CQI13 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 <p>I thought it was the Phoenix Mercury...?</p><p> </p><p> I doubt any MAJOR league will go to Vegas though, they are far too hypocritical.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Yes you are right about the Vegas thing. However, eventually I think that one league will find their way around it. Like I said I think the NBA (or prehaps the NHL) will be the first to venture into Vegas because they need less of a fanbase to support their teams. I highly doubt that the NFL will ever put a team there, but never say never. As far as MLB goes, I think in time it could be very possible that a team might end up there. After all the AAA team the Las Vegas 51s play in North Las Vegas. So I do not believe that it isn't that much of a stretch to think that MLB would not want to get involved in such a lucrative market. Baseball's history is rich with gambling controversy with one of the greatest players in the league being banned for gambling in Pete Rose. You can't say just because a minor league team nobody cares about is there that means you could see a MLB team there. Pete Rose gets in the hall of fame before they put a team out there. Plus how much population in Vegas are locals? I just envision people from out of town going to an LV game just to go to it. It would make for a strange atmosphere for the players while their at "home" I would think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 But didn't OKC sell out the arena/support the Hornets? It's not like it was picked out of the blue. So wait, you're judging a market by what they did for a few months? OKC was a basketball wasteland. Even with its own team, it doesn't produce revenue that would make it notable amongst the other league teams. Perhaps if franchises "lived" in cities for a couple seasons at a time that might be valid but they don't so IMO, it's not. Sports leagues judge prospective markets by population and per capita income. If the average ticket price for your games is $60, it would be daft to put a team in a city whose PCI and area population would not support that amount. Plus how much population in Vegas are locals? I just envision people from out of town going to an LV game just to go to it. It would make for a strange atmosphere for the players while their at "home" I would think. Umm Stennick? Might wanna do a little search before you say that. Las Vegas had quite the population boom from the late 90s to the mid 2000s. Anyone in the construction industry could tell you about that. Clark County (which comprises the Las Vegas metropolitan area) went from a population of about 750k in 1990 to 2.3 mil in 2010. Tripling your population in two decades? That's generally considered to be a population explosion. Yes, Vegas is a resort city but so is Miami (and New Orleans, to a degree) and there have to be people there to work at all those resorts (and the businesses that support the resorts and the tourism industry as a whole). So yeah, there are people who live in Las Vegas. Sure, it's no New York but neither is New Orleans or OKC or Milwaukee or Indianapolis or Portland or Sacramento or...well, you get the picture. Basically, Vegas is one of the last truly lucrative markets for a franchise (with the exception of LA for the NFL) but ancillary issues prevent them from landing one. Well, that plus the issues the players had when the NBA put the All-Star Game there. And GatorBait, forget what you heard. Money talks. No owner cares about what St. Pete did with that dude over there if they're offering the right incentives. CQI13, let's be real here. If an owner paid to build his/her own stadium, they'd be entitled to ALL the proceeds from said stadium. No civil jurisdiction is going to let the potential profit that a new stadium would generate go so it's worth it to them to OWN the thing and LEASE it to the team. That allows them to rent it out when it's otherwise not being used. How much money did the city of Denver make off of Barack Obama accepting the Democratic nomination for President? If Pat Bowlen owned that stadium, guess how much they would've made? Big difference between the two numbers. Besides, who wants to be the mayor/local authority who LOST the city's franchise (along with all the jobs attached or related to it) because he wanted to prove a point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 << >> << Hartford? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Baseball's history is rich with gambling controversy with one of the greatest players in the league being banned for gambling in Pete Rose. You can't say just because a minor league team nobody cares about is there that means you could see a MLB team there. Pete Rose gets in the hall of fame before they put a team out there. Plus how much population in Vegas are locals? I just envision people from out of town going to an LV game just to go to it. It would make for a strange atmosphere for the players while their at "home" I would think. I think the gambling issue is not as important as the atmosphere issue (which is sort of the same thing but not really) what I mean is there are more temptations in Vegas for players besides gambling. Ah who cares about Pete Rose? The dude corked his bat anyway. I feel worse for Shoeless Joe Jackson, than I would for Pete Rose. << >> << Hartford? They could not even support the Whalers so I would think that they would have a hard time supporting an MLB team. Plus Hartford is pretty close to the Red Sox, Mets, and Yankees so I am not sure how that would work out. I remember when there were talks of moving the Patriots to either there or Providence. What a joke that was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 They could not even support the Whalers so I would think that they would have a hard time supporting an MLB team. Plus Hartford is pretty close to the Red Sox, Mets, and Yankees so I am not sure how that would work out. I remember when there were talks of moving the Patriots to either there or Providence. What a joke that was. Definitely, was mostly a joke, but based on Pop and per capita income we qualify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Astil" data-cite="Astil" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Definitely, was mostly a joke, but based on Pop and per capita income we qualify.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Oh, I wasn't saying what you said was a joke, I meant the thought of the Patriots moving to either Providence or Hartford was a joke. </p><p> </p><p> I would not mind having a team in Hartford because it is only a two hour drive for me so it is not that far (I used to go to Norwich all of the time when they were affiliated with the Yankees). And that would be cool to have a team an hour away (Boston) and a team two hours away.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Oh, I wasn't saying what you said was a joke, I meant the thought of the Patriots moving to either Providence or Hartford was a joke. <p> </p><p> I would not mind having a team in Hartford because it is only a two hour drive for me so it is not that far (I used to go to Norwich all of the time when they were affiliated with the Yankees). And that would be cool to have a team an hour away (Boston) and a team two hours away.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> /nod. Plus it'd put the Rays (who are getting to rival status up here with the Sox and Yanks) up close to there "rivals". Plus plus my secondary team is the Rays (after the O's) so I'd be a happy ducky.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 <p>Remi you have to remember that even though money talks St. Pete has now screwed MLB twice. Even though the owner decides where to go, the MLB has to agree to it.</p><p> </p><p> MLB told St. Pete to wait on building the Trop until they know for a fact and they still built it in hopes it would help them. MLB and Tampa meanwhile at the same time were in talks about bring a baseball team to Florida. MLB then awarded the Franchise to the Miami area because of the fact that MLB was upset with St. Pete that they went around MLB backs a still built it. MLB wanted to give the Bay Area a baseball team in 91 because of the fact so many teams (spring training) played around here. Tampa Bay area was the front runner that year and it went to Miami and Colorado. </p><p> </p><p> The Gaints were mere months away from moving here in 92, but MLB nixed the deal citing pressure from San Fran officials. That was all before Selig though, he pretty much told Tampa in 96 they would get the next MLB team. We had talks down here from everything to the Yankees moving to Tampa to someone else with another city getting the franchise. It was crazy all the rumors we were getting.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also I thought Hornets played in OKC for two years?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Lastly, BHK I agree with you about NFL never playing in Vegas. Also though I don't think MLB has Las Vegas on their radar with the fact that they have had such a history of gambling in their league. It has been better in recent years, but it is also still their. Hockey would probably be the best choice. Phoenix is in trouble and it would help NHL with not having to realign.</p><p> </p><p> I don't think the Rays should move. Tampa Bay area has show an ability to support it's teams when they contend. The Rays have seen increases in merch sales and TV ratings just not attendance. A move to a more centralized area would help with that, plus the fact that Bud Selig has already said if Tampa gets a new stadium they would get an All-Star game. I remember the first game of the World Series had trouble selling out, not because people weren't interested, but because it's so far away from a lot of people. By the time the game ended and you left to head home it'd be 12:00 till you get home.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candyman Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So wait, you're judging a market by what they did for a few months? </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Short answer? Yes. The NBA moved the team there because of what they did for those few months.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Umm Stennick? Might wanna do a little search before you say that. Las Vegas had quite the population boom from the late 90s to the mid 2000s.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It depends on what Stennick meant by 'locals.' If he meant people who live there now, you're right of course. Vegas has the population to support a team in any of the major sports, without argument.</p><p> </p><p> But what I assumed he meant - and the (valid) argument against Las Vegas is that very few people living there are "locals" - people born there, raised there, etc. The people that live there don't care about the city, and they're not going to care about the city's sports teams. The sports fans that live there will continue to support the team that they do now, which are based in whatever city they came from. Give them a generation to develop "locals" that will cheer for their own hometown team.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>CQI13, let's be real here. If an owner paid to build his/her own stadium, they'd be entitled to ALL the proceeds from said stadium. No civil jurisdiction is going to let the potential profit that a new stadium would generate go so it's worth it to them to OWN the thing and LEASE it to the team. That allows them to rent it out when it's otherwise not being used. How much money did the city of Denver make off of Barack Obama accepting the Democratic nomination for President? If Pat Bowlen owned that stadium, guess how much they would've made? Big difference between the two numbers. Besides, who wants to be the mayor/local authority who LOST the city's franchise (along with all the jobs attached or related to it) because he wanted to prove a point?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yep. It makes no sense for a city to make a team pay for and build a stadium on their own. It's just a huge plot of land in their city being wasted, for them. But if you put money in, you get money out - and the best part is, the citizens of your city refund the money you put in(tax increases), but you get to keep the money coming out.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 So has any team ever been No-Hit and had a perfect game thrown against them? Great job Rays you just made crappy history again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 I am not sure why David Ortiz made the All-Star team this year his stats were not all that great. Also, I really do not understand the debate over Stephen Strasburg and if he should be in the All-Star game or not. Look the guy has only been in the majors for what a little over a month, why should he have the shot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I am not sure why David Ortiz made the All-Star team this year his stats were not all that great. Also, I really do not understand the debate over Stephen Strasburg and if he should be in the All-Star game or not. Look the guy has only been in the majors for what a little over a month, why should he have the shot? Ortiz earned it. 17 HR with 54 RBI and a .356 OBP are all-star numbers. DH are having a down year for the most part, but overall I think he was good enough to earn it. I think with Steven it's because the whole hype of him that has pushed it. I don't think he has proven enough to push someone else who has been doing it all year for what he has done in a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted July 5, 2010 Author Share Posted July 5, 2010 Ortiz earned it. 17 HR with 54 RBI and a .356 OBP are all-star numbers. DH are having a down year for the most part, but overall I think he was good enough to earn it. I think with Steven it's because the whole hype of him that has pushed it. I don't think he has proven enough to push someone else who has been doing it all year for what he has done in a month. His avg. is not that great though. What is he at .264? Hardly All-Star numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 His avg. is not that great though. What is he at .264? Hardly All-Star numbers. I agree that a .264 avg isn't a all-star number for most people. When you are considered a power hitter, on base, and RBI guy that number is overshadowed. Jose Bautista, John Buck, Veron Wells, David Ortiz, Ty Wigginton (more because of the one player rule), Jason Heyward (wont play), Chris Young (again one player rule)..... are among players who go into the all-star game batting under .275 They all drive in runs and hit HR though. So (IMHO) these players are voted in because of what they do out side of what their AVG looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted July 5, 2010 Author Share Posted July 5, 2010 I agree that a .264 avg isn't a all-star number for most people. When you are considered a power hitter, on base, and RBI guy that number is overshadowed. Jose Bautista, John Buck, Veron Wells, David Ortiz, Ty Wigginton (more because of the one player rule), Jason Heyward (wont play), Chris Young (again one player rule)..... are among players who go into the all-star game batting under .275 They all drive in runs and hit HR though. So (IMHO) these players are voted in because of what they do out side of what their AVG looks like. You bring up valid points, perhaps my dislike of the Red Sox is clouding my judgement. I just think that there are better player being left off. Heck his own teammate Kevin Youkilis belongs on the team over Ortiz. He has the better stats and he could go in as DH or First Base. Ortiz can only either pinch hit or DH because nobody wants to see him in the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 You bring up valid points, perhaps my dislike of the Red Sox is clouding my judgement. I just think that there are better player being left off. Heck his own teammate Kevin Youkilis belongs on the team over Ortiz. He has the better stats and he could go in as DH or First Base. Ortiz can only either pinch hit or DH because nobody wants to see him in the field. Youk could still make it. I was quite shocked myself that Rafael Soriano and Jeff Niemann were left off. I know there are only so many spots for players, but Niemann has benn a great pitcher this year (improved on last years numbers) and Soriano has been dominate as the Rays closers. Once again, only so many spots for players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Hey BHK, go to ESPN they have a poll for the all-star game. It's asking which 1st time all-star will make the most of his apperance. Jayson Heyward has 45% of the votes lmao. His stats have been declining and he isn't even going to start. I found this funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaynes23 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 How in the world did Omar Infante make the team over Ryan Zimmerman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slack Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 The fact that Joey Votto isn't in "yet" is a joke. That guy is playing 1st base as good as anyone in the league. .312 Average (1st among NL 1st basemen) 40+ game on-base streak (longest in majors this year) that is still going strong 19 homers (2nd) 57 RBIs (3rd) .572 SLG% (1st) .412 OBP (2ng .001 behind Pujols) EDIT: The Reds are in 1st place in the NL Central. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbergey_2005 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Agree Votto was screwed over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slack Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I mean, I get why Votto didn't get voted in. All-Star game is a popularity contest. And when it seems like every team in your division has a popular 1b (Pujols, Fielder, Lee, etc.) its hard to him to get a lot of votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 I mean, I get why Votto didn't get voted in. All-Star game is a popularity contest. And when it seems like every team in your division has a popular 1b (Pujols, Fielder, Lee, etc.) its hard to him to get a lot of votes. that's exactly it and it will never change because the fans want to see who they want. The biggest problem with voting to me is the whole factor of one man per team. Where someone from the O's and D-Backs has to be on the team even though no one deserves it. Take Chris Young from the D-Backs off the NL team and Votto now has is spot. Votto has played much better and is a big reason the Reds are doing well this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slack Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Will people stop with the Strausburg hype? He's a ROOKIE! He's 2-2! If he's any good, he has plenty of chances to play in All-Star games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Will people stop with the Strausburg hype? He's a ROOKIE! He's 2-2! If he's any good, he has plenty of chances to play in All-Star games. Are you talking to BHK and myself, or are you talking about others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.