DrungoHazewood

Yep, ESPN+ not only has Bundesliga, but also Serie A, Dutch Eredivisie, FA cup matches (just watched Spurs pull their butts out of the fire against Wycombe Wanderers), and English Championship. That's a lot of soccer, and I watch a fair amount. Many things that used to be on, say, Fox Sports are now on ESPN+. And some things you could never really get anywhere. Disney is really only for Star Wars, I wouldn't pay for it separately.

Also, MASN is developing an app. Who else expects it to be, well, less than state of the art, and not available on a bunch of platforms? I have a Roku smart TV, so fully expect it to not be available on Roku. This is the same network that was broadcasting in standard definition like three years after everyone else went HD. Where's @RShack to tell us how huge of an investment it is to develop an app, and how it's unrealistic it is to expect any network to get this going in under 24 months?

Of course the family is now pretty vested in Hulu, and that comes with Disney+ and ESPN+ for as long as you have Hulu. I'm probably not going to switch to a more expensive, different service that doesn't include Disney/ESPN+ just for MASN. I'll figure out other Oriole solutions. I listened to 80% of the games on AM radio until well into high school, I'll be okay.

So I was going to celebrate, then I read further and see I need a cable subscription. But... it's still good, since there are easier work arounds here than in some other situations. Probably a net positive.

Baseball is an unusual situation where long-term guaranteed contracts are an option. Davis is a worst-case scenario in this unusual situation. The owners can't complain. They're the ones who offered the contract. Angelos could have insisted the O's operate differently, he could have refused to sign anyone to a long-term deal. Actually, for years we heard rumors that Angelos wouldn't sign a pitcher to long-term contract because he didn't believe anyone who pitched every five days was worth it. But in this case he didn't, in fact we're pretty sure the owner intervened and insisted on a contract the GM and others thought was risky and unwise. Note that the Rays never are screaming about having to eat the last three years of a long, expensive contract. I'm guessing that if my employer offered me a seven-year guaranteed contract for me to do a job that everyone knew I probably wouldn't be able to do well at some point in the deal, I wouldn't be rushing to give back the money. In all of this I think baseball would be better off with a contract structure more like soccer. Where at any point in time anyone can come in a offer up a transfer fee for any player, the teams work out a deal for rights, the player and the new team work out a contract, and that's that. Because there's no six years of pre-free agency and no delaying big money until a player is in decline, you have mostly fair deals. When a guy hits his 30s he's very rarely going to be signed to a monster contract. He already got his money when he was in his early-to-mid 20s, so there's no incentive to sign a 27- or 29-year-old to a stupid contract, and teams allocate money to the valuable, younger players. Not the old, declining players. Baseball has hung itself on free agency rules mostly devised in the 1970s.

Will that be balanced out with huge bonuses for players who put up MVP numbers but are making $500k a year? In Mike Trout's 2011-14 seasons he was worth 28 wins (rough equivalent of Brian Roberts' entire career) and was paid $2M total from a team bringing in $250-300M a year.

There has never been a decade where pitching roles weren't in flux.

In any year a team is going to have players who have good years, and players with off years. The '17 Yankees had a payroll of nearly $200M, and revenues of over $600M. Saying they won because of home grown, cheap talent any team can and should replicate is a pretty huge oversimplification. Their 3rd starter was CC, making $25M. Could they have found a cheap alternative to replace his 3 wins? I guess, but they went with the less risky option because money doesn't matter. They traded for Sonny Gray because paying him arb-2 and arb-3 money comes out of their coffee mess. They paid Robertson and Chapman a combined $30M and they were okay... and it's fine because money doesn't matter. They traded for Chase Headley knowing full well that he was just an average guy because $13M is trivial to them, they never have to put a guy in the lineup who might OPS .620 if things go wrong and stick with him. In any given year the Yanks expect to win 90 games because they have vastly more resources than the O's or Rays or Blue Jays or most any other team. They have the ability to use a diverse set of talent pipelines because they can take on contracts without even thinking about it, that other teams would have to pass on. The Orioles have to build from within, but for the Yanks that's just one of a bunch of ways they acquire talent.

In 2020 the average MLB reliever had 9.4 K/9 and 4.0 BB/9. So eight and three are just okay. (Weird observation: last year relievers walked more batters than starters. That has to be the first time in 150 years of history that happened. Most years it's not remotely close. Even in 2019 starters were ahead by 600 walks. In 2010 starters walked almost 4000 more batters.)

Exactly. They have multiple sources of talent financed by their massive revenue streams that provide insurance against failures that would cripple other organizations.

Did you really write a paragraph about how the Yanks took $7 trillion and a deep system and reloaded in three weeks, so there's no reason for any team to ever tank? The Yanks' "different financial constraints, etc" include literally two-and-a-half times the revenues of the Orioles.

It's 2021, guys. You pick out 15 or 20 anonymous guys who throw 98 and have them throw an inning two or three times a week, and you're done.

Unfortunately we're going through this shakeout period with regards to streaming and everyone thinks you're going to pay $10, $20, $50, $80 a month for their service. But most people are going to pick a few that best suit them and just say no to all the others. No, I'm not changing everything around and paying more just to get the one with MASN. But I would definitely pay $15 or whatever a month to watch just the O's.

Baseball has a number of fiscal problems. I think the biggest is the free agent system as currently constructed gives the most money to declining, older players at the expense of the young and improving. In soccer you have 22-year-olds making $25M a year, and no one really pays 35-year-olds top salaries. In baseball 22-year-old stars are making $550k, while 35-year-olds with a fraction of the production make ten or 20 times a much. The revenue has to go somewhere, I think to the players is as good an answer as to the $billionaire owners. But more equal distribution would probably be better. Certainly it's strange and unseemly that players in the same organization are making $1000 a month and $3M a month. And I've said for a long time that I'm wary of the combination of cord-cutting and the very old demographics of baseball's fanbase. Revenues haven't declined yet (at least pre-pandemic) but it's hard to see that continuing.

That's hilarious. Giving you a service that legally only allows you to watch competitor's games. In market streaming almost has to come within the next few years. Gross market inefficiencies only last so long. They're turning away new money to prop up declining, old business models.

One of the most ridiculous things about Directv is that you buy hardware from them, but... you... don't? You still have a line item on your monthly bill for your receivers and you have to return them when you cancel. And apparently getting new/hardware hardware locks you into a contract. This is the conduct of a natural monopoly. Lots and lots of people in rural and even not-so-rural areas don't have a choice. [Oliver Twist]Might I 'ave some more, please?[/Oliver Twist]

For a long time they were are only real option, and I was pretty happy with them. But their standard HD DVR/receiver is crap, it hasn't really been updated for a decade presumably to push you into the more expensive Genie system. And my bill was recently almost $150 a month, with no movie channels. So a few years ago when the cable company finally ran lines close enough so that I could get them to come to my house at only moderately extortionist rates I caved. And a few weeks ago I dropped Directv in favor of streaming services and cut my bill more-or-less in half. Don't know what I'm going to do for the O's. Probably just listen on the radio, because I'm not paying $90 a month for the ATT service that's the only way to stream MASN.

That's part of it. I don't think we really have any idea what future payrolls will be in a post-pandemic world of cable-cutters, especially with league-wide attendance declines before COVID, and the ownership change. On top of all that the Orioles have had a payroll significantly exceeding $120M three times, ever. To me assuming a $120-150M payroll for the foreseeable future is premature, at best.

??

I guess "somewhat ambidextrous" is a good way to put it. I eat with the fork in my left hand, can throw reasonably well lefty. Occasionally batted lefty. I've taught myself to use a computer mouse left-handed. Sometimes I'll sit in boring meetings writing left-handed, but it's pretty bad. I'd guess that I can throw a baseball about 100' left-handed, and can pitch from 40' or so lefty and get most pitches reasonably near the strike zone.

I assume they'll have three outfielders and a first baseman in every game. But maybe the shifts are going to get really weird...

I'm philosophically opposed to long-term deals for 1.5 win players. Nick looked good compared to treading water, but what if the O's had come up with a real good, young outfielder in '16 or '17 and had a 33-year-old barely average guy signed for the next few years at $11M per? There's only so many holes you can fill every offseason, but it you can't find a corner OF who can OPS .725 you have some larger organizational issues.

The other thing to think about is Hays could be productive enough to stick on a roster if he loses and step and slides to a corner. If Diaz loses a step he's a DH/1B who probably isn't going to hit nearly enough to play there in the majors. Hays' floor, unless he's hurt, is somewhere above Joey Rickard. Diaz' floor is in the minors.

I want a shortstop with solid overall production. It doesn't matter what shape that takes. I'd rather have someone with an okay glove and an .800 OPS than a very good glove and a .650.