The threat of relocation has been used by clubs and politicians before and will probably be used in the future. But are there really any realistic relocation candidates at this time? When the Expos were relocated to D.C. and renamed the Nationals, would MLB really have pulled up the team after a year playing in their new home if a sweetheart stadium deal didn't come through, given the club was going to be sold for $450 million? Can not only the Royals, but the Marlins, Twins, and A’s use this mantra, “Pay up, or we’ll be forced to look at other options,” to good effect? Can they pack up and go to Portland, San Antonio, Norfolk, Charlotte, or Vegas at this time?
The answer is pretty much no, and here’s why.
It's a very good article. In particular, the part about the other options where a team would move to is very interesting, where they look at television territories and population. The MLB broadcast areas map is amazing.
It took MLB 3 years to move the Expos and they had to be force fed to DC......the Twins aren't going anywhere.....long live the Dome!!!
Since 1961, MLB has had a policy of expansion, which is the main reason teams haven't been moving. That period is over. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. How many teams changed cities between 1920 and 1950? How many changed in the next ten years? If Portland or Las Vegas come up with a plan, the Marlins or the Twins could move.