Interesting question

We had an interesting question last night on the Message Board. Had the Dodgers and Giants stayed, could New York have been able to support three baseball teams?

Let’s mull on that for awhile. And, if there’s something you’d like to raise before they continue Game 5 of the World Series, let’s hear it.

7 thoughts on “Interesting question

  1. A tough question depending on variables: what records would they have had, where would they play. If we assume the Dodgers, Giants and Yankees had the same records I think the Giants would have moved in the mid to late 1970s. They almost left San Francisco for Toronto in 1975 but a judge stopped them. Would the Giants have been playing in Flushing or the Polo Grounds? Would O’Malley have gotten the dome he wanted in the area of Brooklyn he wanted? Would the leases have been breakable? The NHL has had three teams in the area for two decades now but the Devils and Islanders have the largest losses in operating income according to Forbes (Rangers are second most profitable after the Maple Leafs). I don’t know if The Rock arena has changed that for New Jersey and who knows if Wang can get his Lighthouse project approved (or even if that will save the franchise).

  2. If you look at the Mets and Yankees during the down years, there were a lot of empty seats. If you have a third team that’s doing well it doesn’t guarantee any siphoning of the fans. I don’t think ANY city can really support 3 sports teams.

    For those in NY, do the Islanders get as much support as the Devils and Rangers?

  3. Yes, but I think the Giants would have eventually gotten their new stadium in Jersey when the state was busy stealing teams with new parks, and the Dodgers would own the entire Island, while the Yanks owned the Bronx, Manhattan and Upstate. And then Wilpon would have eventually bought the Dodgers and lived happily ever after instead of trying to convince all Met fans that we are really Dodger fans.

  4. I think it is feasible that NY could sustain more than 3 teams, probably 4 and maybe even 5. Each borough could probably fill most of its own Citifield sized stadiums these days.

    Now – could they have done it at the time? I don’t know. But today, with prices the way they are and how popular the Mets and Yankees are – I think they could easily get another team or two in the city and still make a killing. The tickets would be cheaper than Mets and Yanks, and the overflow of the people wanting to go to Citifield and Yankee Stadium and not being able to go because of cost would easily fill another stadium.

    It’s not likely to happen any time soon because of the already palpable imbalance in the East of both leagues, but I think that would be a pretty neat experiment to actually try. Not exactly sure if it would be a good thing for baseball overall though…

  5. Well lets look at the Brooklyn Cyclones. They are one of the most financially successful minor league franchises out there.
    They’re stadium is always filled. It’s a hard ticket to get.
    The thing is, to put in perspective it’s about 7,500 seats. Not the same level as major league teams. It’s only played during the summer months.

    It SHOULD however expand to a AA or AAA club, add some 2,000 or so seats and it’ll be up there. I have faith in that atleast…

  6. If the third team was actually located within one of the transportation-accessbile boroughs, yes, I think it could be supported.

    The problem with the Nets, Islanders and Devils has always been one of how to get Manhattan commuters to their suburban locations on a weeknight. If you put a baseball stadium atop Grand Central Station, a la the Garden and Penn Station, you’d have no trouble selling tickets for weeknight games. The problem comes when you want people to schlep out to the suburbs for a 7:00 start on a Tuesday night. You might do it for a Springsteen concert, but you’re not likely to do it 45 times a baseball season.