What US City should get a Major League Baseball franchise next?? (arena, deal)

[Spade]

Originally Posted by JJG

Arlington could actually get something going with more mixed use development around the stadiums and the core of the town. And of course, MASS TRANSIT.

It's not officially a city until you at least have a bus.

Arlington will get Mass Transit when Vanderbilt becomes a consistent national title contender in college football and the the universities in Texas adopt hockey as a top sport in their athletic programs and Jerry Jones puts away his ego and allows a real football mind to build a championship team and.....you get the idea.

The mixed use development would be nice but it still doesn't touch what you would get at Wrigley, Fenway, Camden Yards, and soon to be Nationals Park, MMP, Petco, and more.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Spade

The mixed use development would be nice but it still doesn't touch what you would get at Wrigley, Fenway, Camden Yards, and soon to be Nationals Park, MMP, Petco, and more.

Maybe not, but it's something other than a Wal-mart and apartments...

By the way, I was refering to this: Glorypark

Glorypark. The decent idea that never happened.

[Spade]

Yeah I heard about Glorypark. I think that was planned back since the 90s though and nothing has happened.

[Howest2008]

I'M 100 % CERTAIN THAT'S IT'S SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA
Suburban..Santa Clara.....THE HOME OF THE WORLD
CHAMPION SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS....Sometime In
The Year 2015 or 2016...........

[Visvaldis]

I don't like any of the choices in the OP.
I think that the next place for a baseball team should be Fargo, North Dakota.

[Milwaukee City]

How about NONE, the talent is already too diluted. 30 is enough teams.

[chitown85]

They should be contracting 4 teams. The Mariners, the Rays, the Marlins, and the Nationals. I.e. the unprofitable teams.

Then maybe the bad pitchers with 6.50 ERAs and can't throw more than 5 innings won't be in the league. The talent is spread too thin.

[rantanamo]

Portland

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by chitown85

They should be contracting 4 teams. The Mariners, the Rays, the Marlins, and the Nationals. I.e. the unprofitable teams.

Then maybe the bad pitchers with 6.50 ERAs and can't throw more than 5 innings won't be in the league. The talent is spread too thin.

Actually if you're looking at operating income, the Marlins are the most profitable team in baseball, despite the fact that they frequently play to half-empty stadiums and have the lowest revenue in baseball. The fact that they have a low payroll and the MLB profit sharing plan makes them profitable. Still, the Marlins will always be at the top of the list of possible MLB teams to move.

Florida Marlins Willing to Be Mediocre Because of MLB Revenue Sharing - Florida Marlins - NESN.com

And the Nationals are actually ranked 3rd in profitablilty according to Forbes--there are teams that are far worse off like the Pirates:

The Business Of Baseball - Forbes.com

Seattle is in the middle of the pack of MLB teams when it comes to total value, revenue, and profitibility. Despite being horrible the last few years, they still get decent turnouts at Safeco, and no one is seriously talking about moving or contracting the Mariners.

[terrence81]

WIthout reading all the replies I'd say Oklahoma city because it is the only one that doesn't have any type of major league team out of the cities on that list.