Very nice!! I was referring to the long drive for Portland. There seems to be plenty of lakes for my use a tad closer. But anyways, very nice and peaceful looking.

quote:

Originally posted by Rockstar:
Very nice!! I was referring to the long drive for Portland. There seems to be plenty of lakes for my use a tad closer. But anyways, very nice and peaceful looking.

it's worth the drive, believe you me.

Not only because it's not overly touristy (Coeur D Alene is) and it's still an unknown gem. Pend Oreille is a close 2nd to Priest, altho some would reverse them.

There aren't many lakes, at least in Oregon and SW Washington, that are as large as this lake is and as clean, scenic and forested. It's lower lake is 20 miles long, and at some places, 5 miles wide (where our cabin is, however, is 3/4 mile wide. Nicknamed "the narrows"). Pend Oreille is a lot bigger, it's 65 miles long (I didn't know that actually). I think it's one of the bigger fresh water lakes in the US (I know it's smaller than Flathead lake).

It's so big (and deep) that the Navy actually (currently) tests large scale submarines in it.

It's known for getting really rough, really quick.

It's probably the 2nd Lake I'd personally buy property on, if I ever could.

It sounds alot like Lake Chelan in Washington which I used to frequest quite a bit. Well now that I am down here in the Desert not sure if I will ever make it up there, but have and enjoy the beauty.

quote:

Originally posted by Rockstar:
It sounds alot like Lake Chelan in Washington which I used to frequest quite a bit. Well now that I am down here in the Desert not sure if I will ever make it up there, but have and enjoy the beauty.

it does have the same kind of climate as Lake Chelan, but more forested. Both are incredible areas (as thats true of places in every state/area of the world).

Another place is Cresent Lake on the Olympic Pen. in Washington. I grew up just a few hours from there and what incredible scenery. Bad weather for alot of the year, but summers are just great!!!

Hello - I'm new to Oregon and new to this forum (well done, btw)... I'm a transplant from Pittsburgh, PA, by way of California and many places in between.

In general, I find OR's disinterest in professional sports to be refreshing, but something is missing here... something traditional, something from the century before the last. OR is a unique state that is home to the counter-culture Country Fair, world-class viticulture, and the northernmost NCAA baseball champion OSU Beavers. Hmmm...

I've lived and worked all over the country and I sometimes categorize US cities as either a "football town" or a "baseball town". I grew up a baseball player in a football town. I then moved to Baltimore, and I began to sense the difference between the two...

A baseball town tolerates winter and thrives in the summer. A baseball town is patient and content. Baltimore is a baseball town. Boston and St. Louis, too.

A football town suffers through the summer, thinking only about training camp and tailgating. Football towns are moody and demanding. Pittsburgh is a football town. Philadelphia and Dallas, too.

Portland feels like a baseball town to me.

Compared to the other major US sports, baseball is the least offensive. Quiet. Slow. Nonlinear. Maybe that's why baseball somehow makes sense here - an irregular sport for a weird city in a green, rural state. Portland deserves baseball, and baseball deserves Portland.

Well, you have my support and my sincere hope that if/when PDX does land a major league franchise that it's a National League team, because nobody deserves the DH rule...

MP

Welcome MPower
Hopefully you will enjoy Oregon and the PdX metro area. There are alot of things to do, but remember; carry rain-gear, always check the rule and regulations when outdoors, enjoy micro-beer, the coffee is the best, jump on the Blazer band-wagon when necessary and always try to make it to Powells as much as possible.

Welcome mpower!

Many people look at Seattle as the "New York" of the Pacific Northwest, and Portland as the "Boston" of the Pacific Northwest, so in that sense I agree with you that Portland would make an awesome MLB town like Boston, or like St. Louis.

I go to Pittsburgh once or twice a year to visit in-laws and it's eery how much Pittsburgh's downtown resembles Portland's, with the huge exception being the stadiums of course. When I sit in PNC I'm always envisioning it on the east bank of the Willamette and salivating at the possibilities.

Welcome to Oregon and welcome to the site.

Welcome mpower!

Strong first post!

My wish for Portland is to fill that void that you sense with a baseball stadium in our RQ and then start a workers culture and devotion for a NFL team like that of the Steel City and my beloved Steelers.

Do this and remain true to our values and we will do OK.

BB

This kind of reminds of me of the athlete with all the talent in the world, but keeps screwing around until it is to late (Ohio Stae running back a few years ago). Portland is will, but I hope not, keep twirling the fingers around and screw it up again. This Potter thing is not going away. Whomever comes after him will be just another die-hard liberal with the mind set of keep business out and let us grow roses, pick berry's and enjou the Sat. Market, because thats all we need. Portland's only chance is for a different type of govrernment characters, and finding them in that area is real hard to come by.

Blumenauer, if he decides to run, strikes me as more of the Goldschmidt/Katz mold, rather than the Potter mold.

It would be a shame if and when PDX got a chance to land MLB and the political soles are from the same tree as the present.

Maury
How does the years for the mayor's office stack up vs. the history of MLB's financial good vs. bad years? It would be nice to no what these historical data is with MLB and see where that corresponds with the Mayoral elections in Portland?

quote:

Originally posted by Rockstar:
Maury
How does the years for the mayor's office stack up vs. the history of MLB's financial good vs. bad years? It would be nice to no what these historical data is with MLB and see where that corresponds with the Mayoral elections in Portland?

Depends on how far back you wish to go. But, for research purposes, let's take it from where the Expos relocation derby got kicked in, which is where Portland became much more visible...

The average franchise value was $119 million in 2001 with nine of the 30 clubs reportedly operating in the red (see Forbes). In 2002, when the Expos relocation really started kicking in, the league average was in the red ($1.3 million) with half the league's teams in the red. Notable clubs being the Dodgers (-$25 million), Rangers (-$24 million), Blue Jays (-$23.9 million).

Contrast to now, where MLB is enjoying incredible revenues: only the Yankees posted a loss (-$23 million, in large part due to revenue sharing and Luxury Tax payments). The trend started in 2003 (labor peace helps every time). To mark how well franchise values are, they have grown in value 15% each of the last 3-years.

How this ties in with Potter?... Doesn't matter. Katz was in the office when MLB was at the prime position to relocate (and did), or expand (made no sense with relocation occurring).

Tell me what you are looking for. I'm lost on how MLB's financials impact how the general populace votes for Mayor. It's a non-factor unless there is an issue facing the candidates. If the relocation derby would have been active during an election cycle, then you would have had something.

By the way... I'm covering the Forbes valuations for Baseball Prospectus this week, for those that have a subscription.

How about the last couple of times the league expanded? Perhaps, when the D-backs, Rockies and the Devil Rays entered the league? What was the finanical situation at that point for MLB? Also, in the mid-70's with the Mariners and Blue Jays? It kind of looks like about every 20 years the league expands (just a quick assumption) for the last two expansions. In those terms would you guess that the league will expand again around 2017, give or take a couple of years?

I'm trying to finish up some articles this week, so anything more than this, and I suggest you doing the digging...

There's more to what you are going after. As they say, "Follow the money." It's just that "the money" may have to include something outside of just standard MLB business. Read my interview with Fay Vincent, or go to BizofBaseball.com and do a search for "Collusion". Expansion had much to do with paying back the players, as much as anything during the time frame you mention.

To follow up... I talked about expansion and relocation when I was interviewed for USA Today Sports Weekly in January. That maybe of interest in this discussion.

Thanks! Did not read that at the time but will find time to review it.

Good article, sorry I missed the first go around. I noticed back then you put PDX and Las Vegas, still believe those are the top two? I don't. Also, if MLB's financial situation worsens, why do you believe MLB would expand? Is it to get revenue from new owners and market area? I see it the opposite, where if MLB is in good financial shape then they can take the risk (your the expert so I guess from lack of know-how I will just agree anyways). Was MLB in a bad financial situation when they last expanded, if not when were the in dire staits and needed to expand? I know your busy, so I can wait awhile.

C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N

F-O-R-Y-O-U!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Rockstar:
F-O-R-Y-O-U!!!!!!!!

You getting closer to understanding some of this?

has there been any talk at all in terms of mlb expansion plans in the future??

Welcome jpizzal!

In the near future, no. Last I heard, Selig basically ruled it out as long as he was the commissioner (through 2009). Personally I think there is a fair possibility of expansion from 30 to 32 teams within 5-10 years, but right now it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. League wide revenues are shooting upwards and adding two teams right now would just mean splitting the pie up into two separate pieces without gaining any significant market share.

The fact that revenues ARE going up, however, also attracts potential owners of new franchises. If someone gets a hankering to own a team and is willing to pursue that dream (witness Jerry Colangelo and the story of the Arizona Diamondbacks), then said suitor would be well-served by attending the winter meetings and lobbying for a future franchise. Keeping the expansion possibility before the "lords of the game" on a regular basis plants a potential seed that will (we hope) some day grow into the fruition of an expansion team down the road. I believe we ought to send folks like Drew Mahalic, Sen. Deckert, Lynn Lashbrook, Steve Kanter, Maury Brown, Merritt Paulson maybe, and others like them (the mayor, if we ever get a pro-sports mayor in place) to the meetings every year, just to keep the expansion "bug" in their minds.

i started a blog on http://www.fannation.com/about mlb2pdx and could use some support try and check it out its under mlb and i dont know how to add a link

somehow i just did sorry

quote:

:

sorry again (new to this)my name on fan nation is horsecook

What's the link to the blog? I can't seem to find it in there.

go to fan nation.com and put horsecoock in the search box then click on my blog. you should be able to see it.

also click on the title "Portland deserves mlb" and you can see the fan comments

You might want to talk about the metro area, not the city. Factually that yankee fan is correct, but in actuality it's the metro area that matters, not the city.

i did. its in the 4th thread down. and besides that guy is a complete dumba** if he really thinks im talking just about the "city limits"

Yep he is kind of an arse, isn't he?

I got a worst case scenario for you Maury, and I'm curious as to what you think would happen in this scenario:

Let's say that Tampa's Rays get a new stadium, and MLB's revenues don't go down. Is Portland doomed or not?

How is that a "worst case" scenario for Portland, Pirate? If the Rays get a new stadium and are a success, and revenues continue high, that's a great thing for the overall institution of baseball, and a team in Portland would only add to that. I know some believe that MLB won't expand until the revenues start going down, but then expansion would be a move borne out of desperation, not enhancement, and who wants to be a part of that? If revenues are dropping, it in all likelihood would be because some "small-market" teams are struggling, and I'm not sure that would be a good time to try to bring in a Portland or a San Antonio.

But I'm not a businessman, so I could be dead wrong. Oh well, whatever gets us a team ...

The Rays are not on the relocation radar for at least 10 years, probably 15. Many other factors come could come into play in that timeframe.

In my opinion, the most likely scenario for a revenue drop will come in the area of media revenues. They have grown exponentially in recent years and they are becoming more and more oversaturated as the different forms of media begin to converge. For example, as PC monitors improve and TV quality over the Internet improves, why would anyone bother getting Extra Innings when MLB.TV is available? At a minimum, the growth rate is unsustainable. Combine that with the strongest union around and you have shrinking revenues and growing costs.

I think MLB will reach a point where they:

-want (need?) the expansion dough;
-see the value in having balanced leagues;
-see the value in having more competitive four team divisions (i.e., more teams have a shot at being competitive like in the NFL/NBA/NHL);
-will have several options on the table to add mid-tier (not small) markets (between Portland/San Antonio/Charlotte/Inland Empire/New Jersey/Vegas/Orlando/Sacramento, at least two solid candidates will be available 5-10 years from now).

I decided to do a search on Maury's Biz of Baseball site on "collusion," and came across an interesting article entitled "Collusions I, II, III. (I think the title was longer, but I can't remember the rest of it)." When you read that article, you get a much different picture about MLB than you may have had previously. George Steinbrenner can be a pain to deal with, but I will give him this, at least it seems he has finally broke with the rest of owners on collusion. That takes some guts. It's also probably one reason why revenue sharing was introduced- a way to get back at Steinbrenner for breaking away. And some new villains are introduced to the fray: Jerry Reinsdorf is one. If you didn't care for Selig before you read this article, you will hate him after reading this article.
Anybody remember David Glass, owner of the Kansas City Royals? He is still one of Wal-Mart's executives, and Wal-Mart has known to treat its associates poorly, IMO. The health plan that I have has a $350 deductible and I have to pay full price for each doctor visit and treatment until I meet the deductible. Part time associates don't even get health benefits!! This is only a small picture of how Wal-Mart cuts its costs. There are many other ways, but I wanted those who don't know about Wal-Mart to get a glimpse at the organization that David Glass helps to run. No wonder MLB approved the sale of the Royals to David Glass!! He is all about keeping the workers wages down!!!
The collusion is also shown with umpires union as well.
BTW, thank you TCL for that answer to my question. I still have hope for Portland MLB, even though I believe the Rays will stay in Tampa. (Still want to see Montreal get an expansion team though. In the American League preferably).

Seems to me there is a qualitative difference between an owner trying to hold down wages on workers making barely enough to sustain themselves (immoral?) and trying to hold down wages on workers making millions of dollars and living lives of luxury (common sense budgeting?).

Just FYI in case anyone's interested: they're apparently talking MLB to PDX today on the show w/Isaac & Suke on 1080AM (what they've to talk about, I have no idea)...