Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


spiritof66 last won the day on June 22 2017

spiritof66 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,629 All-Star

About spiritof66

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/30/1951

Personal Information

  • Location
    New York City
  • Homepage
  • Interests
    Reading, music (drums, guitar), baseball history, college basketball
  • Occupation
    Retired lawyer
  • Favorite Current Oriole
    I dunno. Who's left? Mancini?
  • Favorite All Time Oriole

Recent Profile Visitors

3,038 profile views
  1. I would call that the A Team, foreign division. Eh?
  2. It's almost like somebody thinks this team isn't ready for prime time.
  3. When I checked out MLB.TV yesterday, it looked like the Rockies and the O's were the only home teams that weren't providing radio broadcasts for their openers today.
  4. Plus 10-15 innings pitched with an ERA under 6.00.
  5. From everything I read and heard at the time, it was pretty clear -- not certain, but pretty clear -- that the decision to sign The Crusher to a long-term contract was made by the owner, not the front office.
  6. Is it too late to get a bet down on that race -- who wins it, not who's happier?
  7. That can't be right. Eddie might be 55, but that's about it. In the spring of 1977, Eddie's rookie year, the Orioles got off to a fast start on their way to 97 wins. In a moment of delirium, probably alcohol-fueled, I bet a classmate (now an eminent law professor at an eminent law school) what seemed then like a lot of money -- maybe $100 -- that Eddie would hit 500 home runs. I bet him the same amount that Billy Smith would collect 2,500 (or maybe it was 3,000) hits.
  8. I'm more than a little stale on this stuff, but here's the basic point: you can't avoid the federal estate tax by giving things to your family members while you're alive instead of waiting for your death. Let's say Peter Angelos's interest in the Orioles is worth $1 billion. If he transfers the benefits of that ownership interest to anyone other than his wife or a charity, he will have to pay a federal tax mostly at the top rate of 40 percent. If the transfer occurs on his death, his estate will incur an estate tax (state and federal). If he transfers ownership to a trust (again, with the benefits of ownership going to someone other than his wife or a stranger), he will incur a gift tax, with the same rates and exclusions as the estate tax. I don't know about state gift taxes. A trust would enable Peter to alter the timing of the estate/gift tax, but I don't see how that would help. I can't recall the details on this, but trusts (I forget the name for these trusts) can be tax-effective where the transferor puts appreciating assets into a trust. So if Peter had put his interest in the Orioles into a trust when that interest was worth $300 million, if the trust complied with certain rules it is (or at least was} possible to incur gift taxes on only the $300 million and not on the $700 million. I don't think Peter can obtain that kind of tax advantage. A transfer of a controlling interest in the club would require approval by the owners. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe you have some other sort of trust in mind.
  9. Average income is relevant, but what really counts is the number of wealthy people and big companies/service firms who can and will pay a lot for baseball tickets. The chart shows that Baltimore metro is right ahead of New York metro in per capita income, with a population about seven times that of Baltimore metro. I don't know the number of wealthy individuals or companies/firms in either metro area, or how you would assess that, but I'm confident New York's number is much greater than seven times Baltimore's. Maybe thirty or fifty or seventy? I don't know, but it would be a lot. That multiple would be reduced a little when you credit the Orioles with a slice of the D.C. area's large numbers in these categories. I am confident that there would be a significant, though smaller, disparity if you compared Boston metro or Toronto metro to Baltimore metro --- not just a lot more people, but a lot more moneyed people and companies.
  10. In recent years, I've said these things, probably repetitively, about the relocation or sale of the Orioles. To be about as brief as I'm capable of being: 1. MLB has committed to reserve for Tampa and Oakland the first choices of relocation cities in case they decide to move. (Tampa has chosen Montreal, maybe, sort of.) While getting those two troubled situations straightened out has taken much, much longer than had been anticipated, it appears there's enough honor among MLB's thieves to stick by those commitments. Part of the problem with relocating, for the Rays and A's as well as for the O's and anyone else, is that there aren't a lot of great options out there, other than the unavailable ones of adding teams in NY and LA. Supporting an MLB team sufficiently to make it competitive on the field is difficult -- as proven by the inability of some current cities with great baseball traditions to do that. Finally, MLB has been adamant about not allowing a team to forsake a long-time MLB city with an adequate stadium. That might change, though I don't see why it would, and I think any such change would happen a long time from now. My conclusion is that the only circumstance under which the Orioles would be permitted to move in the next 15 years would be if an expansion team were coming to Baltimore. 2. Based on the limited information available, I concluded a few years ago that the Angeloses will find it very difficult to retain their current ownership share of the Orioles because of the federal estate taxes and the Maryland estate and inheritance taxes imposed on the owner's estate and his heirs. (If the owner leaves some or all of the team to his widow rather than his sons, some or all of the estate taxes can be deferred until her death, but that would create other problems.) To pay those taxes, I believe the Angeloses will have to sell the team or a substantial portion of their interest in it; the federal government (and, I'm guessing, the state) will give them time to raise cash in either of those ways. Everything that's happened with the Orioles in the past few years is consistent with the Angeloses' recognition of that reality. That doesn't prove that they'll be selling, but I've seen nothing that suggests they won't be.
  11. Yes, Baltimore is not the smallest market in MLB. The problem with the market -- other than the decades of poor decisions dictated by ownership -- is that a team in Baltimore can't generate anywhere near the revenues that teams in New York, Boston and Toronto can. I think your last point looks at the situation in the wrong way. The most important factor in a team's ability to generate revenues is the size of the market. IMO, the next most important is the wealth of the people in that market and the presence of large companies and service firms that can afford to, and will, shell out for season tickets. Further down the list of factors, again IMO, is the team's ability to attract fans regionally from outside the metro area. The Cardinals have done that more than anyone other team in MLB, and have been doing it for about 100 years, because St. Louis was for so long both the western-most and southern-most MLB city. Most of the teams in your list of franchises in metro areas smaller than Baltimore have pretty large regional populations to draw from outside their metro areas. There are Indians fans in northern Ohio and Pennsylvania, Cincinnati fans in Indiana and Kentucky, etc. With the advent of the Nats, the Orioles' prospects for drawing fans regionally from outside the Baltimore metro area are not very good. (When there was no team in Washington, those prospects were extremely good.) The fact that there is such a large population near Camden Yards is more a minus than a plus because of what goes along with all those people: other, more successful MLB franchises for them to root for. Having all those people within 100 miles doesn't help the Orioles much if they are fans of the Nats, Phils, Yankees or Mets -- except, of course, when the Orioles are playing those teams. Other than to the south, the Orioles' territory is pretty much hemmed in on all sides by other MLB teams.
  12. I got that and still do: if circumstances are such that you know you can't have a real season, and know it will be a struggle to complete any season at all, you might think changes to the game like the 7-inning rule will help you get by. Some changes for 2020, like the abbreviated schedule that cut down on travel, surely helped MLB muddle through. I may be wrong, but I don't think the 7-inning rule made much if any contribution to that. As I understand it, so far the plan for 2021 is to play a full season -- maybe late to start and end, and maybe not quite 162 games but close to it -- with play scheduled across the divisions. I don't understand why, in those circumstances, keeping the 7-inning rule will help the game, and I think it will -- a little, probably not a lot -- cheapen the on-field product. That may change; pandemic circumstances may put the completion of the season in jeopardy. Even if it does, I don't think I would see the seven-inning rule as helpful or a good idea, but I could understand the motivation for it. Right now, I can't. It looks like a solution in search of a problem, when there are lots of other problems that might be addressed with a little bit of thinking and leadership..
  13. I don't like the man-on-second rule, but I get it. I think I would like it if it called for a runner starting in the 12th or 13th inning. I also don't think I would have a problem if games tied after 15 or 16 innings were treated for all purposes, including the standings, as ties. I don't get the seven-inning rule. To me a major-league baseball game scheduled for fewer than nine innings isn't a real game at all. Is this rule supposed to benefit the players, or the owners, or the fans, or the media, or somebody else? Last year, I could see how the players might be indifferent to having some 7-inning games since the shortened season already had trashed any semblance of statistical normalcy. I would think that would be the case this year, with at least the prospect of a full season, players wouldn't want any shorter games, which will deprive them of some chances to enhance their totals of HRs, hits, strikeouts (Jacob deGrom strikeouts, not Chris Davis strikeouts). I'm waiting until division titles (not that they mean that much any more) and playoff spots come down to unscheduled double headers on the last day of the season to see how popular this rule is then. If playing 18 innings (plus extras) on one day is too taxing for the players on the shortened non-pitcher rosters, let teams add more players for double headers. But play the games. The whole games. In a better world, given all the problems that baseball has appealing to fans -- slow pace of play/length of games, not enough balls in play, too many pitching changes, the competitive imbalance, the inability of lower-revenue and mid-revenue teams to retain top players, the transparency of bad ball/strike umpiring -- the owners and the union would be looking for ways to improve for its fans the game as it's played, not to make the games different.
  14. With the Cobb trade, I think we've now got the team that will begin the 2021 ML season, barring spring-training injuries to some infielders. There's not much more money to be saved by getting rid of anyone else: as of now, Davis, Mancini, Santander, Severino and Galvis will be the only Orioles making over $1 million. I'm pretty sure that the Orioles aren't nearly ready to trade prospects at positions where there's some depth for prospects at positions where they lack depth. So only Santander, Mancini if he gets off to a great start and maintains it for a while, or one of the catchers if a team gets desperate for a backup might bring back something useful in a trade. I don't see how any of that would happen before the season starts. The Orioles seem to have no desire to spend anything to strengthen the pitching staff, and what would be the point of doing that -- to win 2 or 5 more games and finish 40 instead of 45 out of first? Some of the less promising young pitchers and ST invitees will get a chance to start, and if things get embarrassing it might be time for waiver claims and dumpster pickups. The overall strategy is pretty clear: don't promote anyone to the Orioles until he's deemed ready and there's a spot for him to play, avoid contracts going beyond this year to make sure there's a spot for everyone next year who's deemed ready, and in 2021 (and 2022 to the extent prospects aren't ready to be promoted then) fill in the rest of the team by spending the minimum or just a little more. I'd like to see the Orioles deviate from this strategy by signing a third baseman who can play third base, but I'm not expecting that to happen.
  15. Were any of those HRs grand slams, by any chance?
  • Create New...