Boswell: Peter Angelos is worse than Dan Snyder

[BilboBaggins]

Care to make it interesting, vatech?

Let's see:

Tactic #1 - Accuse someone of creating strawmen.

Tactic #2 - Troll them endlessly.

Tactic #3 - Make up sock-puppet conspiracy theories.

Give it a rest.

If anyone is a sock-puppet it's probably you.

[NCRaven]

We don't know if Boswell is referrring to things we have heard about, or something else. For example, the news that the O's had reassigned their professional scouts to the amateur side drew a lot of criticism, and word was that the scouts were very unhappy about it. That could be the kind of thing Boswell is referencing. Or, not.

This was my take, as well. Other than the scouting issue, no one else has reported any "issues" coming out of the warehouse. And that is on Duquette, not Angelos. I'm no Peter fan, but it looks like DD has been give plenty of authority to structure this team the way he wants. And nowhere else was Angelos ever mentioned as having interest in the Dodgers, which makes no sense at all. Neither he nor his family seem to have any close contection to LA and with the creation of MASN, no real clear reason to trade the Baltimore franchise for the Dodgers. On that, I'm calling BS on Boswell.

[backwardsk]

It'll be interesting to see if Redskins fans we have here agree. As someone who isn't a Redskins fan I would agree that Angelos is worse..

Angelos is worse by far. I get the piece due to their reputations and the geography. But, I believe, when it's all said and done, Snyder will be compared more to Steinbrenner than Angelos.

[Frobby]

I've been consistent in my belief that we have the money, but we just don't spend it - if Angelos was truly interested in buying the Dodgers, he has a treasure chest of considerable proportions. Which means he could spend the money on multiple big time free agents if he wanted to and not suffer greatly.

That pokes a massive hole in the idea that our resources would be "tied up" in a player during his most productive years while we were still far from contention. We've got to start somewhere. Right now, we're still in the same hole as before.

Where in all of this is a made-up scenario?

Who is "we" here? Where do I get my share of the money "we" have?

More seriously, you need to be careful not to confuse two different issues:

1. Whether the Orioles, and their related businesses (MASN), generate enough revenue that they could spend more money on a consistent basis and still break even or turn a profit.

2. Whether Peter Angelos has enough money (outside of the Orioles and MASN) where he could subsidize the Orioles, even if they were losing money.

In my mind, if the answer to question no. 1 is "yes," then Angelos and the other owners have something of a moral obligation to spend some or all of the profits that are being generated to improve the Orioles. But Angelos has no obligation at all to subsidize the Orioles with his personal furtune earned through his law practice or other businesses, even if he has enough money to buy the Dodgers or whatever.

[Fan4Life]

Or, just the Los Angelos Dodgers.

Must spread rep....

[weams]

I agree that a few folks have used these words. However, like yourself, everyone I can think of who did that (and it has been infrequent) has clarified that they simply meant we aren't the Yankees or Red Sox when pressed on the subject. My point is that folks like MSK, Johnny, EMF, and Roy have been using this label as a basis for attack in their posts for weeks. Multiple people have clarified that nobody actually believes we're small market and that we outspent the Nats by 18 million last year, but these folks continue to label all views that don't agree with their view in this fashion. It is intentional, inaccurate, weak minded, and deserves to be pointed out at every opportunity.

You are definitely not a Sock Puppet. I expect to see your flesh and blood the first week of March.

[Bradysburns]

I gotta say - pretty sloppy "reporting" from the Boz. This is rumor and innuendo, for the most part.

And I must admit to being both a Skins and Orioles fan. And as a Redskins fan, I can say that Snyder is probably a bigger &*#& than Peter ever was or will be. The way Snyder's treated the staff, the fans, his coaches (just ask Turner, or Zorn), and the media (just ask the Washington City Paper). I'm sorry but the Danny's got it all over Peter in the "Bad Owner" category.

I don't approve of Peter's on-field product, nor his meddling in the past. But the last truly distasteful thing I remember him doing was the Davey Johnson pseudo-firing - and his open letter to Davey, which was just grotesque.

The one thing Snyder has finally done is turn over football operations to football people. Peter is hopefully doing that with DD, and some of the internal moves at the Warehouse would seem to support that.

[El Gordo]

I was confused by that language too. A number of ways to take that.....none of them good.

In the owners club he is disliked becuase he is pro union and refused to field a scab team during the strike. Among FO baseball people, he is referred to as "King Peter." Look at how difficult it was to get a GM to accept.

[24fps]

Thomas Boswell:The Orioles situation is far worse. The never-ending stories out of the Warehouse, including a bunch more in the last few weeks, make Redskins Park look like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

Unless Boswell is referring solely to his comment about PA wanting to buy the Dodgers, he really owes it to his readers to elaborate a little further on the recent batch of "never-ending stories out of the Warehouse"

[Frobby]

Unless Boswell is referring solely to his comment about PA wanting to buy the Dodgers, he really owes it to his readers to elaborate a little further on the recent batch of "never-ending stories out of the Warehouse"

It was a Q & A on an online chat. I'm not expecting to hear more.

[paulcoates]

Who is "we" here? Where do I get my share of the money "we" have?

More seriously, you need to be careful not to confuse two different issues:

1. Whether the Orioles, and their related businesses (MASN), generate enough revenue that they could spend more money on a consistent basis and still break even or turn a profit.

2. Whether Peter Angelos has enough money (outside of the Orioles and MASN) where he could subsidize the Orioles, even if they were losing money.

In my mind, if the answer to question no. 1 is "yes," then Angelos and the other owners have something of a moral obligation to spend some or all of the profits that are being generated to improve the Orioles. But Angelos has no obligation at all to subsidize the Orioles with his personal furtune earned through his law practice or other businesses, even if he has enough money to buy the Dodgers or whatever.

Is it said anywhere that Angelos has to actually pay the Orioles for their broadcasting rights? Furthermore, who is to say that even if he does, he isn't charging MASN $1 a year and pocketing the rest of the money. I am sure he could argue that this is a separate entity, therefore the Orioles do not neccesarily have a right to make money off of MASN.

In regards to us being small market or not, this is clearly what Angelos has been selling to the fans with his refusal to sign the elite talents in the game. Let me tell everyone what makes the Orioles not have more money to sign free agents - the continual low level product that they march out of the field. What's that saying? It takes money to make money. Well, I don't see King Pete as willing to put out the money to get us elite players, and at this point I do not blame ANY fan for not giving the Orioles a dime of their hard earned money. Elite players means increased attendance which means more money. If you don't sell out OPACY then the money won't flow. Boston has one of the smallest parks in baseball and they compete every year, so Angelos can sell that we can't compete, but that is total BS. You win, fans show up, money flows in. Sign better free agents. Rinse, lather, repeat.

[UpstateNYfan]

Don't discussions like this ever get old?? Boswell should have better things to write about. IMO, the question is, Which owner should have an easier time of becoming successful? There is no question, Snyder should have an easier time. The reasons are numerous, but:

1) A short season, such as the NFL has, the cream doesn't always have time to rise to the top. Poor teams sometimes make the playoffs.

2) Schedule, sometimes a soft schedule makes an average team look very good. Look at TB and KC last and this year.

3) A true draft, with trade possibilities of draft picks.

4) No guarantee contracts.

5) Most of schedule outside their division.

6) Player development, no comparison of the two...NFL gets players from college, at no expense and NFL ready or in a VERY short period of time...

For all you OH'ers that advocate spending huge amounts of money, look at the success Snyder and for that matter Jerry Jones have had

I am not a PA fan, but not a hater. So, what if he gets called King Peter, really? I have rarely worked in a place where the boss isn't called king or queen by some employee, usually unhappy. Hell, even in households get referred to as Queen, King, Prince or Princess.

Orioles, winning 60 or 100 games does not change my wallet. I would be happier and easier to get along with with 40 more wins!! But, I loved the O's with some other pretty shaky owners like EBW and Eli Jacobs. I don't see a huge difference in them, except the rules and FA's have changed considerably over the years.

[24fps]

It was a Q & A on an online chat. I'm not expecting to hear more.

Sadly I don't expect to hear more either, and therein lies the heart of my complaint. If he was referring to something that was already public knowledge then I don't think it's too much to ask for a quick reference. If it's still unconfirmed hearsay, and that looks to be the case here, then IMO he would be better served to keep it to himself regardless of the forum. Nobody likes a tease and it's reasonable to expect more from someone in his position.

[Guest rochester]

To me, whether PA is the worst owner by comparing him to other failures is meaningless. 14 years of complete incompetence speaks for itself.... whether that means not having a proper budget (or using it wisely), management and employees is a direct correlation to failure - having an organization with all three failing is a disaster. I hate to say this, but I wonder if PA is ok - this Dodgers rumor (and IMO Boswell does not just throw things like this out there) may be the strangest rumor yet - it really does not make any sense - may it be for estate/accounting purposes? PLEASE do not think I have any knowledge of this nor do I wish to start rumors but there are instances when someone gets "older" they get hyper-focused on their estate and "legacy" of it. I do not buy into the white collar/blue collar thing completely when it comes to PA - he grew up as and made his $$ from blue collar - he is, to put it mildly, pro-union. I believe it is more of forcing a system that he had unilateral authority to decide everything from management, players to what hot dog vendors get paid.

Finally, I am not in the camp of setting a budget and completely backing off. This is a business that has a multi-multi-million budget every year - you do not put that entire amount anyone's hands until you are confident they can handle it. Hiring competent management that you trust goes a long way here.

Boswell? As above I do not believe he is one that starts spurious rumors - but I do believe he is a champion of the Nats, but that is consistent with him from the time the Senators left.

[El Gordo]

Who is "we" here? Where do I get my share of the money "we" have?

More seriously, you need to be careful not to confuse two different issues:

1. Whether the Orioles, and their related businesses (MASN), generate enough revenue that they could spend more money on a consistent basis and still break even or turn a profit.

2. Whether Peter Angelos has enough money (outside of the Orioles and MASN) where he could subsidize the Orioles, even if they were losing money.

In my mind, if the answer to question no. 1 is "yes," then Angelos and the other owners have something of a moral obligation to spend some or all of the profits that are being generated to improve the Orioles. But Angelos has no obligation at all to subsidize the Orioles with his personal furtune earned through his law practice or other businesses, even if he has enough money to buy the Dodgers or whatever.

:agree: I don't think this point can be emphasized too much. It seems many here confuse point #1 with #2.