If I understand that the fans will watch a winner, and that being a winner might save the Tribe for the foreseeable future, I feel pretty good because of one word: Shapiro.

I can't overstate the confidence I have in what he's done with the Indians, both now and in the future.

But that runs up against the other and perhaps more important side of the coin which you ignore entirely is this: where would a team go?  I live in the Twin Cities, and the last time Pohlad threatened to move the Twins unless a stadium was built, local government essentially called his bluff and said, go ahead, do it.  As it turned out there were no other viable cities for the team to relocate to, and he came crawling back to the Metrodome with his tail between his legs.

In fact, the only reason he is getting a stadium now is that he got enough cronies on a county board to ram through a tax for it without a public referendum--or he would almost certainly have been smacked down yet again.

So, to summarize: I doubt the Indians are the most likely team to wish to relocate, and even if they were, they have nowhere to go.

I guess the thesis of this article is that the public supports a winner in Cleveland. I think that is true everywhere. The Twins were horrible a couple of years ago and they were being discussed (nationally, not by just one person) as a team that was going to be moved or dissolved. Now you cite them as solid team. Maybe now is their abberation? What happens when they have a couple of bad years again? The fans stop coming and they lose revenue, are they then bound to move again?

This franchise survived here for the worst economic period in US history. I don't think that now, with attendance still trending up as compared to the 70s or 80s, is the time that relocation will happen. Maybe I spent too much time sleeping in economics or maybe I just don't get it but I just can't agree with you. Given the track record of economic experts in this country, I don't feel too out on a ledge.

At a minimum, do me this favor: know that there are a lot of other intelligent posters on this site, regardless of whether or not they almost have PhDs.  I suggest that if you embrace this, you'll learn more than you imagined you could - even about the topics you know a little something about.

Even so I'm a little surprised at the factors you highlighted:  Ohio voted for Bush, some people there like intelligent design, they've had some corrupt politicians, and they like football better.  I feel like you just told me that David Huff will win a Cy Young in 10 years because supplemental picks from Pac 10 schools do well.  Rather than try to address these reasons, I should at least point out that none of these are actual trends that distinguish the Indians from other Midwest market teams.

On the fan loyalty aspect though, I still disagree.  The Indians horrible attendance before the Jake was the result of awful teams with no hope.  The park didn't help either. If you're going to discount the positive message of the 1990s sellouts, you need to acknowledge the factors in our earlier history too.

The As and Twins are not supported by better fan bases.  Those teams have been rattling off division titles, but their attendance hasn't dwarfed ours by any means.  And they have cheaper tickets, if not by much.  Sure, the Twins will be helped by their new stadium.  On the other hand, if you're going to pull out the football-country argument, please don't try to tell me that MN is baseball country.

The As are a strange example to use anyway since that actually are likely to move in the very near future.  I suppose that you are considering the move to be a local one.

But again, you seem to be talking about a move well into the future, and while I disagree with some of your factors, it's a long way off.  In the meantime, a team like the Marlins faces an actual threat to staying in their city. And unlike the mid-90s, there are currently no attractive markets, as fwembt says.

Given the exploding revenues of MLB, there is no reason to think that move is the first of a spate of moves similar to those which occurred from 1953 to 1972.

With the elimination of Montreal, all teams had attendance exceeding 1.8 million in 2006, with the exception of Kansas City, Tampa Bay, and Florida.  Cleveland drew almost 2 million, exceeding Pittsburgh and Oakland.  So there are at least 5 teams drawing more poorly than the Indians.

"Second, northern Ohio is in serious economic decline which is likely to worsen for the foreseeable future.  Why?  Now I offend people.  Politically, you are stupid and uninformed.  Ohio voted for Bush twice.  Obviously, people did not comprehend the fact that Bush was dedicated to hastening the economic decline of Ohio citizens."

The main issue is whether or not Cleveland can support a baseball team in a tough economic time.  Well, you say that the economic decline is likely to continue.  You support this with the position that we Ohioans are stupid and uniformed politically.  You support that with the presidential election of 2000 and 2004, which we unfortunately voted for President Bush.  Here's the thing.  Northeast Ohio did NOT vote for President Bush, and to the extent that Ohio as a whole has anything to do with it, the entire State's politics have changed in the last 3 years.  

Cleveland and Northern Ohio is overwhelmingly a Democratic area, lead by the union support and liberal thinking of a progressive city like Cleveland.  Also, Ohio has recently elected a new Governor and a new U.S. Senator largely because they oppose the President's economic policies.  In fact, all but one state wide election went to the Democrats, and the margin in the Ohio legislature was reduced for Republicans and Dems are now in position to gerrymander the Legislature away from Republicans in the next few years.

The American auto industry's troubles have caused the recent economic decline to northern Ohio, not the people's politics.  With Strickland's innovative ideas of bringing in jobs in the Medical, technology and communication sectors, and with old Ford and GM plants being bought and restored to production by the Mazdas and Toyotas of the world, I am confident in Northern Ohio's economic future.  

Not to mention the entertainment sector.  The development from LeBron James and the excitement of downtown Cleveland (see the development of 4th Street, the Warehouse District, the plans for the flats, etc.) make Cleveland the envy of many Midwestern and rust belt cities.  Ask Cincinnati and Detroit local politicians what their model is for revitalizing downtown--- its Cleveland.  

Your analysis ignores the more significant variables when forecasting Northern Ohio or the Indians future.  Also, your political variable was poorly developed and your "Cleveland is a football town" argument also fails.  Sports teams don't move because they aren't the number one draw in the City.  Heck, the Browns left Cleveland a year after making a playoff run and dominating the city's sports market for 50 years.  Also, the intelligent design idea failed. Just because it was proposed, doesn't mean it was close to passing.  The same thing happened in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but the legislation was soundly defeated.  Just because a ridiculous republican state rep makes a wacky proposal, does not mean the future of the state's sports teams are at risk.  

Sorry to make my first post on this site so long, but this entry needed to be rebuked.

This is not a political site. That does not mean that subjects with political undertones cannot be discussed (like the future of professional baseball in NE Ohio), but that overt political rhetoric of a partisan nature is not welcome.

Rule of thumb: when the post is more about politics than baseball, you've crossed the line.

With the Indians having just visited Milwaukee, and with my own first trip to the city last fall, I think that city is a good comparison.  They have tons of new commercial/residential development in formerly industrial near-downtown areas.  We have some of this starting with the Euclid Corridor and stuff in Tremont, but that's after decades of sprawl while the city decayed.  
Milwaukee has a beautiful, growing and thriving lakefront.  We have the shoreway and a bunch of nothing north of it.  

I think the decline of Cleveland is only inevitable if the people in charge remain provincial, petty and shortsighted.  This town has a lot of positives going forward, especially the lake, which is a huge source of relatively cheap fresh water that will make the area more attractive the more the southwest grows and puts pressure on its water supply.  

Thanks to IIS for starting an interesting topic, and thanks to whomever reads my lunchtime ramblings.  Go Tribe!

Charlotte
Indianapolis
Nashville
Las Vegas
Portland

These all come to mind as cities that have favorable growth trends and are geographically far enough from an existing team that, if a team were to really seriously look for greener pastures, these cities could make serious bids for a team.  I've excluded Columbus, but if either the Reds or Indians were to move, Columbus would make itself a major player as well.