User talk:Yuriy 43

From BR Bullpen

3/30/2017: Well, baseball season is just around the corner. Will try to update as much possible. So I just saw this morning on ESPN, backed by the CBC website, that a group of investors met with the Commissioner about the possibility of the Montreal Expos making a return. Now it's being touted that if the league were to expand that it would expand to 32 teams. When the NHL looked to expand last year I heard that "greed" wise you make more money by expanding than relocating. However from a logical stand point it would be better to for teams to move because as far as I know, this would not help those teams who are struggling (i.e. in baseball: Tampa Bay and Florida). Wait, let's try this: Logically it would be better if the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and the Florida Marlins moved to new cities like: Montreal or Las Vegas. I've also heard that expanding the league thins the talent pool or something. Umm, okay so let's try this: Until the 1960s, the top teams were the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants. The league expands and the Giants, Dodgers and Yankees aren't the perennial contenders they were in the 1950s. In fact there are multiple teams, and there are no dynasties at all. (I think I have this right.)

I never really understood what some of the experts and longtime fans mean by all these statements. I've had discussions with my friends about these and about contractions which leads to me being viewed as a doofus for even suggesting it. I do know at some point a team needs to move. Anyways, I think the A's are long over do for a new stadium, that was something I think was even promised to Al Davis in the 1990s or at least an improved stadium.

If the Expos do return, I think they do not a claim on the history of the first Expos team. When the first Senators team left for Minnesota, they didn't leave everything behind, just the name. Aside from the Cleveland Browns, this just makes for some weird history (i.e. Charlotte Hornets/Bobcats/Hornets). Well, that's all for now. Happy baseball season. (161 seasons of baseball)


Hello Yuriy, welcome back. The talk in Montreal is that the presumptive owners are open to either a relocation (Tampa Bay is the team usually mentioned) or an expansion franchise. If it comes to pass it's not clear whether the name "Expos" would be re-used (the naming rights were transferred to mlb and would not come cheap, plus they may want to start on a new basis). On whether they reclaim the expos' history, it's really the fans' call, and it's very obvious that the fan base remains attached to the Expos' history and its past stars. If a team were to return within the next decade, there will be no choice but to embrace that history. With regards to Oakland, everyone agrees that they need a new ballpark (like Tampa), but it's easier said than done. Montreal's advantage is that they have already identified a number of sites, costings have been made, etc. On the dilution of talent caused by expansion, Bill James studied the issue back in the late 1980s or early 1990s, and basically, it doesn't hold water. There are plenty enough good players to add a couple of teams without affecting the quality of the product, especially with the game growing by leaps and bounds internationally (witness the last WBC). The fact that the New York teams lost their (short-lived) 1950s stranglehold is not really related to expansion, but to other things such as better scouting, the amateur draft, and increased revenue streams outside of ticket sales; in any case, it's a good thing it happened, as the Yankees' dominance was bringing down attendance and interest throughout the AL until the late 1960s-early 1970s.
On your plans for new articles, maybe you could join all the Nats teams under a single article called Washington Nationals (19th century), because they are completely distinct from the current team. I agree that mashing them together is a good idea. --Philippe (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

4/3/17- So the name was given over to MLB. Didn't know that. Well, learn something new. I'm not sure how I feel about a new Expos team claiming the old Expos history. I think if it is decided that a new Montreal team is to be called the Expos, they should just claim the name not the history. The same can be said about the Rays moving to Tampa. Several years ago, when the Sacramento Kings were to move to Seattle, there was the question, at least for me, about the Kings history. If the Kings took up the Sonics history etc. what becomes of the Kings history. Same with the Rays: If the Rays move to Montreal and become the Expos, do they just drop their history. Well, I'll worry about that later. Of course the sad thing about the A's new stadium, is that the Mayor of Oakland wanted them to share the stadium with the Raiders, and Mark Davis wasn't going for that.

Now as for the dilution of talent, well at least that's not something one has to worry about with baseball. Of course in baseball it was the Yankees dominance until Del Webb and Dan Topping sold off the majority of their shares to Bill Paley and CBS. With the expansion of baseball in the 1960s, and the AFL challenging the NFL, the NHL also started looking at expansion as well. I'm sure there were many fans who would have liked to have seen teams other than the Canadiens dominate the Stanley Cup. However, I think if it weren't for the dominance of the Dodgers, Giants, Yankees, Canadiens, and possibly the Celtics, I doubt that the league would have expanded quite as quickly as it did. I mean if there was equal parody amongst all 16 MLB teams, 6 NHL teams and 9 NBA teams, I suspect that maybe the league would've expanded at a slower rate and not have about 5-12 teams join in one decade. But that's for another argument at another time.

4/22/2017: 1) While going through and figuring out which teams still needed histories, I noticed that there were 2 pages for the Cincinnati Redlegs (2 different spellings), and 2 pages for the Red Stockings/Reds (1876-80). Shouldn't these pages be combined? At least the Red Legs/Redlegs pages. The Red Stockings/Reds page I suppose is to differentiate between the powerhouse Red Stockings team and the NL Reds. 2) I know that during both First and Second World Wars, many collegiate teams shut their programs down, particularly the football programs, and that many athletes took part in the Second World War. As the U.S. joined the First World War in 1917, and probably had less of an impact in baseball as opposed the Second, how many ballplayers served in the First World War?


From last year: Thanks, will keep it in mind. I'm working on a bigger page for the Washington Nationals (not the Expos/Nationals page). I noticed that the individual pages for the Nationals of the AA, UA, and NL are just stubs. I think by combining them into one page works better like with the Philadelphia Athletics etc.

Here are my plans/goals for the summer of 2017 (This looks to be expanded into next year, but can't say for certain)

1) A new Washington Nationals page for the other Nationals teams. (move to Wash. Nat's; write history of Wash. baseball)

2) Organize/fix/edit MLB pages. (work esp. on those that don't have one)

3) League histories (divide league standings into divisions etc.)

Long term goals: Work on Yankee Stadium (I) not Yankee Stadium (II). This one I see taking place possibly in '18. Finishing the Cleveland Indians history page. New York Yankees history

Current: User: Yuriy 43/Notes and Changes 3

Past: User: Yuriy 43/Notes and Changes

Other: User:Yuriy 43/Archive section

User:Yuriy 43/Hall of Fame Archive

User:Yuriy 43/Baseball Teams Archive

User:Yuriy 43/Yankees and Orioles

User:Yuriy 43/Mathematics

User:Yuriy 43/Baseball History