I care much more about expanding 40 man rosters for current teams than I do adding more teams, but if they are going to add teams, two more to make it 32 seems to make a lot of mathematical sense.
MLB is Lonnnng Overdue for Expansion
- Thread starter 8slim
- Start date
2021-schedule-scores.shtml
Based on the daily schedule results, it looks like home games were limited to 5K through the home stand against the Tigers that ended on May 6th, expanded to 10k on May 11th against OAK, expanded again to 25k on May 29th against Miami, then went totally open June 25 against the Yankees. Finished 11th overall in attendance, which is pretty decent given that some teams had little to no early restrictions.
Before expansion --- I'd move 2 teams to Charlotte and Nashville.
Test those markets (which I'm confident will work) and then let's discuss expansion 5 years to their arrival.
Test those markets (which I'm confident will work) and then let's discuss expansion 5 years to their arrival.
Two teams at least is a no-brainer to me. The counter-arguments aren't really that strong.
1. The last few expansion teams haven't been all that successful financially
The main issue here is that the market that is most ripe for another two teams is NY and the current teams there have a lot of power and would fight it tooth and nail. But even if you leave them alone there are numerous good markets for new teams. It's also not that historically odd for teams to move more often than they have in the last 35 years. We should be less averse to it. I think if I could wave a magic wand and weren't selling any teams to new owners:
Immediately:
-New team in Westchester / Fairfield County or northern NJ
-New team in Charlotte
Whenever the financials and politiics work out:
-Move A's to Vegas
-Move Rays wherever, maybe Montreal
Within the next decade:
-New team in the Bay Area, maybe San Jose
-New team in Austin
2. There's not enough talent
I think this is a misperception. We might think of the end of rosters as bad but that's kind of by definition. Every team would lose a player or two, so...you'd have a marginally worse roster who was also playing a marginally worse roster on the other side...I don't think you'd notice other than they they would be mostly concentrated on the expansion teams for a while. It's not like you have to put independent league guys out there.
The best way to look at this for me is simply the supply of top athletes playing baseball vs the number of roster spots and there is obviously a greater ratio now than in a long time if not ever (considering we are now getting baseball players from more countries than ever all over the world into MLB).
1. The last few expansion teams haven't been all that successful financially
The main issue here is that the market that is most ripe for another two teams is NY and the current teams there have a lot of power and would fight it tooth and nail. But even if you leave them alone there are numerous good markets for new teams. It's also not that historically odd for teams to move more often than they have in the last 35 years. We should be less averse to it. I think if I could wave a magic wand and weren't selling any teams to new owners:
Immediately:
-New team in Westchester / Fairfield County or northern NJ
-New team in Charlotte
Whenever the financials and politiics work out:
-Move A's to Vegas
-Move Rays wherever, maybe Montreal
Within the next decade:
-New team in the Bay Area, maybe San Jose
-New team in Austin
2. There's not enough talent
I think this is a misperception. We might think of the end of rosters as bad but that's kind of by definition. Every team would lose a player or two, so...you'd have a marginally worse roster who was also playing a marginally worse roster on the other side...I don't think you'd notice other than they they would be mostly concentrated on the expansion teams for a while. It's not like you have to put independent league guys out there.
The best way to look at this for me is simply the supply of top athletes playing baseball vs the number of roster spots and there is obviously a greater ratio now than in a long time if not ever (considering we are now getting baseball players from more countries than ever all over the world into MLB).
Hard stop on the idea of adding another team to NY or LA. Let's build out the footprint, not double and triple dip.
Charlotte, Portland, Nashville, Montreal, New Orleans. Lots of viable markets still that deserve a rooting interest of their own. No need to give NY fans a 3rd.
Charlotte, Portland, Nashville, Montreal, New Orleans. Lots of viable markets still that deserve a rooting interest of their own. No need to give NY fans a 3rd.
I don't know enough about the LA market, but I'll push back strongly on the notion that the NY market would support a third team. Theoretically there is the population here for that (I live in Fairfield County), but realistically the Yankees and Mets completely saturate the market. I can't imagine almost anyone switching allegiances, and of course there's no way on Earth that either franchise would allow more teams to be located here.
There is a joint-ish plan between Austin and San Antonio to put a team in Buda, but San Antonio is scoffing and wants more of the cut.
I get that the population has increased since the last time the league expanded, but do we have any sense to what extent the population of people playing baseball has gone up?
Worldwide? I’d bet it is up substantially. Watching on TV and in person in the US? That seems to me to be the question that isn’t being asked here. Is there enough domestic demand for more teams and more games?
My gut reaction is "no". Baseball seems to have a problem connecting with younger viewers. A quick google search shows a 2017 study cited on a bunch of websites showing that the (then) average age of an MLB viewer was 57 and had been increasing since 2000. I imagine the average age has not decreased since then. Anecdotally, it seems like fewer kids are going into baseball too, either playing it or watching it.
FWIW, speaking only for myself, 162 games is too long for a season. Way too many games I don't bother with because there will always be another one in at most a day or two and I am disinclined to add national TV viewings of Brewers v Rockies or whatever if I can barely make it through all the Sox games.
I was 17 years old at the time and a die hard baseball fan. I will never forget how angry I was at my dad for voting against the 1% food tax hike. The proposed stadium site was about a mile from our house in Kernersville. I know it will never happen, but I think it could still work. Wherever it is, North Carolina is well overdue for a team. We have 3 of the top 40 markets (1 shared w/ South Carolina) listed above. It's time.
It has not kept pace with population growth in the U.S. recently. This chart from Statista shows that high school baseball participation has been stuck around 480K for the past decade. However, I don't know how that 480K in 2022 compares to 1998.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267954/participation-in-us-high-school-baseball/
I also don't know what the rate of growth has been globally. It wouldn't surprise me to see meaningful gains in Latin America and Asia. But I can't find that data.
I like the cut of your jib here. Might be worth me posting my analysis of sport teams/franchises by city/MSA, so it's easier to spot the gaps / negative space.
View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-hpaBlQF9S8QoDHh333Q_FEtIs3qQVJZ8BdeQG9gIR0/edit#gid=1331925850
MLB summary notes:
- They're in the top 17 US DMAs already (+Toronto)
- #18 (Orlando / Daytona Beach / Melbourne) is basically owned by the Rays, gonna be hard to get someone in there
- Next 4 up are #20 Sacramento, #21 Charlotte, #22 Portland, and #25 Indianapolis. Those are 2 of your 4 proposed new cities.
- #27 Raleigh-Durham and #28 Nashville are next, covering another one of your nominees. Then #30 Salt Lake City before you get to #31 San Antonio.
- You have a long way down to #40 Austin, so only if you really think the two metro areas are going to "share" a team (in the way that Orlando and Tampa do, basically) can you add their sizes together and argue they "deserve it more" from a market perspective.
- It's easy to forget, but Montreal would be the #14 market if you include Canada. Failure of baseball in Montreal is a business failure, not a market-size failure.
Growth Rate of the region certainly matters, and from that perspective Charlotte and central Texas look better than otherwise - but let's look at this with some data from the BEA. I'll put in a table for all the MSAs lacking an MLB team all the way down to #44 Birmingham (itself far smaller than the currently smallest MLB region - #37 Cincinnati). By recent population growth (2020-2022), you have these top DMAs from that list:
1. Austin, 6.0%
2. Raleigh-Durham, 5.0%
3. Jacksonville, 4.4%
4. San Antonio, 3.8%
5. Charlotte, 3.6%
6. Orlando, 3.4%
And by 5-year projected (cumulative) population growth, here's your up-and-comers from our list:
1. Austin, 13.6%
2. Nashville, 9.4%
3. Raleigh-Durham, 9.3%
4. Orlando, 8.3%
5. Salt Lake City, 8.2%
6. Charlotte, 8.2%
And by GDP / Capita:
1. Salt Lake City, $93.8k
2. Hartford (!), $87.9k
3. Austin, $82.4k
4. Nashville, $81.0k
5. Charlotte, $77.0k
6. Indianapolis, $76.2k
7. Raleigh-Durham, $74.8k
8. Portland, $74.3k
9. Columbus, $71.8k
10. Sacramento, $66.6k (really falls off from here)
So based on those lists, it seems like Austin ought to be a top candidate in its own right, whether you can put it on the south of town by I-35 and attract more people from San Antonio or not. Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte are right behind. Orlando might be hopeless but Salt Lake City is not, and ranks out very well on incomes. And Portland is perhaps the worst prospect of the bunch you propose. So I'd say we should replace Portland on your list with Montreal, and if we're adding anyone else, you'd next go with SLC and the NC Triangle before we think about Portland.
I remember reading several years ago that Austin and San Antonio are close enough to be one metro area but that the commuting/travel patterns just don't support it. It's a marketers dream but probably decades away from anything like that happening.
Respect to any city that can build allegiance to a new club and fill a park 81x a year.
I think it has to be a place that is not a pain in the ass to get to. Besides the expense of pro sports, some of these games are an ordeal to attend.
I think it has to be a place that is not a pain in the ass to get to. Besides the expense of pro sports, some of these games are an ordeal to attend.
So the best case scenario for a team is moving into a market that's worse than 20 other teams? And you need billions for an expansion fee and ballpark? That doesn't sound like a great deal.
Baseball fans are a tradition-bound lot. MLB hasn’t done great in the hot climates of the south and southeast, aside from top-10 markets (Dallas, Houston, Atlanta) where you can thrive even if you’re a bit of a niche product.
I also don’t believe the talent pool has expanded as much as others think it has since the last round of expansion. Latin America has been open for decades, and only a handful of players have come over from East Asia. I’m not sure the influx from there areas in the past 25 years even offsets the decline in participation in this country.
You could persuade me to put expansion teams in Charlotte and Portland (the two largest CSAs that don’t currently have teams), but beyond that I don’t think there’s a strong case for expansion the way there was in the 1990s, either economically or in terms of on-field talent.
I also don’t believe the talent pool has expanded as much as others think it has since the last round of expansion. Latin America has been open for decades, and only a handful of players have come over from East Asia. I’m not sure the influx from there areas in the past 25 years even offsets the decline in participation in this country.
You could persuade me to put expansion teams in Charlotte and Portland (the two largest CSAs that don’t currently have teams), but beyond that I don’t think there’s a strong case for expansion the way there was in the 1990s, either economically or in terms of on-field talent.
Your objection could be raised if there were only 8 teams in the league, and we were thinking about adding one in the country's 9th city. "well they're going into a situation that's worse than all the other teams, why would anyone bother?"
The answer, of course, is that it can still be a good idea even if the "best ones" are already taken. And while there's probably some upper limit to the # of teams, some minimum efficient scale of an area that can support a MLB team, I think we're well shy of any such limit with the metro areas we're talking about.
- Expansion teams don't become the league's most valuable franchises overnight. They take long and careful building of a fanbase, brand, traditions, emotional bonds with the people there.
- A lot of these metro areas are bigger than some of the other expansion locations were back when the teams were added. Everyone is richer, most places are more populous. A team owner can make plenty of money building up something new, even if they'd rather own the Yankees if given a choice. Doesn't mean owning the Charlotte Queens is a bad idea.
- Cities without a lot of existing pro sports franchises are particularly attractive, because marketing is easier, corporate / hospitality sales are easier, political support is easier. In that sense, Charlotte (with a team in 3 of the big 5 sports leagues) or Orlando (2/5) might prove to be worse choices than Raleigh-Durham, Austin or San Antonio (each with 1/5), or better yet a 0/5 like Norfolk/VA Beach, Birmingham AL, Louisville KY, or that Greenville / Asheville metro area.
- Cost of a ballpark is a matter of haggling with the local mayor and/or governor. We know how that goes.
Clearly there is no shortage of interested parties who have a lot of money, and who regard the prospects of a new sports franchise to indeed be "a great deal". Rich people have been falling over each other to try and get an MLS team or even an NWSL team.
Not to mention the part of Laddie's proposal that would see us put a third team in the LA and NYC areas. Would it take a while to get a fanbase established? Sure. But, like, the Mets got it going in under a decade (started drawing well in their 3rd year, even while they still sucked), won the WS in their 8th year, and now they're pretty valuable. The Angels spent 15 years drawing well when they were good-ish, drawing poorly when they stunk, and then when they made the playoffs for the first time in 1979 (and 3 times over the next 8 years), attendance went through the roof for well over a decade. Both had to compete with more storied local competitors, both did fine. The White Sox were 2nd in the league in attendance in their 4th year of existence despite a decades-old local competitor. So further dividing the economic power of the country's biggest metro areas is probably in everyone's interest, but most of all the would-be owners who get into a huge market.
I own property right in the middle of the two cities. Some of my tenants commute to SAT and some commute to AUS. But it's very much a set of bedroom communities all the way up I-35 between the two cities. In the middle is a place (New Braunfels) that's more than just a wide spot in the road, has a pretty cool theme park, etc - but it's not like we're talking about the stretch of development in between, like, Philly and NYC here, or West Palm and Miami. It's not quite tumbleweeds along I-35 there, but it's not a cohesive metro area - it's not Seattle-Tacoma, it's not SF-San Jose (nevermind SF-Oakland), it's not Raleigh-Durham-Cary. Could you put a sports team just south of Austin or just north of San Antonio and pull some fans from the other city who'd drive up or down? Sure. But it'd still be a bit of a haul. I wouldn't want to be in charge of trying to execute a business plan that depended on marketing "our team" as belonging to both of the two cities.
The SA Spurs have tried to hold some games in Austin, and they drew well, but still well below their averages. It's unclear how many fans they have in Austin. This post gives some of the flavor - not quite a rivalry between the cities, but there's definitely some "other"-ing.
I’d argue that Combined Statistical Areas are a better measure than MSAs of a market’s ability to support professional sports. By this metric, Charlotte and Portland are the two largest markets without MLB teams (#19 and 20, respectively), with Salt Lake City (22) not far behind. Raleigh (31) and Nashville (32) are much smaller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area
Kernersville would be fantastic, honestly. Still plenty of open land, decent infrastructure including easy highway access. Charlotte and Raleigh have very successful AAA teams. The best we have here in between are the Grasshoppers (who do quite well) and the Dash.
Orlando is #15. A smart owner in Tampa would have made a play for some of that market, but that didn't happen.
If memory serves, the Trop was built in St. Petersburg on spec in the 1980s, in hopes of luring a team. So it’s not like the current or former owners of the Rays chose to build the stadium at the far end of the metro area, rather than in Tampa proper or along I-4 (such that a sizable fraction of the Orlando area would be within an hour’s drive of the stadium.)
As I remember, they never had a very well-organized pitch to get support for that bill. I went to the exhibition game they had then to drum up support with the Twins and Expos in Winston at what was then…err…Ernie Shore Field.
Correct. But they’ve had 25 years to get that right. No reason to not have built a new park on the eastern side of Tampa to take advantage of the I-4 corridor towards Orlando. Well, no reason other than greed.
I'm OK with this, but more importantly what I meant was the 40 man rosters should expand to 45, or 40 plus a taxi squad of up to 5 young prospects nowhere near the majors who need to be protected from the rule 5. Right now those guys take up spots on the 40 man roster and it really doesn't help anyone in the long run, not the players and certainly not teams trying to win who could use those spots for players ready now.
I'd be OK with adding 15 more teams if they could figure out revenue sharing.
This would be complex, but I'd fucking love a relegation system like the Premier League has. It would help avoid tankathons like what the Astros did and make the regular season way more fun.
This would be complex, but I'd fucking love a relegation system like the Premier League has. It would help avoid tankathons like what the Astros did and make the regular season way more fun.
I'm a fan of expansion, but not in this current model. It would be a seismic shift, but moving away from a 162 game league schedule could go a long way towards accommodating additional teams. I love what the NBA is trying to do with an in-season tourney, but it feels like a half measure. After watching Euro football leagues and the multiple layers of competition they play towards; taking a page from that could help grow the sport, spark fan interest, and grow the talent pool. Playing every day for 6 months to maybe have two post-season games is a huge investment of time and attention, something our 19th century game is less suited for in the 21st century.
Case in point: I'm not as hard core as many on this board and care so little about a Tuesday evening game in April vs the Brewers it barely registers - now extend that to the more casual fan. Give us something akin to the US Cup in soccer, a regular World Baseball Classic, International Champions League, lop 20 games off the schedule and I'd be a hell of a lot more interested in the day-to-day happenings.
And starting a promotion/relegation discussion? I'm just gonna sit here and watch the fun.
This isn't a strong argument to me. New people are moving in all the time, Yankees and Mets games are expensive and hard to get to from lots of places, people get pissed off at them when they're bad, lots of people just like whatever team is doing well at the time. Yeah you're not going to convince diehards to switch but that doesn't describe most people.
I feel like when you have more than double the population-team ratio of any other metro region you need a better counter-argument to supply and demand than "no it's saturated."
But it doesn't matter because the NY teams are too powerful and it won't happen.
Edit: Also, maybe part of the reason there's questionable demand for new franchises and baseball fans seem like "a tradition-bound lot" is self-fulfilling because MLB doesn't try new things and there isn't an MLB franchise anywhere close to some of the booming new metro areas with lots of young people. If a new franchise doesn't do well and moves, is that a huge problem for anyone but the owners?
Last edited:
Personal bias has the expansion going into RDU. Charlotte has 3 pro teams (NBA, NFL, MLS) and RDU has 1 (NHL). Only thing I have no idea about, how are AAA teams treated in these expansion cities? Like the Durham Bulls are iconic (and really good). Do they get moved?
The Greensboro / Kernersville -midpoint between RDU And Charlotte is interesting, but I would wonder if the more local population to that mid point is enough to support a team nightly. I live in southwest Durham and to Greensboro, without traffic, is 1 hour. But 40 sucks at that time of day to get to a game. Then Raleigh is another 30-40 minutes further away.
Yeah, many obvious hurdles. I think it might be a hard sell finding players that would be willing to relocate to Cuba for half of the year. I also wonder if MLB would see enough financial attraction to award a franchise there. Logistically speaking, multiple series played by existing teams during the regular season would work within the time frame of normal travel to most east coast cities.
In support of the prospects for MLB in Salt Lake City (and I’ve mentioned some of this in various other threads, but I feel like this is the “real” expansion thread moving forward);
The Miller family has been highly respected and successful as NBA and MiLB owners for a very long time. They have enough money, experience, stability and influence to join the MLB owners club. MLB cares, a LOT, about this stuff when they have the luxury to care.
They have a very attractive, viable pathway to a great stadium site vacant enough for a “The Battery” type development, but much closer to downtown than Atlanta’s version. Thats a huge plus.
The Millers just broke ground on a new AAA stadium in Daybreak, a pretty far southwest suburb, despite the fact that their existing park, while in a borderline sketchy neighborhood, is one of the most picturesque stadiums in baseball, more than perfectly suitable for fans and players and could be state-of-the-art with a modest renovation…I just don’t think they’d be doing that in the absence of some pretty strong indicators that their MLB bid is being looked upon favorably.
Salt Lake Bees - Daybreak
The Miller family has been highly respected and successful as NBA and MiLB owners for a very long time. They have enough money, experience, stability and influence to join the MLB owners club. MLB cares, a LOT, about this stuff when they have the luxury to care.
They have a very attractive, viable pathway to a great stadium site vacant enough for a “The Battery” type development, but much closer to downtown than Atlanta’s version. Thats a huge plus.
The Millers just broke ground on a new AAA stadium in Daybreak, a pretty far southwest suburb, despite the fact that their existing park, while in a borderline sketchy neighborhood, is one of the most picturesque stadiums in baseball, more than perfectly suitable for fans and players and could be state-of-the-art with a modest renovation…I just don’t think they’d be doing that in the absence of some pretty strong indicators that their MLB bid is being looked upon favorably.
Salt Lake Bees - Daybreak
For the uneducated, geographically speaking, would the area be able to sustain a large enough attendance to sustain an 81 game regular season?
I like what you did there by aggregating different DMAs into each MSA (I think), but I tend to agree with @8slim that I would prefer to use raw MSA/CSA population (see my earlier post in this thread for those numbers). Either way, the rough order seems to be aligned. Also, a lack of geographical proximity to existing teams is a useful factor to consider (don't want to eat into existing fan bases) and conversely so is a general proximity to other "open" MSAs without a team (I think Portland and SLC suffer a bit from not really being able to capture any population centers outside their own metro). So the way I would think of potential market is: immediate metro area + nearby metros and micropolitan areas that would be reasonably be thought of as part of any new team's fanbase. That's of course a squishier concept, because that is partly a culture argument and sports fandom culture can indeed be changed.
For me that means the raw potential market by size is: Montreal first (large market, not that near other fan bases, able to basically capture all of Quebec, plus has a baseball history), then one in North Carolina (to me whether it's in Charlotte or the Research Triangle is a toss-up; my sense from how the Panthers and the various college basketball teams are marketed and supported is that the Carolinas tend to function as a market). The Austin/San Antonio one is interesting but I would put it 3rd on my list of expansion teams as I think it's harder to make the case that they share a market. But I admit I don't know enough about that area - for example, in the NBA do fans in Austin largely cheer for the Spurs?
Downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio is 80 miles, 1.5 hours drive (not including traffic delays).
The middle of the Triangle area to downtown Charlotte is 152 miles, 2.25 hours drive (not including traffic delays). The Carolinas function as a market for the Panthers because they only play 8 or 9 home games a year, usually on Sunday afternoons. TV-wise, the Carolinas might function as a market for baseball, but for putting butts in seats probably not so much.
How can there be a new AAA facility in the same city where there's going to be a Major League Facility? Unless that minor league stadium quickly gets converted to a Major League one.
The Twins and their AAA affiliate St. Paul Saints are right across the river from each other, so it wouldn't be unprecedented.
I agree gameday butts in seats is some function of immediate metro area population + a percentage of the larger regional fanbase that may make less regular trips, which is a function that decreases based on distance, as you suggest. But what NC has going for it compared to the San Antonio-Austin corridor is that there's a lot more people in the space between Charlotte and the Research Triangle.
Let's say you put the teams in the respective larger MSAs - Charlotte (2.8M people) and San Antonio (2.7M people). That gives roughly an equal population for both. The larger Charlotte combined statistical area alone has about half a million more people than the San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall area (using 2019 numbers because that's what is in Wikipedia). Then in between Charlotte and the Research Triangle there are other large urban areas - most notably Greensboro/Winston-Salem (pop. 1.7m) is about as far from Charlotte as Austin is from San Antonio. So within 1.5 hours for both cities, you have about 4.9M people, and then within 3 hours Charlotte adds another 2.9m people while San Antonio adds about 2m.
Your major markets for Charlotte are:
| Distance | Statistical Area | Population as of 2019 |
| <1.5 hours | Charlotte-Concord CSA | 3.2m |
| 1.5 hours | Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point CSA | 1.7m |
| 2.5 hours | Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC CSA | 2.2m |
| 3 hours | Fayetteville-Lumberton-Pinehurst, NC CSA | 0.7m |
Your major markets for San Antonio are:
| Distance | Statistical Area | Population as of 2019 |
| <1.5 hours | San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX CSA | 2.6m |
| 1.5 hours | Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA | Kerrville-Fredericksburg, TX CSA | Uvalde, TX | 2.2m 0.08m 0.03m |
| 2.5 hours | Victoria-Port Lavaca, TX CSA | Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX CSA | Beeville, TX μSA | 0.4m 0.5m 0.03m |
| 3 hours | Killeen-Temple, TX MSA Laredo, TX MSA | 0.7m 0.3m |
Further afield, the major "natural" markets for both which likely matters for TV would be all of NC and a large chunk of SC (10.6m and 5.2m populations respectively) plus a bit of southern Virginia and basically all of South, West, and maybe Central Texas (5.2m, 2.3m, and 3.7m respectively).
It's close but I still think NC is a slightly bigger market.
Last edited:
On the other hand, the then popular Denver Zephyrs (formerly Bears), who won the 1991 American Association title, moved to New Orleans in 1993 when the Rockies arrived (and set the highest single season attendance record in MLB history).
Daybreak is in South Jordan, a 30 min, 20 mile drive from the proposed MLB park. I’d imagine it would be similar to other markets where the AAA affiliate is pretty close to MLB like Minnesota/St Paul, Atlanta/Gwinnet, Boston/Worcester, Seattle/Tacoma, Vegas A’s/Henderson, Houston/Sugar Land. Daybreak is smack dab in the middle of the land of big families - I imagine the AAA product would be sold to a very different market than the MLB.
I’m just disappointed that they aren’t moving Oakland so the A’s could demote players to the Bees…
The Miller bid is for a whole new stadium and adjacent development, just a bit west of downtown Salt Lake, and there’s already plans in place for adaptive re-use at the existing park.
Last edited:
100% behind bringing a baseball team back to Montreal, as long as it has an ownership group that gives a crap