Jump to content

spiritof66

Plus Member
  • Content count

    3,993
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

spiritof66 last won the day on June 22

spiritof66 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,444 Hall of Famer

About spiritof66

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/30/1951

Personal Information

  • Location
    New York City
  • Homepage
    http://
  • Interests
    Reading, music (drums, guitar), baseball history, college basketball
  • Occupation
    Retired lawyer
  • Favorite Current Oriole
    Jones, Mancini, O'Day
  • Favorite All Time Oriole
    Brooks
  1. O’s Awarded the 33rd Pick

    From MLB website: '" Unlike other Draft picks, Competitive Balance Draft picks can be traded. However, they can only be traded during the regular season and cannot be dealt simply in exchange for cash. Additionally, a Competitive Balance Draft pick can be traded only by the club to which it was awarded. In other words, the picks may be traded no more than once."
  2. The Future

    Not a bad team, but that's some pretty weak defense other than in the OF.
  3. I continue to be a little surprised by the repeated comments about strategies or decisions determined by Duquette (and in some instances Showalter) that focus short-sightedly on trying to win in 2018 rather than on building a competitive team in the years beyond that. I don't think that's what going on. Everything I've seen and read in the past year or two suggests, instead, that the Orioles' owner is focused on trying to put together a winning team in 2018, with very little regard for the longer term health of the team, and that he and he alone decides whether the Orioles can make, or even pursue, a trade of any player who might be an important part of helping the team contend immediately. So far, he consistently has decided "no" -- though, perhaps not to be a complete fool (or, more likely in my estimation, not to appear to be a complete fool), at last year's trade deadline he permitted Duquette to pursue trade possibilities for some of those players before rejecting them. If that's the case, what strategy or trades Duquette or Showalter thinks will help the club make no difference if they would involve the departure of someone the owner views as a potentially significant contributor in 2018, like Britton, Machado, Jones or Schoop, or (probably) Mancini, Trumbo, Davis, O'Day or Brach. Tossing around trade possibilities, especially those that could improve the woeful starting staff, may be interesting. But I don't think those guys, especially Britton and Machado, are going anywhere during the off-season, no matter how much a trade might help the team. If I'm right, that will change only if the Orioles fall far out of contention next season, or if the owner becomes more realistic about 2018, or if the owner . . . well, you know, and we get a new owner. I hope I'm wrong, and that the Orioles will take steps to realize some value for what's left on the Machado and Britton contracts, at least try to acquire some starting pitching, and build for the post-'18 future. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think that will happen.
  4. I continue to be a little surprised by the repeated comments about strategies or decisions by Duquette (and in some instances Showalter) that focus short-sightedly on trying to win in 2018 rather than on building a competitive team in the years beyond that. Everything I've seen and read in the past year or two contributes to a different narrative: the Orioles' owner is focused on trying to put together a winning team in 2018, with very little regard for the longer term health of the team, and he will decide whether the Orioles can make, or even pursue, a trade of any player who might be an important part of helping the team win now. So far, he consistently has decided "no" -- though, perhaps not to be a complete fool (or, more likely in my estimation not to appear to be a complete fool), at last year's trade deadline he permitted Duquette to pursue trade possibilities for some of those players before rejecting them. If that's the case, what strategy or trades Duquette or Showalter thinks will help the club make no difference if they would involve the departure of someone the owner views as a potentially significant contributor in 2018, like Britton, Machado, Jones or Schoop, or (probably) Mancini, Trumbo, Davis, O'Day or Brach. Tossing around trade possibilities, especially those that could improve the woeful starting staff, may be interesting. But I don't think those guys, especially Britton and Machado, are going anywhere, no matter how much a trade might help the team, as long as there is any chance they will help get the Orioles to the playoffs next year. If I'm right, that will change only if the Orioles fall far out of contention, or the owner becomes more realistic about 2018, or the owner . . . well, you know, and we get a new owner. I hope I'm wrong, and that the Orioles will take some steps to realize some value for Machado and Britton, acquire some starting pitching, and build for the post-'18 future. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think that will happen.
  5. I think it's more like "Blow me away and then I'll try to get an appointment with Mr. Angelos to ask him to approve a trade."
  6. MLBTR: AL Notes

    My guess is that if Britton looks in spring training like he's again capable of being an elite closer, he won't be traded because the owner won't approve the trade. My further guess is that if there's doubt about Britton's ability to close, based on injury or subpar performance, he won't be traded because the return would be unimpressive.
  7. Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

    You may know a lot more about the background of the MASN agreement than I do since I didn't pay much attention to it back in 2004-05. But I studied the court papers pretty closely a few years ago, and what is in there doesn't support some of your assertions about the agreement. I've never seen anything to indicate the RSDC is involved in assessing rights fees paid to MLB clubs by non-affiliated cable providers. The description of the RSDC's purpose in footnote 2 of the MASN arbitration decision does not mention that function, and it doesn't make sense that it would. I don't see any reason why MLB or the RSDC would get involved in assessing those fees between non-affiliated entities, which would have nothing to do with revenue sharing. Maybe you know something about the RSDC's functions that I don't,. I'm not clear where where your idea that the RSDC is supposed "to protect the interests of the Nationals and Orioles from chicanery by Angelos" comes from. Under the MASN agreement, the RSDC decides post-2011 rights fees to be paid to the Orioles and the Nats if the parties can't agree. I don't see that as related to potential chicanery, but maybe I just don't follow what you mean by that. The way the MASN agreement works, someone had to play that role if the parties can't agree, and the Orioles and MASN either misjudged the RSDC or had no choice when they agreed that the RSDC would play that role. I had thought that MASN was owned by individuals, but the court papers state in a number of places that the Orioles and the Nats -- not any individuals -- are the partners in MASN. What you say was "widely acknowledged" about reduced rights fees during the first five years of MASN revenues is unfamiliar to me. It is not stated in the agreement (unless it's n the portions that were redacted), and nothing about that was argued by the Nats. If it's not in the agreement and wasn't discussed by the parties at the time they entered into the MASN agreement, such an arrangement or understanding would be legally irrelevant even it was "widely acknowledged." Manfred and MLB love the argument that the RSDC wasn't obligated to apply Bortz because the MASN agreement doesn't specify the use of Bortz. The Orioles did a poor job, IMO, of responding to this argument: the answer is that the agreement didn't specify Bortz because nobody knew in 2004 what methodology the RSDC would be using years in the future. But it doesn't follow that the MASN agreement "leaves [the RSDC] room to choose whatever methodology they want" in determining the rights fees to be paid by MASN. The agreement requires the RSDC to use its own "established methodology for evaluating all other related party telecast agreements in the industry." Based on everything I've read or heard, it seems pretty clear that, at the time of the arbitration, the RSDC's only "established methodology for evaluating" such agreements was the Bortz methodology, and it had no basis under the terms of the MASN agreement to diverge from Bortz. I'm not sure what you or anyone else means by "collusion'" in connection with the MASN arbitration. Here are the facts. MLB personnel, including Manfred himself, "administered" the arbitration and participated at the heating. The three members of the RSDC, who signed the decision, were Jeff Wilpon of the Mets, Stu Sternberg of the Rays and Frank Coonelly of the Pirates. Jeff Wilpon (whose father, Fred, is the Mets' principal owner) is, to put it kindly, a man of modest talent, who happened to be sired by a very rich father. At the time of the arbitration hearing in 2012, the Mets were still extricating themselves from the Madoff mess. Sternberg was facing the prospect of needing MLB's support for a new Tampa Bay stadium, or deferring a stadium decision and investment, or a relocation or sale of the franchise. Neither Wilpon nor Sternberg was in a position -- or had the expertise, so far as I can tell -- to make an independent assessment of the issues that might be contrary to MLB's conclusion. In contrast, Coonelly had plenty of expertise., but to expect him to be independent of the Commissioner's office is a fantasy. He came to the Pirates from MLB, where he had worked closely with Manfred in labor litigation and arbitrations for many years, and before that he and Manfred worked together in a law firm. I have detailed their relationship in an earlier post and won't repeat it. I can't prove it, but I am virtually certain that MLB, probably Manfred (before he was Commissioner) or those working under him, decided this dispute, wrote the award -- which is largely gibberish -- and had the members of the RSDC sign it -- or something very close to that. Coonelly may have had some role. In discovery, MASN and the Orioles did not get to look into the process by which the arbitration award was reached -- I forget whether they tried -- but such discovery should not have been allowed if it was sought. Call it collusion if you want,, but that sort of proceeding is what the Orioles let themselves in for when they agreed to a determination by the RSDC. As I've explained before, I think there is some reason to hope that if this dispute goes before the current members of the RSDC, they will bring more integrity and expertise to their decision, and will reach a decision that the MASN agreement calls for.
  8. Phillies raid the O’s front office once again

    Gee, and here I'd been thinking there wouldn't be much of a market for Machado at the end of the season -- you know, injury risk, declining defense since his platinum season, long batting slumps this year, baserunning gaffes -- enabling the Orioles to sign him cheap, with the advantage of that multimillion-dollar hometown discount. Isn't that why our astute owner didn't respond to his proposal for a contract extension and ruled out even fielding offers to trade him last year, and doesn't that explain why the Orioles (apparently) still aren't trying to trade or extend him? This talk of other teams' potential interest in Manny has me wondering whether the Orioles may have followed a flawed approach. Having watched the flawless execution and astute decision-making of the first 25 years of the Angelos regime, I find that difficult to believe. So Manny becomes a free agent and signs with the O's, right? , but with an undertone of
  9. Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

    I may be missing some relevant information about you or Kate, but I would guess the odds are about the same. But speaking of odds, during the World Series John Smoltz opined that the Astros and Dodgers are so evenly matched that if they played 50 games, it's probable neither team would ever win three in a row. (Smoltz's point was that the teams are so evenly matched that who would win each game is random. That itself makes no sense: if the two teams are perfectly evenly matched with today's starting pitchers, how can that perfect balance be maintained when you change those starters tomorrow?) I knew that Smoltz's statement was ridiculous. If you repeat a random event with two outcomes, like flipping a coin, just three times, the odds are one in four that you'll have three heads or three tails. I fell asleep trying to figure out how to calculate the likelihood of not having three consecutive coin flips come out the same way in 50 flips. I never figured it out, but Bill James did. It's one in 608, about 1/6 of 1 percent, which is well under the > 50 percent Smoltz was asserting. https://www.billjamesonline.com/hey_bill/
  10. Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

    Isn't that the point? Why would you need to bring in anyone new (or any new money) when you already know everything you need to know about how to run the franchise, and when the team built to your specifications is so close to winning it all?
  11. Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

    BUt Jeter gets only about 2 percent. It's a great -- ridiculously great -- deal for him financially, but he has authority over what happens with the team only to the extent and for as long as Sherman wants him to have it.
  12. Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

    The RSDC is supposed to resolve the inherent conflict between a team with an affiliated cable provider and the rest of MLB by deciding how much of the value of its cable rights a team can divert to an affiliated cable provider, thereby protecting them from revenue sharing. While the MASN agreement is not clearly written, I have no doubt that the only reasonable reading of it is that the parties intended to have the rights fees paid by MASN treated like the rights fees paid by other team-affiliated cable providers. There are some problems with that interpretation, but no other interpretation makes any sense. At the time of the rights fees renewal (and at the time of the arbitration decision) treating MASN like other affiliated cable providers meant allowing MASN to pay rights fees under the Bortz formula -- it did not mean determining the rights fees that would be paid to a non-affiliated cable provider. The RSDC just have set the rights fees in a way that permitted MASN (to the benefit of the Orioles, based on their majority ownership of MASN) to keep substantial profits, just as it has, apparently, allowed every other affiliated cable provider to do.
  13. Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

    I'm pretty sure Angelos owns much more than 60 percent, maybe from acquiring shares previously owned by Clancy or others.
  14. Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

    MLB does have that authority. Under section V(2)(b)(2) of the MLB Constitution, the transfer of ownership on the death of an owner to a spouse or lineal descendant requires a majority vote of MLB owners. The Steinbrenner transfer was approved, but the situation was different. The Steinbrenners had few if any enemies among the owners or MLB's executives, and the kids were flush with cash since there was no federal estate tax when George died (and no state tax since he was a resident of Florida, which has no inheritance tax). If Angelos has most of his marbles, he understands that he can';t be sure that his sons' ownership of the team would be approved -- or that they would have the resources to operate the team without bringing in additional investors who would dilute their ownership. We've been through this before at some length, but if Peter Angelos owns a majority interest in the Orioles (and I think the best information I could find was that he owns about 80 percent), upon his death there is no way for his estate to bequeath that interest to his wife and/or sons and avoid paying the federal estate tax and Maryland inheritance tax on the value of that interest (net of debt). Angelos's estate can fight about the value of his interest in the Orioles, but can't avoid paying taxes on that value, whatever they may be when he dies -- except by making transfers of his interest before death (which he apparently hasn't done).
  15. Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

    I assume Peter Angelos intends to pass the ownership of the team on to his sons. A few facts (or what I think are facts). MLB (the Commissioner and the other owners) would like the Orioles to be owned by someone else. The ability of Angelos's sons to have enough resources after estate taxes are paid on Angelos's death (or the death of his wife, if he leaves the team to her) will depend on what the estate tax is at the time of his or her death; that in turn may depend on when that death occurs. It's uncertain whether MLB's owners would approve the transfer of the team to Angelos's sons, especially if estate taxes drain the financial resources available to them. The original decision in the MASN arbitration, if upheld, would significantly depress the value of the Orioles , relative to that value under the rights fees in the original MASN agreement. The rights fees determined in that arbitration were unfair to MASN and the Orioles, and the Commissioner almost certainly knows that. It's uncertain how and when the rights fees will be decided, and what that decision ultimately will be. It ought to be possible -- and I'm not saying that it is possible, only that it ought to be -- for there to be a settlement among MASN, the Orioles, the Nats and MLB in which (a) Peter Angelos agrees that the team will be sold at the later of X years and a year after his death, and (b) the rights fees are compromised at an amount above what the Orioles asserted but far below what the arbitrators decided. MLB might have to throw some dollars to the Nats. I think it would be worth it to them, especially if X is a small number like two or three.
×