast in
1958).

- the US economy was expanding, and Major League Baseball could handle 20
teams instead of 18.
- during the 1950s, some Pacific Coast League team owners had aspirations
of elevating its status to major; some clubs in that league had already
broken their major affiliations and were operating with their own farm
systems, and were on their way to that until the Dodgers and Giants moved
west.
- in the late 1950s, there was a serious effort at forming a third major
league - the Continental League - and that is what prompted the 1960-61
expansions.


> After Kansas City lost the A's, they got the Royals.
> After Seattle lost the Pilots, they got the Mariners.

Bad stadium situations in both instances. Worse than Montreal's. And it
was several years before the void was filled.

> I can't see it happening this time, but "bad baseball towns" have
> received replacement teams in the past.

Not likely to happen. The only reason contraction didn't happen was
because the stadium authority in Minnesota was going to sue, and there was
a very strong possibility that MLB and the Twins ownership would have lost
the case. The old adage "contracts aren't worth the paper they're written
on" wasn't true.

Some will say that there are too many teams now. Too many owners
competing for a finite pool of talent. Expansion was a way for the other
owners to get a quick infusion of cash via a franchise fee. And they're
paying for it now.
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

>> After Kansas City lost the A's, they got the Royals.
>> After Seattle lost the Pilots, they got the Mariners.
>
>Bad stadium situations in both instances. Worse than Montreal's. And it
>was several years before the void was filled.

In Kansas City's case, this is not true. The A's left for Oakland after the
1967 season. The Royals came into existence in 1969. The biggest problem with
the KC A's was incompetent ownership who didn't have a clue how to market or
develop a team. The stadium was not a problem. KC fans would have gone to seem
them play in a public playground if the ownership had given a damn.

The Kansas City A's were a bad team.
They sold all their best players to the Yankees.
After that, they were a worse team.
After that, they were gone.

Sound familiar, Expos fans?

Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:34:31 GMT, "Greg and Joan" <ggjn.TakeThisOut@sprynet.com> spewed
forth these words of wisdom:

>
>
>The 1960-1961 expansions were done for a variety of reasons -- (as was the
>rubber-stamping of the move of the Giants and Dodgers to the west coast in
>1958).
>
>- the US economy was expanding, and Major League Baseball could handle 20
>teams instead of 18.
>- during the 1950s, some Pacific Coast League team owners had aspirations
>of elevating its status to major; some clubs in that league had already
>broken their major affiliations and were operating with their own farm
>systems, and were on their way to that until the Dodgers and Giants moved
>west.
>- in the late 1950s, there was a serious effort at forming a third major
>league - the Continental League - and that is what prompted the 1960-61
>expansions.
>
>


Very interesting; I did not know that.

>Some will say that there are too many teams now. Too many owners
>competing for a finite pool of talent. Expansion was a way for the other
>owners to get a quick infusion of cash via a franchise fee. And they're
>paying for it now.
>

I agree, there should only be 26 teams at the most.

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion! 

>
>>Some will say that there are too many teams now. Too many owners
>>competing for a finite pool of talent. Expansion was a way for the other
>>owners to get a quick infusion of cash via a franchise fee. And they're
>>paying for it now.
>>
>
>I agree, there should only be 26 teams at the most.
>

What's this finite pool of talent? The pool of talent in any sport is
limitless.

What people tend to forget is that talent is on a bell curve, with the majority
of the population in the middle and significantly lower numbers at both ends
(the truly brilliant and the truly incompetent). Most people errantly believe
that professional sports athletes are on the same curve. They are but not the
way you think.

Professional athletes are taken from the extreme right end of the bell-curve.
Plot out a normal bell curve for roughly 700 million people. This is a gross
estimate of the population of the baseball playing countries. Now, take the
best 750 of these 700 million. Those are your major leaguers. Even the very
worst of them are on that extreme right end of the bell curve.

Finding a guy who can hit .310 and 40 homers is damn tough. There aren't many
of those people around. Finding someone who can hit .230 with little power but
good defense is damned easy. There are LOADS of those people around. People
talk about pitching dilution because of expansion but forget that the number of
*hitters* in the game because of expansion has increased even more as most
teams carry 11 pitchers to 14 position players.

While there is certainly a finite pool of talent, defined by the number of
people on the planet who play baseball, there is absolutely no lack of talent
in any real sense when you're talking about the best 1/10,000th of a percent,
which is what major leaguers represent.

Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
 >> Stay informed about: My RICO solution: Expansion!