October 18, 2002

MLB to Washington D.C.: No MLB baseball for you! (At least for the time being): According to ESPN the Expos are going to stay north of the boarder for at least one more year. If the Expos move, the team will likely move to San Juan or Portland. But, is it good idea to move a team so close to San Francisco and Seattle? In the alternative, I think it would be cool to have a MLB team in Puerto Rico.

posted by Bag Man to baseball at 03:19 PM - 5 comments

San Juan? That would be bad-ass.

posted by Ufez Jones at 04:06 PM on October 18, 2002

Portland is not that close to San Francisco -- it's quite a long drive, at least six hours. And Seattle is about three hours or so away, so the level of MLB saturation on the West Coast would still not approach the Northeast, where you have the Phillies, Orioles, Pirates, Yankees, Mets and Red Sox all in a similar distance from one another. I'd still favor San Juan, though.

posted by Jaquandor at 08:05 AM on October 19, 2002

Jaquandor I disagree. Namely because the population of Bay Area-Portland-Seattle triangle is much, much smaller than that of area covered by the teams you named. It is not only proximity of the cities, but the relative small population in the Northwest compared to other parts of the US that gives me pause about placing a team in Portland. Your right however, about San Juan.

posted by Bag Man at 01:23 PM on October 19, 2002

I'm glad Washington is not being considered. A MLB team in RFK would totally screw DC United. DCU are the only thing that has made RFK financially viable over the last seven years.

posted by salmacis at 07:00 PM on October 20, 2002

The MLB saturation on the East Coast is because that corridor is the most densely populated part of the U.S. If we're going to put a team in a place that doesn't have the size to support it, I want one here in Jacksonville instead of Portland.

posted by rcade at 09:18 PM on October 20, 2002

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.