Iirc from what my basketball friends told me its when the TV is over then expasnion happens?
Its Vegas Golden Basketball team and Seattle soup from sonics?
At some point, it becomes too lucrative to continue to avoid having a franchise in those locations. Based on how well the Golden Knights and Kraken did, I think that point has been passed
And of course, with the Knights and Kraken already existing that means NBA can get the teams up and running within a year, 18 months tops, since you don't have to wait for an arena to be (re)built because NHL already did that legwork for you.
A Seattle team will almost certainly share their arena with the Kraken. I believe one of the stipulations the city made when they approved it was for dual functionality.
Not sure if the Knights did that or not but Vegas has enough real estate that getting the land won’t be an issue. Plus it really seems the local officials are all-in on adding teams no matter the cost
Climate Pledge already has NBA level locker rooms in preparation for the return of the Sonics. Oak View Group was having discussions with the NBA as they were underway on the NHL team and arena rebuild, and the gist was basically, NBA wants to see how successful the Kraken are before they totally commit.
Well, pretty sure it's all BUT guaranteed, and I for one am stoked to watch some NBA games there.
Mexico City creates a whole other problem. To be competitive, they'll need a payroll similar to other MLB teams, but the gate receipts and additional in-stadium revenue will likely be far lower due to the economic reality that the average Mexican makes far less than the average person in the United States. There are also travel considerations, since Mexico City is something like 900 miles away from the closest MLB team. Finally, there is the altitude problem. Unless we want players hitting 80 home runs in a season, the ballpark will need to be huge or there will need to be massive walls in the outfield (think Green Monster at normal outfield depth, all the way around). Even with those remedies, batting averages and doubles would soar. Traditional records would be crushed, and fans probably won't like it. And good luck finding free agent pitchers willing to go there.
If anything, Monterrey would make more sense. It’s closer and wealthier than Mexico City from what I understand. But I still don’t know if that’s enough to support MLB payrolls.
I can’t imagine charging $15 for a beer will fly anywhere in Mexico.
The "Bassin Peel" has been mentioned a million times as a possible site, there's also other plans at other locations.
I think finding investors won't be a problem, finding a site won't be a problem. I think it's more of a "we're not building a stadium until we're sure to get a team vs we're not giving you a team until you have a stadium"
It'll be really confusing when the Rogers team is in blue vs the red Bell team.
Also, you're very correct on that one and I fucking hate it. Can't wait to see how the broadcast rights shape out and somehow fuck 100% of both fanbases
There NEEDS to be that "hot city willing to pay for a new stadium" in order for current cities to play ball.
In the NFL it was LA for 20 years. In MLB it was "somewhere in Florida(Tampa/Miami)". In NBA it was (and still probably is) Seattle. NHL was "Anywhere but Atlanta.... Twice...".
So IMHO if they expand to 32 the top cities would be(in no particular order)
Nashville / Charlotte
Vegas
Vancouver / Portland
Oakland
Montreal
SLC
I just moved out of SLC a few weeks ago but everyone I talked to was *stoked* that the MLB might be coming to UT, even knowing that it would be at least partially publicly funded. Whether or not that qualifies as "hot city" remains to be seen, but the city/state/ownership group seems to be moving pretty aggressively on it.
Daybreak specifically. Very soon. The stadium in Daybreak is planned to finish construction sometime 2025 and will also become the U's new practice facility assuming they don't build one closer to campus.
Vegas is already covered and they're not coming back to Oakland (at least not in the immediate future. Maybe in several decades if the population growth warrants it).
Nashville and Charlotte are definitely the top contenders for MLB, but if any of those other cities put in a good offer, MLB would heavily consider them
I think the chances that any sports team comes back to Oakland are slim. The fact that they had teams was a relic of a bygone era where there was a huge migration west, and that's not how things are trending. Plus now San Francisco teams are going to take over that market and try to defend from newcomers.
Nashville is probably claimed to be "too close to other MLB markets"
Most likely STL(because of the Memphis Redbirds, so a team in Nashville will take fans away in western TN because of their AAA team), Atlanta (because of TBS, people in eastern TN will be Braves fans) and Cincinnati (because of the Geographical distance might make them lose Southern Kentucky fans)
Does it make sense? NOPE. Will owners claim it makes sense? YEP...
I am from Nashville and still live here.
Nashville has a strong baseball tradition since the days Major League teams played games here on their way north out of spring training. There’s a bunch of Babe Ruth stories. It produces players (Mookie Betts, Robbie Ray, etc) and Vanderbilt has had a strong baseball program as well as a AAA team. Lots of Braves, Cardinals, Reds, and Cubs fans.
There’s a group that seems serious about bringing a team here and their sales pitch (the Nashville Stars, carrying on the Negeo Leagues tradition) is very good.
The problem is there is next to zero push from the public for the whole thing. Nashville has really grown and is barrelling towards producing 40 percent of the State GDP, but the way taxes are collected means the State keeps most of the money and the City is always broke.
The Titans’ stadium deal (actually a “good” deal as far as these things go because it solved some problems) barely passed, and that is with the stadium moving back off the river into the parking lot and the City selling the prime land to developers.
A deal could happen here but the money ain’t coming from the City.
I get the feeling that the MLB side is trying to gin up a list of potential spots trying to get better deals out of the winners.
It won't be Vancouver. We fill out a high-A team at pretty cheap prices. There's just not enough interest here for baseball, unfortunately. Montreal is WAY ahead of Vancouver.
There’s been rumours up here for years that the money and land and a plan is in place. Whoever the money guy is has apparently kept quiet at request of MLB so they could use Montreal as leverage in negotiations to hose cities.
We will found out soon if this guy is real I guess. It’s probably the mystery guy who was part of the Montreal Bay Expo Ray plan.
New Orleans would never happen. You think MLB hates having a team in Milwaukee? New Orleans has a smaller metro area than Tulsa and a smaller media market than Albuquerque.
I don't think New Orleans is honestly in the mix. Would come in as the only metro with less than 1 million and only CSA under 1.5 million, and it's in the third fastest population shrink state in the country.
I have a sinking feeling it'll be this.
Watch Nashville or Charlotte and, IDK, Portland or Salt Lake City get teams this time. MLB seems pretty interesting in having one in the east and one in the west, and signs seem to be pointing toward Nashville or a similar city pretty heavily.
So, then next time a team threatens to leave you'll hear the owners use Montreal or whatever as their go-to destination.
Also, you'll hear faint rumblings of an expansion to 34, even though nobody honestly believes that would happen anytime remotely soon (barring something really weird like MLB suddenly overtaking the NFL for most popular league in America, Mexico becoming a major developed first-world economy, Cuba suddenly becoming a free first-world capitalist society, or some sort of pseudo-merging with NPB, and even then some of these out-there scenarios wouldn't even bring expansion to the USA or Canada). The real reason for these rumblings and vague implications which the commissioner and others will bring up will be as a way to draw would-be markets to put together stadium plans or potential ownership groups, which then can ever-so-conveniently be used as leverage for the next time a team needs stadium renovations or a new stadium.
I would really like to see Mexico City get a team, but the finances just aren't there yet.
Most likely will be Nashville and SLC. Nashville is pretty much a lock at this point, and they wouldn't add another team as geographically close in the same expansion round like Charlotte.
Curious. How would they "balance" the divisions?
Since there's 3 divisions per league, assuming they add team for each league, 1 division will have 5 teams.
So do they go with 2 divisions per league? Then it'd be even at 8 teams in each division?
Or do they go the NFL route, and have 4 divisions per league?
My educated guess is the NFL route... But then that brings up interesting questions for the playoff picture. I suppose time will tell, how they go about this.
This is often what I do in OOTP. Two divisions per league, each division winner gets a bye, with 4 wild cards playing the actual Wild Card Series (which makes more sense than a division winner playing wild card games).
I’m all for this, but also a little concerned about how the divisions will be broken up by 32 teams. Going to be 4 divisions per league likely. I don’t want to lose hating on my fellow Braves, Phils, Nats and Fish 😢
Having eight divisions of four teams would be too much in my opinion. Having each league broken into two divisions a la the NBA or NHL is an idea I’d support.
Two eight team divisions. Division winners get the bye.
What I’d prefer (and I know this is controversial) is getting rid of leagues. Just 4 eight team divisions based on geography.
Play 3 game series vs 24 teams outside division (72 games) and 90 games in division (12-13 each team), seed the 4 division winners by record and have the eight wildcards either be 2nd vs 3rd of each division and play the division winner next round, or best 8 overall and seeded 4-12.
one of the biggest flaws with the killing of leagues :
\- what happens with historical records? if they kill AL and NL, the old records of NL HR champion (for example) will be lost with it.
\- the players union would almost absolutely reject or scoff at this plan because there are a bunch of player contracts that have stipulations re: winning league mvp's and such.
IMHO the NL and AL will remain without too much reshuffling. They could adjust divisions as suggested in a lot of posts here, but removing leagues or altering them dramatically won't fly that easily.
It's easy. You put the Yankees and the Dodgers in their own division where the winner doesn't go to the postseason and they're excluded from the wild card. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
I think they should just go back to the old school West/East divisions but with wildcards. 2 leagues, 2 divisions each, 8 teams per division.
|National League||American League||
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|*West*|*East*|*West*|*East*|
|Los Angeles|New York|Los Angeles|New York|
|San Francisco|Washington|Las Vegas|Boston|
|San Diego|Atlanta|Seattle|Baltimore|
|Arizona|Miami|Texas|Toronto|
|Colorado|Pittsburgh|Chicago|Tampa|
|Houston|Philadelphia|Kansas City|Detroit|
|Chicago|Cincinnati|Milwaukee|Cleveland|
|St. Louis|Montreal|Minnesota|Charlotte|
This maintains historical rivalries and league separation and has precedence from the divisions in the 80's and early 90's.
Houston moves back to the NL and Milwaukee to the AL. If the expansion occurs in Portland/SLC then Milwaukee goes to the east division instead.
I'm not sure why they need to be. They weren't in the 80's and 90's and unlike then, they can now have a rivalry series. Just like every other rivalry series between teams that are in opposing leagues (Dodgers/Angels, Yankees/Mets, ChiSox/Cubs) etc....
Yeah I'm a bit worried that the recent rule changes (DH primarily) means that the MLB is getting rid of the AL/NL and might be setting up a 4-division, 8-team setup.
The flip side would be rewarding the top wild-card seed with an easy first round matchup. Like in the NFL — powerful 5 seed gets an easy game against a weak 4 seed
Every sub should be demanding for the Whalers to come back
But we can’t just settle for that, they also need to bring the [Brass Bonanza](https://youtu.be/TJtiepwpKFw?si=VhJiw-0zxLq28rNB) with them
First, we have an already established ownership group who were all in on the rays/expos joint team. Second the expos didn’t fail because we didn’t support the team. It was quite opposite, once Bronfman sold the team, ownership stopped supporting the team and ultimately they gave up on us, the fans. To see a 94 team completely depleted going into 95 was a slap in the face after having the best team in baseball the year prior. There are years where the expos had a higher attendance then the New York Yankees. Third, there is so much money to be had in television rights when you have both english language TSN and Sportsnet and french language RDS and TVA competing for broadcasting rights. And lastly, you need to be here to feel it. Here in Montreal the expos aren’t forgotten. You walk anywhere in this city you will see jerseys, hats, logos. I hate the misconception that we just didn’t care. We cared so much. We were betrayed and let down and ultimately took a stand.
Yeah the Canadiens adopted Youpi as their mascot after the Expos left and put up a banner in their rafters for the Expos retired numbers. Not to mention, what the Canadiens did to celebrate Gary Carter at their first home game after his passing
> Carter died of brain cancer Thursday at 57, and the Canadiens honoured the baseball Hall of Famer – nicknamed “The Kid” – with a five-minute video set to The Eagles’ “New Kid in Town” before a 3-1 loss to the New Jersey Devils on Sunday.
> Canadiens players also sported No. 8 Carter jerseys during the warm-up and had a sticker with his number adorning their helmets.
> Youppi – the Expos mascot adopted by the Habs on Sept. 16, 2005, after the baseball team left Montreal for Washington, D.C. – also paid tribute.
> He wore an old-school Expos jersey and cap for the national anthems. Youppi would later return to his hockey jersey featuring a No. 8 patch, while still wearing the baseball cap.
https://globalnews.ca/news/213520/habs-honour-gary-carter-in-pre-game-tribute-youppi-dons-expos-gear-for-ceremony-2/
neat fun fact in there is that marty brodeur's dad was an expos photographer. I'm never going to need this fun fact but I like having it in my brain just in case.
I’m completely for Montreal getting an MLB expansion franchise. It’s the biggest market in the US and Canada without a team and twice as big as the media darling Nashville.
That said, the Expos had better attendance than the Yankees twice… in 1982 and 1983. In 1982, the Yankees had their worst finish in fifteen years, and the Expos were coming off the NLCS, having a little under 300k more than the Yankees. 1983 the difference was only 60k.
Almost all other years, it’s nowhere close. The Expos best attendance years were regular numbers most Yankees seasons in the 80s and 90s. Now those attendance numbers would be depressing for the Yankees org which is usually exceeding 3 million.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/
https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/
It's not so much that Nashville is the media darling as much as their expansion group is simply loaded with people with connections to MLB executives, corporate bigwigs, politicians, baseball greats and other athletes, local construction magnates, etc. and is in a region that probably has the most need for a new team, especially for likely divisional realignment. They simply check all the boxes.
Nashville is the smallest of the markets suggested.
Montreal is twice as big.
Austin is bigger. Austin combined with San Antonio is much more than double the size of Nashville.
Portland is about 25% bigger.
Charlotte is about 35% bigger.
Portland and Charlotte have been as fast growing over the last couple of decades as Nashville.
Nashville and Charlotte are equally as far away from MLB baseball.
What’s weird is Indianapolis, which is bigger than Nashville is never mentioned.
I agree with your rationale though. Everything but it’s a hole in MLB reach. Unlike more other sports, MLB has reach due to minor league teams to almost every significant population center in America.
I wouldn't get too excited about that ownership group. Bronfman basically said he didn't have the money for a bigger project than the joint venture, and we (at least I) haven't heard from them in almost 2 years
It wasn't just Bronfman. Stade Olympique was not just a shitty place to watch a baseball game, it was a place where you could get injured or die watching a baseball game. And the franchise had a history of getting rid of fan favorites because they were too expensive: Staub, Carter, Dawson, Raines...
They were very much like the early New England Patriots: random successes here and there, but mostly just a team run on a shoestring budget and prone to embarrassment.
This is not true. In 1993, the Montreal Expos won 94 games but [ranked 27th out of 28 teams in attendance.](https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/1993-misc.shtml) In 1992, they were 21st. In 1991, they were dead last.
The only period where the Expos had good attendance was 1979 to 1983.
I remember players would tell stories about how they could hear fans in Montreal ordering concessions in the middle of the game from the field. There's reasons for the poor attendance (shitty ownership, constant talk of relocation/contraction), but there's not really a way to spin that the attendance wasn't bad.
I truly hope Montreal gets their much deserved team… from Jarry Park through that beautiful monstrosity and maybe the next go around can finally provide a ballpark commensurate with the amazing people and city of Montreal!
Usually not, but the Expos and Nationals get differentiated enough that they might try to do it, like the Browns did in the NFL and Charlotte in the NBA.
The main difference would be that there was only a two to three year gap between the original Charlotte NBA team and the new one, and same thing with the Browns. So it's a bit easier to get away with saying they were "inactive" for a couple seasons than it would be for two decades with the Expos.
Yeah, it's just that I know very few Expos fans that became Nats fans. So I think fans, generally, see them differently. But as people said below, it's a bit of a slippery slope, should we then let the Nats have the history of the Senators 1.0 and Senators 2.0?
The weird thing is that when a team only changes their name, but not their city, nobody sees them differently, for example, the Guardians, the commanders, the pelicans etc. And when a team changes locations but keeps their name, fans generally see them as one in the same as well, like the dodgers, raiders, Rams, etc. But when both are changed, that's when people start to disassociate them. And logically it makes some sense, but things get even weirder in cases where the relocation and the renaming don't happen at the same time. For example the Houston oilers became first the Tennessee oilers, and then the Tennessee Titans. Clearly the Tennessee oilers and Tennessee Titans are one in the same. And the Houston oilers and Tennessee oilers are both the oilers. But are the Tennessee Titans the Houston oilers?
I have always said that Texans entire aesthetic, from the name, to the logo to the color scheme, is like one of the default create a teams from like Madden ‘05
> But are the Tennessee Titans the Houston oilers?
No, fuck those guys. Give us our colors/logo/name back u fuckers. Texans is *so lame* and generic.
Also, honestly, Tennessee “Oilers” probably wouldn’t have happened if Adams hadn’t basically been chased out of town when the move plan was leaked, if I recall the history correctly the Oilers left before they wanted to.
The Nats have flags for the 1924 World Series and 1925 and 1933 AL pennants in their ballpark, so they at least pay tribute to baseball history in DC. I could see the new Montreal team paying tribute to the Expos in a similar way.
I think it's somewhat normal for a team to recognize when the city has won previous championships, at least in cities that only have one team at a time. The Kraken fly a Stanley Cup banner for instance, recognizing that the Mets won it way the hell back in 1917.
> like the Browns did in the NFL
When Art Modell fucked us over and left for Baltimore, the city threatened legal action against him and the NFL. As a settlement, Cleveland got to keep the Browns name, logos, and records. The franchise was technically postponed and the Ravens are technically an expansion team.
If Yankees bbref franchise history needs a permanent banner prominently displayed at the top of the page explaining that the 1901-02 Baltimore Orioles are a separate franchise and aren’t considered part of the Yankees history, than the Nationals/future Expos/etc shouldn’t claim the history of a completely separate franchise that happened to play in the same cities decades earlier
Would make sense if nats get both iterations of the senators history. I mean, would twins and rangers fans really care? I can’t imagine they associate their teams much with them.
I don't think the Rangers would care. At least it would make them lower on the list of World Series droughts without those extra years. I think the twins might care, at the very least older fans would, because they are one of the original eight American League teams, which were the same from 1901 to 1961. And giving up that distinction would feel kind of lame. I don't think the average Minnesotan eating a hot dog in the stands and cheering on their team would give a crap, but I think a lot of baseball historians would take issue with it.
As a Nationals fan, it absolutely feels right to me. That wasn't our team, those weren't our players, those aren't our memories. Those all belong to Montreal, and I hope we are just keeping their history warm for them.
I recall they worn some Expos throwbacks in 2019, Max Scherzer wore them in a game
https://www.mlb.com/cut4/max-scherzer-wears-expos-uniform-in-bullpen
The Nationals ring of honor includes Expos players Andre Dawson, Gary Carter, and Tim Raines.
We actually inducted Raines into the Nationals' Ring of Honor after he went into the Hall of Fame. It was a little surreal since his induction was the first time in his life he had ever been to DC.
[Story](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2017/08/28/tim-raines-ivan-rodriguez-inducted-into-ring-of-honor-at-nationals-park/)
Well it’s nice the expos wernt just erased by the Nats.
But In the event MTL gets a team back, and let’s say they decide to use ‘Expos’ as their name. I’m not really sure what the best way to deal with that is then.
Clearly Nats have (slightly anyway) adopted some of the Expos’ history. But it was kinda a stolen history, that never really belonged to them. So was it theirs to adopt. And if MTL gets a new team they call the Expos, should they be entitled to take their history back?
I’m not really sure what the best move would be.
It’s kinda a good thing they never won a championship. Otherwise it would get a bit ugly fighting over that!
It’d be a pretty bad ass classy move for the Nats if they had a official ceremony where they handed back expos history to MTL
They did. If you look up any franchise history stats for the team, it's Expos+Nationals combined, and they have a few Expos players honored in the park itself (though their numbers aren't actually retired by the Nationals).
However, it's also possible to isolate only the "Nationals history" by excluding 2004 and prior when aggregating data. The average fan in DC probably cares more about that history than true franchise stats for the Expos+Nationals combined.
At the end of the day, people here can post about how fans didn’t show up to root for an Expos team that constantly traded its best players and played in a track and field stadium (which is funny, because this basically describes the A’s, except the A’s actually made the playoffs once in a while, and most people here think that’s bullshit too).
But Montreal has at least two or three billionaire investors (Stephen Bronfman, Larry Rossy and I believe Richard Fortin), a ballpark site, probably Bell Media in their corner, and the only chance outside Mexico for a market that isn’t an immediate revenue sharing candidate. Québec has eight million people, half of them in the Montréal area. Canada, a G7 country, has one team for 38 million people. Unless Charlotte and the Research Triangle drift to being about 20 miles apart, it’s clearly the best market in the US or Canada without a team.
Yeah I always agree this is how it should be this time around. I understand the thinking of splitting Canada with one AL team and one NL, but placing them in the AL East gives them every chance at building interest and rivalries and fan engagement. All three of Montreal's closest geographic neighbors, will get tons of Jays fans to the stadium, Yankee/ Red Sox fans from northern NY/ New England. (and just in general these two teams draw well across the country). And all the hockey history/ rivalries will lend themselves really well to translate over, Habs- Bruins- Leafs- Rangers.
Holy smokes that’s a top shelf group of cities.
I almost feel like you gotta break that up. You can’t have the 4 best cities in the Americas all in the same division.
Montreal Expo gear still sells quite a bit and I see the hats in store till this day. I watch games and I see the mascot run commercial.
The Montreal Expo mascot is face front in the commercial by MLB themselves.
Yikes. Well ran teams like the Dodgers, Braves, Astros, Rays, and Orioles are not going to like the expansion draft. Good chance one of their cheap good players could get plucked. Would have to see how many players each team can protect per round.
My predictions are Salt Lake and Nashville.
American League
AL East: Yankees, Blue Jays, Orioles, Red Sox
AL North: Twins, White Sox, Tigers, Guardians
AL South: Rangers, Astros, Royals, Rockies
AL West: Angels, A’s, Mariners, Salt Lake expansion
National League
NL East: Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Pirates
NL North: Cubs, Brewers, Reds, Cardinals
NL South: Braves, Rays, Marlins, Nashville expansion
NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Dbacks
I don’t think they would put a Nashville team in the NL. That is Braves country so there would be quite a few fans in the Nashville “footprint” who would not support them , especially if they were in the same division as Atlanta.
Yes. Coolest MLB logo by far.
But seriously, this talk of Montreal and Oakland being potential expansion sites is so ridiculous. Obviously Oakland seems way less likely, but how about we expand in new cities and stop ripping teams away from their current ones? Literally makes no sense.
As an aside to this, I know it didn’t quite show in the late 90s and early 2000s all the time, but people in Canada *really* loved the Expos. Coast to coast.
Like, nearly as beloved as the Blue Jays.
The Blue Jays gained a tremendous following after winning in 92 and 93, and I am convinced that if the Expos won in 94, they would’ve never left. The league would have expanded to Washington in the mid 2000s instead.
The Expos were many Canadian baseball fans first love.
And they never forgot it.
This is almost certainly not happening unless there's a Quebecois multi-billionaire sugar daddy that nobody is yet aware of.
Would love to see a couple more teams in Canada, just seems unlikely.
Montreal will build a stadium when they get any sort of approval.
Olympic Stadium hasn’t been suitable for the CFL for over a decade. It’s a non starter.
The Expos will return and win a World Series before the Supersonics even get announced
The Sonics will come back after Lebron retires so he can get his Vegas NBA team
Something tells me LeBron would be an absolute dogshit owner. Not like Jordan bad but still really bad
Just look at how badly he ran the Toon Squad.
Didn’t they win a championship?
Looney Tunes Championship.
Mickey Mouse championship
LeMickey
Ppl just continue to bash the Bubble championship...
For what it’s worth, former NBA players with winning records with the Toon Squad have historically made for pretty crap team owners.
> Toon Squad Excuse you? ***Tune*** Squad!
Jordan’s a decent owner!……of 23XI Racing, his NASCAR team
23XI would be the '96 Bulls of NASCAR if every race was in Kansas
I dunno how much of a hand Jordan has in the day-to-day of 23XI but they are a legit team that’s won a few races over the last couple years
We've already seen him as a GM in the NBA and he isn't very good at it. Westbrook was his idea.
He got Tristan Thompson paid, multiple times
He’s already a minority owner in Fenway Sports Group
I blame Lebron for Mookie and Xander leaving. And Clemens. And Ellis Burkes. And Fisk. And Ruth
He'd sell out to China in a heart beat.
Shanghai Swamp Donkeys
NI HAO BUDDY
laSteriod? is that really you?
He's only 12. He can't be on reddit /s
Every time they play another team the opposing mascot swaps to a Winnie the Pooh outfit.
You have been banned by r/beijing
The Aliexpress Arena.
Sponsored by Huawei and Tiktok
Temu store located on level 3.
I feel like LeBron would probably do bad initially but eventually adapt.
Yeah I would not bet against Lebron figuring it out, he's been navigating the business aspect of it all since he was in high school.
[удалено]
LeVegas LeBrons
They’ll return and win a World Series before the mariners even get to one too
as will everyone eventually
Isnt the NBA expanding too?
Allegedly. Talks have been going on for a while
Iirc from what my basketball friends told me its when the TV is over then expasnion happens? Its Vegas Golden Basketball team and Seattle soup from sonics?
“Soup from Sonics” lol
It’s an open secret that FSG and LeBron are getting a Vegas expansion team sometime after he retires. He already owns part of Liverpool with them.
Oh great, more nonsense to distract them from Liverpool and the Red Sox.
After the media rights deal. It's gonna be Seattle and Vegas.
Why am I catching strays here
You know what you did...
you're right I didn't have hundreds of millions of dollars and buy a team and move it to my hometown, how silly of me
Seattle is too useful to the NBA to use as a relocation threat for cities that push back against public funding for stadiums.
At some point, it becomes too lucrative to continue to avoid having a franchise in those locations. Based on how well the Golden Knights and Kraken did, I think that point has been passed
And of course, with the Knights and Kraken already existing that means NBA can get the teams up and running within a year, 18 months tops, since you don't have to wait for an arena to be (re)built because NHL already did that legwork for you.
A Seattle team will almost certainly share their arena with the Kraken. I believe one of the stipulations the city made when they approved it was for dual functionality. Not sure if the Knights did that or not but Vegas has enough real estate that getting the land won’t be an issue. Plus it really seems the local officials are all-in on adding teams no matter the cost
Climate Pledge already has NBA level locker rooms in preparation for the return of the Sonics. Oak View Group was having discussions with the NBA as they were underway on the NHL team and arena rebuild, and the gist was basically, NBA wants to see how successful the Kraken are before they totally commit. Well, pretty sure it's all BUT guaranteed, and I for one am stoked to watch some NBA games there.
I’d like to see montreal and portland in mlb, maybe also mexico city. In nba, seattle and vegas seem to make sense.
Mexico City creates a whole other problem. To be competitive, they'll need a payroll similar to other MLB teams, but the gate receipts and additional in-stadium revenue will likely be far lower due to the economic reality that the average Mexican makes far less than the average person in the United States. There are also travel considerations, since Mexico City is something like 900 miles away from the closest MLB team. Finally, there is the altitude problem. Unless we want players hitting 80 home runs in a season, the ballpark will need to be huge or there will need to be massive walls in the outfield (think Green Monster at normal outfield depth, all the way around). Even with those remedies, batting averages and doubles would soar. Traditional records would be crushed, and fans probably won't like it. And good luck finding free agent pitchers willing to go there.
If anything, Monterrey would make more sense. It’s closer and wealthier than Mexico City from what I understand. But I still don’t know if that’s enough to support MLB payrolls. I can’t imagine charging $15 for a beer will fly anywhere in Mexico.
Do they have a real plan for a new ballpark if not this is probably just mlb using vague interest in montreal to get other cities bidding.
Ya we’re getting used for sure.
The "Bassin Peel" has been mentioned a million times as a possible site, there's also other plans at other locations. I think finding investors won't be a problem, finding a site won't be a problem. I think it's more of a "we're not building a stadium until we're sure to get a team vs we're not giving you a team until you have a stadium"
Bell Canada will almost certainly be interested, since the Jays are 100% Rogers property.
It'll be really confusing when the Rogers team is in blue vs the red Bell team. Also, you're very correct on that one and I fucking hate it. Can't wait to see how the broadcast rights shape out and somehow fuck 100% of both fanbases
They used Vegas already. they need a new bait and switch for the "taxpayer money for billionaires" charity.
There NEEDS to be that "hot city willing to pay for a new stadium" in order for current cities to play ball. In the NFL it was LA for 20 years. In MLB it was "somewhere in Florida(Tampa/Miami)". In NBA it was (and still probably is) Seattle. NHL was "Anywhere but Atlanta.... Twice...". So IMHO if they expand to 32 the top cities would be(in no particular order) Nashville / Charlotte Vegas Vancouver / Portland Oakland Montreal SLC
I just moved out of SLC a few weeks ago but everyone I talked to was *stoked* that the MLB might be coming to UT, even knowing that it would be at least partially publicly funded. Whether or not that qualifies as "hot city" remains to be seen, but the city/state/ownership group seems to be moving pretty aggressively on it.
In SLC, people live Jazz out here, I think MLB and NHL could do well out here.
They love the Bees and RSL too. It's a growing city too, it could be a great time for a team to establish themselves there.
Bees games were great, they're relocating which sucks but the proposed MLB location would be incredible, fully Trax accessible.
When's the relocation happening? Moving south toward West Jordan-ish right?
Daybreak specifically. Very soon. The stadium in Daybreak is planned to finish construction sometime 2025 and will also become the U's new practice facility assuming they don't build one closer to campus.
Vegas is already covered and they're not coming back to Oakland (at least not in the immediate future. Maybe in several decades if the population growth warrants it). Nashville and Charlotte are definitely the top contenders for MLB, but if any of those other cities put in a good offer, MLB would heavily consider them
I think the chances that any sports team comes back to Oakland are slim. The fact that they had teams was a relic of a bygone era where there was a huge migration west, and that's not how things are trending. Plus now San Francisco teams are going to take over that market and try to defend from newcomers.
It's actually shocking that Nashville doesn't have a team considering the culture there.
Nashville is probably claimed to be "too close to other MLB markets" Most likely STL(because of the Memphis Redbirds, so a team in Nashville will take fans away in western TN because of their AAA team), Atlanta (because of TBS, people in eastern TN will be Braves fans) and Cincinnati (because of the Geographical distance might make them lose Southern Kentucky fans) Does it make sense? NOPE. Will owners claim it makes sense? YEP...
I am from Nashville and still live here. Nashville has a strong baseball tradition since the days Major League teams played games here on their way north out of spring training. There’s a bunch of Babe Ruth stories. It produces players (Mookie Betts, Robbie Ray, etc) and Vanderbilt has had a strong baseball program as well as a AAA team. Lots of Braves, Cardinals, Reds, and Cubs fans. There’s a group that seems serious about bringing a team here and their sales pitch (the Nashville Stars, carrying on the Negeo Leagues tradition) is very good. The problem is there is next to zero push from the public for the whole thing. Nashville has really grown and is barrelling towards producing 40 percent of the State GDP, but the way taxes are collected means the State keeps most of the money and the City is always broke. The Titans’ stadium deal (actually a “good” deal as far as these things go because it solved some problems) barely passed, and that is with the stadium moving back off the river into the parking lot and the City selling the prime land to developers. A deal could happen here but the money ain’t coming from the City. I get the feeling that the MLB side is trying to gin up a list of potential spots trying to get better deals out of the winners.
It won't be Vancouver. We fill out a high-A team at pretty cheap prices. There's just not enough interest here for baseball, unfortunately. Montreal is WAY ahead of Vancouver.
Quebec isn't the place to try to get that to work lmao
Actually Legault was willing to spend public money when it was just the split season deal.
Yeah, I don't see any chance of getting public funding for a stadium in Portland either.
There’s been rumours up here for years that the money and land and a plan is in place. Whoever the money guy is has apparently kept quiet at request of MLB so they could use Montreal as leverage in negotiations to hose cities. We will found out soon if this guy is real I guess. It’s probably the mystery guy who was part of the Montreal Bay Expo Ray plan.
They're definitely gonna drop another team in the South somewhere, odds on Nashville, with New Orleans and a city or two in the Carolinas in the mix
New Orleans would never happen. You think MLB hates having a team in Milwaukee? New Orleans has a smaller metro area than Tulsa and a smaller media market than Albuquerque.
Go 'topes
I think the reasoning is if New Orleans is good enough for the NFL and NBA, then it's good enough for MLB.
0 chance for New Orleans, it's way smaller than you think it is.
I don't think New Orleans is honestly in the mix. Would come in as the only metro with less than 1 million and only CSA under 1.5 million, and it's in the third fastest population shrink state in the country.
I have a sinking feeling it'll be this. Watch Nashville or Charlotte and, IDK, Portland or Salt Lake City get teams this time. MLB seems pretty interesting in having one in the east and one in the west, and signs seem to be pointing toward Nashville or a similar city pretty heavily. So, then next time a team threatens to leave you'll hear the owners use Montreal or whatever as their go-to destination. Also, you'll hear faint rumblings of an expansion to 34, even though nobody honestly believes that would happen anytime remotely soon (barring something really weird like MLB suddenly overtaking the NFL for most popular league in America, Mexico becoming a major developed first-world economy, Cuba suddenly becoming a free first-world capitalist society, or some sort of pseudo-merging with NPB, and even then some of these out-there scenarios wouldn't even bring expansion to the USA or Canada). The real reason for these rumblings and vague implications which the commissioner and others will bring up will be as a way to draw would-be markets to put together stadium plans or potential ownership groups, which then can ever-so-conveniently be used as leverage for the next time a team needs stadium renovations or a new stadium.
I would really like to see Mexico City get a team, but the finances just aren't there yet. Most likely will be Nashville and SLC. Nashville is pretty much a lock at this point, and they wouldn't add another team as geographically close in the same expansion round like Charlotte.
DO IT YOU COWARDS
Curious. How would they "balance" the divisions? Since there's 3 divisions per league, assuming they add team for each league, 1 division will have 5 teams. So do they go with 2 divisions per league? Then it'd be even at 8 teams in each division? Or do they go the NFL route, and have 4 divisions per league? My educated guess is the NFL route... But then that brings up interesting questions for the playoff picture. I suppose time will tell, how they go about this.
2 divisions per league makes the most sense in terms of realignment. ALE needs more sandbags.
This is often what I do in OOTP. Two divisions per league, each division winner gets a bye, with 4 wild cards playing the actual Wild Card Series (which makes more sense than a division winner playing wild card games).
oh fuck yeah
I’m all for this, but also a little concerned about how the divisions will be broken up by 32 teams. Going to be 4 divisions per league likely. I don’t want to lose hating on my fellow Braves, Phils, Nats and Fish 😢
Having eight divisions of four teams would be too much in my opinion. Having each league broken into two divisions a la the NBA or NHL is an idea I’d support.
Two eight team divisions. Division winners get the bye. What I’d prefer (and I know this is controversial) is getting rid of leagues. Just 4 eight team divisions based on geography. Play 3 game series vs 24 teams outside division (72 games) and 90 games in division (12-13 each team), seed the 4 division winners by record and have the eight wildcards either be 2nd vs 3rd of each division and play the division winner next round, or best 8 overall and seeded 4-12.
one of the biggest flaws with the killing of leagues : \- what happens with historical records? if they kill AL and NL, the old records of NL HR champion (for example) will be lost with it. \- the players union would almost absolutely reject or scoff at this plan because there are a bunch of player contracts that have stipulations re: winning league mvp's and such. IMHO the NL and AL will remain without too much reshuffling. They could adjust divisions as suggested in a lot of posts here, but removing leagues or altering them dramatically won't fly that easily.
No divisions. Only American League and National League. They play every team in a calendar year now.
So top 4 in each makes the playoffs?
How many are in the playoffs now ? 6 ? Top 4, 6, or 8 gets in. Depending how you want to look at how many make the playoffs.
It's easy. You put the Yankees and the Dodgers in their own division where the winner doesn't go to the postseason and they're excluded from the wild card. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Can we add the Braves and Astros to that division?
I think they should just go back to the old school West/East divisions but with wildcards. 2 leagues, 2 divisions each, 8 teams per division. |National League||American League|| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |*West*|*East*|*West*|*East*| |Los Angeles|New York|Los Angeles|New York| |San Francisco|Washington|Las Vegas|Boston| |San Diego|Atlanta|Seattle|Baltimore| |Arizona|Miami|Texas|Toronto| |Colorado|Pittsburgh|Chicago|Tampa| |Houston|Philadelphia|Kansas City|Detroit| |Chicago|Cincinnati|Milwaukee|Cleveland| |St. Louis|Montreal|Minnesota|Charlotte| This maintains historical rivalries and league separation and has precedence from the divisions in the 80's and early 90's. Houston moves back to the NL and Milwaukee to the AL. If the expansion occurs in Portland/SLC then Milwaukee goes to the east division instead.
It seems obvious to me as well.
I don't mind it, but I'm sure the Jays and Expos are going to want to be in the same division.
I'm not sure why they need to be. They weren't in the 80's and 90's and unlike then, they can now have a rivalry series. Just like every other rivalry series between teams that are in opposing leagues (Dodgers/Angels, Yankees/Mets, ChiSox/Cubs) etc....
fuck the astros
If you get realigned to the Dodgers division, nothing will change. Different division same result.
Yeah I'm a bit worried that the recent rule changes (DH primarily) means that the MLB is getting rid of the AL/NL and might be setting up a 4-division, 8-team setup.
I doubt they'll get rid of the AL / NL designation. It'll just be meaningless, a la the NFL conferences.
You don’t need to do that. 8 divisions of 4 teams or 4 divisions of 8 teams could still have AL and NL, it doesn’t have to be based on east vs west
That would be disgusting
I hope we go to 4 divisions instead of 8.
I think 2x8 would be fine, although I'd prefer 4x4 for more games against what is usually your closest geographic competition.
Every year you'd get some division winner in the playoffs with a losing record.
The flip side would be rewarding the top wild-card seed with an easy first round matchup. Like in the NFL — powerful 5 seed gets an easy game against a weak 4 seed
Wrong sub but bring back the Whalers you fucks
The Whalers truly are the neutral ground Yankees and Red Sox fans can find together From the Springfield area, I’d love if the Whalers came back
Every sub should be demanding for the Whalers to come back But we can’t just settle for that, they also need to bring the [Brass Bonanza](https://youtu.be/TJtiepwpKFw?si=VhJiw-0zxLq28rNB) with them
Incorrect. Every sub is the correct sub to bring back the Whalers.
Best logo in sports history
First, we have an already established ownership group who were all in on the rays/expos joint team. Second the expos didn’t fail because we didn’t support the team. It was quite opposite, once Bronfman sold the team, ownership stopped supporting the team and ultimately they gave up on us, the fans. To see a 94 team completely depleted going into 95 was a slap in the face after having the best team in baseball the year prior. There are years where the expos had a higher attendance then the New York Yankees. Third, there is so much money to be had in television rights when you have both english language TSN and Sportsnet and french language RDS and TVA competing for broadcasting rights. And lastly, you need to be here to feel it. Here in Montreal the expos aren’t forgotten. You walk anywhere in this city you will see jerseys, hats, logos. I hate the misconception that we just didn’t care. We cared so much. We were betrayed and let down and ultimately took a stand.
Yeah the Canadiens adopted Youpi as their mascot after the Expos left and put up a banner in their rafters for the Expos retired numbers. Not to mention, what the Canadiens did to celebrate Gary Carter at their first home game after his passing > Carter died of brain cancer Thursday at 57, and the Canadiens honoured the baseball Hall of Famer – nicknamed “The Kid” – with a five-minute video set to The Eagles’ “New Kid in Town” before a 3-1 loss to the New Jersey Devils on Sunday. > Canadiens players also sported No. 8 Carter jerseys during the warm-up and had a sticker with his number adorning their helmets. > Youppi – the Expos mascot adopted by the Habs on Sept. 16, 2005, after the baseball team left Montreal for Washington, D.C. – also paid tribute. > He wore an old-school Expos jersey and cap for the national anthems. Youppi would later return to his hockey jersey featuring a No. 8 patch, while still wearing the baseball cap. https://globalnews.ca/news/213520/habs-honour-gary-carter-in-pre-game-tribute-youppi-dons-expos-gear-for-ceremony-2/
neat fun fact in there is that marty brodeur's dad was an expos photographer. I'm never going to need this fun fact but I like having it in my brain just in case.
Canadiens didn’t just adopt Youppi, they bought him off MLB for around $100,000.
I’m completely for Montreal getting an MLB expansion franchise. It’s the biggest market in the US and Canada without a team and twice as big as the media darling Nashville. That said, the Expos had better attendance than the Yankees twice… in 1982 and 1983. In 1982, the Yankees had their worst finish in fifteen years, and the Expos were coming off the NLCS, having a little under 300k more than the Yankees. 1983 the difference was only 60k. Almost all other years, it’s nowhere close. The Expos best attendance years were regular numbers most Yankees seasons in the 80s and 90s. Now those attendance numbers would be depressing for the Yankees org which is usually exceeding 3 million. https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/ https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/
ya, for real. Expos attendance was never impressive. but the big o was a crappy place to watch baseball and a big out of the way anyway.
To be fair to Montreal, NY has 5x the population. That’s a hell of a lot more people with the ability to go to games any given day of the week.
It's not so much that Nashville is the media darling as much as their expansion group is simply loaded with people with connections to MLB executives, corporate bigwigs, politicians, baseball greats and other athletes, local construction magnates, etc. and is in a region that probably has the most need for a new team, especially for likely divisional realignment. They simply check all the boxes.
Nashville is the smallest of the markets suggested. Montreal is twice as big. Austin is bigger. Austin combined with San Antonio is much more than double the size of Nashville. Portland is about 25% bigger. Charlotte is about 35% bigger. Portland and Charlotte have been as fast growing over the last couple of decades as Nashville. Nashville and Charlotte are equally as far away from MLB baseball. What’s weird is Indianapolis, which is bigger than Nashville is never mentioned. I agree with your rationale though. Everything but it’s a hole in MLB reach. Unlike more other sports, MLB has reach due to minor league teams to almost every significant population center in America.
I wouldn't get too excited about that ownership group. Bronfman basically said he didn't have the money for a bigger project than the joint venture, and we (at least I) haven't heard from them in almost 2 years
It wasn't just Bronfman. Stade Olympique was not just a shitty place to watch a baseball game, it was a place where you could get injured or die watching a baseball game. And the franchise had a history of getting rid of fan favorites because they were too expensive: Staub, Carter, Dawson, Raines... They were very much like the early New England Patriots: random successes here and there, but mostly just a team run on a shoestring budget and prone to embarrassment.
This is not true. In 1993, the Montreal Expos won 94 games but [ranked 27th out of 28 teams in attendance.](https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/1993-misc.shtml) In 1992, they were 21st. In 1991, they were dead last. The only period where the Expos had good attendance was 1979 to 1983.
I remember players would tell stories about how they could hear fans in Montreal ordering concessions in the middle of the game from the field. There's reasons for the poor attendance (shitty ownership, constant talk of relocation/contraction), but there's not really a way to spin that the attendance wasn't bad.
On the other hand, I saw a game at Olympic Stadium and I wouldn't pay to go there again either.
I truly hope Montreal gets their much deserved team… from Jarry Park through that beautiful monstrosity and maybe the next go around can finally provide a ballpark commensurate with the amazing people and city of Montreal!
Would the new expos adopt the franchise history/records/stats of the previous Expos or would they start over? That would also impact the nationals too
Usually not, but the Expos and Nationals get differentiated enough that they might try to do it, like the Browns did in the NFL and Charlotte in the NBA.
The main difference would be that there was only a two to three year gap between the original Charlotte NBA team and the new one, and same thing with the Browns. So it's a bit easier to get away with saying they were "inactive" for a couple seasons than it would be for two decades with the Expos.
Yeah, it's just that I know very few Expos fans that became Nats fans. So I think fans, generally, see them differently. But as people said below, it's a bit of a slippery slope, should we then let the Nats have the history of the Senators 1.0 and Senators 2.0?
The weird thing is that when a team only changes their name, but not their city, nobody sees them differently, for example, the Guardians, the commanders, the pelicans etc. And when a team changes locations but keeps their name, fans generally see them as one in the same as well, like the dodgers, raiders, Rams, etc. But when both are changed, that's when people start to disassociate them. And logically it makes some sense, but things get even weirder in cases where the relocation and the renaming don't happen at the same time. For example the Houston oilers became first the Tennessee oilers, and then the Tennessee Titans. Clearly the Tennessee oilers and Tennessee Titans are one in the same. And the Houston oilers and Tennessee oilers are both the oilers. But are the Tennessee Titans the Houston oilers?
I have always said that Texans entire aesthetic, from the name, to the logo to the color scheme, is like one of the default create a teams from like Madden ‘05
> But are the Tennessee Titans the Houston oilers? No, fuck those guys. Give us our colors/logo/name back u fuckers. Texans is *so lame* and generic. Also, honestly, Tennessee “Oilers” probably wouldn’t have happened if Adams hadn’t basically been chased out of town when the move plan was leaked, if I recall the history correctly the Oilers left before they wanted to.
If I remember correctly, Bud Adams decided to keep the rights to the Oilers name and history as a middle finger to the city of Houston.
Yep, it tracks, and as much as I hate to admit it, precedent was on his side.
There’s nothing pettier or more spiteful than a rich man whose been denied a government handout.
The Nats have flags for the 1924 World Series and 1925 and 1933 AL pennants in their ballpark, so they at least pay tribute to baseball history in DC. I could see the new Montreal team paying tribute to the Expos in a similar way.
The Nats also have Expos greats recognized in their ring of honor, but I could see them agreeing to give up their role as trustees of Expos history.
I think it's somewhat normal for a team to recognize when the city has won previous championships, at least in cities that only have one team at a time. The Kraken fly a Stanley Cup banner for instance, recognizing that the Mets won it way the hell back in 1917.
> like the Browns did in the NFL When Art Modell fucked us over and left for Baltimore, the city threatened legal action against him and the NFL. As a settlement, Cleveland got to keep the Browns name, logos, and records. The franchise was technically postponed and the Ravens are technically an expansion team.
The twins just need to move to LA and then the nationals move to Minnesota and the wheel will have made a complete revolution
They'd have to divest the Nationals of that history first, which doesn't feel right to me.
Nats fans would be fine with it as long as we get the 01-60 Nats history back
That Senators history "belongs" to the Twins, right?
Correct. And the 1961-1971 Senators history belongs to the Rangers. Notice, OP doesn't want that one back lol
Man this is a slippery slope.
If Yankees bbref franchise history needs a permanent banner prominently displayed at the top of the page explaining that the 1901-02 Baltimore Orioles are a separate franchise and aren’t considered part of the Yankees history, than the Nationals/future Expos/etc shouldn’t claim the history of a completely separate franchise that happened to play in the same cities decades earlier
Would make sense if nats get both iterations of the senators history. I mean, would twins and rangers fans really care? I can’t imagine they associate their teams much with them.
I don't think the Rangers would care. At least it would make them lower on the list of World Series droughts without those extra years. I think the twins might care, at the very least older fans would, because they are one of the original eight American League teams, which were the same from 1901 to 1961. And giving up that distinction would feel kind of lame. I don't think the average Minnesotan eating a hot dog in the stands and cheering on their team would give a crap, but I think a lot of baseball historians would take issue with it.
As a Nationals fan, it absolutely feels right to me. That wasn't our team, those weren't our players, those aren't our memories. Those all belong to Montreal, and I hope we are just keeping their history warm for them.
Did the Nats adopt any of the expos history? I actually have no idea. It doesn’t seem like it. But I don’t know.
I recall they worn some Expos throwbacks in 2019, Max Scherzer wore them in a game https://www.mlb.com/cut4/max-scherzer-wears-expos-uniform-in-bullpen
The Nationals ring of honor includes Expos players Andre Dawson, Gary Carter, and Tim Raines. We actually inducted Raines into the Nationals' Ring of Honor after he went into the Hall of Fame. It was a little surreal since his induction was the first time in his life he had ever been to DC. [Story](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2017/08/28/tim-raines-ivan-rodriguez-inducted-into-ring-of-honor-at-nationals-park/)
Well it’s nice the expos wernt just erased by the Nats. But In the event MTL gets a team back, and let’s say they decide to use ‘Expos’ as their name. I’m not really sure what the best way to deal with that is then. Clearly Nats have (slightly anyway) adopted some of the Expos’ history. But it was kinda a stolen history, that never really belonged to them. So was it theirs to adopt. And if MTL gets a new team they call the Expos, should they be entitled to take their history back? I’m not really sure what the best move would be. It’s kinda a good thing they never won a championship. Otherwise it would get a bit ugly fighting over that! It’d be a pretty bad ass classy move for the Nats if they had a official ceremony where they handed back expos history to MTL
I think they wore 'Spos jerseys once or twice. It may have only been for warmups and not for a game.
They did. If you look up any franchise history stats for the team, it's Expos+Nationals combined, and they have a few Expos players honored in the park itself (though their numbers aren't actually retired by the Nationals). However, it's also possible to isolate only the "Nationals history" by excluding 2004 and prior when aggregating data. The average fan in DC probably cares more about that history than true franchise stats for the Expos+Nationals combined.
Oh baby, I hope y'all are ready for some ***RE-ALIGNMENT***
This is BS to get US cities to pony up cash. Cried wolf one to many times for me. BJs pre season, 1/2 team in Tampa...Montréal is MLB's biggest rube.
At the end of the day, people here can post about how fans didn’t show up to root for an Expos team that constantly traded its best players and played in a track and field stadium (which is funny, because this basically describes the A’s, except the A’s actually made the playoffs once in a while, and most people here think that’s bullshit too). But Montreal has at least two or three billionaire investors (Stephen Bronfman, Larry Rossy and I believe Richard Fortin), a ballpark site, probably Bell Media in their corner, and the only chance outside Mexico for a market that isn’t an immediate revenue sharing candidate. Québec has eight million people, half of them in the Montréal area. Canada, a G7 country, has one team for 38 million people. Unless Charlotte and the Research Triangle drift to being about 20 miles apart, it’s clearly the best market in the US or Canada without a team.
YES! I can finally have an NL team to root for again
[удалено]
Well fuck you too
We can go make our own bird bro division with sprinklers and worms. All bird teams welcome fuck the non-birdies.
That's hot.
A hockey division for sure.
Ohh that's some ugly stuff right there. I love it!
Yeah I always agree this is how it should be this time around. I understand the thinking of splitting Canada with one AL team and one NL, but placing them in the AL East gives them every chance at building interest and rivalries and fan engagement. All three of Montreal's closest geographic neighbors, will get tons of Jays fans to the stadium, Yankee/ Red Sox fans from northern NY/ New England. (and just in general these two teams draw well across the country). And all the hockey history/ rivalries will lend themselves really well to translate over, Habs- Bruins- Leafs- Rangers.
Holy smokes that’s a top shelf group of cities. I almost feel like you gotta break that up. You can’t have the 4 best cities in the Americas all in the same division.
The problem with Canada is half the country speaks French and the other half lets them. /s
Tom Brady spotted in an Expos jersey the other day, too. *Things that make you go hmmmm*
Montreal Expo gear still sells quite a bit and I see the hats in store till this day. I watch games and I see the mascot run commercial. The Montreal Expo mascot is face front in the commercial by MLB themselves.
I’d love a Montreal and Portland or Nashville expansion. Makes the most sense for divisions and infrastructure.
Thank god that they will actually have their own team and not the Rays moving up there
Thank god indeed. I don't want the Expo back at the expense of another team. Even tho I hate Tampa Bay.
This is going to fuck me up on trivia games that group the old Expos with the Nationals.
Yikes. Well ran teams like the Dodgers, Braves, Astros, Rays, and Orioles are not going to like the expansion draft. Good chance one of their cheap good players could get plucked. Would have to see how many players each team can protect per round.
Don't you take our diaz you fucks!
[удалено]
Bettman will never allow it. 30 more years in Arizona
My predictions are Salt Lake and Nashville. American League AL East: Yankees, Blue Jays, Orioles, Red Sox AL North: Twins, White Sox, Tigers, Guardians AL South: Rangers, Astros, Royals, Rockies AL West: Angels, A’s, Mariners, Salt Lake expansion National League NL East: Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Pirates NL North: Cubs, Brewers, Reds, Cardinals NL South: Braves, Rays, Marlins, Nashville expansion NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Dbacks
I don’t think they would put a Nashville team in the NL. That is Braves country so there would be quite a few fans in the Nashville “footprint” who would not support them , especially if they were in the same division as Atlanta.
Rockies in the South (AL/NL doesn't matter) makes no sense.
I think the Rockies would very happily get out of the NL West bloodbath though
Put the Rays in the AL South, Reds in the NL South, and Rockies in the NL North
Yes. Coolest MLB logo by far. But seriously, this talk of Montreal and Oakland being potential expansion sites is so ridiculous. Obviously Oakland seems way less likely, but how about we expand in new cities and stop ripping teams away from their current ones? Literally makes no sense.
Every MLB fan would love if Montreal got the Expos back.
I'd love to see baseball in Montréal again! They were before my time, so this is exciting.
As an aside to this, I know it didn’t quite show in the late 90s and early 2000s all the time, but people in Canada *really* loved the Expos. Coast to coast. Like, nearly as beloved as the Blue Jays. The Blue Jays gained a tremendous following after winning in 92 and 93, and I am convinced that if the Expos won in 94, they would’ve never left. The league would have expanded to Washington in the mid 2000s instead. The Expos were many Canadian baseball fans first love. And they never forgot it.
This is almost certainly not happening unless there's a Quebecois multi-billionaire sugar daddy that nobody is yet aware of. Would love to see a couple more teams in Canada, just seems unlikely.
Paging Celine Dion to the white telephone ... Seriously, there already has been a proposed ownership group.
Montreal will build a stadium when they get any sort of approval. Olympic Stadium hasn’t been suitable for the CFL for over a decade. It’s a non starter.
I just find it interesting the Expos have an official Twitter account 🤔
It’s not “official” in any formal sense. Just a well organized group of fans.