White Sox join dangerous MLB relocation trend
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 06. 2024
- Here's each team's situiation:
0:00 More than a quarter of the league has a problem
2:49 Baltimore Orioles want to spend $600M around Camden Yards
5:29 Kansas City Royals have TWO separate ballpark concepts
7:39 Arizona Diamondbacks want to leave 25 year old Chase Field
10:29 Los Angeles Angels can't buy their own stadium land
13:21 Milwaukee Brewers need improvement money or will move
16:03 Chicago White Sox worried about their upcoming lease
17:43 Tampa Bay Rays have three city fiasco with Orlando
20:40 Oakland A's are closer than anyone else to moving
23:05 A's decision will have a domino effect on MLB
MY AVIATION CHANNEL ✈️ brodie.bz/Aviation
HOME STUDIO PRO 🎥 brodie.bz/Production
📺 Subscribe ➡️ brodie.bz/CZcams
📸 Instagram ➡️ brodie.bz/IG
📰 Features ➡️ brodie.bz/Read
🎧 Podcast ➡️ brodie.bz/Apple
✳️ Spotify ➡️ brodie.bz/Spotify
🐦 Twitter ➡️ brodie.bz/TW
👍 Facebook ➡️ brodie.bz/FB
#mlb #baseball #chicago - Sport
I think it’s insane MLB to ask a owner/team and city to ask to build a new $2 billion stadium ever 15-20 years.
MLB should be asking for teams to build cheaper smaller stadiums. The reason why current stadiums are falling into disrepair is that the stadiums are too expensive to maintain and the leauge allows teams to intentionally be bad and just receive a big tv paycheck every year.
That it is, but unfortunately it’s how the sausage is made. Oakland wasn’t shy about using a publicly funded stadium to lure away the A’s from KC.
To be fair Comerica is 30+ years old. Still too soon to get a new stadium but at least get your facts straight.
They need to build a smaller Stadium the game is just becoming for rich people only
Especially considering MLB is no longer increasing in revenue like NBA/NFL. Baseball is also an oddly shaped stadium until basketball or football arenas which can be used for a variety of purposes
I just don’t understand how the Premier League can have a majority of stadiums that are at least 80 years old and doing fine, but we here in the US feel the need to build new stadiums every 20-30 years.
There's pro soccer in every town in England, so it's not like there's anywhere to move to.
Listening to the fans, they love their stadiums. Success on the field matters way more than a new stadium.
@@beantaz3862 Exactly. Look at college football in the US. Same way.
It's actually quite sad. Too many historic ballparks have been bulldozed. Yankee stadium should have been declared a national monument and saved, among a number of others.
Some stadiums, Busch II for instance and Kaufman had/have "concrete cancer" which supposedly costs more than a new one.
There should ABSOLUTELY be a relocation fee, and a damn high one, too. It is not fair to the fans who have remained loyal to these teams, lose or win, to have to endure the selfishness of these owners who are looking to get over, and it STARTS with the A's.
Absolutely!!!!
amen brother
👏
"MLB has a growing problem on its hands".... and a part of that problem is Rob " Manfraud" Manfred. It actually started before him with Bud Selig.
Preach it! Preach it!!
Cities or states that help financially with stadiums should receive shares of the team. And if the city or state does not own part of the team, the team should be paying them royalties to use their name.
That'd be so awesome! Too bad the greed of the owners will never allow that to happen. Surprised the American owners of Premier League teams in the UK haven't attempted to make the Premier League screw the public over like they do here in America
Absolutely right. Public ownership of the team if the public is to front the cost.
Taxpayers should be shareholders with majority ownership.
There are studies that show that the investment by the city/state into stadiums never have positive(or even breakeven) return on their investment... These owners are asking for billions from the government and they just keep getting greedier and greedier even though these owners are already billionaires...
Or fan-ownership.
MLB has a serious owners problem. No other league has at least a third of its league with really bad owners like MLB does.
Cuz there is no TOP and BOTTOM
As a White Sox fan, BOY HOWDY do I agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@rogercarlson6300 shouldn't have built Comiskey in the 90s. Now the State is losing tax base
@@2838SteveNot to mention the Bears looking for the first train out of town.
The Dodgers owners are Guggenheim Trust Inc. a multi-national corporation worth well over $300 billion. That's why they have all the $ they need to sign free agent super stars.
8:07 Brodie, you read my mind. As much as new stadiums are fun shiny objects to play with, it’s costing taxpayers more and more and more and teams should get more than 25-30 years out of a stadium. As a Mets fan, Shea lasted from 64-09 which was amazing! We can do better in sports!!! Thanks for bringing that up! It’s so true!
I live in NYC... And enjoyed going to Shea Stadium... But, by the time its run ended, Shea was considered one of the worst baseball stadiums in the league...
Screw baseball screw Oakland screw Las Vegas How can I get rid of all this Oakland a swag I bought over the past50 years. All our best players are on the All Star team from other franchises if you want to see them play you have to wait for the playoffs. Now the owner is tanking so he can leverage a move. I'm done with the whole bowl. We've been waiting for 20 years for something to happen. And don't let me hear any sob Stories from Giants fans about all they Feel Bad about us when they WIN latest MOVE to San Jose which was probably The Only viable alternative to keep the age in the region.
64-09 is nothing. Fenway and Wrigley.
@@paulfreitas368hey don't despise Vegas because of the A's being numbnuts
Most of these cities are deeply in debt with desperately needed infrastructure projects, huge pension obligations, and the ubiquitous "cash-strapped" school district. But, first, hundreds of millions for improvements to a stadium that's owned by a billionaire.
The Blue Jays paying for their own rennovations to the Rogers Centre feels like a miracle in thos environment.
I doubt there's any appetite to give their owner public funding for that. They can afford it themselves. On a side note, I remember when their plan was to demolish the SkyDome and build a new, smaller park on its footprint so they could add more condos.
@@rkniner glad they kept the SkyDome / Rogers Center. I went there a few years back and enjoyed it. Even today it's still a unique ballpark, don't know why they would want to get rid of it.
@@stratplayr6997The argument as I understood it was that, by building it to accommodate both baseball and football, they wound up with a stadium that's not ideal for either. Of course now that they've kicked the football team out they've been able to make other changes that improve it as a baseball venue (or at least in the case of this winter's renos, raise some ticket prices).
Please keep the Blue Jays in the SkyDome. It would be sad if Canada no longer has Major League Baseball.⚾️🇨🇦 9:48
GAWD, I remember the CNE!
Billionaires are like: government please build me a new stadium 😢
They want to make money… the only time they should expect to make a profit is when they sell
At this point it should honestly be illegal for any state/city to find these stadiums.
Time for us (aka the government) to take MLB via eminent domain, create fan ownership, and post controls against excessive public stadium funding.
@PCSPounder public ownership has worked for the packers. The threat of give me money or I move your team goes away when the ownership is spread out across the local area
I've been a White Sox fan all my life (over 60 years) and since the late '60's they've been on their way to Milwaukee, Denver, Seattle, Tampa Bay, and who knows where else. One of these days they'll actually do it...
Friend of mine wrote Reinhorn (or is it Einsdorf?) a letter when they blackmailed the state in 1990 or so. He no longer supports them.
Almost moved to New Orleans in 1980 but the AL blocked the sale from Veeck to Eddie DeBartolo Sr.
Nobody calls it Guaranteed rate. It's just Sox park. If they leave, I'm done with them.
@@The_Gallowglasssame. I’ll become a Brewers fan if they move out of this city. I’d allow them to move around in the city but it would be a shame to see them move to Soldier Field as taking the L there kinda sucks. Being able to hop on the Red line to get to either baseball stadium has a certain charm to it
I’m sure they can draw 18k fans a game in Nashville just as easily in Chicago .
If baseball keeps doing this a lot of fans are going to be turned away and stop being die hard fans of the teams and having real disdain. considering it’s their tax dollars at work for them to just up and leave down the road why be a die hard fan if that’s the case?
Lots of fans in Tokyo Seoul Taiwan and Mexico City. US Sports Leagues all seem to have global ambitions anyway. And sports league can't endlessly expand and expand teams.... Sooo. Yeah, move to Tokyo. Tokyo would build the stadium for free
The MLB makes $11 billion in revenue per year. They can afford to pay for their own stadiums. How about they do that instead of paying washed players $300-$400 million to be on the injured list all year?
The same goes for the NFL
Just like the Orioles started the retro park movement in the early 90s, the Braves started the "ballpark district" movement. Some cities will end up losing teams
Number of cities with public AND private commitment for a new ballpark that doesn’t currently have MLB: Nashville.
That’s it.
CALL THEIR BLUFF.
@@805fillmore I’ve pretty much assumed that the A’s are moving to Vegas. However, even that might be preliminary.
Otherwise, I’m not sure you really read my comment.
A lot of private concerns can SAY they have a ballpark plan. Mayors can SAY they would welcome a team. But the Vegas move wasn’t happening without public money (and that might yet be in question). Only Nashville seems to have both ownership and some public money sort of earmarked to get a team. In any event, I guarantee you only 1 or 2 of the 8 teams threatening to move are even remotely serious about it, and even the two know it’s a bit of a bluff.
I think that most of these teams are just trying to gain some leverage with the cities, most of them really don't want to leave. I remember the Yankees playing a similar game with NYC, trying to get the West Side location for the new ballpark, then saying they would go to NJ, but ultimately they stayed in the Bronx with their new stadium. The A's are a different situation because they're in the worst outdated ballpark in a terrible location and the city seems to have no intention of working with them.
I live in Atlanta and can say that the ballpark district that the Braves put together is very enjoyable and makes for a great gameday experience. Even in the offseason you can still go there and get a bite to eat or do some shopping at the stores there. You will definitely see more teams doing their own versions of this. Ironic that all of the retro ballparks of the last 30 years brought the stadiums into the downtowns, now they will all be heading back out to the suburbs again.
@@PCSPounderf Nashville
Where the hell are they going to go? They going to have 6 teams in Nashville? I would not want my tax dollars financing these clowns. It’s a financial black hole for the people who actually work for a living. You want it you pay for it.
It has nothing to do with a better job it has to do with money and trying to keep up with the Jones. Waa we need a new ballpark. Waa we need a dome. Waa we need a retractable dome. Waa we need a ballpark district. 🤢🤢🤢🤮
The "ballpark districts" are the new luxury boxes from years ago. The old stadiums weren't viable, according to teams, because they didn't have luxury boxes...now it's going to be "our team can't compete without a ballpark district to generate revenue..."
excellent point
I realize that some of the older ballparks in MLB may need some upgrades and that is understandable, but for so many more teams talking about relocation if certain terms are not met is going to ruin baseball. In my opinion, one of the great things about MLB over the years has been the tradition of having a team in one city for its entire existence and I don't think that it should be easy to move a franchise and if they decide to go that way, they should most certainly have to pay a relocation fee as well.
Tradition, over anything else, is what keeps fans involved in the sport. I remember growing up as a Rangers fan and being so jealous of fans of clubs with abundant history. Baseball is the closest this country has to football in places like England, Italy, Germany, etc. Some of these baseball clubs actually predate some of the hostoric clubs in Europe. And yet, it wouldn't surprise me that the Chicago White Sox would be relocated. They were established in 1894, making them older than Bayern, Real Madrid, and Juventus. Imagine the scandal it would be if any of those clubs attempted to just up and leave.
One thing you left out of the Orioles situation is the poor health of Peter Angelos. Once he passes, the team ownership faces some changes and the rest of his family faces a tax hike they may not want to incur. This could severely impact the direction of the team depending on the terms of a new negotiation might have.
His sons are taking over and the brothers are fighting like rapid dogs. The acting person in control is hated by many. From fans to former players
@@Relentlezz41 As a Baltimore area native, The Angelos family is despised. Peter has dementia and is no longer mentally competent. Son John has day to day control and lives in Nashville. Son Louis lives near Baltimore. He sued John over the agreement that set John as the controlling owner that was settled. Those two are fighting a low rent version of "Succession." Both John and Louis are worse versions of their father Peter and he was a huge jerk.
@@Relentlezz41 - ‘rabid dogs’.
@edalder2000 I think it's John but unsure, but if I'm correct he cares more about the concerts there than baseball. It's disgraceful. Reports from The Athletic is one wants to buy out his brother but the mother is looking at both sides and refuses to get involve or have them sell
Hasn’t the one from Nashville been pushed out? Thought they put the O’s to Nashville rumors to rest a few years ago. As a Nats fan I sure hope they stay.
KC is a stadium I've always enjoyed seeing when watching my team player there, It certainly didn't "Seem" old and needing repair. It just seems so charming and warm feeling when watching it, would be real sad to see it go(Same with the classic Yankee stadium I grew up with)
Agreed, Kauffman is great. Only reason I don't absolutely hate the idea is that they want to replace it with a downtown stadium
As a Twins fan, I would absolutely hate the White Sux leaving Chicago. The rivalry isn't like Yankees and Red Sox, but, for me, this rivalry brings a lot of enjoyment even when my squad is out of it.
It's Not Gonna Happen its A Lie . White Sox Are Staying in Chicago .
Which is frankly, most of the time.
@@mikenoodle100 hey now... who's in first and who is talking about moving?
@@ryanmclellan8740Yeah, short memory Twinkies guy... attempted contraction in 2001 and you haven't won a playoff game since 2004. That's 18 playoff losses in a row.
I’m a Cubs fan, and lived in the Twin Cities during grad school. The White Sox can’t compete. If you go to Target and then Guaranteed Rate, it’s night and Day.
First time watching this channel
With the production value I expected to look down and see 100K subscribers
I was shocked to only see 25K
This channel needs to blow up
Well researched and thought out topic
I need my White Sox to stay Brodie. Chicago wouldn't feel the same without them. Growing up going to games from age 2 to present at 26, they're a staple of my life. MLB is alienating fans with this.
Time to start a fundraiser. Anybody ACROSS THE WORLD that wants to DONATE to get the White Sox renovations or a new stadium should be allowed to do so. That goes for the other sports teams too.
Would love to see the White Sox build a real "new Comiskey" on the site of the original one, the same way that the Yankees did a new take on the original Yankee Stadium. That would be great. The White Sox have so much history, they really need to do something like that.
Even as a Twins fan I 100% concur. Some teams are too historically important to relocate, and the White Sox are definitely one of those teams.
Agreed. As a Guardians fan I love to hate the ChiSox. It won’t be the same if they move elsewhere.
The Cubs and Sox are such a vital part of the fabric of Chicago in the summer that losing either team would be devastating. That Sox hat symbolizes the southside of chicago perfectly. One of the founding teams of the American League threatening to leave its home is so sad. Especially after a decade plus of piss poor management and play.
Manfred is convincing owners to run baseball like a heartless orporation and you can't really do something like that when you're selling nostalgia. I guess they didn;t learn from the strike when fans left in droves.
Japan Taiwan Korea Dominican Republic Taiwan Venezuela Mexico: Forget the Americans! Give us teams! The Americans don't have the attention span or patience for Baseball anymore anyway!
Abuse of power
Baseball works on ways to make it even more irrelevant than it already is
@@ronepting5030Not globally. Game is thriving globally. You Americans just have the attention spans and patience for it anymore
There's a lot of truth with what you just said,but not the whole truth MLB hasnt made the adjustments with the times and threats of another strike and all these relocations will body the Sport.@@HoshizakiYoshimasa
Teams have always relocated here or there, but it seems like the team moving carousel is about to really pick up in the MLB and get bad. A lot of these so called "desired" markets" are glamorous transplant cities in warmer climates where a lot of folks there don't have an invested interest. After 2 or 3 yrs of those teams being and the shine is gone, interest and attendance at games will be abysmal. In another 15-20 yrs these organizations will hold those cities hostage and make more demands for $$$ and then move and relocate again. Seems like the MLB has the Biggest problem with this and these ballparks.
your description of the "desired markets" fits Nashville perfectly. I love Nashville, it's one of my favorite cities, but there is so much stuff to do there. and so many people who live there now come from other places and already have alleigances to their hometown teams. so, for those reasons, I can't imagine there being a particularly fervent fan base for a Nashville team. or even a Las Vegas team.
now, Portland or Salt Lake City? maybe I could see those cities embracing a team more.
oh, and Go Brewers!
@@MisterHoodrich89Las Vegas has done nothing wrong sport wise. Every team there is doing well no reason to think Athletics won’t do well. I also think Salt Lake City is unique place, very family oriented State with Mormon culture plenty of parents taking their multiple kids to see a game, SLC itself very popular now and only growing more, if there is an expansion in future they are on that list to get a team. Portland does well to, I think Charlotte would be good to get a team or Raleigh if it continue to grow like crazy which it is…. Montreal certainly could get a team back in future. If a team isn’t doing well in its current city they should be allowed to leave it’s a business nothing personal to the fans. In the case of the Rams and Chargers F the owners those cities should still have their football teams no doubt. Oakland the city doesn’t deserve anything good and Vegas makes way to much sense seeing how good everything does there.
@@itsnick37 if a team consistently gets crappy attendance even if there is a good product on the field, I have no problem with them moving...like, for example, I would have no issue with the Rays moving at this point. the A's have been very popular and well-attended in the past when they actually had a good team on the field. what's an absolute travesty is that we now have teams like the Brewers and Orioles threatening to relocate even though they sell out almost every game and their stadiums are perfectly fine, all because they are demanding new stadiums funded on the taxpayer's dole and want to use the threat of relocation to get what they want. that is unacceptable and should not be allowed by MLB.
KC is the most interesting to me. It is really a nice stadium. I am biased because I grew up there but it is a nice stadium. My thinking is that in addition to the District that the Royals want the Chiefs also want to use all the space at TSC from the parking lot and the baseball stadium to build their own District there. I bet the Chiefs are pulling some strings behind the scenes with this.
I've been to Kauffman Stadium for a game before. it's an extremely charming stadium, it feels like the quintessential smaller-market ballpark. I'll be sad to see it go
The former mayor of Anaheim pled guilty a few days ago regarding his role in the now revoked sale of the Angel Stadium land. Besides Long Beach, Tustin has been mentioned as a new home.
Do you think Irvine is a potential spot for the Angels too. Irvine is a sports city and innovative city i believe. What do you think of Irvine?
Enjoyed your reporting. Great job. Hope you grow. Had to subscribe. Good Luck.
The A’s I hope can somehow find a way to stay in Oakland but after all that has happened already it will be very difficult to keep them there
Yet another fantastic video, Brodie.
When T-Mobile (formerly Safeco Field) opened in 1999, I told other baseball folks to just wait 20-25 years and the team will come back wanting millions more for stadium upgrades. For Seattle, that has not happened yet. The original public financing of the stadium was very controversial since the public vote failed by a very small margin, yet the county put a public financing package together snubbing those who voted against it. The As and Rays are 2 examples of teams that don't even draw well when they're winning. I always felt that the Bay Area was a 1 team market. I can't feel too sad about a team leaving when there's another one just across the water. As far as Arizona's roof leaking, when's the last time it rained during a baseball game down there? I don't recall T-Mobile ever having any leak issues and we get plenty of rain. Also, I don't believe there are enough new viable municipalities to satisfy all of the owners hinting at moving. It's mostly bluffing.
I do remember the Safeco roof failing to close during rain in its first or second season, causing a rain delay, but it hasn't happened since, and the building has been upgraded well and consistently. As for that vote, if the M's weren't in the middle of that miracle '95 playoff run, the politicos wouldn't have created a new stadium plan and the team would be in Tampa.
Voters in Seattle were woefully shortsighted and willfully ignorant regarding the funding sources of the follow up proposal. To this day there are people in several counties outside of King County who seem to think they paid for Safeco. Mostly they are anarchists, old hippies, anti sports hipsters and Tea Party curmudgeons who are against everything. Or rednecks who miss the tractor pulls at the Kingdome. But it's one of the best ballparks in the country, a great public edifice.
This is not new. The Baltimore Orioles were the St. Louis Browns. The Braves moved from Boston to Milwaukee to Atlanta. The Dodgers and Giants moved from New York to the west coast. The Washington Senators moved to Minnesota to become the Twins and then again to become the Rangers. The Seattle Pilots lasted one season before Moving to Milwaukee and recently the Expos became the Nationals. The A's, Philadelphia, to KC to Oakland. All of these moves except the Expos all happened before 1972. Given only one major league franchise has moved in the last 20 years, i don't think it is a problem.
The only reason for MLB waiving the relocation fee for the A's is that John Fisher must have made a backroom deal with the other owners to move the A's, sell the Vegas team before the Vegas stadium is even built, and in return, the other small-market owners get to use the A's as an example, and get to leverage/threaten their local governments for free money in stadium renovations otherwise they would move as well. That's the only reason why MLB keeps insisting the A's don't have to pay a relocation fee, otherwise, there wouldn't be a relocation fee at all.
The owners are going to slam dunk approve the A's move to Vegas, because each of the owners want the ability to pick up and move whenever they have a whim to do so, and they all want to create the precedent to approve these moves.
Are all of the owners going to waive relocation fees? Teams that are not moving may not be too happy about that. And while I thought the Moneyball Act had little chance of getting anywhere, if 8 teams get involved the equation starts to change. That's a lot of fans to complain to their Representatives
Great commentary and top notch production!
People today don't remember that MLB went through a 20-year period, 1952-1971, where 10 teams relocated -- and two franchises are each on that list twice. If we went through a period like that again, it'd be new to most of us, but it wouldn't be unprecedented.
Good point but at that time there were so many places they could relocate. Nowadays there aren’t a ton of places left to go
I don't think I agree with that -- when there were 16 teams, it wasn't controversial what the #17-20 cities were. And today with 30 teams, it's not controversial what the #31-40 cities are. If you have a team you're considering moving, you'd be most interested in those ten cities. You'd probably have preferences within them, like, you'd prefer to go to a fast-growing city instead of a plodding-along city.
You mean 1953 to 1971 of the relocated franchises.
@@billsherwin1705Their first season in their new home was 1953, but did they relocate in 1952 or 1953? It's a matter of interpretation.
Most of those teams moved west because it followed the movement and growth of the US population and the land was cheap and open as compared to the cramped cities in the east and midwest. Before the Dodgers moved to LA, the St. Louis Cardinals were the most western MLB team.
Broadie always on point with your explanations. Baseball isn't really in trouble but the musical chairs of teams relocating is a concern.
I really hope the Sox stays in Chicago and on the South Side.
With regard to Phoenix, the current location seems to be centrally located. If you built a stadium in the East Valley, then the West Valley is an hour away. Phoenix is pretty spread out.
Thanks. A nice calm discussion.
From an engineering standpoint, retractable roofs have a lot of mechanical moving parts and enclosed stadiums require extensive HVAC systems that require constant maintenance and don't last forever. That is why stadiums like Chase Field and American Family Field will either need to be replaced or extensively renovated well before a stadium that does not have a roof, especially as both regions experience climate extremes in one season or another (hot summers in Arizona and cold winters in Wisconsin).
Move all teams to Alaska where the weather is nice in the summertime
Not buying the retractable roofs thing. Shiny new( mostly NOT needed) roofs are just a luxury item. A roof doesn't help with snow. Most are not player friendly. Why not always leave them closed for games. Open when not in use. People that live near Miami or Phoenix are used to that kind of heat.
A roof doesn’t help with snow?
@@randallcurwen8041 If it's too much it will collapse. You still must clear parking lots. Have you seen Superdome?
@randallcurwen8041 bad take here. We are used to the heat but we aren't interested in spectating at 110f.
Fans of baseball = "I hate that this is a distraction for the Baltimore Orioles during this wonderful season they're having"
Orioles Owner = "What a perfect time to threaten relocation! If I did when the team stunk, people wouldn't care, now they do, let's milk as much free money from these suckers as we can!!"
The difference between fans and owners. It's disgusting what's happening in baseball. The league is fundamentally broken without a salary cap/floor, and with this new threat of relocation from small market owners? I give up. I would rather watch the Savannah Bananas at this point and I hope MLB loses its anti-trust exemption and implodes.
And Baltimore is such a fine place.
@Brodie Brazil's vocal chain is on point.
Vocal fx chain
Great breakdown Brody👍
It's time for cities and fans to start a FUNDRAISER. Any taxpayer FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that wants to DONATE to get sports teams renovations or a new stadium/arena should be allowed to do so.
Please repost this message all over the net.
I would love it if the Diamondbacks could work with the Coyotes to create a duel venue situation, with an entertainment district in between the two venues. There is A LOT of empty land for development in that area.
And put it away from Phoenix too. Put it in like Mesa or Gilbert or something
The White Sox should tear down Guaranteed Rate, play at Wrigley for 2-3 seasons, and build a retro park which faces downtown at 35th and Shields.
not everyone wants urban stadiums with 'fend for yourself' parking
I understand why baseball wants teams like the A’s and White Sox to move. They’re the second teams in their markets, and there are other cities available where they could monopolize the market, even if it’s smaller. It’s sad for the fans though.
Change from 2nd teams to 2nd class teams
those smaller markets need expansion teams, not teams ripped from other cities. These greedy owners are robbing the league of the expansion fees that they would be getting
besides the Bay and Chicago are both more than large enough to support 2 teams. Should we be moving the Mets and Angels too just because they could theoretically monopolize some smaller market to have to themselves
The A’s outdrew the Giants before AT&T.
@@neneshubbya lot of people forget that and I’m a Giants fan
I think we're going to start seeing what's happening with the NCAA"s recent radical re-alignment madness. Teams nearing the end of their leases are going to get cities bidding against each other for the next best deal; history, fans, connection with the local area be damned.
The only difference is college football is a sport that is in high demand with sell outs and high television ratings. Baseball doesn't have that leverage, because it's moving in the other direction.
Most cities are calling their bluff. Even Vegas citizens are set to favor expansion (which doesn’t help MLB’s goal here).
Changing conferences isn't the same as relocating
@@adamsmith583 In a way it is because it breaks up established rivalries. I'm a Mizzou fan, our big rival when I was growing up were the Kansas Jayhawks but now we hardly ever play them. It's true that my team is still where it always was but that does make a difference.
@@adamsmith583 No but the driving principle is the same. Leveraging and chasing better deals/money at the expense of staying put where you are.
Teams should really try to keep relocation conversations private from fans.
Jackpot.
There would be no relocation talk if it wasn’t going to fans. It’s an attempt to put pressure on local governments by scaring fans they might lose their team.
@strongholdcc1396 Bingo. Who wants to be mayor for a team moving out? Maybe you make the case it's the right financial decision, but no one wants to campaign with that baggage.
But since you're dealing with public funding, that's simply not possible.
It’s what helps keeps teams where they are when us fans know and fight it
One thing your off base about is Angels would definitely lose fan if they move to Long Beach. I live about an hour to the East of Angel Stadium. Long Beach would add nearly an hour to my drive time. I'm not alone in feeling this way.
Makes me more and more thankful for Dodger stadium. Privately owned. 61 years old, still as nice as the day it was opened.
@805fillmore well the Rams left LA for St. Louis, so the leaving LA for Indy wouldn't be too far from fruition. Wealthy businessmen love handouts and wouldn't care if they move their big market team to a small market.
@@805fillmore it may seem very ludicrous, but greed knows no boundaries.
Would be cool if all the fans of these teams Brodie listed formed some sort of fan alliance 🤔
The New York Yankees have a Minor League affiliate (Single A) in Tampa, Florida.
August 26th 2023 04:07 CT.
I hate how they demolished the original Yankee Stadium before its 100th birthday.
If mlb starts moving franchises around like pieces on a chessboard like the nfl does, they’re going to lose fans in droves and completely destroy the sport. As a former nfl fan I never forgave the Houston Oilers ownership for moving the team to Tennessee due to their greed for a new stadium at taxpayer expense. And even though Houston ultimately got another nfl team I had already lost interest in the nfl. If Astros owners had moved the baseball team I’d have lost interest in baseball too.
Just ask Dean Spanos he ripped 56 years of the Chargers out of sd and instead became freeloaders in a2nd banana in LA where everyone sees them as an afterthought. Manfraud is abusing his power and the other sports leagues would put this on notice.
I share the same sentiments..just insert Oakland Raiders and hopefully not the Oakland A’s.
Although I live on the Gulf Coast, I hated seeing the Raiders moving to LA then back to Oakland then to Las Vegas. I remember them when they were an NFL powerhouse and Ken Stabler was one of my favorite quarterbacks when I was a kid. And I would hate to see the Athletics move too. We used to catch a handful of Rangers games on TV back in the early '70s and I always liked watching them play against Charlie Finley's A's back then. Every time Catfish Hunter was on the mound, he was almost sure to win.
The Astrodome used to be called the eigth wonder of the world.
It’s time for collective bargaining from these host cities. There aren’t enough destinations for all of them. So call their bluff.
Yes. "Sorry - we have no money. You can move your team. I think Davenport Iowa might be a good place!"
Austin, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Orlando, Portland, Raleigh, Montreal, Salt Lake City, Sacramento.....plenty of thriving metros that would be a more successful base for an
There wasn't even an insinuation about moving away from teams' cities in the first three segments (Baltimore, KC, Arizona).
Kauffman Stadium itself isn't the worst, but the location is brutal.
7:52 that's exactly how I felt when the texas rangers announced they wanted a new stadium. 25 years old when they announced about the new build.
The Rangers needed a new ballpark because their previous ballpark did not have a retractable roof, a necessity in the hot summers of Texas.
@@HighpointerGeocacher LOL no they didn't. If anything they could have just built something to go over the top to block the sunlight from the hottest part of the day. I mean it's Texas man. Why did they build it in the first place like that? I can't stand the heat, but I never really had an issue everytime I watched games there
@@atrain132 At the time there was a grand total of ONE retractable roof stadium -- Toronto. So the technology was unproven. The only other option was a fully-domed stadium like the old Astrodome, which by that point was falling out of favor. And with three sides having roads around the stadium, one of which also had office space, how big a Seattle-style roof do you build, and where do you put the support structures?
@@reedermh hmmm, interesting as I grew up in both Houston and Dallas. Nobody said they needed to add a retractable roof, just something to cover the top, or renovate the stadium for an existing park. It doesn't matter what was available at the time they built it. They could have thought about it then, when I decided to build a new ballpark right next to the existing one.
For a retractable roof two people just a few years ago, they were talking about expanding the structures and supports over Randol Mill Road. Right where the parking and new stadium is built.
Simply put, they just wanted to jump on the we have a new stadium bandwagon that was going on for a few years in the MLB.
Been there a few times, and personally I think the field sucks, but the facilities are nice. It definitely 100% wasn't needed though.
The Astrodome on the other hand... that needed to go.
@@HighpointerGeocacher The Ranger's did NEED a new park. They said it would cost the same for the roof and upgrades as a new park. I have been to the new park... WRONG decision. The new park sucks in comparison to the old one.
Any professional franchise that leaves a city should be forced to give up the team name and history to the city they're leaving like Cleveland did with the Browns
Yeah, I kind of find it awkward that Los Angeles is the home of 10,000 lakes or that Utah is the home of traditional jazz music.
But on the other hand, if the Sacramento Kings were to relocate to Seattle, then their name would fit right in quite nicely, since they would be in King County, Washington (currently named in honor of MLK).
@freezer8530 I'm from Houston and it bugs me that the team from Tennessee gets to call themselves the Oilers
@@bluehorseshoe444 The NFL team in Nashville changed its name to Tennessee Titans.
@@HighpointerGeocacher but they still hold the rights to the Oilers name and logos (refusing to give them to the Texans) ... and will be wearing those uniforms when they play against the new Houston team this year
@@freezer8530 Brooklyn Dodgers got the name "Dodgers" from the reputed skill of Brooklyn residents at evading the city's trolley streetcars. Not many trolleys remaining in LA in 1958 when the Dodgers moved there, as automobiles and the freeway system had replaced most ground-based public transportation on fixed tracks. Thus, the Lakers are not the only Los Angeles team whose name was appropriately derived from their previous location, but kept as the team moved to LA even if a new name would have been more appropriate to the city or region.
Every team has mentioned Nashville as their most likely relocation site. John Angelos lives outside of Nashville. Stuart Sternberg has sent personnel more than once to visit Nashville and look at a parcel adjacent to Nissan Stadium. Milwaukee has mentioned Nashville as their AAA team is there. Even Oakland considered Nashville.
Heads up: the local government is already 2 billion dollars involved in the new Titans' dome stadium, and the soon to be elected mayor has campaigned on the promise of not supporting billionaires at the expense of neighborhoods. Any team planning to play baseball in the Music City will have to finance it 100% privately.
Remember the relocation hell of 1953-1972 for MLB (10 MAJOR relocations i.e. L.A. County to Orange County for the Angels doesn't count etc.)? Some of them TWICE during that span.
Very frightening to think about the return of 1953-1972 returning this century. Take a look at these possibilities:
Baltimore Orioles=Charlotte
Kansas City Royals=Mexico City
Arizona Diamondbacks=Portland
L.A., California Angels of Anaheim=Utah (Long Beach is part of the Hollywood metro)
Milwaukee Brewers=Nashville
Chicago White Sox=Indianapolis
Tampa Bay Devil Rays=Orlando (Orlando is not part of the Tampa metro, though I do agree that Tampa and Orlando cannot co-exist together)
Oakland Athletics=Las Vegas
Then let's say, Kansas City and Milwaukee realize the "errors" of their ways, and they get the two expansion teams after building new stadiums for both leading to this division realignment:
1. AL West=Utah Angels, Seattle Mariners, Mexico City Tacos, Las Vegas Athletics
2. AL North=Minnesota Twins, Indianapolis White Sox, Detroit Tigers, Cleveland Guardians
3. AL South=Houston Astros, Kansas City Royals 2.0, Texas Rangers, Orlando Dreamers
4. AL East=Boston Red Sox, Charlotte Magpies, Toronto Blue Jays, New York Yankees
5. NL West=San Francisco Giants, San Diego Padres, Portland Pipers, Los Angeles Dodgers
6. NL North=Chicago Cubs, Colorado Rockies, St. Louis Cardinals, Milwaukee Brewers 2.0
7. NL South=Miami Marlins, Nashville Stars, Atlanta Braves, Washington Nationals
8. NL East=Philadelphia Phillies, Cincinnati Reds, New York Metropolitans, Pittsburgh Pirates
Of course, I don't see all 8 teams that are in danger of relocating actually do it, but there will be some causalities in all this.
Philledelphia to KC to Oakland.
All those cities should get expansion teams.
Dbacks will stay in Arizona, but I don't think it stays in Phoenix
The problem with the, "it's just buisness" argument is that kind of thinking isn't what made professional sports what it is. You have 100+ year old fan bases, tradition, rivalries everything going out the window. It's really not just another buisness. Apple, Amazon, Tesla can move their companies, who cares? You can't just keep moving teams and expect fans to keep caring.
Money really is the root of all evil.
The Raiders are a bad joke.
I disagree the A’s are a precedent. If you have the last multipurpose ballpark and you’ve been there 60 years, you might be allowed to move. So the Rays can get to move in a 30-40 years based on that.
I would like to see Nashville get a Team. A rapidly growing, young and vibrant city.
I made a comment on an A's Facebook page above the Angel's moving to Oakland. I think the team would be welcomed if the A's do indeed move. A little poetic seeing how the movie Angel's in the Outfield was filmed in Oakland.
yeah moving from the 2nd largest market to a small obscure market...that makes a whole lot of sense
We would prefer to keep the Athletics . With the exception of Tampa Bay, none of these teams have a good reason to relocate and or ask for a new ballpark. All are tied to private real estate development that they do not have to share revenue with MLB. But they are using public money and getting tax breaks included. No, no, no.
@@michaelmagic988the A’s and Raiders moved to a worse market. Both those teams have terrible owners
Wtf
Sorry, Oakland is a dying City/sports market!
Im a huge white Sox fan. In 2030 there is no way they are playing in that dump. They are going to have a new owner by then. If Chicago area don't build them a new stadium there gone
The situation in Baltimore, the owner is jealous of another's success. Where is the risk on the owners part? The people of Baltimore and Maryland have foot the bill for Camden Yards. The Ownership has raked in the profits.
The new stadiums in the UK, such as Tottenham and Arsenal's new stadiums, weren't built with public money either. Unlike the sports team owners in the USA, the teams aren't owned by a bunch of Welfare Queens.
Since 1971, only two MLB franchises have moved: Washington Senators (2nd version) and Montreal Expos.
Meanwhile, relocation issues have been problems in all other major sports. In the 90's, the NFL saw four teams pull up their stakes: LA Rams, LA Raiders, Cleveland Browns (original team), and Houston Oilers. Also, the Seattle Seahawks (physically) moved to Anaheim, but were forced back to Seattle by the league.
During that same decade, the NHL abandoned Minnesota, Quebec City, Winnipeg, and Hartford. Near misses: Minnesota to Oakland, NJ to Nashville, Edmonton to Houston, and Pittsburgh to Oregon. Even the NBA allowed two teams to move in the 2000's: Charlotte and Seattle. Sacramento also survived a few scares.
Then in MLS (soccer) from the founding of the league in 1996 until present day, only one franchise has been moved, the 1st version of the SJ Earthquakes to Houston in 2005. There were also a few near misses with Columbus almost moving to Austin in 2018 & KC to St Louis in 1998. However when it comes to failed relocation attempts, we have seen examples of what could happen if it fails from MLS as they have had to literally shut down teams because of this. Heck in 2001 the entire league was on the verge of going under because Miami couldn't get a soccer specific stadium in the area & a relocation attempt to Orlando failed. MLS had to shut Miami down along with Tampa so that the league could even exist because the entire league lost money (due to the single entity structure) because of how poorly run Miami & Tampa were. The same thing happened in 2014 with Chivas USA, though the league's existence wasn't under threat in that particular case. MLS has largely avoided making the mistakes that the NASL made in the 70's & 80's where most teams (apart from a few) changed cities like underwear. This destabilized the league so much that by 1984, the NASL no longer existed.
So, we’re going to forget about the Thrashers?
I'd forgotten about The Whale completely.
@@jeremiah_12 I also forgot to mention that three NFL teams moved in the 1980"s: Oakland to LA, Baltimore to Indianapolis, and St. Louis (football) Cardinals to Phoenix (now rebranded as "Arizona"). During that decade in the NBA, San Diego lost their Clippers to LA and KC lost their Kings to Sacramento. In the NHL, Atlanta lost its first franchise to Calgary and Colorado (Denver) lost its team to NJ (Meadowlands). As for the Thrashers, I've heard their demise was mostly due to poor ownership and the aftermath of the 2004-05 NHL work stoppage.
Omaha to KC to Sacramento.
Not a Sox fan and I still call it New Comisky. Hope the Sox Don't leave, like he says in the video- this team has a ton of history and hate they get overshadowed by the Cubs. I've been looking forward taking the red line down every other year we play them there.
They were once your team's (Brewers) division rivals. I can see why you would respect them over the Cubs.
@@juicyfartsofjimcornette1154 I can't see ever respecting the White Sox.
@@keithpodhradsky1314Rodney Dangerfield of baseball
Kauffman opened in 1973. Currently the 6th oldest stadium and no need to move #SaveTheK
The white Sox aren’t moving anywhere. They just are trying to get a new stadium, they threatened to move to Tampa in the 80s to get there way. The rest of the teams are either doing the same or trying to get renovations paid for. It’s an idle threat for these teams that won’t go anywhere
Let them all move. I wish the Tigers were one of those teams. I am so done watching pro sports. Tired of the greed.
Interesting that some of the teams are talking about building stadiums that incorporate retail & housing in their project. Like Howard terminal? Maybe Fisher should buy an expansion team that'll be happy in a 9 acre domed stadium in the smallest media market and sell the A's to one of the ownership groups that are thinking of bigger, inclusive stadiums. The work is almost done on the stadium (HT) that those teams are talking about. #SellTheTeam
So you mean its just a cheesy real estate deal and the team does'nt matter at all. Get real people.
That happened with the NFL back in the 1990s.
Either put the Rays in Tampa proper or move them out of state. St Pete has always and will always be a nightmare to get in and out of. I'd hate to see them in Orlando.
What did you think was going to happen as all of these stadia reach their 30 year mark with leases expiring? Did you think teams were just going to say, “hey, our stadium is still nice, let’s not extort anything and just sign a new lease”?
What happens when my house needed new hvac? Hopefully we saved for it. Can’t operate a business/home and expect to make no investments on your own.
@@brodiebrazilwow Brodie sick brag on owning a house
@@brodiebrazilexactly Brodie!
Oddly, the Carolina Hurricanes are doing just that, they extended their lease on their arena until the 2040's.
all I know is if the Sox move from Chicago im DONE with baseball.
Bruh
That almost happened with me in 1988 when they tried it before
How many teams can move to Nashville?
LOL look at me with all my flashing studio equipment lights. I’m so cool.
The interesting thing in Milwaukee is that their lease mandates that the govt provide maintenance and upgrades and they haven’t done it. Brewers could use that to break the lease and move to Nashville before 2030. And that’s not a city name out of a hat, it’s where their Triple-A team currently plays. The local fans are already familiar with many of the Brewers players either because they are recent call-ups or played through rehab stints.
@@sirchi8731 I don’t disagree with that. The state has been running a budget surplus lately and the Republican-led legislature just keeps proposing top-heavy tax cuts instead of actually doing something with the money. That is why Gov. Evers proposed the $290 million mentioned in the video, the state has that money just sort of sitting around doing nothing.
Now, is there a huge difference between tax cuts for the wealthy and paying for upgrades to a stadium? Probably not, but the lease says they have to do it anyway.
I’d prefer the state spend the money on schools and transportation, specifically the often proposed rail system connecting Chicago and Minneapolis through Milwaukee and Madison.
@@sirchi8731 - Spoken like the uneducated
13th letter
15th letter
18th letter
15th letter
14th letter
you are!
@@brenthauer8365 - Start a fundraiser. Taxpayers from ALL OVER THE WORLD can donate as much as they want, anytime to help fund the renovations for the Milwaukee Brewers. That goes for the other sports teams too.
Lived in Nashville for about 10 years, and the Brewers would be signing up for 162 road games if they moved to Nashville. Nashville is VERY much Braves country (I'd go as far as to say there are more Braves fans in Nashville than in Atlanta). If MLB really wants a team there, their best bet is expansion (and there's already an ownership group in place). Any relocation there that doesn't involve the Braves would be DOA.
@@js1031 I don’t buy that one bit. There’s a large contingent of braves fans there now because it’s who they show on TV most often (also in the Washington/Baltimore home market). Put a team there, in a nice new stadium, and put them on the local stations and a nashville team will have plenty of support.
Support your local college and highschool baseball teams ; they're not going anywhere !!!!
They lack talent.
Rays have the top 10-11 tv market, the owners will not allow them to move and deal for Ybor stadium is likley at end of season.
Coors Field (Rockies) signed a lease agreement through 2047. It'll have been there for a total of 52 years at that point! I hope my Rox can win a WS in that time!
I wonder if any other mlb team is eyeballing howard terminal for when the A's abandon the area
That's a phenomenal question !
Bay Area is an excellent market so that could be happening
Oakland will never get another team.
No
A’s have terrible owners who can’t get anything done! A smart ownership can get Howard Terminal built
Downtown Phoenix may not be a great downtown but seems like Sun's fans don't have a problem with it. They are across the street from each other.
Basketball and baseball fan bases don't overlap. Also, basketball is a winter sport while baseball's primary season is summer.
@@HighpointerGeocacher I'm unsure how that's relevant. The point was that they are both downtown.
Braves: Boston to Milwaukee to Atlanta. A's: Philly to KC to Oakland to....LV? Washington Senators to Texas Rangers. Exposure to Washington Nationals. Brooklyn Covers to LA. New York Giants to SF. It's happened forever.
Actually, the Senators (DC) moved here in MN in November 1960
@@onomatopoeia162003 There were TWO different Washington Senators teams. The first one moved to Minnesota (as you mentioned) and was immediately replaced with an expansion Senators team. That one moved to DFW in 1972 and became the Texas Rangers.
Baltimore Orioles owner has made comments about how bad the situation is. If he wants more room and facilities well step up and buy it. Then you will demonstrate your commitment.
There should also be a rule, if you move a team. You lose all that history and you get an expansion team in a new city. Leave the name, logo, colors etc in the city you left
That rule can apply only on a case-by-case basis, especially with the entire roster going from the "recently defunct franchise" to the "newly expansion franchise". A case in point would be The Washington Senators (1901-1960) and its entire roster of players relocating to Minnesota in 1961, with The Washington Senators (1961-1971) being created as an expansion franchise (with new players) that same year. Relocation happens. The MLB franchise in Atlanta (The Braves) can actually lay claim to being the oldest continuously operating professional sports franchise in North America, even though it relocated to different markets twice throughout its history.
@@freezer8530yeah, case by case is the way to go
Nah
Similar to the NFL: The Arizona Cardinals (established 1898) are the oldest continually operating franchise in professional football even though they have played in two other states prior to moving to Arizona (Illinois and Missouri).
The Cardinals in Arizona are a good example to show that teams should move to follow population changes and migrations throughout the USA. In 1898 it would have been impossible to consider establishing a major professional sports franchise in Arizona since the population of Arizona was very small and Arizona didn't even become a state until 1912. If teams had stayed fixed in the places where they were originally established over 100 years ago, there would be many teams in small and declining cities while very large and newer metropolitan areas like greater Phoenix would be devoid of having a team.
New York and LA are the only cities that support two teams successfully. Even then, the Yankees and Dodgers get the lions share.
There is only one MLB team in Los Angeles. Orange County is no more a part of L.A. than San Diego, San Francisco or Alameda counties. If the Anaheim team moved to Long Beach then they would be in L.A. County, if not the city. Anaheim needs new ownership, a new team name and a more regional concept as the only American League team in Southern California (and maybe all of CA soon...)
@@ZackfromNoHo Nor do the Cowboys play in Dallas, or the Jets/Giants play in NY. Those teams, Angels included, are supported by those markets although they don’t play within the city limits.
There have been times when the Mets were more popular than the Yankees. These include late 60's and early 70's, when the Mets won the 1969 World Series and were a contender for several years thereafter while the Yankees were in a down cycle before Steinbrenner purchased the team and the first Yankee Stadium was renovated; also in the 1980's and early 1990's around the time of the Mets' 1986 World Series victory, and the Yankees were in another down cycle until the teams of Torre, Jeter et. al. began winning multiple World Series titles starting in 1996.
Love baseball, but why does the public have to pay for a 'company's' business and not get the proceeds?
It's fine to threaten relocation ... but the number of viable relocation options are INCREDIBLY limited. For decades, Washington and Tampa Bay were the go-to threats, but now they've got teams. Charlotte, Las Vegas, Nashville ... those locales' viability as MLB locations are already iffy--but moreover, they're fewer in number than the franchises who want to threaten relocation for leverage. Y'all CAN'T ALL move elsewhere, fellows!
MLB could always expand to 32 or 34 and cover those cities
@@YooperHatesOhioStateSure! But the jury's out on whether they could yet do so sustainably. And what's more, that would result in even LESS leverage for teams unhappy with their ballparks, so owners might not be on board with that idea.
The Sox will always play second fiddle to the city’s lovable team the Chicago Cubs. I think they want to get out of the shadow of the Cubs.
I hope I’m wrong but I see MLB being completely different in just a few years
I see a complete divisional realignment coming and cities that have a team won’t have them
As a European who recently started following MLB, owners clawing for tax payer money by threatening to leave is one of the ugliest and least understandable aspects of the sport. I get that it's a business, and I'm not actually opposed to using public money to support sports (in the same way tax payers fund the arts). It's just happening in a really dirty way. The relationship between the team, the city, and the people is almost like a sacred bond, and when team owners use that relationship as leverage, trust is broken and fans - across the country - are alienated.
It’s not just about the fans in those cities it’s also about opposing fans, I’m sure for example Cardinals fans enjoy beating the Milwaukee brewers specifically and if they were a different team in a city with no history the dynamic between the fanbases would be different. Some cities are baseball institutions and some rivalries are baseball institutions & losing those institutions is bad for the game
Wouldn't blame anyone leaving Chicago.
Professional teams in all major sports have been relocating since the beginning and in my opinion hasn't seemed to hurt the situation at all in the long run. In fact I would argue that it has immensely been a benefit to all sports. Where would MLB be without the Dodgers in LA or the Giants in San Francisco or the the Braves in Atlanta? Relocating teams help grow the popularity and reach of the sport and has proven to be a catalyst for expansion as well.
Obviously, some relocations were necessary evils. Boston, St. Louis, Philadelphia and even the Bay Area did not need two teams, and New York City did not need three teams. But even I admit that the Giants should have stayed in New York while San Francisco got the expansion team in 1962. At least the Dodgers were smart enough to stop the Giants from moving to Minnesota, and get them to move to San Francisco, if they weren't staying in New York. But the Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City A's, Seattle Pilots and especially the original Washington Senators (much less the Montreal Expos) should have never relocated to begin with. It should have been something like this:
1961 expansion: L.A. Angels and Minnesota Twins
1962 expansion: San Francisco Seals and Houston Astros
1969 expansion: Montreal Expos and San Diego Padres
1971 expansion: Seattle Pilots and Atlanta Vultures (remember, the Royals and Pilots were suppose to debut in 1971 aka the year the Kingdome opened, but the bleeping Missouri politicians didn't want to wait the extra two years)
1977 expansion: Texas Rangers and Toronto Blue Jays
1993 and 1998 would remain the same.
And so a division alignment would look like this:
1. AL West: Seattle Pilots, Kansas City Athletics, Anaheim Angels, Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers
2. AL Central: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Guardians, Atlanta Vultures, Detroit Tigers, Toronto Blue Jays
3. AL East: New York Yankees, Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Washington Senators, Tampa Bay Devil Rays
4. NL West: San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Francisco Seals, Colorado Rockies
5. NL Central: Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati Reds, Houston Astros, St. Louis Cardinals, Milwaukee Braves
6. NL East: Pittsburgh Pirates, Miami Marlins, Philadelphia Phillies, Montreal Expos, New York Giants
Only Oakland wouldn't have a team, but as I mentioned, San Francisco is enough for that metro. And yes, the Houston Astros would still be in the National, while the Seattle Pilots (Milwaukee Brewers) would still be in the American. Very interesting what-if scenario, wouldn't you say?
Let'em all relocate! No public money 4 stadiums.
It’s Milwaukee journal sentinel
I think your “hot take” on the White Sox is what we here like to call “out of town stupid” meaning that locals know what’s really going on and you’re not really close. Jerry Reinsdorf grew up in Brooklyn and knows what it’s like to have a team move away, so while he owns the team, his likelihood of relocation is very low. He might, however relocate within the metro area. After he dies or sells,completely different story. There’s more, but it’s not my video.