One is a league-sponsored initiative to build a stadium, centrally, in Tampa/St.Pete. The other is to pay enough money to get the Rays out of their lease and move them to Montreal. Both methods should manage to invest properly in making one of the franchises less dependent on revenue sharing for survival. It's good business practice and good for the overall perception of the game.The flaw in this logic, however, is that neither of these options are in MLB's best financial interests. Spending $100M+ to relocate the Rays and reduce their profit sharing by a few million a year makes zero sense.
And spending $400M on a new stadium makes even less sense. Remember, stadiums are only profitable if you get someone else to pay the bulk of them.
There is no doubt a price that would get the Rays out of their contract with St. Pete...but since the goal is apparently to help the Rays generate more profits, compensating the city doesn't really seem to have ever been on the table.
Disclosure: USA TODAY is owned by the same company, Gannett, that owns my station