Truth & Rumors > MLB

Do M's want team in Vegas or Portland?

Views
13614
Comments
22

08:05 AM ET 09.19 | The Mariners are understandably upset about their air travel next season. They say they will fly about 52,000 miles -- about 10,000 more than their majors-leading total this season. A team in Las Vegas or Portland could help this situation.

Chicago Tribune

Daren Brown, AP Daren Brown, AP
Comment #2 has been removed
September 19, 2010  10:11 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Why in the world would mlb expand to portland?

Las Vegas!!!!Are they kidding? Who makes this stuff up. And Pete Rose can manage the team. did someone just pull out a map and figure out just where Seattle is? Has it moved since the days of the Pilots?

September 19, 2010  10:35 AM ET

Very novel idea - let's move a team to a town that isn't a strong baseball market and doesn't have the fan base to support it.

September 19, 2010  11:47 AM ET

Oh my god, the Mariners suuuuuuuuuuck!

September 19, 2010  12:00 PM ET

yeah, my understanding is that portland --great town and all-- is nowhere near big enough to support major league baseball. and vegas-- which got hit harder than just about anywhere when the economy crashed-- is probably not a serious contender for any kind of big league team until it shows that its economy is solid and diversified enough to weather storms.

September 19, 2010  12:29 PM ET

When your team is geographically distant from all other teams, you're going to have to log some travel time. Is this just now occurring to them?

September 19, 2010  12:45 PM ET
QUOTE(#7):

When your team is geographically distant from all other teams, you're going to have to log some travel time. Is this just now occurring to them?

don't they already group games in geographical areas ... I mean ... the Rangers are on their last road trip and it includes the Mariners, the A's and the Angels and I imagine that cuts down somewhat on air travel time ... don't the Mariners do the same? and what about the teams that have to fly into Seattle?

And is it any different for any of the west coast teams that travel to the east coast teams to play and vice versa? ... this whole travel senario complaint is getting a tad old ...

September 19, 2010  01:18 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Why in the world would mlb expand to portland?

Good Question...

Portland would draw less Fans than Seattle currently does (especially after the Novelty of an MLB in town wears off)...

Vegas? I've been to Vegas in July... And there would be no way in the world I'd be sitting watching a Baseball game - even if they built a Dome (to deal with the heat)...

September 19, 2010  05:36 PM ET

This stor has to be about the Seattle Mariners wanting to relocate one of their minor league teams to Las Vegas or Portland; Not moving the Mariners from Seattle to Las Vegas or Portland.

Looks like the T/R interns are just mustaring up some support for Pete Rose as Mariners Manager, since Las Vegas and Atlantic City is about the only two cities Rose would be able to manage in.

September 19, 2010  07:43 PM ET

I have a feeling that the Mariners wouldn't be complaining so much if they were drawing better at home to offset any travel expenses. Of course, it is natural for them to want to have some teams nearer to them. I am surprised that no one has mentioned Vancouver as a possibility.

September 19, 2010  10:40 PM ET

Portland would be a great place for a MLB team.. Sacramento, Oakland, and Charlotte for example are not huge cities, however, they have pro sports teams..

September 19, 2010  11:12 PM ET
QUOTE(#7):

When your team is geographically distant from all other teams, you're going to have to log some travel time. Is this just now occurring to them?

Occurring to who? This "article" is about as empty of substance as anything ever written.

Break it down.

Apparently the M's have said that next year's schedule will leave them with 52k miles of travel. Possibly upset that it's 10k more than this year. No quotes from anyone with the team, but sure, for the sake of argument, lets say the M's are upset.

No, this isn't new. They always log the most travel miles due to geography.

So what if someone complains about it. If they're somewhere in the 40k range this year - schedule the season better to not leave them traveling to much. A 25% increase is a bit large.

Beyond that - what in the world was the point of this "article." Yep. Adding a team to Portland or Las Vegas would cut down on their travel. Congrats, Sherlock. Note nobody from the M's has said a thing about this. Why in the world would they want another team in Portland in the first place? As it is, they have the entire Pacific northwest to themselves.

This is nothing more than someone at the Chicago Tribune writing a paragraph to make a deadline.

September 20, 2010  12:12 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

Occurring to who? This "article" is about as empty of substance as anything ever written.Break it down.Apparently the M's have said that next year's schedule will leave them with 52k miles of travel. Possibly upset that it's 10k more than this year. No quotes from anyone with the team, but sure, for the sake of argument, lets say the M's are upset.No, this isn't new. They always log the most travel miles due to geography.So what if someone complains about it. If they're somewhere in the 40k range this year - schedule the season better to not leave them traveling to much. A 25% increase is a bit large.Beyond that - what in the world was the point of this "article." Yep. Adding a team to Portland or Las Vegas would cut down on their travel. Congrats, Sherlock. Note nobody from the M's has said a thing about this. Why in the world would they want another team in Portland in the first place? As it is, they have the entire Pacific northwest to themselves.This is nothing more than someone at the Chicago Tribune writing a paragraph to make a deadline.

You might be over-thinking this...

September 20, 2010  01:02 AM ET

Actually, MLB would be improved in a number of ways if two teams were added, one in NYC and the other out west, presumably either Vegas or Portland. A third NYC team would lessen the huge advantage that the Yankees (and to a slightly lesser extent the Mets) have from their huge (and relatively wealthy) fan base (improvement #1). The new team in NYC would be put in the NL so that the old Dodger/Giant thing would be recreated as a Mets/?? thing (improvement #2). To keep the NL at 16 teams, the Nationals would be put in the AL (don't worry about the name thing), which would reinstate the AL presence in DC as it was for many years (improvement #3). The two new teams would make the two leagues be of equal size (improvement #4), which is palatable to existing AL clubs only if the Yankees' clout is lessened (see above) since otherwise those clubs are simply further lessening their odds of making the postseason. And, finally (and least importantly), it would lessen the Mariners' annual travel and give them a natural rival (esp'ly if in Portland) (improvements ##5A and 5B). What's not to love about it? Existing owners would get their respective slices of expansion franchise fees and MLB players would get two teams' worth of new roster spots to fill.

September 20, 2010  01:02 AM ET

Actually, MLB would be improved in a number of ways if two teams were added, one in NYC and the other out west, presumably either Vegas or Portland. A third NYC team would lessen the huge advantage that the Yankees (and to a slightly lesser extent the Mets) have from their huge (and relatively wealthy) fan base (improvement #1). The new team in NYC would be put in the NL so that the old Dodger/Giant thing would be recreated as a Mets/?? thing (improvement #2). To keep the NL at 16 teams, the Nationals would be put in the AL (don't worry about the name thing), which would reinstate the AL presence in DC as it was for many years (improvement #3). The two new teams would make the two leagues be of equal size (improvement #4), which is palatable to existing AL clubs only if the Yankees' clout is lessened (see above) since otherwise those clubs are simply further lessening their odds of making the postseason. And, finally (and least importantly), it would lessen the Mariners' annual travel and give them a natural rival (esp'ly if in Portland) (improvements ##5A and 5B). What's not to love about it? Existing owners would get their respective slices of expansion franchise fees and MLB players would get two teams' worth of new roster spots to fill.

September 20, 2010  07:38 AM ET

BlairMcIan: Angelos and the Orioles organization would never sign off on Nationals in the AL.
***
Other west coast teams do log lots of miles, but none of them are as far removed from every other team as the Mariners are. That's the point of the article.

I know that Portland was a contender during the Expos sweepstakes. However, if I remember correctly (and I'm digging deep in my brain here so forgive me if I'm wrong), there wasn't going to be enough civic support for a stadium; an owner would have to build his own. In this economy I doubt that's changed, so a team moving to Portland would have to make a significant investment.

Vegas is a non-starter unless the owner is a marketing genius. MLB, however, probably won't bite.

The next city that should get an MLB team is Charlotte (unless the Yanks and Mets somehow allow a 3rd team in the greater NYC area -- don't hold your breath). Fastest growing city in the South, has enough population to sustain a ballclub, and there's space down by the basketball and football arenas to build it. Bob Johnson (former owner of the Bobcats) reportedly was offered the Expos by MLB to be put in Charlotte, but he declined because he was starting up the Bobcats and his doooomed local cable network.

September 20, 2010  12:50 PM ET

A 3rd team in NYC makes about as little sense as a team in Charlotte at this point. As a Charlotte area resident I can tell you we don't have the capacity for a 3rd major league sports team. Unless someone plans on funding a stadium themselves (which we know won't happen in today's MLB) it won't work. There's already talk about the need for a renovation of the Panthers stadium or a new one in the next 10-15 years. And that's already caused heartburn for some if any public money is to be used.

 
September 20, 2010  11:48 PM ET

fact is seattle does need a team closer but no good spot unless vancouver bc ......

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    2391
    Comments
    1434
  2. 2
    No return timetable for Lightning MVP
    Views
    1575
    Comments
    219
  3. 3
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    6119
    Comments
    172
  4. 4
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    802
    Comments
    81
  5. 5
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
    Views
    947
    Comments
    69

SI.com

SI Photos