Jump to content
Frobby

Boswell: MLB Committee will issue a valuation of Nat's MASN rights fees on June 1

Recommended Posts

You're off on an irrelevant tangent. From the same article that I quoted above

After the Senators left, MLB supposedly awarded their former territory to Baltimore, and that's the part that is debatable.

That doesn't make what I said irrelevant. Griffith giving up Baltimore would be like the Orioles giving up rights to a new team in Charlotte: technically it was within the territory decreed in the rules, but there was no upside to vetoing the move. Whereas when the Nationals came calling, the Orioles had thirty years of radio and television rights and a significant portion of their fan base coming from that part of a much more interconnected region. So there was no upside to allowing a move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw something like this last night and thought I'd get this straight: The Nats are not playing in Maryland; they are playing in DC. Their stadium is in southeast DC.

Wait...who thinks they are playing in Maryland? They're almost three miles in the District.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't really change my point. The original Senators allowed the Browns to move to Baltimore and got no compensation even though the two teams played in the same league. So don't act like the DC fan base "belongs" to Baltimore. Because the teams were in the same league, the Senators had an absolute right under MLB rules to veto the Browns move, whereas the Orioles had no such rights to veto the Expos move. Angelos parlayed a debatable legal argument into the deal he got from MLB. Good for him but let's not claim he had the high ground.

All this may be true, but the economics of baseball were totally different back then. Back then it was mostly about revenue from fan attendance, in an era before I-95 and the Metrolink were up and running. Why should Washington have objected to Baltimore having a team back then unless people from the Baltimore area were flocking to Senators games? (which I doubt was happening) Of course now today it's mainly about TV revenue, merchandising and branding, all of which is influenced by geography but not limited to it. My main point is that markets were much smaller in 1954 (though of course they were expanding). 1954 wasn't that long after an era when Boston and Philadelphia each had two teams and New York had three. In fact, one could maybe argue that in 1954 Washington was happy to have a rival in Baltimore since it meant more games in a city that was only 50 miles away, thus saving money on travel expenses.

Another point: I doubt the Dodgers and Giants left New York because New York was too small a market for all three. They left instead because there were huge unfulfilled markets on the West Coast. But now the West Coast is crowded like the East Coast with the Giants and A's fighting over territorial rights in a very wealthy Bay Area market. Of course the Giants and A's are now the ones fighting over their share of future TV and merchandising revenue (San Jose and Silicon Valley demographic being the key battleground) as much as they're fighting where the actual stadium will be. The world is getting smaller, but the number of MLB clubs remains the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some solid information here from Tom Boswell. A few excerpts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/washington-nationals-are-due-a-bigger-check-from-masn-for-tv-rights/2012/05/18/gIQA6wbOZU_story_1.html

The rest of the column is devoted to complaining about Angelos and explaining why the resolution of this issue is so important to the Nats. But this is the first solid information we've had about this process in months. It sounds as if the MLB committee's June 1 valuation is not necessarily binding, and that this could drag on for a while. But it will still be very interesting to learn what it is.

Boswell once wrote that the MASN deal was worth no more than 1 million dollars a year to the Orioles, while Washington was getting 25 million in fees.

He also wrote that the Nats would be "feared" througout baseball by 2007, that it was a virtual baseball certainty. They would be in an ecomonic position to obtain any free agent they wanted.

This is not a man to take seriously any longer. I think Angelos drove him nuts at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boswell once wrote that the MASN deal was worth no more than 1 million dollars a year to the Orioles, while Washington was getting 25 million in fees.

He also wrote that the Nats would be "feared" througout baseball by 2007, that it was a virtual baseball certainty. They would be in an ecomonic position to obtain any free agent they wanted.

This is not a man to take seriously any longer. I think Angelos drove him nuts at some point.

They kinda are. The owner is exceedingly wealthy even by MLB owner standards.

However very few owners appear willing to operate at a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Nats' fees could go from $29 million to $60 million (low-end estimate). Gee, how can MASN afford this? Could it be that MASN has been much more profitable than assumed? Given that, where is the additional investment in the Orioles that Angelos told us in 2006 would be possible via MASN? (Yes, I'm still asking this question ;) )

Not defending Angelos, but I believe the current negotiations with the Nat's MASN broadcast rights fees & MLB's revenue sharing formula are the very answers to your questions. If PA threw more MASN money to the Orioles over the last several years, the team would receive less or pay more from MLB's revenue sharing pool.

The other pool is the one that has created tension between small- and large-revenue clubs, as it is the one that transfers money between franchises. This pool is made up of net local revenues, such as ticket sales, concessions and media deals that each club negotiates for television and radio. Against that money, each club is hit with a marginal rate of 31 percent, which is applied across the board to each of the 30 clubs.
.

IIRC, the O's have been labeled a small market team of late. Sending more MASN money their way would have been to their detriment, all while playing the Sox and Yankees 22% of the time.

It would also give the Nationals more leverage in the current broadcast rights fee negotiations we are currently discussing in this thread. If MASN were paying rights fees disproportionally more to the Orioles or paying more rights fees to each team, since the RSN's inception, the Nationals would more likely benefit substantially over the next five years. As a fan, I agree with your frustration....as a business man? Hope to see Angelos come back to his original spending ways. And soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They kinda are. The owner is exceedingly wealthy even by MLB owner standards.

However very few owners appear willing to operate at a loss.

No doubt PA knows this and it is an excellent point regarding this tainted article. Yet he is responsible for DC's revitalization plans?

In 2004, Angelos blustered and bullied MLB and Commissioner Bud Selig into giving MASN 90 percent of the Nats? TV rights as compensation for mythical ?territorial rights? to Washington, a metropolitan area twice the size of Baltimore. Will Angelos push baseball into another craven sellout? In the era of Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper, those days should be long past.

.....

When the Nats receive fair payment from MASN, the odds increase on fielding a contender, which, in turn, helps attendance and promotes growth of the Southeast waterfront district. Remember, urban revitalization was a central justification for this whole endeavor. As a recent Post A1 story outlined, it?s succeeding. MASN has a right to haggle. But Selig and baseball have a much greater responsibility to expedite.

I agree with the underlined part only...the rest of this article is a bitter piece based on gimmick to draw ire from a new fan base towards a once proud owner....from a once proud sports writer.

Fact #1 :MLB, including Selig: gutted the Expos franchise before the sale of the team to the Lerners...causing significant detriment to the teams ability to continue to compete. Before being moved to DC, the Expos were potentially going to be contracted. Loria bought the Marlins, Henry bought the Red Sox who gave a loan (interest free) to Loria for the difference in cost between the Expos to Marlins. The entire FO from Montreal became the Marlins.

Fact #2 The Lerners bought the Nationals knowing fact #1

Fact #3 Introducing a new baseball team in the Orioles direct fan base market is a detriment to Peter Angelos and the Baltimore Orioles. I know this as a native Maryland born fan....I know this as a Northern Virginian resident....etc....

Fact #4 The Red Sox and Yankees benefit from a smaller market team in their division having their market breached with the introduction of a new team......impacting their potential ability to compete at a time while they significantly increase their payrolls.

Fact #5 Peter Angelos received compensation for facts #2 & #3, but not #4. The Orioles schedule has only increased against #4

Fact #6 The Lerners bought the Nationals knowing fact #5 & fact #1...and probably all the other facts....

Fact #7 A,B & C DC should have a baseball team...just as Baltimore should have the Ravens. Oriolidae85 would like to see the Orioles play the Nationals for the WS & the Skins play the Ravens in the SB.

Not a fact per se, but portions of this SE revitalization is added revenue to the Lerners true business model (commercial, residential real estate). Why is this on Angelos?

On a side note...enjoyed National's park this weekend, had good conversations with their fans. Would like to see this continue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not defending Angelos, but I believe the current negotiations with the Nat's MASN broadcast rights fees & MLB's revenue sharing formula are the very answers to your questions. If PA threw more MASN money to the Orioles over the last several years, the team would receive less or pay more from MLB's revenue sharing pool.

.

IIRC, the O's have been labeled a small market team of late. Sending more MASN money their way would have been to their detriment, all while playing the Sox and Yankees 22% of the time.

It would also give the Nationals more leverage in the current broadcast rights fee negotiations we are currently discussing in this thread. If MASN were paying rights fees disproportionally more to the Orioles or paying more rights fees to each team, since the RSN's inception, the Nationals would more likely benefit substantially over the next five years. As a fan, I agree with your frustration....as a business man? Hope to see Angelos come back to his original spending ways. And soon!

To your point, RSN profits are not subject to rev share calculations. I'm on the iPad so I don't feel like finding the link, but it's in the Wall Street Journal.

So what Angelos has done is spend bare bones on the Orioles major league, scouting, international, and player development departments, while claiming "poor me" can't spend like the Yankees (true) or Red Sox (not as true thanks to MASN).

Then the O's and Nats (especially Nats due to direct market size) get severely undervalued TV rights fees.

Then since MASN is a separate business entity just like his law firm is, he can shift where the profits come from while still collecting an MLB welfare check.

Pure evil genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Nats' fees could go from $29 million to $60 million (low-end estimate). Gee, how can MASN afford this? Could it be that MASN has been much more profitable than assumed? Given that, where is the additional investment in the Orioles that Angelos told us in 2006 would be possible via MASN? (Yes, I'm still asking this question ;) )

For real. All this MASN news is meaningless unless it leads to Angelos selling the team, which I highly doubt. We're all following this story as a "baseball" story, but the truth is its just a "business" story about how much Peter can pocket. It has no effect on the Orioles. Now, if you want to argue that it would help the Nats, that's fine, but then the discussion should be in the MLB section and not in the Orioles section. Either way, win or lose, this story does not help the O's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt PA knows this and it is an excellent point regarding this tainted article. Yet he is responsible for DC's revitalization plans?

I agree with the underlined part only...the rest of this article is a bitter piece based on gimmick to draw ire from a new fan base towards a once proud owner....from a once proud sports writer.

Fact #1 :MLB, including Selig: gutted the Expos franchise before the sale of the team to the Lerners...causing significant detriment to the teams ability to continue to compete. Before being moved to DC, the Expos were potentially going to be contracted. Loria bought the Marlins, Henry bought the Red Sox who gave a loan (interest free) to Loria for the difference in cost between the Expos to Marlins. The entire FO from Montreal became the Marlins.

Fact #2 The Lerners bought the Nationals knowing fact #1

Fact #3 Introducing a new baseball team in the Orioles direct fan base market is a detriment to Peter Angelos and the Baltimore Orioles. I know this as a native Maryland born fan....I know this as a Northern Virginian resident....etc....

Fact #4 The Red Sox and Yankees benefit from a smaller market team in their division having their market breached with the introduction of a new team......impacting their potential ability to compete at a time while they significantly increase their payrolls.

Fact #5 Peter Angelos received compensation for facts #2 & #3, but not #4. The Orioles schedule has only increased against #4

Fact #6 The Lerners bought the Nationals knowing fact #5 & fact #1...and probably all the other facts....

Fact #7 A,B & C DC should have a baseball team...just as Baltimore should have the Ravens. Oriolidae85 would like to see the Orioles play the Nationals for the WS & the Skins play the Ravens in the SB.

Not a fact per se, but portions of this SE revitalization is added revenue to the Lerners true business model (commercial, residential real estate). Why is this on Angelos?

On a side note...enjoyed National's park this weekend, had good conversations with their fans. Would like to see this continue

Boswell is just bitter that all of the aspects of MLB being a monopoly don't directly benefit the Nats. He's perfectly pleased that weird backroom dealings and horse trading allowed the Expos to move to DC, he's just unhappy that those same machinations didn't result in the Nats getting their own money-printing RSN. You have to take the good with the bad. He can't expect absolute freedom to act as a independent franchise when that's good for the Nats, but also be a part of a government-sanctioned monopoly when that's most beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MASN didn't agree, so a three-team MLB committee on revenue-fairness issues has heard arguments from the two sides for months. This internal MLB group is due to give its opinion on a fair market price for the Nats' regional television rights June 1.

So...where is it? Is the public going to know about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Boswell, the decision has been delayed until July 1. Sounds like Angelos might be dusting off the negotiation tactics that worked so well with Mussina and Palmeiro.

Just as the Nats’ profile is skyrocketing, the argument between the Nationals and Peter Angelos’s MASN network over the value of Washington’s cable TV rights has met yet another delay. The sport’s revenue fairness committee has delayed giving its opinion of the fair market value of the Nats’ TV rights until July 1.

Talk about luck. The longer the haggling, the more likely the value of the Nats rights will jump. The 2012 payment is $29 million. The reset figure the Nats seek is $108 million per year for five seasons. Nats to MASN: Keep stalling, the price goes up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-washington-nationals-have-arrived/2012/06/10/gJQAbGPMTV_story_1.html

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2021 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2021 Orioles Stats

2021 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Good assessment. I think we’re getting close enough to where we keep Mullins. However, we’re not going to win until we have a SP and some depth behind that SP.   We have Means, GR, Hall for 2023. Maybe Lyles if he pitches well, or if at least 1 emerges from our current group other than Means and Lyles. I just don’t see how we compete in 2023 otherwise.    Unless we really get blown away by an offer I think we wait and see what our SP looks like at the end of the year. Maybe $15mm per year SP next year. 
    • The Ravens are way too beat up in the secondary, even for a washed up Ben Roethlisberger. We're going to need Lamar to step up and have himself a game or I see a loss.
    • I don’t know what he’s going to sign for in Japan but we gave him $1.5 million last year. I’m sure if we offered him that same deal then he would’ve stayed here. It depends on what the Japanese team gave him. 
    • Here are some key monthly splits. Offense  March/April (12-14 record): 3.62 R/G (14th), .224/.282/.366 (14th in OPS), 0.96 HR/G (13th), .211/.291/.303 with RISP. May (5-23): 3.86 R/G (13th), .234/.307/.397 (8th), 1.07 HR/G (10th), .219/.311/.317 with RISP June (10-17): 4.85 R/G (8th), .255/.317/.420 (9th), 1.37 HR/G (9th), .288/.337/.446 with RISP July (10-12): 4.41 R/G (9th), .232/.303/.400 (10th), 1.23 HR/G (10th), .231/.309/.329 with RISP August (4-24): 3.86 R/G (14th), .250/.302/.432 (9th), 1.39 HR/G (6th), .214/.291/.303 with RISP Sept./Oct. (11-20): 3.90 R/G (14th), .237/.308/.391 (12th), 1.19 HR/G (7th), .225/.314/.398 with RISP Pitching  March/April (12-14): 4.01 ERA (8th), 5.00 starters (14th), 4.85 IP/S (11th), 2.81 relievers (5th), 7 of 12 saves May (5-23): 5.89 ERA (15th), 5.69 starters (15th), 4.63 IP/S (15th), 6.13 relievers (15th), 2 of 8 saves June (10-17): 6.38 ERA (15th), 7.42 starters (15th), 4.22 IP/S (15th), 5.40 relievers (14th), 6 of 8 saves July (10-12): 5.35 ERA (15th), 5.67 starters (12th), 4.62 IP/S (15th), 5.01 relievers (11th), 3 of 5 saves August (4-24): 7.43 ERA (15th), 7.20 starters (15th), 4.60 IP/S (13th), 7.69 relievers (15th), 1 of 4 saves Sept./Oct. (11-20): 5.84 ERA (15th), 5.05 starters (12th), 4.37 IP/S (12th), 6.63 relievers (15th), 7 of 17 saves   I’ve bolded a few things that really stood out to me.   On offense, we had four of six moths where we were absolutely terrible with RISP.    For context, the league average slash line with RISP was .255/.333/.422.   In particular, look at the slugging percentages with RISP in the four feeble months: .303, .317, .329, and .303.   Just goes to show how empty most of our homers were. As to pitching, the starters and bullpen were both very respectable in March/April and gave us false hopes for a fun summer.    They were both terrible thereafter, and I think an under-discussed aspect was how bad the bullpen was, not just in ERA but bottom line results in failing to preserve leads, especially over the last two months of the year.   If you want to see a significant improvement in the team’s record next year, a halfway respectable performance by the bullpen would go a surprisingly long way.  
    • A better order Better bring in a haul - Mullins, Hays, Means Some To little value; could gain much more value w/ good start to 2022 - Santander, Mancini, Sulser, Scott, Tate, Lyles Currently no value, but bc of age, service time, and/or potential to reach peak value, IF they were to perform WOULD have trade value - Fry, Lopez, Odor, Stewart    
    • I was shocked at first but did some research on the current market, and  1 year 7 million is spot on for Lyles to the O's
    • They have no current value, but this thread discusses potential to build value as well.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...