Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The site's tagline says, "Baseball news and analysis from a Canadian perspective," so we would be remiss if we didn't keep one eye firmly fixed on the Mary Celeste of major-league baseball, the Montreal Expos. The 'Spos are in the news today because RDS, Quebec's all-sports station and sister to TSN, will televise 20 games this season -- a pittance for most teams, but a gasp of breath for the Expos, who had only 14 games on RDS last season and were otherwise televisually unavailable here unless they happened to be playing the Braves, Cubs or Blue Jays.


It's a foregone conclusion in most baseball circles that the Expos are finished in Montreal after this season (though weren't we saying this last year?) -- so our question today is: does anyone see a way in which the Expos can be saved and revitalized in Montreal? And if not, if the Expos will be in Washington or Portland or Richmond or San Juan this time next year, could baseball return to la belle province someday down the line, with a new name, a shiny new ballpark and fresh ownership?
Les Expos Sont La | 34 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mike Green - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST (#79499) #
Could baseball in Montreal survive down the road with a shiny new ballpark and fresh ownership? Sure. IMO, it would be better if that shiny new ballpark was a soulful new 30,000-35,000 seat park rather than a concrete monolith seating 55,000. Skip the dome, take advantage of global warning, resign yourself to drawing 10,000-15,000 in April and May (when all the attention is on the Habs anyway) and then try to fill the place in June, July and August. Baseball's new economy makes this smaller scale approach feasible, I think.

Montreal is called a "small market" city, and I suppose that it is, if one is speaking of population within reasonable distance of the stadium. On the other hand, its natural market for broadcast purposes, French speaking Canadians at least plus parts of eastern Ontario/northern Vermont and New Hampshire, has probably in excess of 10 million people. Just guessing, but that probably would make it a medium sized broadcast market.

It sure seems to me that Montreal is a better context for a ballclub than Minneapolis/St. Paul, if the ownership was of good quality.
_Paul Z. - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 09:54 AM EST (#79500) #
Anyone know how the RICO suit is going?

When I watch the Sopranos, I chuckle every time Uncle Junior mentions being in court on RICO charges. I imagine Bud Selig goint for a sit-down at the Bada Bing for tips... :)
Coach - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST (#79501) #
Anyone know how the RICO suit is going?

Stephanie Myles had an update in the Montreal Gazette just last week. Paul Beeston and former Expos assistant GM Mike Berger will apparently be subpoenaed to testify at an arbitration hearing to determine whether the suit is heard.

A source familiar with the thinking of the partners' legal team said they believe the result of the arbitration hearing will have everything to do with whether the original lawsuit filed under the U.S. federal RICO (racketeering) act in July 2002, which was stayed in a Florida court last summer, goes forward.

If Loria wins, the RICO case is likely dead. But if the panel rules against Loria, the case could be heard even as Loria exhausts the appeals process. The testimony of the two men in the arbitration case would likely apply in the RICO case, which named Major League Baseball in addition to Loria and Samson. And that means Beeston essentially could be testifying against his former employers.


I was under the impression that MLB had wriggled clear last year at the same time the case was steered from a judge to an arbitrator, and only Loria remains on the hook, but I can no longer find where I read that.

Montreal has always been a great baseball town. Its citizens have been treated so poorly by the game over the last ten years that it would take a long time to repair the damage, but it could be done. As Mike Green says, a real baseball park would be a necessity, as would committed local ownership. Anyone else, regardless of good intentions, would probably be seen as a carpetbagger.
_Spicol - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 10:33 AM EST (#79502) #
I haven't been to either, but my impression of Safeco in Seattle and PacBell in San Francisco is that they are chi-chi kind of parks, with classic touches to please the die-hards but with the architecture, food and all-around experience catering to the urban professional who might just be looking for a night out. The culture of the city is ingrained into the stadium instead of simply being a place to watch baseball.

Is my impression correct? Is that the kind of place that Montreal needs?
Craig B - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 11:22 AM EST (#79503) #
Is that the kind of place that Montreal needs?

Not really, though it wouldn't hurt. But the issues there are size and cost. Building a mallpark drastically increases the necessary cost, and with the city, province, and feds all eager to contribute in a small way but not a big way, keeping costs down to rock bottom is the only way to ensure that a park gets built. Also, mallparks are space hogs and put fans much further from the action.

As a former Montrealer and frequent attender of Expos games, I see three primary needs for a new park.

1 - It must be downtown. Being at Pie-IX, like Olympic Stadium is, isn't sufficient. It's not that there aren't people near there (there are more people living out there, probably, than live right downtown) or that transport isn't available (better parking there than downtown, Metro service nearly as good) but rather that there is no sense of event or occasion in heading out to the East End. Downtown is where the action is, and you capture more excitement - especially for weekday games - with a downtown park. Recently proposed sites have all been excellent.

2 - It must be intimate. This is the main requirement, really. The park has to let the fans feel they are close to the action. Building a 32,000-seat park in two decks would probably be the ideal arrangement here, with only a small number of seats in the outfield. The worst possible arrangement, is a bowl like some of the new mallparks. These are great for providing lots of mall space to exploit, but put fans in the upper deck much too far from the field. Two stacked decks also mean some protection from wind, rain and (gulp) snow for some of the lower deck... a helpful thing in a Montreal April or October. So you'll have to reduce the mall space (useful because a smaller footprint means fewer tax problems) and concentrate on good sightlines for the upper deck.

Such a park will be noisy as hell, generate a terrific atmosphere, and put the game right in your lap, even up in the gods.

My only other architecural suggestion? An outdoor promenade with a smoking area at the top of the second deck.

3 - It must be cheap. No roof. No retractable roof. No attached hotels, no 80,000-square-foot parking lots (though a couple of levels of underground parking would be nice if you can do it). You need lots of suites; a two-deck arrangement lets you put suites all along the top of the lower deck so no problem there. Make it look spare, and classic, and it will be a gem and everyone will want to go there, especially if you make the baseball the key atraction. Montrealers, like people everywhere, love an occasion. If you keep the costs down, you will get a substantial amount of help from governments, but they won't help you at all if you want to build a $500-million monstrosity.

We should remember that even if the Expos leave, major league baseball will eventually come back to Montreal, because you can make money there. There is no doubt in my mind that a park will be built someday.
_Young - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 11:30 AM EST (#79504) #
It's nice to see that you point out to the successful two of the new mallparks. One might argue that it has nothing to do with the new ballparks at all, rather than the performance of the teams playing on the field.

While SF and Seattle are blooming, the same cannot be said for new ballparks for the Brewers, Pirates, Tigers and Reds. There was a first year jump in attendance, but that jump was followed by a decline after people figured that their teams were throwing their money at the Pat Meares of the world.

Is it a place that Montreal needs? The team needs an owner first. Then said owner needs to start drafting sensible players for the farm system. Followed by hiring or telling Minaya that he is here for the long term so for gods sake, do no trade all the prospects away.

I think while a ballpark would be nice; in that it will give the local population the notice, "Yes. The Expos will be here for another 10 years." But you still need to develop a good ballclub, with a clear direction on how exactly they will be approaching it.

Follow the Twins and Giants plans, it doesn't bother me at all. Just stop trying to mimick the Yankees and trading all your prospects away. Rent a player trades don't really work when you can re-up them the subsequent year.
Mike Green - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 12:48 PM EST (#79505) #
Craig B, that was a wonderful post. I said a "soulful" park, and you painted a picture. I especially liked the idea of an outdoor smoking area. When in Rome...
_Spicol - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 12:51 PM EST (#79506) #
While SF and Seattle are blooming, the same cannot be said for new ballparks for the Brewers, Pirates, Tigers and Reds.

I pointed to SF and Seattle, not because they've been successful at the gate or because they are mallparks, but because they're cities as culture rich as Montreal and the ballparks are obviously trying to be a reflection of that. Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cincinnati are a different kind of city altogether.

I think that some of Craig's ideas, especially the downtown location, should help to tap into Montreal's culture...the life of the city. The atmosphere of the stadium then becomes a sustaining part of the draw.
Gitz - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 02:07 PM EST (#79507) #
Spicol, your impression of Safeco and PacBell is accurate. What drove the initial burst of attendance there was not so much the stadiums -- they helped, of course -- but a fickle group of companies, particularly the dot-com ones, buying season tickets to see winning teams. What other stadium offers a stock ticker, for example, as Pac Bell did for a while? I'll make a sweeping generalization and say that the fans at Giants games now can't match the fans at Candlestick -- or even the hardcore 10,000 or so who cobble together at Mount Davis in Oakland. San Francisco may be a culturally rich city, but that didn't extend to the days when the Giants played at Candlestick Park. By that logic, Los Angeles is a culturally-rich city because of the reverse: the Dodgers draw well, so the atmosphere of the city is a sustaining part of that draw. Having lived in Los Angeles, I can indeed vouch for an "atmosphere." Whether that is why the Dodgers draw well -- and Chavez Ravine on a warm August evening is a time-freezing experience -- is another matter.

Cultural concerns of the city notwithstanding, the new stadium in San Francisco will be no different than Candlestick. When Barry Bonds retires or heads to the Yankees and the Giants return to their mediocre ways, attendance will drop again, since the weather, such a factor at Candlestick, is not all that different at the new park (it's still San Francisco, after all), and since, when the "new" comes off the label, it will cease to be a spot to see and be seen. Trends don't last, and the former dot-com people and the normal businss crowd did not really go to Pac Bell to see the Giants. They went to see each other. San Francisco, and the Bay Area in general, offers more than sports for this purpose, and it's only a matter of time before the next trend overtakes the market.

Meanwhile, a similar episode occured in Seattle. On the whole fans here are not as knowledgable as you'd like: they cheer too loudly when an RBI double by John Olerud in the eighth inning cuts the gap to 11-1, for example, and the music and the energy seem contrived, as they do at so many stadiums today. That's not the point, though. The point is that nothing elicits good attendance like winning. The confluence of Seattle and San Francisco becoming contending teams a few years before they moved into their new digs has made for happy days in those two Pacific cities. The problem, among others, with the Brewers, Reds, Pirates, and Tigers is that they weren't competivive -- the Reds were OK, actually -- before they moved in to their new ballparks, and there's not a ball park in existence that knows how to pitch, hit, field, and get along with each other in the clubhouse.

Safeco and the Park Formerly Known As Pac Bell Park are wonderful stadiums; they'll still be wonderful when the Mariners and Giants are winning 70 games each. But not as many people will realize this, because not as many people will be there to see it.
_Ben NS - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 03:36 PM EST (#79508) #
A great string of...threads, it's been most fascinating. I have given up on the Expos, but the thought of Baseball returning downtown to an open air stadium is equally appealing and brilliant. Whether or not the Montreal team is winning, or not, it would be great to have a true connection with the rest of the city. The economics of the situation mean that it will be cheap and simple, but simple didn't hurt Crosley, Wrigley, Forbes or Shibe. Real grass, classic taste and connection to culture will provide Montreal with a wonderful baseball venue.

What would you name a team if they were coming to Montreal?
Craig B - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 03:54 PM EST (#79509) #
Well, Royals is taken, unfortunately. I wouldn't choose "Expos" any more, as I think it's a tainted product, and you couldn't choose "Olympiques" or "Olympics" because of trademarking concerns.

I'd probably go with Montreal Voyageurs.
Dave Till - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST (#79510) #
I like open-air stadiums, but: An open-air stadium in Montreal would cause the same problems it did in Toronto, back when the Jays played at the Ex. For a night game early in May (or, God forbid, late in April), I used to dress as if I was heading out on a polar exhibition. You can't keep score at such games, as your hand is too cold to hold a pen.

And, if it's a late spring, you can't play on a grass field in April, as there won't be any grass yet.

Also, attempting to hit when it's cold can be a painful experience - making contact stings your hands badly. People can pull muscles due to the cold, etc., etc.

And post-season play becomes a logistical nightmare.

Having said all that, I agree that there's nothing better than being in a nice cozy ballpark with the sun shining and an appropriate beverage at hand :-).

The Expos situation is sad beyond belief. Montreal can support baseball, provided the team is actually trying to win.
_Matthew E - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 04:12 PM EST (#79511) #
I wouldn't choose "Expos" any more, as I think it's a tainted product

And let's face it; it's kind of a stupid name anyway.
Craig B - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 04:34 PM EST (#79512) #
An open-air stadium in Montreal would cause the same problems it did in Toronto, back when the Jays played at the Ex. For a night game early in May (or, God forbid, late in April), I used to dress as if I was heading out on a polar exhibition. You can't keep score at such games, as your hand is too cold to hold a pen.

Well, not quite. The type of park I am considering is closer in design to Fenway Park or Forbes Field than to Exhibition Stadium. A double-decker park built relatively tall around a baseball-sized field, in a downtown area. The Ex was a cavernous football stadium with a breezeway going right down both sides of the field, situated right on a massive body of water. You couldn't build a baseball park any dumber... but of course it wasn't actually a ballpark, it was a fairgrounds that lost its way.

It'll still be cold (like Pac Bell is, or Fenway, or Wrigley), but the polar nature of the park would be less.

Montreal can support baseball, provided the team is actually trying to win.

Yeah, but not at the Big O.

you can't play on a grass field in April, as there won't be any grass yet.

Well, they did manage it at Delorimier Downs for 50 or 60 years. Anyone got any ideas on how to get a good field of grass down in the early spring?
_tangotiger - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 04:52 PM EST (#79513) #
I agree with Craig first post... excellent!

You need no more understanding of Montreal than to realize that the CFL Alouttes were forced out of 1 game from the Big O, to play downtown at McGill's Molson Stadium (because of a scheduling conflict with U2). Molson Stadium was totally unacceptable from a structural standpoint... and it was the smartest thing they ever did. They moved there permanently. The Alouttes sell out, the place buzzes, it's downtown (just about), and no one complains about the decaying structure. The pricing is more expensive than the Expos (10,20, and 40$), and again, no complaints.
_S.K. - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 04:57 PM EST (#79514) #
Simply compare Blue Jays/Argos to Expos/Alouettes and that should say all that needs to be said about the viability of baseball in Montreal. When a team treats the fans well and wins games, people will come, no matter what the circumstances.
_Mick - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 06:29 PM EST (#79515) #
I think you name the team coming to Montreal the "Stars." Simple, lots of logo possibilities, and you get the nice resonance of The Montre All Stars. (And since "montre" is French for "show" and MLB is "The Show" in baseball parlance ... well, I guess that's a stretch.)

Here's a related thought ... if Montreal hadn't gotten a team 40 years ago, would ThisBud'sForBaseball be clamoring to PUT one there?
_S.K. - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST (#79516) #
They surely would have gotten a team in the late 90s Expand-O-Rama...
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 06:54 PM EST (#79517) #
http://economics.about.com
They surely would have gotten a team in the late 90s Expand-O-Rama

I'm not so sure about that. Why would they have "surely" gotten a team, when Vancouver wasn't even considered. Is Montreal that much a better market than Vancouver?

Cheers,

Mike
robertdudek - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 07:32 PM EST (#79518) #
Another thing about Exhibition Stadium is that the playing surface wasn't "below" the surrounding land. When you dig down you decrease the amount of wind you get.

It's no problem keeping grass green. You can store it over the winter in a greenhouse (or bring in new grass every year) and lay it down in March. Keeping it moist will ensure it doesn't turn yellow. If all else fails you can do what the Indians used to - spray paint it.
Gitz - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 09:04 PM EST (#79519) #
While we're on that topic ... would MLB consider Vancouver a bit more now? It's the third-largest city in Canada (and the youngest, I believe), its weather is more temperate (though a bit wet), and there appears to be plenty of money to go around, thereby guaranteeing something of a market. I also think a baseball stadium with Vancouver's natural backdrop would be about as close to heaven as yo get. On clear nights at Safeco, you can look, from a distance, at Mt. Rainier and the Olympic mountains, which are spectacular enough, but Vancouver, where the mountains are right there, is even more so. Not that it helped the Grizzlies, of course, but baseball being, in theory, an outdoor game, is different. Plus I'm thinking of moving there, and, let's be honest, it's all about me.
Gitz - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 09:05 PM EST (#79520) #
That should have read that Vancouver is ONE of the youngest cities in Canada. Don't know if that would help or hurt as far as baseball is concerned.
_S.K. - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST (#79521) #
Well obviously by the time the expansion came around, Montreal already was gaining a reputation as a city that didn't care about baseball - which didn't reflect well on the rest of Canada (resulting in Vancouver not even being considered).
The "Crazy canadians and their gap-toothed, hockey-lovin' ways" stereotype is hard to shake.
Craig B - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:40 AM EST (#79522) #
Montreal draws from a population base more than twice the size of Vancouver's. Vancouver couldn't come close to supporting an NBA team, which requires less than half the ticket sales of an MLB franchise. The B.C. economy is a total mess. There is, historically, zero support for baseball there - my recollection of the Canadians is that they routinely were near the bottom of the PCL in drawing power.

All in all, I don't see it. Vancouver would be about 40th in a list of cities I'd consider expanding to... I would rather put a team in almost any PCL city instead.
Mike Green - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:32 AM EST (#79523) #
I know there is some room for debate about the population base that a team can draw on. But, according to a brief internet search, the Greater Vancouver area had a population of 2 million in 2001 and was growing 8 per cent per year, and the Greater Montreal area had a population of 3.4 million in 2002 and was growing 4 per cent per year.

Craig's other points seem pretty persuasive to me.

As for a name for the Montreal baseball team of the future, I agree that the Royals would be best. As a second choice, Montreal could retaliate for KC's theft of its minor league team's name by choosing the Monarchs. Montreal Monarchs has a nice alliterative quality and would recall a baseball history worth remembering. I am not sure if the name would offend francophone sensibilities, but these days I think not.
_tangotiger - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:05 AM EST (#79524) #
2 million in 2001 and was growing 8 per cent per year, and ... population of 3.4 million in 2002 and was growing 4

So Vancouver is growing at +160,000 people, and Montreal is growing at +136,000 people per year. I'm not sure that we should expect these growth rates to continually compound. In any case, without compounding, it would take Vancounver 58 years to match Montreal, and with compounding, it would be 14 years. Of course, Montreal's growth rate is tied-in to its political situation.
Craig B - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST (#79525) #
Teams draw from further than just their metro area, though. Like me; I live outside the Toronto metropolitan area but I attend lots of games at SkyDome.

Montreal has probably another 1.5+ million people who live two hours' drive from the city, but outside the metro area. Vancouver, I would think has a lot less - at least a lot less that it doesn't share with Seattle.
_Mick - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:27 AM EST (#79527) #
Maybe the Montreal Monarchs and Kansas City Royals could engineer a team name swap like the one rumored between the New Orleans Hornets and Utah (formerly New Orleans) Jazz in the NBA. Didn't happen, but I'd think the alternative jersey marketing dollars would be near impossible for two struggling baseball markets to resist.
Mike Green - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST (#79528) #
The Monarchs is also a team name associated with Montreal in hockey. Mick, I like the trade idea, as long as Montreal doesn't have to throw in any prospects.
Craig B - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:50 AM EST (#79529) #
No on Monarchs. No Montreal team in these times would ever be crazy enough to adopt an English nickname.
_S.K. - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 02:23 PM EST (#79530) #
Well then, they should call themselves the Royales =)

It would give MLB a nice CFL quality...
_Ben NS - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 03:24 PM EST (#79531) #
I liked the Monreal Stars idea, but it kind of disconnects the team from the French citizens of the city. Unfortunately, you can't do as much with Montreal Etoiles.
_coliver - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:47 AM EST (#79532) #
Just as an aside, remember the idle talk about the Expos moving to Toronto and playing in Exhibition Stadium in the early 1990s?

I wonder what that would have been like...
Les Expos Sont La | 34 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.