[mello]

I have been following the Oakland Athletics effort to build a new facility in the Southern part of the Bay Area and it looks like MLB will never let them build a new park in Santa Clara County due to it being "SF Giants Territory." There was some hope a few months back but all of the recent articles are saying that MLB is going to continue to side with the Giants. Contraction is now being thrown around but I ask why not take a look at San Antonio.

While the Athletics are floundering in a terrible venue for baseball and the league is partially keeping them afloat there is another solution. The SA metro area is pushing 2.5 million and growing fast, with another 1.8 to 2 million people just 80 to 90 miles away in the Austin metro. We all know that Texas has been adding jobs and the corporate base there continues to grow while most parts of the country languish in extremely sluggish growth.

I haven't seen San Antonio brought up in any discussions about the Athletics and I wanted to get the forum's opinion. I think a nice 38,000 seat retractable roof ballpark would be great in or near downtown SA and the metro would support a team.

[Buckeye Native 001]

If we're bringing contraction into the mix, then only about six or seven teams really deserve to exist. The rest essentially act as farm teams to be harvested by the more successful teams as needed.

As for moving to San Antonio, I would think the owners of the Rangers and Astros would do everything they could to stop such a move.

[Westsidelife]

Sacramento would be a better choice as far as relocation goes. Has that possibility been discussed?

[Buckeye Native 001]

Pretty sure Sacramento's been considered before.

Portland was talked about for a while (not specifically the A's, but IIRC, they came up in the mix when the Expos were leaving Montreal), but with the Mariners a short drive north (relatively speaking), as well as a smaller metro population than most other metros with MLB teams, I don't think that would happen.

[mello]

I think that SA is far enough away from Houston and Dallas that they would have no case in trying to protect "their territory" the Nationals just moved 36 miles away from the Orioles.

Lets look at the positives:

Strong Tourism/Convention base could help a bit with attendance similar to San Diego.

Much faster growing metro area than Portland or Sacramento (the other large metros without an MLB team).

Relatively fast growing economy producing more wealth and middle class jobs.

Texas is a very sports hungry state and I think San Antonio has a bit of a chip on its shoulder always being overshadowed by the other Texas cities (with 3 and 4 pro teams) and would love the extra attention that an MLB franchise would give it.

[TWAK]

Sacramento was so considered, that there is a currently less than qtr built baseball stadium right next to Arco arena.
http://googlesightseeing.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AS1a2-atrb.jpg
http://googlesightseeing.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AS2arco-atrb.jpg
from http://googlesightseeing.com/2011/12/abandoned-stadiums-of-the-united-states/

[mrnyc]

if anything needs to contract, it should be a half dozen nhl teams.

[Matthew]

Some of the struggling NHL teams here in the states could relocate to Canadian cities and do very well.

Any MLB team interested in relocating should look at Mexico or look into travel costs to locate in Japan. They love baseball more than we do.

I would love to see an MLB team in North Carolina, but don't know if the team would do well or not? Winston-Salem business leaders tried to buy the Twins 14 years ago and failed. Charlotte business leaders talked about MLB, but most think the city is over saturated and should wait.. though it has no "majors level" summer sports, unless you count NASCAR. I would suggest a team in Durham and use the Durham Bulls name and logo. They do very well and their team is actually a tourist attraction.

[Nineties Flava]

The Oakland city gov is talking about building a sports city in the Coliseum area to keep all three teams where they are. IMHO, it sounds like a pipe dream... if it actually happens then I don't want to know how much of the $$$$ that went towards it was redirected from saving OUSD.

[Shawn]

The San Antonio market might be a bit on the small side to realistically fill a 45,000+ MLB park 81 times a summer. Then there's corporate sponsorship - who is going to pony up for all those box seats?

Same deal with the Carolina cities and any other metro at or below 2 million. It's a lot harder to consistently fill MLB parks than any other pro sport. 81 home games a year is a lot more than the NBA or NHL's 41. And while I realize there are some successful MLB markets below the 2 million threshold, these tend to be historic franchises with generational fan bases. San Antonio wouldn't have this luxury.

[mello]

The San Antonio market might be a bit on the small side to realistically fill a 45,000+ MLB park 81 times a summer. Then there's corporate sponsorship - who is going to pony up for all those box seats?


Well the SA metro is well above 2 million and on its way towards three this decade and no one said that you have to "fill" a 45,000 seat ballpark 81 times. If you average about 27 to 30k per game you are doing fairly well. I would suggest a smallish 36k seat ballpark for San Antonio. Did you also see my op where I noted that Austin is very close and could help out with attendance on Fri thru Sunday?

[Pistola916]

Sacramento seems like a viable option.

The A's would be able to keep their fan base (or whatever what's left of it) in Northern California.
Sacramento metro area is around 2.2 million, and if you include surrounding Bay Area and Central Valley counties, we are looking at 2.5-2.8 million. Population is there to support major league baseball.
Weather is perfect for baseball.
Sacramento's Triple A team sometimes outdraws the A's, their parent club.

The problem with Sacramento though, the economy is not doing good.
There are no corporate bases in Sacto
Sacramento is having trouble building an arena for the Kings so financing a baseball stadium is just being ridiculous.

[Shawn]

Well the SA metro is well above 2 million and on its way towards three this decade and no one said that you have to "fill" a 45,000 seat ballpark 81 times. If you average about 27 to 30k per game you are doing fairly well. I would suggest a smallish 36k seat ballpark for San Antonio. Did you also see my op where I noted that Austin is very close and could help out with attendance on Fri thru Sunday?

You won't find many ownership groups willing to settle for "fairly well" though, and that still doesn't answer the very pressing issue of corporate support.

Austin helps out on the weekends, true. So that's about 24 games out of 81 which can realistically expect broader market support, but you should never need to turn to "out market" for weekend support in the first place. Weekends should be capacity automatically. The real question is, could a MLB team in San Antonio reach a good 85% capacity on a Tuesday night? How about every Tuesday summer night for the next 30 years or however long a hypothetical park lease would last? I'm not trying to be negative here, it's just that maintaining competitive support for a MLB team is substantially harder than any other pro sport, especially once the novelty has worn off and you have a few losing seasons in a row under your belt.

[Dralcoffin]

If I could shuffle around MLB teams, I'd move a team to Mexico City -- imagine how that team would draw -- and another struggling team to Santo Domingo. Look how many players come out of the Dominican, and Santo Domingo isn't that far from Florida.

[dave8721]

There are no viable options to move the team to. A couple years back when the Marlins were threatening to move I remember some think tank did an analysis and found that there are no cities left that are large enough and wealthy enough to support an MLB team that don't already have one (and several markets that DO have teams can't support those). There are basically 15 to 20 markets that can sustain a Major league team. Northern New Jersey was the only area that could support another team but the Yankees and Mets would never allow that.

[Crawford]

I don't think SA would be a particularly good market.

Yes, the population is large and growing, but it's a transient population with relatively weak area roots (heavily immigrant Mexican and military-affiliated).

Baseball isn't big in Mexico (yes, its played in parts of the North, but in 90% of Mexico, no one cares), and the military folks probably follow the teams from their hometowns.

SA also has fairly modest income numbers and a small corporate base.

And I think the summer heat would be a problem, and would require a retractable roof.

[Steely Dan]

Any MLB team interested in relocating should ........locate in Japan. They love baseball more than we do.

clearly the perspective of a southerner.

there's no doubt the the japanese do indeed love baseball, but to say that they love baseball more than the baseball fans of america's traditional baseball cities in the Northeast and Midwest is a bit of a stretch.

[hudkina]

If you count the people who live within an hour of downtown San Antonio, it's not a very large number. In fact, Grand Rapids, MI has more people living within an hour(~2.3-2.4 million) than San Antonio and there's no way Grand Rapids would get an MLB franchise. While San Antonio could include Austin in an expanded market area and especially in the television market, it just seems that there aren't enough people within the immediate area to put butts in the seats every day.

[plinko]

There are no viable options to move the team to. A couple years back when the Marlins were threatening to move I remember some think tank did an analysis and found that there are no cities left that are large enough and wealthy enough to support an MLB team that don't already have one (and several markets that DO have teams can't support those). There are basically 15 to 20 markets that can sustain a Major league team. Northern New Jersey was the only area that could support another team but the Yankees and Mets would never allow that.

I recall that study (it was much discussed here). LA was also noted that it could support a 3rd team. But beyond those two markets, no other cities have the economics to do so.

And I also recall that this was just before or at the beginning of the recession. So that knocks places like SA or Charlotte or Las Vegas down even further.

I'd love to see the A's remain in Oakland (in a waterfront stadium), but if they have to move I do think Sacramento would be a very viable option. IIRC, Raley Field was designed to be expanded to around 40,000 seats. Unfortunately not alot of corporate presence in Sac though. A pretty large hindrance.

[Evergrey]

Maybe they could move to Montreal.

[DBR96A]

Sacramento would be a better choice as far as relocation goes. Has that possibility been discussed?

From what I've heard, Sacramento is in danger of losing the Kings, and operating a baseball franchise is much more expensive than operating a basketball franchise, so I'm skeptical if Sacramento would be a good fit for a baseball team.

[unusualfire]

Also jobs count as well.

Total nonfarm jobs
8,324,200 - New York, NY
5,131,000 - Los Angeles, CA
4,223,200 - Chicago, IL
2,973,100 - Washington, DC
2,927,500 - Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
2,668,700 - Philadelphia, PA
2,622,500 - Houston, TX
2,410,200 - Boston, MA
2,306,500 - Atlanta, GA
2,228,100 - Miami, FL

1,895,700 - San Francisco/Oakland, CA
1,752,100 - Detroit, MI
1,723,900 - Phoenix, AZ
1,703,900 - Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
1,665,500 - Seattle, WA
1,276,400 - Baltimore, MD
1,269,900 - St. Louis, MO
1,228,500 - San Diego, CA
1,209,500 - Denver, CO
1,140,200 - Riverside/San Bernardino, CA

1,134,000 - Pittsburgh, PA
1,132,100 - Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL
1,006,100 - Orlando, FL
982,400 - Cincinnati, OH
981,300 - Portland, OR
969,400 - Kansas City, MO
968,100 - Cleveland, OH
912,400 - Columbus, OH
884,000 - San Jose, CA
868,200 - Indianapolis, IN

848,800 - San Antonio, TX
820,400 - Charlotte, NC
803,100 - Las Vegas, NV
799,500 - Austin, TX
796,000 - Milwaukee, WI
793,900 - Sacramento, CA
747,800 - Nashville, TN
724,000 - Virginia Beach/Norfolk, VA
631,600 - Salt Lake City, UT
609,400 - Richmond, VA

[Matthew]

clearly the perspective of a southerner.

there's no doubt the the japanese do indeed love baseball, but to say that they love baseball more than the baseball fans of america's traditional baseball cities in the Northeast and Midwest is a bit of a stretch.

I was speaking of the entire country. We are now a football country. There are maybe 5-6 markets that can support Major League Baseball. When I say support, I'm talking about attending games and watching them on TV, even when the team is losing and likely won't make the playoffs this year or in the near future. As you look at the 5-6 number I posted, remember there are 30 teams. The best options are relocation outside the U.S. and Canada or contraction. Relocation outside the U.S. could bring more talent to the league and more sponsors/money. Contraction improves the level of play at each team and removes poor performers. Pitching would likely improve the most with contraction. I would also recommend fewer games. Each team plays 162 games! This is 81 home games! Is it possible to have a 120 game season with 60 home games? It's still a large number of games, but not as bad. Any games removed should be weekday games too.

When Winston-Salem's business leaders tried to buy an MLB team, they did something different in their proposal. They showed the number of cities in a short drive of Winston-Salem, using 50/100/150/ mile maps, along with the large headquarters and population in each of those circles. I imagine if it happened, the team would have good support on the weekend. Winston-Salem's citizens actually wanted their minor league though and ownership built them one of the most expensive minor league ballparks. It won awards when it opened and is three or four times more expensive than any other ballpark in that league.

I think the threat of contraction is an effort to pressure someone into building a ballpark now, instead of waiting. I doubt it's serious. Would they have to contract more than one team? I do hope the team remains in Oakland. I'm guessing with new owners and a new ballpark, it would do better in Oakland than in most other places in the U.S.

[Cirrus]

San Antonio is definitely on the small side for a baseball team. You really need a metro area pushing 3 million to make it work.

Suburban New Jersey and LA's Inland Empire are easily the top destinations for any baseball team thinking about moving. Demographically they blow all other contenders out of the water.

After those two, the remaining contenders are Portland, Sacramento, San Antonio, Orlando, and Las Vegas. But every one of those is sub-optimal, and needs at least another decade of growth to really be desirable.

[arkitekte]

Talk came up a few years ago about trying to relocate the Rays to Nashville...wouldn't have worked for a number of reasons, mainly a small metro of only 1.5 million in Nashville and the fact that the Braves, Cards, and Reds are roughly only a 4-6 hour drive from Nashville. Nashville supports to Titans and Preds extremely well...I don't think that Nashville could support a third professional franchise.

[mello]

Just to provide an example of a small market team for many of those who think that it could be contracted or isn't a "healthy franchise."

The San Diego Padres probably no bigger than the 28th largest MLB TV market just signed a 20 year 800 million dollar deal with Fox Sports. The money is in the TV deals now guys not necessarily game attendance. Forbes estimates the Padres value at $458 million up from 408 in 2009 when they were partially sold to a group headed by Jeff Moorad.

Fox has been handing out some really big TV deals this year, I guess they quite bullish on MLB or maybe these 20 year deals benefit them because in 2030 $40 million per year is chump change compared to 2012 dollars.

[dimondpark]

While the Athletics are floundering in a terrible venue for baseball and the league is partially keeping them afloat there is another solution.

The solution is the A's need a new stadium, not a new city as Oakland has proven itself in the past to be a viable market. Even with the team already here, the East Bay remains a hugely untapped market, with very little advertising and merchandising or even reaching out to the area by the team.

The city has suffered through 2 consecutive ownership groups that have done everything they can to alienate the team from the city and their fan base in the East Bay, in the hopes of making the case to move.

Build us a nice stadium with decent concessions(right now the food offerings are a travesty considering this is the bay area for freakssake), make the fan experience pleasant, and give us a decent team, and attendance will rise.

What I have noticed is noticeable snide arrogance, elitist and snobby veneer from team owner Lew Wolff who once asked in jest "Does Oakland even have a downtown?"---ironic considering he's seeking to move the team to San Jose.:rolleyes:

As far as San Antonio, the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward Metro Division is larger and considerably wealthier than the San Antonio-New Braunfels Metro Area, but that's just one factor that needs to be considered.

As far as potential, not including the SF Giants territory, there are still 7 million people living within 100 miles of Oakland and is not claimed by any team.

At this particular time, if we're basing momentum on the most media reports, one might draw the conclusion that the team is actually going to stay put and that Oakland will actually build a new stadium for the A's as part of a huge project that will also redevelop 7,000 acres of the Coliseum area--but then this is Oakland and I wont believe it until its approved and construction begins.

In the meantime, here are renderings of the plan by Oakland that has really stirred the pot and placed a HUGE wedge in the plan by A's owners to move:
http://newballpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/coliseum-city2-sm.jpg
http://newballpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/coliseum-city2-sm.jpg

the plan calls for a complete redevelopment of the Coliseum area:
http://newballpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/coliseum-city1-sm.jpg
http://newballpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/coliseum-city1-sm.jpg

[JManc]

San Antonio is too small (and Austin probably doesn't care), too close to Houston and fans are already divided up by two very popular and well established Astros and Rangers.

[ThreeHundred]

San Antonio is definitely on the small side for a baseball team. You really need a metro area pushing 3 million to make it work.

Suburban New Jersey and LA's Inland Empire are easily the top destinations for any baseball team thinking about moving. Demographically they blow all other contenders out of the water.

After those two, the remaining contenders are Portland, Sacramento, San Antonio, Orlando, and Las Vegas. But every one of those is sub-optimal, and needs at least another decade of growth to really be desirable.

I agree. There is a large following of minor baseball in the Inland Empire. There are 3 teams in the I.E. (Inland Empire 66ers, Rancho Cucamunga Quakes, and the Lake Elsinore Storm). There used to be a team in San Bernardino called the Stampede but they folded.

But I think the best place that the A's could move to is Porland. I remember reading that there is a large post office in downtown that's in the talks of being razed. A stadium there might work.

[krudmonk]

Debating this is getting tiresome, but...
The solution is the A's need a new stadium, not a new city as Oakland has proven itself in the past to be a viable market.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/athlatte.shtml
Just count how many times they have reached the average AL attendance in all their years at the Coliseum. That's a team that won 4 rings and yet average attendance fell to just 14K in 1996 and barely bounced back to 24K in the season of their last ALCS appearance (2006). Even the end of the famed Haas era was a meager 21K per game and that was before Mt Davis ruined the Coliseum and the '94 strike soured people on baseball.
What I have noticed is noticeable snide arrogance, elitist and snobby veneer from team owner Lew Wolff who once asked in jest "Does Oakland even have a downtown?"---ironic considering he's seeking to move the team to San Jose.:rolleyes:
Well Diridon is near downtown and Hegenberger is not. Oakland has denied the Uptown site and now cancelled Victory Court after hailing it as their goal. Both were quality sites for a stadium, but Coliseum City (if it exists) will be as plastic and soulless as whatever was planned in Fremont several years ago.

[dimondpark]

Debating this is getting tiresome
Then don't.

We've already debated this at length at CD and we arent going to convince each other of anything so why try now?

You want the team to move to San Jose and I want them to stay. Did I miss anything?

[Evergrey]

The San Jose Earthquakes seem to draw well... perhaps there would be an appetite for A's baseball there.

[Evergrey]

Suburban New Jersey and LA's Inland Empire are easily the top destinations for any baseball team thinking about moving. Demographically they blow all other contenders out of the water.



These are the two "regions" that are always at the top of Forbes lists about untapped sports markets. However, you will never see a team relocate to North Jersey or Riverside because they are not independent markets... they are NYC and LA sports markets respectively and lack any identity of their own. MLB will never have a 3rd NYC team or a 3rd LA team.

Using population/income/corporate metrics... you could probably say Greater NYC can support 9 teams and LA can support 5 teams... and half of MLB cities can support 0 teams... but that is not a realistic outcome .

[Cirrus]

These are the two "regions" that are always at the top of Forbes lists about untapped sports markets. However, you will never see a team relocate to North Jersey or Riverside because they are not independent markets... they are NYC and LA sports markets respectivelyThis might be a convincing argument if we didn't have the following real life examples that prove it is completely wrong:
Oakland Athletics (!)
Oakland Raiders
Anaheim Angels
Anaheim Mighty Ducks
New Jersey Devils
New Jersey Nets

Also, it's not just Forbes who says suburban NY and LA are top untapped markets. New Jersey was MLB's backup plan in the event DC didn't agree to build a stadium for the Expos. The Nationals *almost* went to New Jersey.

[krudmonk]

Then don't.

We've already debated this at length at CD and we arent going to convince each other of anything so why try now?

You want the team to move to San Jose and I want them to stay. Did I miss anything?
Sorry, I was just debunking myths for a new crowd here.

And no, I don't explicitly want the team to move here because I don't care much for baseball. I've followed this story and it's many non-developments for years now because it pertains to urban development (a stadium and surrounding neighborhood), which is the theme of this forum and others like it.

I also find it baffling that one of the few ownership groups (in all of sports) trying to build with private money is also one of the most villified. That is ideally how all pro sports should operate, and yet here is a minority owner being pegged as the "carpetbagger" because the team wants to play where they will get the best return on their stadium investment. The man from St Louis who lives in Los Angeles only does business in San Jose because it is a place to do business, not because money here is any greener than money in Oakland.

Sure, Oakland could offer up free funds to get fucked in the ass like they did with Al Davis but is that worth it for society at large? Many argue that pro spors are a horrible investment for cities and they are right in most cases. Here we finally have the horse before the cart, an existing market for doing business in pro sports and not false promises of a free stadium hopefully creating such a market down the line. Isn't that how the team was originally lured from Kansas City?

[dimondpark]

Sorry, I was just debunking myths for a new crowd here.

And no, I don't explicitly want the team to move here because I don't care much for baseball. I've followed this story and it's many non-developments for years now because it pertains to urban development (a stadium and surrounding neighborhood), which is the theme of this forum and others like it.

I also find it baffling that one of the few ownership groups (in all of sports) trying to build with private money is also one of the most villified. That is ideally how all pro sports should operate, and yet here is a minority owner being pegged as the "carpetbagger" because the team wants to play where they will get the best return on their stadium investment. The man from St Louis who lives in Los Angeles only does business in San Jose because it is a place to do business, not because money here is any greener than money in Oakland.

Sure, Oakland could offer up free funds to get fucked in the ass like they did with Al Davis but is that worth it for society at large? Many argue that pro spors are a horrible investment for cities and they are right in most cases. Here we finally have the horse before the cart, an existing market for doing business in pro sports and not false promises of a free stadium hopefully creating such a market down the line. Isn't that how the team was originally lured from Kansas City?

Yeah, at the end of the day I do want what's best for Oakland--the team itself is secondary to me.

The Coliseum is owned jointly by the city and county--and because they were burned by Al Davis, the county is not committing anything to Coliseum City until they are sure that the project has other sources of funding and includes some financial concessions from the teams(I think I read it that way recently) but they arent going to stop the city from pursuing the project.

[xzmattzx]

These are the two "regions" that are always at the top of Forbes lists about untapped sports markets. However, you will never see a team relocate to North Jersey or Riverside because they are not independent markets... they are NYC and LA sports markets respectively and lack any identity of their own. MLB will never have a 3rd NYC team or a 3rd LA team.

Using population/income/corporate metrics... you could probably say Greater NYC can support 9 teams and LA can support 5 teams... and half of MLB cities can support 0 teams... but that is not a realistic outcome .

I wouldn't rule that out. Actually, MLB was pushing the Expos towards New Jersey as a location over Las Vegas and Portland, while the DC area wasn't looking like it would come through as the relocation site. MLB sees New Jersey as the safe bet for relocation, even with the Yankees and Mets. It sure would be an interesting fight between MLB and the Yankees and Mets if MLB approved a move to New Jersey.

There is obviously precedence in other sports for having three teams in one market, albeit in the two smaller sports. The NHL has three teams in the New York City area, and if the Sacramento Kings would've moved to Anaheim over the summer, then the Los Angeles area would have three basketball teams. The Kings could still move to Anaheim if the arena deal that is progressing ultimately falls through.

[Westsidelife]

From what I've heard, Sacramento is in danger of losing the Kings, and operating a baseball franchise is much more expensive than operating a basketball franchise, so I'm skeptical if Sacramento would be a good fit for a baseball team.

That's old news. The Kings struck a deal with the city earlier this month to build a new arena downtown. They're staying put in Sacramento for at least another 30 years.

[brickell]

There are no viable options to move the team to. A couple years back when the Marlins were threatening to move I remember some think tank did an analysis and found that there are no cities left that are large enough and wealthy enough to support an MLB team that don't already have one (and several markets that DO have teams can't support those). There are basically 15 to 20 markets that can sustain a Major league team. Northern New Jersey was the only area that could support another team but the Yankees and Mets would never allow that.


My thoughts also. Given the economics of baseball a 3rd team in NY/NJ and one in LA would work best. Like you say, places like KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh and Cleveland can barely make it work. How can we expect markets even smaller to make it?

[Evergrey]

My thoughts also. Given the economics of baseball a 3rd team in NY/NJ and one in LA would work best. Like you say, places like KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh and Cleveland can barely make it work. How can we expect markets even smaller to make it?

Even large markets like Miami can barely make it work... economically at least... somehow they manage to win a world series for their 12 fans every 5 years before burning the house down again.

[brickell]

By the, here's another list from Forbes, but it's relevant.
MLB 2011 teams ranked by revenue. I know there some fuzzy accounting going on so take it with however many grains of salt you wish.

Rank Team Current Value ($mil) 1-Yr Value Change (%) Debt/Value (%) Revenue ($mil) Operating Income ($mil)
1
New York Yankees
1,700 6 4 427 25.7
2
Boston Red Sox
912 5 26 272 -1.1
3
Los Angeles Dodgers
800 10 54 246 32.8
4
Chicago Cubs
773 6 75 258 23.4
5
New York Mets
747 -13 60 233 -6.2
6
Philadelphia Phillies
609 13 29 239 8.9
7
San Francisco Giants
563 16 21 230 29.9
8
Texas Rangers
561 25 66 206 22.6
9
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
554 6 10 222 11.8
10
Chicago White Sox
526 13 8 210 27.6
11
St Louis Cardinals
518 6 53 207 19.8
12
Minnesota Twins
490 21 20 213 26.5
13
Atlanta Braves
482 7 0 201 22.2
14
Houston Astros
474 5 12 197 14.4
15
Seattle Mariners
449 2 15 204 9.9
16
Washington Nationals
417 8 60 194 36.6
17
Colorado Rockies
414 8 19 188 16.3
18
Baltimore Orioles
411 9 37 175 25.5
19
San Diego Padres
406 0 49 159 37.2
20
Arizona Diamondbacks
396 4 25 180 6.2
21
Detroit Tigers
385 3 55 192 -29.1
22
Milwaukee Brewers
376 7 32 179 12.4
23
Cincinnati Reds
375 13 11 179 20.1
24
Florida Marlins
360 13 40 143 20.2
25
Cleveland Indians
353 -10 31 168 12.1
26
Kansas City Royals
351 3 14 160 10.3
27
Toronto Blue Jays
337 3 0 168 3.6
28
Tampa Bay Rays
331 5 35 166 6.8
29
Oakland Athletics
307 4 29 161 23.2
30
Pittsburgh Pirates
304 5 42 160 24.6

[brickell]

Even large markets like Miami can barely make it work... economically at least... somehow they manage to win a world series for their 12 fans every 5 years before burning the house down again.

You know this is ultimately why I want NY to get another team. The Marlins have had a couple of lucky runs but it's painful to think what KC and Pittsburgh fans must feel like. The economics of baseball is twisted and backwards, but somehow I like it better than what the NFL and NBA does. I just want a piece of that NY pie to be split.

But I do agree that it's silly to argue. It probably won't happen in our lifetimes.

Don't forget San Juan, PR. Not a lot of money down there, but they'd get the support of the whole island, plus maybe a chunk of NY and Florida expats.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

This might be a convincing argument if we didn't have the following real life examples that prove it is completely wrong:
Oakland Athletics (!)
Oakland Raiders
Anaheim Angels
Anaheim Mighty Ducks
New Jersey Devils
New Jersey Nets

Also, it's not just Forbes who says suburban NY and LA are top untapped markets. New Jersey was MLB's backup plan in the event DC didn't agree to build a stadium for the Expos. The Nationals *almost* went to New Jersey.

to add to that, the Sacramento Kings almooooost came to Anaheim last year.

[Clevelumbus]

Isn't it the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim now? And the Ducks are no longer 'Mighty', just Ducks.

[mthd]

the greater bay area can easily support two MLB teams. whether they're in san jose + sf, oakland + sf, fremont + sf, it doesn't really matter if the stadiums are in good places, are good stadiums for baseball, and the teams are well managed and have enough financing for a half-decent shot once in a while.

i won't comment on how many of those criteria the A's currently meet. ;)

splitting up a very wealthy 7.5M person CSA into two teams SHOULD be a lot easier than moving a team into a marginal 2M person metro.

[isaidso]

Maybe they could move to Montreal.

That's what I was thinking. Montreal's baseball history is too rich to be without a MLB team. The Montreal Royals (1897-1917/1928-1960) was the city where the colour barrier in baseball was broken. Then the Montreal Expos appeared (1969-2004) and now there's NOTHING! Really really sad. :(

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/FabulousMontrealRoyalsbookcover.jpg

[tablemtn]

I've seen some reports in the past about putting a baseball team in Puerto Rico or the DR. The economics of it simply wouldn't work - the local ad markets are not nearly as profitable as population figures would indicate (if those figures were in the mainland US), corporate sponsorships would be limited, and the distance would potentially throw off scheduling. And in the case of the DR, you get into a lot of transnational taxation and visa issues, and you'd need the entire team to clear US customs every single time it arrived for an away game.

When the Expos did their 22-game run in Puerto Rico in 2003, the profitability was less than had been hoped, which is one of the reasons the MLB pretty much quit trying to expand to that market afterwards.

The most likely venue for a foreign team was the Mexican city of Monterrey, because of its proximity to the central US, combined with the relatively high level of local income, but the drug war has shelved those plans for at least the medium term.

[Shawn]

the greater bay area can easily support two MLB teams. whether they're in san jose + sf, oakland + sf, fremont + sf, it doesn't really matter if the stadiums are in good places, are good stadiums for baseball, and the teams are well managed and have enough financing for a half-decent shot once in a while.

i won't comment on how many of those criteria the A's currently meet. ;)

splitting up a very wealthy 7.5M person CSA into two teams SHOULD be a lot easier than moving a team into a marginal 2M person metro.

This is spot on. Any way you slice it, half of the Bay Area is far wealthier and would see far more corporate support than any whole 3 million or less metro.

Half of the Bay Area is a much better MLB market than all of San Antonio, Portland, Sacramento, etc.

[East7thStreet]

I think San Antonio is more of an NFL town and Austin would be the MLB town. Of course this is all 10+ years out. Austin has more money of the two cities and the laid back culture is a better fit with MLB. San Antonio would do great with an NFL team and its blue collar population.

[Schertz1]

If you count the people who live within an hour of downtown San Antonio, it's not a very large number. In fact, Grand Rapids, MI has more people living within an hour(~2.3-2.4 million) than San Antonio and there's no way Grand Rapids would get an MLB franchise. While San Antonio could include Austin in an expanded market area and especially in the television market, it just seems that there aren't enough people within the immediate area to put butts in the seats every day.


This is not true, San Antonio has 2.3 million in the metro. Downtown Austin is 79 miles from downtown San Antonio or not much more than an hour away.

The San Antonio market might be a bit on the small side to realistically fill a 45,000+ MLB park 81 times a summer. Then there's corporate sponsorship - who is going to pony up for all those box seats?



San Antonio has 5 fortune 500 HQs in the city limits and many more have operations in town. Corporate sponsorship is not the problem.

[hudkina]

The two cities are around 80 miles from each other. For most people, that's well over an hour. A 60 mile radius is a good indicator of areas that are within an hour or so of a given city.

San Antonio has 15 counties (including Bexar) that are primarily within a 60 mile radius:
Atascosa - 44,911 - 1,219.54 sq. mi.
Bandera - 20,485 - 790.96 sq. mi.
Bexar - 1,714,773 - 1,239.82 sq. mi.
Blanco - 10,497 - 709.25 sq. mi.
Caldwell - 38,066 - 545.26 sq. mi.
Comal - 108,472 - 559.48 sq. mi.
Frio - 17,217 - 1,133.50 sq. mi.
Gonzales - 19,807 - 1,066.69 sq. mi.
Guadalupe - 131,533 - 711.30 sq. mi.
Hays - 157,107 - 677.98 sq. mi.
Karnes - 14,824 - 747.56 sq. mi.
Kendal - 33,410 - 662.45 sq. mi.
Kerr - 49,625 - 1,103.32 sq. mi.
Medina - 46,006 - 1,325.36 sq. mi.
Wilson - 42,918 - 803.73 sq. mi.
TOTAL - 2,449,651 - 13,296.19 sq. mi.


Grand Rapids has 18 counties (including Kent) that are primarily within a 60 mile radius.
Allegan - 111,408 - 825.23 sq. mi.
Barry - 59,173 - 553.09 sq. mi.
Calhoun - 136,146 - 706.23 sq. mi.
Clinton - 75,382 - 566.41 sq. mi.
Eaton - 107,759 - 575.17 sq. mi.
Gratiot - 42,476 - 568.46 sq. mi.
Ingham - 280,895 - 556.12 sq. mi.
Ionia - 63,905 - 571.30 sq. mi.
Isabella - 70,311 - 572.68 sq. mi.
Kalamazoo - 250,331 - 561.66 sq. mi.
Kent - 602,622 - 846.95 sq. mi.
Mecosta - 42,798 - 555.07 sq. mi.
Montcalm - 63,342 - 705.40 sq. mi.
Muskegon - 172,188 - 499.25 sq. mi.
Newaygo - 48,460 - 813.20 sq. mi.
Oceana - 26,570 - 512.07 sq. mi.
Ottawa - 263,801 - 563.47 sq. mi.
Van Buren - 76,258 - 607.47 sq. mi.
TOTAL - 2,493,825 - 11,159.24 sq. mi.

In realty both cities have ~2.3-2.4 million people living within a 60 mile radius with Grand Rapids having a slight edge.

[Cashville]

San Antonio is too small (and Austin probably doesn't care), too close to Houston and fans are already divided up by two very popular and well established Astros and Rangers.

Milwaukee is smaller and closer to Chicago with 2 very popular and well established teams in the Cubs and White Sox. Milwaukee sells about 3 million tickets a year and is in the top 10 in attendance every year in the MLB despite being the smallest market.

People always make too much of this metro is too small to support this or that, its all about how the populace gets behind something. They support the Astros and Rangers now because they dont have any other options. If a team relocated to San Antonio and there is already an interest MLB in the area thats a good sign.

[mello]

So with 5 Fortune 500 HQ's it puts San Antonio ahead of San Diego which only has 2 (Just lost SAIC to northern Virginia Suburbs last year). It seems to me like the Television market would be a pretty decent size and the team definitely wouldn't have problems drawing on Fri, Sat, and Sunday with Austin being so close.

Anyone from San Antonio want to comment on how you think they might due on Mon - Thursday nights in a sleek, cozy 36 to 38,000 seat ballpark downtown? I did talk so a sports writer from SA who said there was a proposal to put a ballpark just to the NW of the Institute of Texan Cultures near the Tower of the Americas.

[CyberEric]

This is spot on. Any way you slice it, half of the Bay Area is far wealthier and would see far more corporate support than any whole 3 million or less metro.

Half of the Bay Area is a much better MLB market than all of San Antonio, Portland, Sacramento, etc.

Agreed. I think if the A's had a better stadium, and a better team they wouldn't have the problems with attendance and TV money. I hear people in the post office in San Francisco talking about the A's, I see people wearing A's hats all the time, I think there is a lot of support for the A's all over the Bay Area. People here in the city are often times happy to support them and go to games, but when they are bad like they are now, and the park is terrible like it is, it's difficult to garner support from anywhere, be it Oakland, SJ, SF or San Rafael. Plus the Giants are good, and when I come back into the city on BART from the East Bay, there are tons of Giants fans coming over to see the games. I don't think the A's are a small market team, they are a second tier team in a large market and they're not able to advertise to half of it.

[Schertz1]

The two cities are around 80 miles from each other. For most people, that's well over an hour. A 60 mile radius is a good indicator of areas that are within an hour or so of a given city.

San Antonio has 15 counties (including Bexar) that are primarily within a 60 mile radius:
Atascosa - 44,911 - 1,219.54 sq. mi.
Bandera - 20,485 - 790.96 sq. mi.
Bexar - 1,714,773 - 1,239.82 sq. mi.
Blanco - 10,497 - 709.25 sq. mi.
Caldwell - 38,066 - 545.26 sq. mi.
Comal - 108,472 - 559.48 sq. mi.
Frio - 17,217 - 1,133.50 sq. mi.
Gonzales - 19,807 - 1,066.69 sq. mi.
Guadalupe - 131,533 - 711.30 sq. mi.
Hays - 157,107 - 677.98 sq. mi.
Karnes - 14,824 - 747.56 sq. mi.
Kendal - 33,410 - 662.45 sq. mi.
Kerr - 49,625 - 1,103.32 sq. mi.
Medina - 46,006 - 1,325.36 sq. mi.
Wilson - 42,918 - 803.73 sq. mi.
TOTAL - 2,449,651 - 13,296.19 sq. mi.


Grand Rapids has 18 counties (including Kent) that are primarily within a 60 mile radius.
Allegan - 111,408 - 825.23 sq. mi.
Barry - 59,173 - 553.09 sq. mi.
Calhoun - 136,146 - 706.23 sq. mi.
Clinton - 75,382 - 566.41 sq. mi.
Eaton - 107,759 - 575.17 sq. mi.
Gratiot - 42,476 - 568.46 sq. mi.
Ingham - 280,895 - 556.12 sq. mi.
Ionia - 63,905 - 571.30 sq. mi.
Isabella - 70,311 - 572.68 sq. mi.
Kalamazoo - 250,331 - 561.66 sq. mi.
Kent - 602,622 - 846.95 sq. mi.
Mecosta - 42,798 - 555.07 sq. mi.
Montcalm - 63,342 - 705.40 sq. mi.
Muskegon - 172,188 - 499.25 sq. mi.
Newaygo - 48,460 - 813.20 sq. mi.
Oceana - 26,570 - 512.07 sq. mi.
Ottawa - 263,801 - 563.47 sq. mi.
Van Buren - 76,258 - 607.47 sq. mi.
TOTAL - 2,493,825 - 11,159.24 sq. mi.

In realty both cities have ~2.3-2.4 million people living within a 60 mile radius with Grand Rapids having a slight edge.


The difference is San Antonio has over 2.3 in the metro which means many people already identify with the city. The population in the surrounding counties is exploding due to the oil activity, some by as much as 10% a year. So, I would say your numbers may be accurate, but they are not current. I would also say outside the Grand Rapids metro, and especially to the east, the population does not identify with Grand Rapids. Just my guess but, I think they identify and utilize Detroit more than Grand Rapids. I said all that to say this. The Tigers are 133 miles from Grand Rapids in downtown Detroit and their attendance is average. If Grand Rapids is willing and able to support MLB you would think the Tigers would have better attendance. The tread is about serious contenders – San Antonio and/or others – for teams; let’s not cloud the topic with Grand Rapids. FYI, I really like Traverse City and Grand Rapids looks nice in pictures.

[mhays]

Ten people living within 10-20 miles is a hell of a lot more valuable than ten people 50 miles away, and 79 miles is quite a trek.

I'd see San Antonio as too small and not rich enough. It could struggle along but wouldn't do well.

[northbay]

Any way you slice it, half of the Bay Area is far wealthier and would see far more corporate support than any whole 3 million or less metro.

Half of the Bay Area is a much better MLB market than all of San Antonio, Portland, Sacramento, etc.

:yes: Exactly right.

[jaxg8r1]

Seems to me the problem is baseball itself (MLB). If a city such as San Antonio or Sacramento or Portland (all 2-2.5million) are too small for a professional team, then its a bit ridiculous.

[Gordo]

^They're not too small for professional baseball teams, they're simply too small for MLB.

[JManc]

Milwaukee is smaller and closer to Chicago with 2 very popular and well established teams in the Cubs and White Sox. Milwaukee sells about 3 million tickets a year and is in the top 10 in attendance every year in the MLB despite being the smallest market.

People always make too much of this metro is too small to support this or that, its all about how the populace gets behind something. They support the Astros and Rangers now because they dont have any other options. If a team relocated to San Antonio and there is already an interest MLB in the area thats a good sign.

Milwaukee has had the brewers for decades and is a far more stable area. San Antonio is much more transient. And spread out. Milwaukee, despite being on the smallish side and close to Chicago, also has a very distinct identity which is common with cities and towns across the midwest and northeast. tons of towns up there have minor league baseball teams. not so much around here. an NFL team might work for San Antonio based on combined metro figures with Austin but then again, Austin has UT and is not a big sports town outside of the UT community.

[jaxg8r1]

^They're not too small for professional baseball teams, they're simply too small for MLB.

Right. But the point still stands.

[Gordo]

Right. But the point still stands.

I guess I just don't see it. There are 30 teams for a population area of ~330 million (I wouldn't count all of Canada as part of the market), so we're looking at "market areas" of around 11 million per team if spread out evenly by population. Obviously that can't work perfectly and things are skewed even more by income levels and other financial factors, but it's pretty hard to argue that relatively poor metros without historical baseball ties "should" be able to support a team. Maybe if the regions that they might cover were larger or richer (say, Oregon was a state of 8-10 million or San Antonio was significantly further away from Dallas/Houston).

[Schertz1]

Milwaukee has had the brewers for decades and is a far more stable area. San Antonio is much more transient. And spread out. Milwaukee, despite being on the smallish side and close to Chicago, also has a very distinct identity which is common with cities and towns across the midwest and northeast. tons of towns up there have minor league baseball teams. not so much around here. an NFL team might work for San Antonio based on combined metro figures with Austin but then again, Austin has UT and is not a big sports town outside of the UT community.


What are you basing this more transient notion on? If possible, I would like you to provide the source. Even if it were true, do you not think military personnel go to ball games? I don't think you know much about San Antonio or the military. Why would San Antonio need to combine with Austin to support a NFL team? The San Antonio market is larger than several NFL markets, New Orleans, Nashville, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. This is by population and not designated market area. Austin is a compliment, not a necessity. In addition, several of these markets have multiple teams. Finally, if you look at attendance many of the big markets have the lower attendance than small markets. Why?

[mhays]

NFL is 10 games per year, not 81+. Huge difference.

Even if they have lower attendance, the bigger cities' broadcast revenues might be much higher.

[jaxg8r1]

I guess I just don't see it. There are 30 teams for a population area of ~330 million (I wouldn't count all of Canada as part of the market), so we're looking at "market areas" of around 11 million per team if spread out evenly by population. Obviously that can't work perfectly and things are skewed even more by income levels and other financial factors, but it's pretty hard to argue that relatively poor metros without historical baseball ties "should" be able to support a team. Maybe if the regions that they might cover were larger or richer (say, Oregon was a state of 8-10 million or San Antonio was significantly further away from Dallas/Houston).

I think MLB is messed up because basically 4-5 teams in the largest markets are competitive every year, and the rest of the teams can't afford to compete. So realistically, take that 30 teams are subtract 2/3rds of them because they are basically non-existent in any meaningful way.

MLB reminds me a lot of the English Premier League in soccer, which is basically the same thing. Just a few teams really have a decent shot, the rest are all for show.

NFL, NHL, NBA and MLS work in smaller cities (in addition to the mega cities) because revenue is treated differently. I mean, how can people be fans of the KC Royals knowing year after year after year they'll never amount to anything and its structural in how the league is run.

As an aside, from what I've read one of the primary factors in MLB is local revenue, which is derived from TV Market size. Both Portland and Sacramento are larger (in that regard) than the following MLB markets: Cincinnati, Milwaukie, Kansas City, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh.
Source:http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_RANKS.pdf

[JManc]

What are you basing this more transient notion on? If possible, I would like you to provide the source. Even if it were true, do you not think military personnel go to ball games? I don't think you know much about San Antonio or the military. Why would San Antonio need to combine with Austin to support a NFL team? The San Antonio market is larger than several NFL markets, New Orleans, Nashville, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. This is by population and not designated market area. Austin is a compliment, not a necessity. In addition, several of these markets have multiple teams. Finally, if you look at attendance many of the big markets have the lower attendance than small markets. Why?

going to an occasional game is not the same as being a fan. if you're stationed there for a year or two, probably not going to be a fan of the local team but rather where you're from originally. sunbelt cities are more transient...people come here for work, move on for other opportunistic. people rarely move into cities like cincinnati or milwaukee so there is a stronger identity. i am from upstate new york, most people have roots going back several generations where as here in houston, most of my friends and colleagues are from out of state.

[Schertz1]

Ten people living within 10-20 miles is a hell of a lot more valuable than ten people 50 miles away, and 79 miles is quite a trek.

I'd see San Antonio as too small and not rich enough. It could struggle along but wouldn't do well.


First, this is Texas and a person can easily travel 80 miles just to get across town. San Antonio has the benefit of millions locally, within 40 miles, and millions more in Austin and the Valley. Second, San Antonio has one of the lowest costs of living of any major U.S. city, so naturally income levels will be lower as well. Discretionary income is what is important here.

Really, I couldn't care less about San Antonio getting a MLB team. I want the NFL in San Antonio and not because I am blue collar. That's just another misconception about San Antonio.

[JManc]

^ the Alamodome is built to NFL spec.

[hudkina]

The difference is San Antonio has over 2.3 in the metro which means many people already identify with the city. The population in the surrounding counties is exploding due to the oil activity, some by as much as 10% a year. So, I would say your numbers may be accurate, but they are not current. I would also say outside the Grand Rapids metro, and especially to the east, the population does not identify with Grand Rapids. Just my guess but, I think they identify and utilize Detroit more than Grand Rapids. I said all that to say this. The Tigers are 133 miles from Grand Rapids in downtown Detroit and their attendance is average. If Grand Rapids is willing and able to support MLB you would think the Tigers would have better attendance. The tread is about serious contenders – San Antonio and/or others – for teams; let’s not cloud the topic with Grand Rapids. FYI, I really like Traverse City and Grand Rapids looks nice in pictures.

You're right, there's only about 1.5 million people that identify with "Metro Grand Rapids." Around 0.45 million identify with the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek area and another 0.45 million identify with the Lansing area. Kalamazoo/Battle Creek certainly identify with West Michigan moreso than Southeast Michigan, and Lansing is probably geared a bit more toward Metro Detroit, but is still technically closer to Grand Rapids than Detroit. Even excluding the Lansing area, you have over 2 million people that essentially identify with "West Michigan", of which Grand Rapids is the capital.

In any case, my point is that San Antonio isn't that big of a potential market.

[Schertz1]

going to an occasional game is not the same as being a fan. if you're stationed there for a year or two, probably not going to be a fan of the local team but rather where you're from originally. sunbelt cities are more transient...people come here for work, move on for other opportunistic. people rarely move into cities like cincinnati or milwaukee so there is a stronger identity. i am from upstate new york, most people have roots going back several generations where as here in houston, most of my friends and colleagues are from out of state.

You mean they are probably not going to buy season tickets, but given the chance they are going to go. You may not have much experience with the military, but it is still a male - who are, for the most part young and physically competitive - dominated profession. Demographically they are the fans.

I also live in Houston, and as odd as it may sound, I know very few people here who are not from Texas. Off my head, I can only think of one. The transient notion is false; people have always gone to the jobs or moved for a better one. Some stay some don't. This is true of New York as well as Texas or anywhere else.

[Schertz1]

NFL is 10 games per year, not 81+. Huge difference.

Even if they have lower attendance, the bigger cities' broadcast revenues might be much higher.

I did mention some of the smaller markets KC, Cleveland, and Cincinnati have both NFL and MLB. The point is not the difference of 71 games, but the population base needed to support those games. I am not here to advocate for a MLB team in San Antonio. I would rather have NFL; I am just saying based on performance in other markets San Antonio can support a team.

[mhays]

Those are teams with a very hard time competing, except at the rare times they're able to ride young stars before their big payoffs.

I don't buy the 80 mile thing at all. Attendance drops off dramatically with distance, even at 40 miles vs. 20 or 30. Weeknights in particular. This isn't theory.

[jaxg8r1]

For reference, MLB attendance for 2012 by team: http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2011/sort/homePct

Only 9 teams in the whole league managed to be above 80% capacity. Half the league averaged under 30k per game.

[Schertz1]

Those are teams with a very hard time competing, except at the rare times they're able to ride young stars before their big payoffs.

I don't buy the 80 mile thing at all. Attendance drops off dramatically with distance, even at 40 miles vs. 20 or 30. Weeknights in particular. This isn't theory.


I am not going to get wrapped up with a non-issue. I am simply saying based on attendance in current MLB markets San Antonio has an adequate population base to support a team.

You can believe it or not, but all you have to do is look at a map. The outer suburbs of Dallas and Houston are over 40 miles from town which can make a crosstown trip 80 miles.

[mhays]

Huh? You realize that they also have much larger populations than SA within 20 or 30 miles right?

[hudkina]

Those are teams with a very hard time competing, except at the rare times they're able to ride young stars before their big payoffs.

I don't buy the 80 mile thing at all. Attendance drops off dramatically with distance, even at 40 miles vs. 20 or 30. Weeknights in particular. This isn't theory.

It's true, I am in the same metro area as the "Detroit" Pistons, yet because I have to drive about 50 miles to get to the arena from where I live, they're lucky if I attend a game once every two or three years.;)

[hudkina]

I am not going to get wrapped up with a non-issue. I am simply saying based on attendance in current MLB markets San Antonio has an adequate population base to support a team.

You can believe it or not, but all you have to do is look at a map. The outer suburbs of Dallas and Houston are over 40 miles from town which can make a crosstown trip 80 miles.

And how many people actually make "crosstown" trips? The point is that you have a certain radius around a stadium where you are going to draw the majority of your daily attendance. Sure every game will have a certain amount of "out-market" tourists, but the bread and butter is going to come from within a much tighter radius than 80+ miles. For most cities, you're talking 30 to 40 miles on average, with a steep drop off in the 60+ radius.

[JManc]

You mean they are probably not going to buy season tickets, but given the chance they are going to go. You may not have much experience with the military, but it is still a male - who are, for the most part young and physically competitive - dominated profession. Demographically they are the fans.

I also live in Houston, and as odd as it may sound, I know very few people here who are not from Texas. Off my head, I can only think of one. The transient notion is false; people have always gone to the jobs or moved for a better one. Some stay some don't. This is true of New York as well as Texas or anywhere else.

A guy from Cleveland stationed at Randolph might be willing to catch a few hypothetical San Antonio baseball games (the military does hand tickets out often) but he's still probably an Indians fan. It's not impossible for a new town to establish as fan base but its hard and a potential owner might not deem it worth the risk.

And yes, Houston is very much a transient/ transplant city. just because you do not know very many out of towners personally does not mean they don't exist in large numbers. Houston is very attractive for those establishing careers and Texas' cities are among the fastest growing in the country. That's not due to rapid birthrates but immigration and domestic migration.

[Jelly Roll]

I think MLB is messed up because basically 4-5 teams in the largest markets are competitive every year, and the rest of the teams can't afford to compete. So realistically, take that 30 teams are subtract 2/3rds of them because they are basically non-existent in any meaningful way.

MLB reminds me a lot of the English Premier League in soccer, which is basically the same thing. Just a few teams really have a decent shot, the rest are all for show.

NFL, NHL, NBA and MLS work in smaller cities (in addition to the mega cities) because revenue is treated differently.

In the NBA the same teams every year are in the running. Definitely not the league to cite if you are talking about being competitive. Between LA and Boston you have almost all the championships. MLS is also a weird choice in that the bigger market teams have an advantage. Basically only the NFL and NHL which have hard caps really can be used to support leagues where small market teams can have a chance to win.

[jaxg8r1]

In the NBA the same teams every year are in the running. Definitely not the league to cite if you are talking about being competitive. Between LA and Boston you have almost all the championships. MLS is also a weird choice in that the bigger market teams have an advantage. Basically only the NFL and NHL which have hard caps really can be used to support leagues where small market teams can have a chance to win.

???
MLS Cup has been won by 9 different clubs over its 16 year history.

Although you're correct about the NBA. Perhaps the absurdity of the NBA system is masked a bit in the size of the playoff field...

[brickell]

You can search and find all kinds of links on it. Despite the perceived disparity between large and small market teams, MLB has the most parity of the professional leagues. Yeah the Yankees are going to be there more often than others. I think that's actually good for the sport though.

[Schertz1]

And how many people actually make "crosstown" trips? The point is that you have a certain radius around a stadium where you are going to draw the majority of your daily attendance. Sure every game will have a certain amount of "out-market" tourists, but the bread and butter is going to come from within a much tighter radius than 80+ miles. For most cities, you're talking 30 to 40 miles on average, with a steep drop off in the 60+ radius.

Does it really matter how many people make crosstown trips; as I said earlier, it is irrelevant? San Antonio has a large enough base within 40 miles of downtown and at 60 miles you are within the city limits of Austin.

[hudkina]

Is San Antonio a relatively small market for a baseball team? Absolutely. Could San Antonio host an MLB team? Maybe. Would it be more viable than keeping the A's in Oakland? Probably not. It's as simple as that.

[Shawn]

Does it really matter how many people make crosstown trips; as I said earlier, it is irrelevant? San Antonio has a large enough base within 40 miles of downtown and at 60 miles you are within the city limits of Austin.

...and none of this really matters, because as we've said before: half of the Bay Area has more of everything than all of metro San Antonio + Austin on the weekends, or any other ~3 million extended market. San Antonio if a fine place, but any way you cut it, relocating from the country's wealthiest metro with triple the 60km radius population and magnitude's more corporate sponsorship opportunities would be a downgrade in the eyes of any ownership group.

[mello]

San Antonio if a fine place, but any way you cut it, relocating from the country's wealthiest metro with triple the 60km radius population and magnitude's more corporate sponsorship opportunities would be a downgrade in the eyes of any ownership group.

Shawn do you realize that I started this thread because the ownership group who owns the A's is not able to build a new facility in the part of the Bay Area that they want to and that it doesn't look like they will construct one in Alameda County or Contra Costa County? I know the Bay Area is wealthy etc.

The point of this thread is that the Giants are really starting to blow past the A's and their payroll is up to 130 million for this upcoming season while the A's are towards the bottom of the league. I think it is possible that an ownership group might begin to look elsewhere for a community that will partially subsidize a new ballpark and San Antonio seems like a possibility.

[mhays]

I'd buy Sacramento first. It's similar in size to SA but already follows the SF area. They might even maintain some of their current Bay Area fan base.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

I'd buy Sacramento first. It's similar in size to SA but already follows the SF area. They might even maintain some of their current Bay Area fan base.

Plus, when they were designing Raley Field, they laid the foundation and created the seating arrangement so a second deck and outfield stands could be added on, bringing it up to MLB standards.

[BrianSac]

Plus, when they were designing Raley Field, they laid the foundation and created the seating arrangement so a second deck and outfield stands could be added on, bringing it up to MLB standards.

Very interesting about Raley Field. It's a great ballpark and a great location near the riverfront. At least 1/3 of the A's Bay Area fan based would be preserved and Sacramento already has an A's fan base. We could add more Nor-Cal fans north of SAC and keep the Stockton/Modesto (pop 750,000) A's fans as well.

If the Kings leave town I could see Sacramento supporting a major league baseball team. Everyone loves the Sacramento RiverCats (The A's farm team), and the organization has a good reputation. The ball park is in place, and no George Maloof to get in the way. Sacramento's CMSA (2.3 million) is larger than San Antonio.

[Shawn]

Shawn do you realize that I started this thread because the ownership group who owns the A's is not able to build a new facility in the part of the Bay Area that they want to and that it doesn't look like they will construct one in Alameda County or Contra Costa County? I know the Bay Area is wealthy etc.

The point of this thread is that the Giants are really starting to blow past the A's and their payroll is up to 130 million for this upcoming season while the A's are towards the bottom of the league. I think it is possible that an ownership group might begin to look elsewhere for a community that will partially subsidize a new ballpark and San Antonio seems like a possibility.

I fully understand this. I also fully expect a stadium deal to be worked out at some point. We're in the "who blinks first" part of the protracted subsidies winning game pro sports teams play. The Patriots technically left Foxboro for Hartford and the Red Sox were ever-so-close to leaving Fenway. Of course neither of these change of venues ever went through, as someone blinked.

The A's will ultimately go where the money is. Passing a portion of any new stadium financing to the public will be part of figuring out where the money is, but that's only part of the equation. The affluency and size of both core attendance markets and greater media markets, coupled with corporate sponsorship opportunities, make up the rest of the equation. San Antonio would have to offer a ludicrously favorable stadium financing deal to A's ownership to make up for the area's lack of size, wealth and corporate footprint in comparison to the Bay Area's.

[Schertz1]

Very interesting about Raley Field. It's a great ballpark and a great location near the riverfront. At least 1/3 of the A's Bay Area fan based would be preserved and Sacramento already has an A's fan base. We could add more Nor-Cal fans north of SAC and keep the Stockton/Modesto (pop 750,000) A's fans as well.

If the Kings leave town I could see Sacramento supporting a major league baseball team. Everyone loves the Sacramento RiverCats (The A's farm team), and the organization has a good reputation. The ball park is in place, and no George Maloof to get in the way. Sacramento's CMSA (2.3 million) is larger than San Antonio.


Sacramento may be a good fit for the A's, but I doubt a MLB team would invest there if the Kings leave. And by the way San Antonio is larger than Sacramento and it's growing much faster.


http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/04/houston-pushes-higher-in-metro.html?appSession=38692200340541&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=1&cpipage=3&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

[unusualfire]

^That list was wrong the entire past decade. How can some metros grow faster with bad economies than other metros with awesome economies that's adding more jobs????

[Westsidelife]

In the NBA the same teams every year are in the running. Definitely not the league to cite if you are talking about being competitive. Between LA and Boston you have almost all the championships. MLS is also a weird choice in that the bigger market teams have an advantage. Basically only the NFL and NHL which have hard caps really can be used to support leagues where small market teams can have a chance to win.

In the NBA, 10 of the 15 teams in the Eastern Conference have made it to the Finals since 1998. The NBA now has a de facto hard cap.

In the NFL, the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl nearly every year since 2000.

In the NHL, only five teams won the Cup from 1968 to 1988 (two of them Original Six teams).

There is no less parity in the NBA. Most franchises are relatively new in comparison to their counterparts in the other major leagues. I would give it some time to develop.

[BevoLJ]

In the NBA the same teams every year are in the running. Definitely not the league to cite if you are talking about being competitive. Between LA and Boston you have almost all the championships. MLS is also a weird choice in that the bigger market teams have an advantage. Basically only the NFL and NHL which have hard caps really can be used to support leagues where small market teams can have a chance to win.

???
MLS Cup has been won by 9 different clubs over its 16 year history.

Although you're correct about the NBA. Perhaps the absurdity of the NBA system is masked a bit in the size of the playoff field...I don't see how y'all points about the NBA could be right. I mean this is a thread about San Antonio and it has the 4th most NBA championships after the Bulls, Lakers and Celtics. And SA has the third highest winning percentage, and have made the playoffs 19 of the last 20 years. Over the past 15 years the Spurs have the best winning percentage than any team in any professional sport (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, NHL). So if San Antonio is such a horrible market unable to support professional teams, then they should not be able to be so successful and competitive if the NBA is such an unfair league. Which is it?

@[those including Austin in the SA discussion]: Please don't. Austinites would never care or get behind a MLB team that moved to SA from Cali. On the A's to SA, I don't think it would work. And if it did, I couldn't see Austin getting behind the San Antonio A's. Austin is a Longhorn town. And the Longhorns have a great baseball program (probably the best in the country), and just north of Austin in Round Rock we have a minor league team that our northern neighbors get behind quite well. Austin has always liked the Spurs, because the Spurs are pretty awesome lol, but honestly since Durant (former Longhorn) is playing for OKC now, I have seen many I know who were mainly Spurs fans are now primarily Thunder fans and secondarily Spurs fans. Austin fans like the Spurs because they are a great organization and team and very easy to love, not because they are in San Antonio which is near Austin. If the Spurs were in Dallas and the Mavericks in SA, I'd bet there would still be more Spurs fans than Mav fans.

It also helps that the Spurs do so much work with the Longhorn players. The Spurs players and coaches really do a lot to support the Longhorns basketball players and that is another reason Austin gets behind the Spurs. I really don't think it has anything to do with the Spurs being closer to Austin than the Rockets or Mavs. They are just a great organization.

[brickell]

So how long is San Antonio (and Portland for that matter) going to play the other woman role? They did the same thing with the Marlins 3 years ago. I'm sure Tampa Bay will be making more noise again soon.

[Forest Glen]

If I could shuffle around MLB teams, I'd move a team to Mexico City -- imagine how that team would draw -- and another struggling team to Santo Domingo. Look how many players come out of the Dominican, and Santo Domingo isn't that far from Florida.

I don't know about Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but a team could work in San Juan, Puerto Rico. It's US territory, not too far from Florida, and has a recently-built subway system.

[jaxg8r1]

I don't see how y'all points about the NBA could be right. I mean this is a thread about San Antonio and it has the 4th most NBA championships after the Bulls, Lakers and Celtics. And SA has the third highest winning percentage, and have made the playoffs 19 of the last 20 years. Over the past 15 years the Spurs have the best winning percentage than any team in any professional sport (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, NHL). So if San Antonio is such a horrible market unable to support professional teams, then they should not be able to be so successful and competitive if the NBA is such an unfair league. Which is it?

@[those including Austin in the SA discussion]: Please don't. Austinites would never care or get behind a MLB team that moved to SA from Cali. On the A's to SA, I don't think it would work. And if it did, I couldn't see Austin getting behind the San Antonio A's. Austin is a Longhorn town. And the Longhorns have a great baseball program (probably the best in the country), and just north of Austin in Round Rock we have a minor league team that our northern neighbors get behind quite well. Austin has always liked the Spurs, because the Spurs are pretty awesome lol, but honestly since Durant (former Longhorn) is playing for OKC now, I have seen many I know who were mainly Spurs fans are now primarily Thunder fans and secondarily Spurs fans. Austin fans like the Spurs because they are a great organization and team and very easy to love, not because they are in San Antonio which is near Austin. If the Spurs were in Dallas and the Mavericks in SA, I'd bet there would still be more Spurs fans than Mav fans.

It also helps that the Spurs do so much work with the Longhorn players. The Spurs players and coaches really do a lot to support the Longhorns basketball players and that is another reason Austin gets behind the Spurs. I really don't think it has anything to do with the Spurs being closer to Austin than the Rockets or Mavs. They are just a great organization.

I was not in any way arguing any point about San Antonio not being able to support MLB or NBA or any professional sport. In fact, quite the opposite actually. The general point of several of my posts was that if cities such as San Antonion (and of the general size range) arent considered large enough to support MLB, then the MLB business model is dumb.

[Pistola916]

I don't know about Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but a team could work in San Juan, Puerto Rico. It's US territory, not too far from Florida, and has a recently-built subway system.


Mexico City is not that far. Plus, Mexico City's metro area is at 25 million, biggest region in the Western Hemisphere. Mexico City also has a subway system -- 15 metro lines - light rail, bus rapid transit, and more. It's also one of the richest cities in the world. There are tons of affluent communities in the city and surrounding area. Also, more Americans live in Mexico City than any other place in Latin America.

The drawbacks for players is security, traffic, crime, pollution and altitude.

[mhays]

The biggest drawback of Mexico City would be the much lower income levels (relevant to ticket prices, advertising revenue, shirt sales, etc.), but still having to pay MLB salaries.

[BevoLJ]

I was not in any way arguing any point about San Antonio not being able to support MLB or NBA or any professional sport. In fact, quite the opposite actually. The general point of several of my posts was that if cities such as San Antonion (and of the general size range) arent considered large enough to support MLB, then the MLB business model is dumb.Ah, OK. Sorry about that. I misunderstood you then. =)

I thought you all were saying that only teams from big markets like LA and Boston could afford to be successful and that the NBA was more lopsided in that regard than the MLB.

[JManc]

The biggest drawback of Mexico City would be the much lower income levels (relevant to ticket prices, advertising revenue, shirt sales, etc.), but still having to pay MLB salaries.

i think there's still enough affluence and middle-class their to be able to support an MLB team. i think crime/ security would be the detractor.