Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, aside from College football I believe the Braves are the team most hyped in Atlanta Media (neck and neck or maybe a little more than the falcons)
Montreal was a hockey town, which MLB chose to ignore. They actually thought they could make inroads there, which turned out not to be the case.
Montreal had a long history in baseball before the Expos came along. In fact, it was in Montreal where Jackie Robinson played his first games in organized baseball (1946) after the Dodgers signed him.
One logistics problem I hear was with dealing with the francophone community. Apparently Parc Jerry was in the French part of town, where as most of the fanbase was Anglophone (APPARENTLY I emphasize).
At any rate, just have the Nats pulling records at or above .500 and you will see an improvement.
Montreal had a long history in baseball before the Expos came along. In fact, it was in Montreal where Jackie Robinson played his first games in organized baseball (1946) after the Dodgers signed him.
I am aware of that. I am also aware that Montreal was not a major league city in 1946. The powers that be in major league baseball apparently had more common sense half a century ago than they do now.
I am aware of that. I am also aware that Montreal was not a major league city in 1946. The powers that be in major league baseball apparently had more common sense half a century ago than they do now.
Major League Baseball also didn't have teams in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, or a handful of other markets in 1946. In fact, MLB had the same 16 teams in the same 16 cities (actually 11 cities) from 1903-1952, and for much of that time MLB team locations were out of whack with the U.S. population. (St. Louis had 2 teams while Los Angeles had none after World War I?)
From various sources I've read, Montreal was a pretty good market for minor league baseball prior to the Expos' formation in 1968, and that factor, along with the fact Montreal was one of the largest First World, North American markets available to MLB, was the reason Montreal got the Expos. Montreal proved itself to be a subpar but not bad MLB market; when the Expos were good prior to the 1994 strike, they drew solidly, albeit unspectacularly. (Two other things to also keep in mind are A) the Expos played at Jarry Park and then Olympic Stadium, both of which were sub-standard baseball facilities and B) the Expos only ever made the playoffs once in their first quarter-century of existence. Had circumstances in either or both cases been different, the Expos likely would have drawn better in Montreal.) It wasn't until after the 1994 strike that Montreal (and to a lesser degree, Toronto) really fell off. I primarily blame Bud Selig for that; he didn't give a damn about the Canadian markets.
Major League Baseball also didn't have teams in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, or a handful of other markets in 1946. In fact, MLB had the same 16 teams in the same 16 cities (actually 11 cities) from 1903-1952, and for much of that time MLB team locations were out of whack with the U.S. population. (St. Louis had 2 teams while Los Angeles had none after World War I?).
That is accurate. Do realize that New York had three teams and St. Louis, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia all had two teams. St. Louis and Chicago were the most western teams. St. Louis, Washington, and Cincinnati were the most southern teams.
Do realize that baseball could only expand as far as you could reasonable travel in a day BY TRAIN.
In the 1920-1950s, the Pacific Coast League was not just a AAA league as it is today. I think that the baseball was pretty similar to the major leagues at that time. There was a huge exhibit a few years back at the Oakland City Museum on this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIP72
Montreal proved itself to be a subpar but not bad MLB market; when the Expos were good prior to the 1994 strike, they drew solidly, albeit unspectacularly. (Two other things to also keep in mind are A) the Expos played at Jarry Park and then Olympic Stadium, both of which were sub-standard baseball facilities and B) the Expos only ever made the playoffs once in their first quarter-century of existence. Had circumstances in either or both cases been different, the Expos likely .
Jarry Park was a cool AAA park but far below the standards of a true major league park. Olympic Park was one of the worst stadiums that I have ever attended a game. With the exception of the center field seats at Toronto's Exhibition Stadium, they had some of the worst seats and sight-lines in the majors. And the place deteriorated GREATLY over the years, largely due to management's refusal to create a favorable fan environment.
I attended by first game at Olympic Stadium the day that Tim Raines made his major league debut in 1980. The stadium was crowded and the fans were loud and raucous. And believe it or not, they knew their baseball.
In 2000, the last game I was there was attended by less than 5000 fans on a Saturday night. They were giving away ... no, not bats or balls, but electrical outlet covers from Hydro Quebec (imagine the excitement). And if you attended on Sunday, 25 lucky fans would receive a free Expos T-shirt. (I am not making this up.)
The Nationals are drawing fans to games now that they have started to show some signs of life. The very idea of moving our club because the team is terrible is uncool. Saying attendance isn't good is a stretch-considering how they have played and the number of folks they did draw, then attendance was fair to good at best. The new manager, the change of direction on the field and the acquisition of NYjer Morgan and SEan Burnett sparked this team-also, finally allowing Josh Willingham to play has helped. Manny Acta was not a good skipper, he never could lead this team. Now things are different, the attendance will start getting better. In my lifetime I have seen several horrible teams attendance wise still remain in their cities-Minnesota in late 70's, a decent team with poor numbers, the 1962-66 Mets, and the Oakland A's of the late 70's. All overcame poor attendance and remain viable teams. Montreal never showed the support they should have, furthermore, no one in MOntreal or Canada had the money to run a major league team. In Washington the chance of finding an owner who could do so was a solid option. In 5 years, the Nationals are not going to be down in the basement of the NL East, they will dominate the league. Not wishful thinking, just what one can see down the road.
The Washington Nationals will be just fine. A winning team will put alot more people in the seats (just look at Tampa). Once they start to win, the metro will start to rally behind them.
The problem with the Nats is not DC itself but rather the Lerner family. It appears this will be the 2nd year in a row that the Nats will not be able to sign their #1 draft pick. Blame that on the Lerner family, who's to cheap to sign draftees let alone quality free agents. Also, last year the Lerner family refused to pay the DC gov't stadium rent, claiming the new stadium wasn't 100% completed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
