Expos as orphans?

[BravesWin!]

What do yall think about this article??


http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/n...b/1429100.html
A plan for the Expos: Make them the Orphans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com


What's going to happen to the Montreal Expos in 2003?

They're going to "rotate" their homes, playing the normal road schedule but playing their home games in various cities with designs on bringing a major-league baseball team to town.

At least, that's the story. This possibility hadn't even been discussed in the media (until Larry Stone made a brief mention in Sunday's Seattle Times), so what if I could break the story I thought last week? I started making some phone calls, and the first person who called back was Padres owner John Moores.

"Well, you surprised me with that one," Moores replied to my query. "I'd have to think about that idea for a little while to form an opinion. But I suspect that, after the season is over, the subject of Montreal will be considered by the commissioner's office."

A few other well-placed baseball people who keep tabs on such things each acted as if they'd never heard even a whisper of such a scheme. And so I'm led to the conclusion that if anybody at 245 Park Avenue is talking about this, they're keeping it to themselves.

So much for breaking the big story ... But you know, the more you think about it, the more sense it makes. In fact, I've got it all figured out.

If Major League Baseball wants to test the waters in Washington, Portland, and Charlotte, the Expos -- actually, let's call them the "Tri-City Orphans" -- could play 27 home games in each of those cities, along with their normal road schedule. If MLB wants Las Vegas in the mix, the Orphans would play 20 games in each of those four prospective homes, along with a "Bon voyage, Expos!" game in Montreal.

Actually, whether there are three home cities or four, Montreal should still get one last game. Major League Baseball generally treats baseball fans like day-old donuts, but MLB owes the fans of Montreal. Those fans -- whether 10,000 or 50,000 show up at the Big Owe -- deserve a chance to say goodbye, not only to the current Expos but also to names from the past like Rusty Staub, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Steve Rogers and Bill Lee.

Playing home games in various cities would accomplish two things, both of them important.

One, it would allow Major League Baseball to gauge fan interest. In the past, standard practice has been to simply find some sucker with a billion dollars in the bank, and then let him put his new franchise wherever he liked. Well, that didn't work too well in Tampa-St. Petersburg, and it won't work so well next time, either. If you could get a good idea of how fans would respond to a major-league team beforehand, wouldn't you want to? In addition to attendance figures (which are important), MLB could also get a good look at the local TV ratings (which are at least as important).

Two, it would allow Major League Baseball to build constituencies for baseball. Right now, it's very difficult to move a team because of the political and business interests, even in places like St. Petersburg. Nobody fights nearly as hard to get a team as to keep one from leaving. However, once there's a team in place, even if only for 27 games, all of those interests will come into play in the prospective permanent homes. And while most local and state governments are currently strapped for cash, they're a lot more likely to rustle up some ballpark bucks if the voters are agitating for a new ballpark (it's just too bad that 2003 isn't an election year).

And you know, the benefits would go beyond deciding on a new home for the Expos. They're not the only basket-case franchise, and maybe more than one suitable venue for MLB would be identified. Maybe Northern Virginia and Charlotte and Portland are ready for their very own teams.

So why not do it?


Because the scheduling difficulties would be immense. Katy Feeney is the wizard at Major League Baseball who gets the incredibly complex task of formulating the schedule each season. And when the suggestion of a "traveling team" was mentioned to her, you could almost see her wince through the phone lines.

"I like to say you can do anything, but everything has consequences and they're all pretty ugly," Feeney told me. "I haven't heard a thing about this, but getting 24 hours notice that it has to be done would be tough. The biggest thing is, the travel for the visiting team has to be reasonable. But it could be done."


Because Peter Angelos isn't going down without a fight. Granted, a team playing 27 home games 40 or 50 miles away from Camden Yards presumably isn't as offensive as a team playing 81 home games so close to Charm City. But it's still plenty offensive. So can Angelos really stop a team from moving to Washington?

There's nothing in Major League Baseball's rules that prevent a team moving to the District of Columbia or northern Virginia. Angelos is one tough lawyer, though, and it's unlikely he'd go down without a fight.

"You wouldn't put another team in the same market with Boston or in the same market with St. Louis or the same market with Minnesota," Angelos recently told the Associated Press. "Why then 30 miles from Camden Yards?"

But Peter Angelos, in addition to being a lawyer, is also a businessman. And the road to a businessman's heart runs straight through his wallet. What if Major League Baseball offered Angelos, say, $10 million in 2003, and another $50 million (or more) if the Orphans eventually became the Washington Senators (or Watergates, or Beltway Insiders, or whatever).

After all, it's likely that the Expos will be sold for upwards of $350 million, so there should be plenty of swag for everybody.

Because Donald Fehr is ticked off. Actually, I don't know that he really is ticked off. But everybody seems to think that Major League Baseball "won" the labor negotiations -- I'm not so sure about that, myself -- and the Players Association does have the right to reject a proposed schedule, especially one that's significantly altered at this late date. The union's primary objection, I think, is that having three (or more) "homes" would place a heavy burden on the Orphans and their families, which it would.

On the other hand, the players, like Angelos, can probably be bought off. Not playing in Montreal will save everybody a fair chunk of change because the tax rates are lower in the States. And if that's not good enough, why not tack on an across-the-board 5 percent raise for everybody on the major-league roster? The extra revenues sure to be generated would easily pay for it.


Because the franchise could turn into a joke -- on the field. Playing without a real home would be tough on the players, and would likely show up in the standings. That's bad for the rest of baseball, and it's also bad for the owners who are hoping to sell the Orphans at a substantial profit. So it would behoove the owners to spend whatever it takes to keep the good players already there and acquire a quality first baseman and another starting pitcher.


Because it's radical. As not one, but two general managers told me, "Wow, that sounds way too creative for Major League Baseball."

And it probably is. But maybe, just maybe, the disaster that is Montreal Expos baseball will goad the owners into being truly creative. There's a first time for everything.

[Max Power]

You see what you get Warriors? You see what you get when you mess with the Orphans!

If Bud did this, it would just be to get cities (and/or buyers) to bid against themselves in giving MLB the best deal, IMHO.

[JamesI]

Fehr would never allow this. It would be too hard on the players.

I think all the hogwash Angelos says about Washington is just to raise the amount he gets when a team moves there. Maybe he'll decide a team in Washington will hurt the O's value and sell out before to make more (I can only pray)

[Max Power]

Originally posted by JamesI
Fehr would never allow this. It would be too hard on the players.

Thought about that too.
Where do they "live" when they are "at home?" What about the families? Plus, ballpark conditions - - how many major league ready parks are sitting around empty and able to be staffed quickly - - meaning food, support, parking, media, etc.?

At best, they could play the 1/2 half in one home park and the 2nd 1/2 in another - - anything more than that who be nuts.

[SmedIndy]

If past is prologue, this idea is doomed to failure from the start.

Any franchise that has tried a "regional" franchise, or "trying out cities" during the season has failed. Mind you, the test subjects weren't all that strong to begin with, but it exacerbated the situation.

The only place it really worked was in Carolina, with the Carolina Cougars, and then only when the team won and they had Billy Cunningham.

[poorme]

hopefully the players would never go for that idea.

Washington would also get shafted because RFK is a dump in the not nice or accessable part of town. Kind of like Comiskey, only worse.

MLB is worried about RFK and rightly so. The best idea would be to build a temporary 20,000 people minor league type facility in Virginia while a permanent stadium is built. Better to draw 15-20,000 in DC/Virginia than 5,000 in Montreal.

[KCBOOMER]

MLB has a real problem with the Expos. There is no place to go. I keep hearing about Washington but that area failed twice before and every other place is simply another Tampa Bay.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
MLB has a real problem with the Expos. There is no place to go. I keep hearing about Washington but that area failed twice before and every other place is simply another Tampa Bay.

Well, let's see!

Baseball has failed twice in D. C. and RFK Stadium is a dump. One of the critical differences since the Senators packed up in 1972 was that since then, the Virginia suburbs of Washington have grown enoumously, much, much faster than the inner cord of Washington has deteriorated. Northern Virginia is a high-income, big-market place.

Sacramento has over 1,000,000 people, but probably has territorial issues with the A's and Giants. Also, no stadium.

Vancouver has B. C. Place to play at, but it would have all the problems of Canada (taxes, currency, etc.). I would assume that the Mariners would not be keen on this.

Buffalo's Pilot Field was built to be added on to in order to support MLB; however, the main money man in Buffalo, Bob Rich, appears to have gagged on the price tag years ago. Buffalo is unlikely to be able to support MLB in today's economy.

Orlando has a possible owner (Rich DeVos), who was once sold on the idea, but is older, now, and recently tried to sell the Orlando Magic. (The Magic have not been able to coax a new arena out of Orlando and Orange County). The only place an Orlando team could play in is Tinker Field, a minor league stadium.

New Jersey has the people, but not the stadium.

Brooklyn would love a team, but where would you build a stadium? (And who would build it; the city is broke.)

Louisville once drew 1,000,000 plus fans to minor league baseball. The Reds may not like the incursion.

I have always believed that Indianapolis could support a MLB team, but SmedIndy tells me otherwise; a new minor league park was just built and baseball in the Hoosierdome isn't a great idea.

Charlotte has no stadium.

Portland has no stadium.

New Orleans has the Superdome, but LA has the Coliseum in 1958!

Las Vegas has the people, but also has gambling. It also has a minor league stadium.

Mexico City has the people, but the current labor agreement would preclude a franchise in Mexico.

Maybe what major league baseball needs to do, after looking over the mind-numbing list of alternatives is to address the issue of making a committment to Montreal. The Milwaukee Braves once set attendance records, but stayed away in droved in 1965 once the word was out that they were moving to Atlanta. Why should Monteral citizens be overly interested in a team that is scheduled to move, or be contracted, or both.

I suggest that the best idea for baseball is to make a serious commitment to Montreal; to run the team like a business, and to rebuild the
fan base to something other than it is now, The Expos aren't a minor league team; they have talented and exciting players, but are promoted like an upcoming memorial service. Let the Expos continue as they are; let baseball continue to run them until they can be establlished as a real team with a real owner, again.

It's the best of a series of bad options.

But, please: No Road Warriors!

[NCFella19]

I've learned in the past while voting for a stadium referendum here in NC when Pohlad threatened to move the Twins here that major league baseball will just not work here in this state. So just cross us off the list.

Give Montreal a chance and some resourceful owner who will actually work to improve upon the fan culture, and Les Expos will turn it around and make some noise just like in '94, I bet.

[JamesI]

Fuzzy, I'm not sure Buffalo would be such a bad place. Put a stadium between Rochester and Buffalo and draw fans from Syracuse as well. Three cities within 2 hours of the stadium. Plus fans in Rochester are desperate for real baseball after being the AAA team for Baltimore.

[SmedIndy]

All in all, Northern Virginia is the best place. If they could build a stadium quickly, that'd be the best place for it. Either that, or the Meadowlands. (The NJ Pine Barrens?)

Perhaps Toronto would have issues with Buffalo.

If you put a team in Indianapolis, Louisville, Oklahoma City, etc., soon they will have the same small market blues. You really need a strong corporate presence. Indianapolis's corporate stalwarts are Conseco (in trouble, ask OrieGirl) and Eli Lilly (rumored to be taken over). I don't know about corporate bucks in anyplace else, but you need that presence in order to make it successful.

[rcartman28]

Washington seems to me to be the most logical place to put the Expos, if they ever get around to moving them. I would guess it is a matter of finding Angelos' price for territorial rights.

Is it a possibility that, depending on the merits of that racketeering case against MLB, part of the settlement would allow the former part-owners to reacquire the Expos? Maybe they would be willing to work with Montreal to turn things around there and build a new ballpark there.....

ps, Smed, I can vouch for Conseco's problems, too. My fiancee works for them, too......

[Skip]

Louisville won't really consider MLB, regardless of whether we have the resources to support it (we don't), until we get over our angst about whether to continue pursuing an NBA team.

Originally posted by Skip
Louisville won't really consider MLB, regardless of whether we have the resources to support it (we don't), until we get over our angst about whether to continue pursuing an NBA team.

Wasn't that team supposed to play in the KFC Bucket or something?

Anyway... to get back to the "roving Expos" plan, I think it's terrible for a myriad of reasons, not the least being that as awful as baseball promotes itself, and as awful as the image of MLB is, would this really come across as anythign but a transparent effort to bilk a stadium out of the cities? Plus, if it were done, and more than one citiy showed interest, then Minneapolis could kiss their Twinkies goodbye.

[moose]

RFK could be readied for baseball in 3 months*


*source: nfl labor lawyer ... and his lips were moving, so take the info fwiw