Re: Which MLB cities would you live in.....
I was going to put Kansas City in my top three based on barbecue alone, but then I remembered the question was about which cities I'd prefer as a ballplayer, and presumably stuffing my face every day wouldn't be allowed.
I'm with vaticanplum regarding Miami. I have no desire whatsoever to live there, but if I was a ballplayer -- especially the younger, single, money-burning-a-hole-in-pocket variety -- Miami would be mighty tempting.
Considering my personal biases, how I looked at things when I was ballplayer age, and the quality of life I could have there (which includes the demeanor of the fan base to some extent), but using an all-things-being-equal with respect to the ballclubs themselves:
Top 3 -- Toronto, Atlanta, San Francisco
I have multiple friends who swear Toronto is the coolest city on earth, and I can always live in Florida during the winter.
San Francisco moved up as soon as they moved out of Candlestick.
As for Atlanta, it was the place my friends and I all wanted to move to post-college, the recent-graduate social center of the South. With the money to insulate myself from the everyday annoyances, of which Atlanta has many, it would be a very comfortable place. I'm not interested in moving there now, but at age 23 or 24...
In all three places, it would be possible to live at least a semblance of a normal life in a way that's not possible in New York or Boston.
Bottom three: Oakland, Philadelphia, Cleveland
I suppose I could live in San Francisco and just play in Oakland, but...
There are redeeming qualities to Philadelphia as a city, but the fan base is just so miserable I don't see how anyone could enjoy living in the crosshairs.
Cleveland was a tough choice, I don't really have anything against it, I'm just not a fan of Rust Belt cities in general. Could have put Detroit or Pittsburgh here too.
Not all who wander are lost