Dec 27, 2011, 8:50 AM EDT
Via BTF, we find a very cool set of charts over at the Wages of Wins Journal* showing which metropolitan areas in the U.S., based on local income and size, could support expansion franchises or relocated franchises for the major sports.
The upshot for baseball: there really is no place for a team to move that isn’t already part of another team’s existing territory. The largest cities have gotten larger and richer and they are the most viable options for new or relocated franchises. New York could handle at least one more. Two if you count Stamford/Bridgeport/Norwalk, Connecticut. Chicago could handle one. The Inland Empire of California. Any of the other usual suspects such as Las Vegas are “marginal” at best.
Maybe it’s academic. It appears that the Athletics are going to get their stuff figured out soon. That leaves only the Rays as a problem. At least for now.
* Yes, I realize the post is from October. I never saw it before, though, and that’s one of the reasons why I go to Baseball Think Factory every day. They always find this kind of stuff.
- World Series, Game 1: Giants vs. Royals lineups 0
- HBT Daily: In which I waffle on my World Series pick 10
- Must-click link: surviving spring training on $0 a day 70
- Your Official HardballTalk World Series Preview 26
- World Series Reset: Game 1 — finally! — is tonight 30
- HBT Daily: How the Royals and Giants were built 4
- Two radio stations in San Francisco are refusing to play Lorde’s “Royals” during the World Series 40
- Royals tab James Shields, Yordano Ventura to start first two games of World Series 1
- So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got? (120)
- Pedro Martinez has some opinions about who the new “face of baseball” is (107)
- Erroneous Narrative Alert: no, the Giants are not a “gritty,” anti-stats organization (106)
- “The Kansas City Royals Are the Future of Baseball” — someone actually said that. (93)
- Andrew Friedman leaving the Rays to take over as Dodgers President of Baseball Operations (83)