Oakland A's headed to Las Vegas

1. No. Stade Olympique mostly is only standing because it is too expensive to demolish (imploding it reportedly would cause a massive health hazard).

2. By default? No, but there are moneyed interests who might be tempted, especially if the NHL continues to avoid Quebec like the plague. The Montreal metropolitan area has 4,000,000 people and no major professional sports for four months a year. There are worse markets, though as was noted, the exchange rate (at present about 72 cents US) is a problem to varying degrees.

3. BC Place still stands and got a new retractable roof after the 2010 Olympics, but already has two primary tenants, the CFL Lions and MLS Whitecaps.

 

I can guarantee you it would never work in Vancouver.

 

Could the Big O as a temporary home until something more baseball-friendly is built?

 

Are you saying at BC Place or Vancouver in general? I will say that it seems rather odd that a city of Vancouver's size and profile (larger than Pittsburgh, Vegas, Indy or any of the urban areas in Ohio with pro sports) has never really been associated with expansion and plays in a small low-A league but I guess maybe they want it that way.

 

Both. BC Place is an awful place for baseball and they would never get enough support.

 

I agree with the former, and I think it's probably moot anyway. As we mentioned, BC Place is booked 40 dates a year from March-November, not counting three Eras Tour concerts there this December and any other shows. Gotta hand it to them, though, what they did with the roof was really novel.

I do find it interesting how a place like Vancouver doesn't have a much larger role in the sports scene. The Grizzlies absolutely tanked from the outset, obviously. Nowadays it seems practically unliveable due to real estate costs (which I'm told are being driven up by new money from China). But on pure geography and demographics, I'd argue Vancouver makes more sense than Portland and probably also Vegas, but obviously logistically it doesn't.

Also, to speak to @HanSenSE's question, in my uninformed opinion, Stade Olympique would work for maybe one year if they were desperate, like if a new stadium fell behind. After all, the Nats played in RFK. But I don't think anyone had rave reviews for that turf when they've played exhibitions there. I suspect MLB doesn't really want to reopen that era and I think everyone involved probably wouldn't mind if the place fell off the face of the planet. A leading example of what happens when your architects overrule your engineers.

 

The Grizzlies didn’t work because they were absolutely brutal, even for an expansion team.

 

The front office taking Steve Francis after telling the universe he wouldn't play in Vancouver didn't help.

 

I had the impression most Canadian MLB players were from BC. Why wouldn't the area support a team if kids are playing?

 

I have the Tampa Bay Rays holding for you.

 

Nat Bailey Stadium is a gem of a stadium though. And the scenery - especially during day games - is inspiring.

 

The Grizzlies came along in the 90's when the Canadian dollar had depreciated and as result small market NHL teams such as Quebec and Winnipeg were moving to the United States. The exchange rate issues were an existential crisis for the NHL that the league collectively worked to solve. In the NBA Toronto was a large enough market that the Raptors could survive without assistance and the league did not care enough about Vancouver to attempt to save the Grizzlies.

I think the same economic issues exist today and the NBA still does not feel the Vancouver market is worth attempting to make potential adjustments for, I suspect the MLB thinks the same thing. If the NFL ever gets around the expanding in Canada they might add Vancouver along with Toronto in order to have additional television inventory.