Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

MLB Expansion


21bdp21
 Share

42 minutes ago, mnfireman said:

From Wikipedia, concerning the 1997 expansion draft:

  • For the first round, 15 players from the rosters of their entire organization—both their 40-man roster, plus all minor league affiliates.[4]
  • Each team could add three more players to its protected list after each round.[4]
  • All players in an organization were eligible to be drafted, except those with no prior major league experience who had less than three years service if signed at age 19 or older, or had less than four years of service if signed at age 18 or younger.[5]
  • Players who were free agents after the end of the 1997 season need not be protected.

Thank you. I didn't look it up, but this works.

I would suggest that teams only get to protect three more players after they had lost a player in the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue about AAAA players is probably exasperated by the why the game is played today. The pitching last year with the foreign substance decimated BA's. There are plenty of decent playable corner outfielders, 1bs and 2bs out there. With a good amount of centerfielders. We think AAAA as someone who is better than AAA but should not be in the show. Well if they are better than AAA than that is show level. There is  much larger talent pool these days for players, maybe just maybe we are spoiled by the quality of player that is out there. I that coupled with 3 true outcomes being pushed and the shift hurting the game, has tinted our view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comments about talent are quite interesting. When one considers the vast call for the Twins to roster players without MLB experience to "see what they have" versus the comments about the lack of talent in MLB, it flies in the face of numbers. Now I have always been into numbers and stats and really haven't found saber-metrics to be so revolutionary, but when one considers the influx of Black Americans and Latin players into baseball (not even mentioning Asian and others) in the past 75 years along with the improvements in the medical field and training it boggles the mind to suggest that the baseball players today are not talented enough or that there are not enough players to field additional teams.

While one should take care to compare the different professional leagues in North America, it is a simple numerical fact that baseball has more parity than either the NFL or NBA. Now golf, which I do not follow (golf is a good walk spoiled), could likely say that there is plenty of decent golfers today and there is room for more tournaments. I don't know about that, but baseball has talent oozing from many places and the hold on expansion is a hold on expanding the interest and development of the game. Expansion is overdue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to take Portland off the list. There is no stadium and the public support for subsidizing one is low.

In most places, you can add 1/2 percent to the sales tax and most people won't notice. The absence of a state sales tax in Oregon makes that impossible, and makes it very difficult to raise funds for such projects. The collection costs (and PR costs) of introducing a local sales tax are prohibitive and the income tax and property tax are already at high levels as the main source of, respectively, state and local funding. The only way to raise funding at the local level is through a ballot measure and I'm quite confident that a stadium measure would go down in flames. It might even have trouble getting on the ballot.

And a team could not move in until a stadium was actually built because there is literally no place to play baseball that seats more than 1.500 fans. The Portland Beavers AAA franchise---affiliated with the Twins when I first moved herein 1988---played in Civic Stadium, which seated about 20,000, but which has since been converted to football (both kinds) only. There has been no affiliated baseball in Portland for about 30 years and, although there are a few prominent and noisy zealots, the interest level is very low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Unwinder said:

Hey, I've seen three different people in this thread say that one benefit of expansion would be eliminating interleague play. Is there something bad about interleague play that I don't know about? Why don't people like it? I've seen this come up before, and I'm very curious and want to understand it.

In my case, I specifically called out the "always on" interleague play we have with 15 v 15 leagues. I like interleague play itself but not the sloppy way it has to be implemented with odd-numbered teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Buenos_beisbol said:

I'm all for expanding the league.  My question would be is how do we build up their farm system?  Do we make anyone not on the 26 man roster free to take, like the rule 5 draft?  Do we add on 5-10 players that teams can protect? 

Welcome to TD. There was an earlier response that answered this, but each time there is expansion the owners decide how it works.

From Wikipedia, concerning the 1997 expansion draft:

posted by mnfireman

  • For the first round, 15 players from the rosters of their entire organization—both their 40-man roster, plus all minor league affiliates.[4]
  • Each team could add three more players to its protected list after each round.[4]
  • All players in an organization were eligible to be drafted, except those with no prior major league experience who had less than three years service if signed at age 19 or older, or had less than four years of service if signed at age 18 or younger.[5]
  • Players who were free agents after the end of the 1997 season need not be protected.

I hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with Puerto Rico and Mexico City comes down to geography. Baseball, unlike every other sport, travels overnight 75%+ of the time. Puerto Rico is 1,000 miles from Miami, its closest MLB city and an insane 3,700 miles to the farthest MLB city, Seattle. Mexico City is less obnoxious for every trip but it still has a lot of teams traveling considerably farther than normal overnight. Mexico City is 2,200 miles from Boston and 2,300 miles from Seattle.

Mexico City is perhaps feasible but I just don't see how San Juan is a real candidate for MLB expansion (ignoring the difficult economics of both regions in comparison to mainland US and Canadian cities).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The biggest problem with Puerto Rico and Mexico City comes down to geography. Baseball, unlike every other sport, travels overnight 75%+ of the time. Puerto Rico is 1,000 miles from Miami, its closest MLB city and an insane 3,700 miles to the farthest MLB city, Seattle. Mexico City is less obnoxious for every trip but it still has a lot of teams traveling considerably farther than normal overnight. Mexico City is 2,200 miles from Boston and 2,300 miles from Seattle.

Mexico City is perhaps feasible but I just don't see how San Juan is a real candidate for MLB expansion (ignoring the difficult economics of both regions in comparison to mainland US and Canadian cities).

I agree that distances are the biggest issues for both these locations. Mexico City pop is 10 mil the Metro area has a pop of 20 mil (3 other metros within 2.5 hours are also over 1 mil total about 5.5mil) Sheer numbers mean money and fans. 


Side bar the distance to teams is also one of, if not, the main reason the NDSU Bison do not move up to FBS no one close to play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By coincidence I ran across this old NASA map.  It is quite (*ahem*) illuminating.  Visualize where MLB teams are scattered, and decide what population centers are not currently well served.   Las Vegas for instance looks about as large as other low-end cities, but where are the outlying areas they can draw from?   I think the Carolinas look more promising in this (*ahem*) light.

712129main_8247975848_88635d38a1_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ashbury said:

By coincidence I ran across this old NASA map.  It is quite (*ahem*) illuminating.  Visualize where MLB teams are scattered, and decide what population centers are not currently well served.   Las Vegas for instance looks about as large as other low-end cities, but where are the outlying areas they can draw from?   I think the Carolinas look more promising in this (*ahem*) light.

712129main_8247975848_88635d38a1_o.jpg

This is exactly why I originally said the Carolinas over Vegas. Nevada has 3.1m people while the Vegas metro has 2.25m people. Northern Arizona and southern Utah are also sparsely populated. I lived in the southwest for a very long time; trust me, there's nothing there.

Whereas the Carolinas have a population of over 15.5m people, never mind the lack of a team in Virginia, Tennessee, and other surrounding states. Sure, they'll have to carve out a market against the Nats and Atlanta but there are so many people in that region it shouldn't be a significant problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

This is exactly why I originally said the Carolinas over Vegas. Nevada has 3.1m people while the Vegas metro has 2.25m people. Northern Arizona and southern Utah are also sparsely populated. I lived in the southwest for a very long time; trust me, there's nothing there.

Whereas the Carolinas have a population of over 15.5m people, never mind the lack of a team in Virginia, Tennessee, and other surrounding states. Sure, they'll have to carve out a market against the Nats and Atlanta but there are so many people in that region it shouldn't be a significant problem.

Vegas is great for professional football and hockey teams.  Opposing teams love to travel there.  Not sure if the same is true for baseball fans, but who knows.  The Carolina’s seem to make sense, but I don’t really think expansion is necessary or needed at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

This is exactly why I originally said the Carolinas over Vegas. Nevada has 3.1m people while the Vegas metro has 2.25m people. Northern Arizona and southern Utah are also sparsely populated. I lived in the southwest for a very long time; trust me, there's nothing there.

Whereas the Carolinas have a population of over 15.5m people, never mind the lack of a team in Virginia, Tennessee, and other surrounding states. Sure, they'll have to carve out a market against the Nats and Atlanta but there are so many people in that region it shouldn't be a significant problem.

I was lazy on my last post and left it to visualize the current teams. Here I've blotted out 30 locations.  The remainder stands out.

NASA_LIGHT_BASEBALL.jpg.5be65fde631844ab9047a4445e63e5d3.jpg

Nashville or Memphis wouldn't be crazy, and New Orleans has the population but never really has supported baseball.  Apart from the US south, Montreal could be given another go.  (Not sure what the diffused blob of light in west-central Canuckistan is - Regina isn't that large - maybe NASA picked up some kind of fire raging at the time?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 7:35 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

In my case, I specifically called out the "always on" interleague play we have with 15 v 15 leagues. I like interleague play itself but not the sloppy way it has to be implemented with odd-numbered teams.

So what if there's always one or more interleague series going on? I think that matters not one bit. IMHO interleague play should be spread out over the entire season anyway whether it's mathematically necessary or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 4:21 PM, tony&rodney said:

The comments about talent are quite interesting. When one considers the vast call for the Twins to roster players without MLB experience to "see what they have" versus the comments about the lack of talent in MLB, it flies in the face of numbers. Now I have always been into numbers and stats and really haven't found saber-metrics to be so revolutionary, but when one considers the influx of Black Americans and Latin players into baseball (not even mentioning Asian and others) in the past 75 years along with the improvements in the medical field and training it boggles the mind to suggest that the baseball players today are not talented enough or that there are not enough players to field additional teams.

While one should take care to compare the different professional leagues in North America, it is a simple numerical fact that baseball has more parity than either the NFL or NBA. Now golf, which I do not follow (golf is a good walk spoiled), could likely say that there is plenty of decent golfers today and there is room for more tournaments. I don't know about that, but baseball has talent oozing from many places and the hold on expansion is a hold on expanding the interest and development of the game. Expansion is overdue.

I would argue that the 'physical' talent is off the charts in today's game compared to any time in history, but also that the 'baseball' acumen is also at it's lowest point in history. How many guys can mash the ball or throw 105mph, but can't bunt, steal a base, throw to the correct place, etc. Used to be, ALL the players were making "heads up" plays, now it's talked about as a rarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...