San Antonio Marlins?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

San Antonio is prepared to make a sales pitch to the Marlins in the upcoming days.

 

Link

 

County Judge Nelson Wolff said the plan involves using public and private funding to raise the estimated $300 million it would take to build a stadium.

 

 

San Antonio is ranked as the third fastest growing city (Link)behind Los Angeles and Phoenix and just ahead of Las Vegas, and it is listed as the eight largest city in the U.S. and the largest not to have a major league baseball team. On the other hand, it falls to 37th in Nielson's 2004 market size rankings (Linkhttp://). It falls behind potential other locations like Raleigh-Durham, Portland, and Nashville; but it's still ahead of Las Vegas (50) and Oklahoma City (45) which have been mentioned as suitors.

 

 

San Antonio is growing as a city with corporations and has a strong military presence. With it's high population, a team could be successful there. San Antonio is also not far from Austin, so it could draw from there as well.

 

San Antonio only other major sports team is the Spurs, who they have adequately supported. I think this could be a good move for the Marlins.

 

The team could be re-aligned in the 4-team AL West and become a natural rival for the Rangers.

 

[UK1679666180]

I mentioned them as the best possible location the last thread that was on relcation, they would be a nice fit in the AL West.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I mentioned them as the best possible location the last thread that was on relcation, they would be a nice fit in the AL West.

 

I agree. I've only been to San Antonio a couple of times, but it is a very nice city. The Riverwalk is beautiful.

 

It's located far enough from the Astros and Rangers that I think it could develop it's own following.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Someone else needs to change leagues if that happens.

[UK1679666180]

Someone else needs to change leagues if that happens.

 

(Pittsburgh to the East, my apologies Raw)

[rawaction]

Someone else needs to change leagues if that happens.

 

(Pittsburgh to the East, my apologies Raw)

 

Pittsburgh is as midwestern as it gets. Stop hatin'!

[UBlink]

One other point - San Antonio is only an hour away from Austin (well in the middle of the night anyway). If you add the 2 together they move up to #19 in the Nielsen markets.

[Catman61]

Someone else needs to change leagues if that happens.

 

(Pittsburgh to the East, my apologies Raw)

 

AL East? I don't see that happening.

 

If FLA moved to SA and into the AL West, then another team would have to move the the AL as well to have an even number in each league

 

some possibilities

if PIT then AL Central

move MIL back to AL Central

move PIT to NL East and make SA an NL Central team

or make SA an NL West team

[UK1679666180]

I meant NL east from the get go.

 

It would give them 5 teams again.

 

In state rival with Philly and they have no true current rival in the NL Central.

 

15 in each league, 5 in each division in the NL, Then debate, whether or not KC should shift to the AL West (personally, I think KC belongs in the AL Central) to make it 5 in each League. Or if MLB considers Portland a viable option in regards to Minnesota, maybe wait till that situation is more clear.

[Yeti]

MLB in SA would be a disaster.

[Soul]

MLB in SA would be a disaster.

 

 

Why? Sounds like a decent location to me.

[erik316wttn]

MLB in SA would be a disaster.

 

Please explain.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I meant NL east from the get go.

 

It would give them 5 teams again.

 

In state rival with Philly and they have no true current rival in the NL Central.

 

15 in each league, 5 in each division in the NL, Then debate, whether or not KC should shift to the AL West (personally, I think KC belongs in the AL Central) to make it 5 in each League. Or if MLB considers Portland a viable option in regards to Minnesota, maybe wait till that situation is more clear.

 

I don't think 15 in each league is particularly feasible schedule-wise.

[UK1679666180]

You have 20 intradivision games per 4 opponents. 80 games

15 Interleague games, they're at 95 games.

 

You have 10 teams left within the League and 67 games.

 

7 of those teams play 11 games and 3 of those teams play 6 games.

[wiggum742]

15 teams per league doesn't work because of off days. If you have an uneven number of teams in a league, you need a lot of interleague play or one team is off every day.

 

it might work for splitting up games, but the scheduling of the games doesn't work.

[goonys evil twin]

Like it or not, interleague is here to stay.

 

If you go with 15/15, you can have 1 interleague series going on at all times, which essentially makes it a 14/14 league, easier to schedule. I see no reason to keep interleague all in one month. While some might prefer not to see interleague play in September when races are tightening, there really is no difference between that and regular play where a leader plays somebody in another division who is out of the race.

[Catman61]

15 in each league.

To do that would require interleague play the entire season. That doesn't seem like something MLB would go for.

 

Geographically, it would make the most sense to have the SA club either in the NL West OR the NL Central moving PIT to the NL East.

 

If I was to venture a guess as to which would be most likely should the Marlins move to San Antonio. my money would be on the NL West because that would be the LEAST disruptive. I imagine the Pirates don't want to be in the same division as the Braves, Mets and Phillies

[goonys evil twin]

To do that would require interleague play the entire season. That doesn't seem like something MLB would go for.

 

Possibly not, but I see no reason why.

 

MLB should consider doing something where they schedule some interleague foes depending on how last year's standings ended. You could pit the two World Series foes against each other on Opening Day, increasing interest. You could have all the last place teams face each other down the stretch, if you want to decrease the perception that interleague would affect the pennant race (in reality, since all games count the same, any interleague game affects the races the same). You could schedule a lot of likely contenders for later in the season if you want, again increasing interest in possible World Series previews.

 

It can be done, without much of a problem (I once scheduled an entire season to map it out), and it could be really cool. As long as interleague play is going to stay (which it will) there is no reason why they can't do it.

[Catman61]

While some might prefer not to see interleague play in September when races are tightening, there really is no difference between that and regular play where a leader plays somebody in another division who is out of the race.

 

While I don't disagree, I think the potential for schedule imbalances (such as 2 division title contenders where 1 gets 6 games vs NYY/BOS and the other TB/BAL) It also seems that it would add even more complexity (could be wrong) to making out 162 game schedule for 30 teams.

[Tim]

You have 20 intradivision games per 4 opponents. 80 games

15 Interleague games, they're at 95 games.

 

You have 10 teams left within the League and 67 games.

 

7 of those teams play 11 games and 3 of those teams play 6 games.

On any given day, who is playing whom?

 

Unless you are committing to interleague play throughout the season, there's always an offday. I still say we should expand by two more teams, ditch interleague, ditch the wildcard and go to four divisions of four teams. I guess I'm not completely opposed to interleague play, but I would ditch the "rivalry" series as it makes for an uneven playing field. The scheduling becomes cake and you actually have to win something to make the playoffs.

 

Before anyone starts with the "watered-down pitching" talk, let me issue a preemptive strike -- there's more talent in the game per team than there ever has been before.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why not spread interleague play out? I could really care less when the Cards play the Royals or when the Nationals play the, well, anybody. I guess my point is, they really don't need to play them all at the same time.

[TheDude]

MLB in SA would be a disaster.

 

An unsupported Chicken-litle argument isn't going to get far on these boards.

 

Personally, I think San Antonio is a fine location, and the more spots that step up create buzz and competition for the other prime locations, the greater likelyhood a team gets into a better situation long-term.

[goonys evil twin]

While some might prefer not to see interleague play in September when races are tightening, there really is no difference between that and regular play where a leader plays somebody in another division who is out of the race.

 

While I don't disagree, I think the potential for schedule imbalances (such as 2 division title contenders where 1 gets 6 games vs NYY/BOS and the other TB/BAL) It also seems that it would add even more complexity (could be wrong) to making out 162 game schedule for 30 teams.

 

There already is an imbalance. STL gets 6 vs KC while the Cubs face the White Sox.

 

It can also be set-up so the #1 NL team isn't playing NYY and BOS.

 

You can keep 1 rivalry series (rotate home and away each year). 1 series vs the equivalent finish from last year (WS vs WS, LCS loser vs LCS loser, etc.). 2 rotating series with any other team.

[Catman61]

MLB should consider doing something where they schedule some interleague foes depending on how last year's standings ended. You could pit the two World Series foes against each other on Opening Day, increasing interest. You could have all the last place teams face each other down the stretch, if you want to decrease the perception that interleague would affect the pennant race (in reality, since all games count the same, any interleague game affects the races the same). You could schedule a lot of likely contenders for later in the season if you want, again increasing interest in possible World Series previews.

 

It can be done, without much of a problem (I once scheduled an entire season to map it out), and it could be really cool. As long as interleague play is going to stay (which it will) there is no reason why they can't do it.

 

Some excellent points and one you have obviously put some time and thought into. Thanks

[goonys evil twin]

MLB should consider doing something where they schedule some interleague foes depending on how last year's standings ended. You could pit the two World Series foes against each other on Opening Day, increasing interest. You could have all the last place teams face each other down the stretch, if you want to decrease the perception that interleague would affect the pennant race (in reality, since all games count the same, any interleague game affects the races the same). You could schedule a lot of likely contenders for later in the season if you want, again increasing interest in possible World Series previews.

 

It can be done, without much of a problem (I once scheduled an entire season to map it out), and it could be really cool. As long as interleague play is going to stay (which it will) there is no reason why they can't do it.

 

Some excellent points and one you have obviously put some time and thought into. Thanks

 

I actually wasted a ton of time a couple years ago thinking about this. I just deleted the file a couple months ago.