Is Angelos quietly shopping the Orioles?

[Iscull]

Hey man...nice to see you here my Ravens24X7 fellow poster. The Ravens board is blowing up on this "rumor".

Yeah, I really hope it's true. Biscotti would turn this organzation completely around.

[geschinger]

Some members of Congress are trying to get the FCC to rescind the NFL's blackout rules as we speak. They can and do get involved in things like that.

As for the second part of your post' date=' even the smartest business-people can get swept up in a bubble when they're making lots of money. But the huge amounts of money that networks are paying for these sports (much of it locked in for years to come via contracts) eventually comes out of the viewer's pockets. And I think many of them are going to start reaching the breaking point soon, whether it be what they can afford to pay or simply what they are willing to pay.[/quote']

Hopefully Congress will, it would help speed up the process but it is not a prerequisite for the existing cable model (and related RSN cash cow model) to die. That is already starting and the only question is will it 5, 10 or 20 years to reach the tipping point. I'm confident that with advances in technology it will come earlier than people anticipate.

You are exactly right with the second part. And I think that should be obvious to everyone considering what has happened with the finance markets in the very recent past run by people that we would have all considered very smart people before the collapse.

[BrunoCherrytown]

Steve B is not buying the Orioles.

I thought I had read somewhere NFL owners can not own MLB teams. That may be incorrect since NFL owners own soccer teams, but I thought I had come across that tidbit before.

Although, according to Wikipedia:

The NFL also forbids its majority owners from owning any sports teams (except for soccer teams and Arena Football League teams) in other NFL cities, and prohibits owners from investing in casinos or being otherwise involved in gambling operations. NFL owners may freely own soccer teams without league restrictions because Lamar Hunt won a court challenge stemming from his investment in the old North American Soccer League. When he died in December 2006, he owned two teams in Major League Soccer, FC Dallas and the Columbus Crew, and he had only sold a third team, the Kansas City Wizards (now Sporting Kansas City), less than four months before. Three other NFL owners, Malcolm Glazer, Stan Kroenke and Randy Lerner, own teams in the English Premier League; Kroenke owns the NFL's St. Louis Rams and the PL's Arsenal, Glazer owns the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the PL's Manchester United, and Lerner owns the NFL's Cleveland Browns and the PL's Aston Villa. This has been an aid in the NFL's international efforts; both the Buccaneers and Rams have served as home teams for the International Series games in London.

So I guess Biscotti could own the Orioles since it's the same city if Wiki-P is correct.

[TonySoprano]

I thought I had read somewhere NFL owners can not own MLB teams. That may be incorrect since NFL owners own soccer teams, but I thought I had come across that tidbit before.

Although, according to Wikipedia:

So I guess Biscotti could own the Orioles since it's the same city if Wiki-P is correct.

Angelos tried to buy the Redskins in 1998, arguing that Baltimore and Washington were the same market.

[DrungoHazewood]

There are plenty of options for viewing live sports without cable/satellite nowadays.

In fact' date=' I'd say the last big hurdle are the local blackout rules that MLB/NBA/NHL enforce with regard to their online subscription packages. I'm sure they'll cling to those as long as they can to keep their RSN revenues flowing. But sooner or later that will end. Either Congress/FCC will intervene or people will just figure out a workaround. We are seeing a glimpse of the future, a future where people refuse to pay for garbage programming that they don't want, and will even do without a couple things they do like to not have to pay in excess of $100/mo for cable or satellite. The sooner MLB and other sports leagues realize this and act, the better off they'll be.[/quote']

Inefficiencies happen, illogic persists, but in the long run history tends towards common sense and progress. Even in baseball. And just like people finally found ways to not pay $22 at the mall for an album with that one Britney Spears song on it, eventually there will be ways to get TV shows they want without paying for 1000s they don't. It's clearly not in the general interest to have everyone inside of 200 miles of Baltimore pay $2 a month for MASN when 95% of them don't watch it. It will change, it's just a matter of how long it takes and whether baseball and the O's get ahead of the curve or (more likely) have a messy and counter-productive transition where they fight it to the bitter end.

[canonfaz]

If the Dodgers are going to be sold for at least 1.5 billion (number I heard last night on MLB Network). What would be Orioles be worth? I would think less than that.

[Camden_yardbird]

If the Orioles were sold without MASN we would just be in the same boat as fans. There might be less meddling but the tremendous uptick in league payrolls is being driven by profit from cable deals. If a new owner did not have that money at their disposal I see no reason why payroll would increase to a competitive level.

Angelos leaving would be great, by without Masn the true enemy would still be the massively unbalanced system created by Selig's major league baseball tyranny.

[DrungoHazewood]

If the Dodgers are going to be sold for at least 1.5 billion (number I heard last night on MLB Network). What would be Orioles be worth? I would think less than that.

Forbes has the O's worth about half as much as the Dodgers. I'm unclear about how RSNs are or are not tied to those numbers.

[DrungoHazewood]

If the Orioles were sold without MASN we would just be in the same boat as fans. There might be less meddling but the tremendous uptick in league payrolls is being driven by profit from cable deals. If a new owner did not have that money at their disposal I see no reason why payroll would increase to a competitive level.

Angelos leaving would be great, by without Masn the true enemy would still be the massively unbalanced system created by Selig's major league baseball tyranny.

I think an underfunded Orioles organization run really well would be preferable to an organization flush with MASN cash but only doing un- or counter-productive things with the money under Angelos.

[clapdiddy]

I think an underfunded Orioles organization run really well would be preferable to an organization flush with MASN cash but only doing un- or counter-productive things with the money under Angelos.

This. Put the Rays organization in Camden Yards and they will have 30,000 + butts in the seats just about every night.

[Camden_yardbird]

I think an underfunded Orioles organization run really well would be preferable to an organization flush with MASN cash but only doing un- or counter-productive things with the money under Angelos.

I agree. Problem is they aren't getting Angelos money. Surely an low payroll well run team is preferable, but also keep in mind that requires a significant amount of time to put together. Give me a well run team with a slightly above league average payroll. That's what I think the Orioles should be, but cant get to unless a new owner has MASN resources.

[EddieMurrayfan]

Inefficiencies happen, illogic persists, but in the long run history tends towards common sense and progress. Even in baseball. And just like people finally found ways to not pay $22 at the mall for an album with that one Britney Spears song on it, eventually there will be ways to get TV shows they want without paying for 1000s they don't. It's clearly not in the general interest to have everyone inside of 200 miles of Baltimore pay $2 a month for MASN when 95% of them don't watch it. It will change, it's just a matter of how long it takes and whether baseball and the O's get ahead of the curve or (more likely) have a messy and counter-productive transition where they fight it to the bitter end.

Right now the way to "beat the system" so to speak is doing all your TV viewing thru the internet. I canned DirecTV and have zero regrets. Now I only pay monthly internet fees (which I would be paying anyway) and my MLB.TV subscription and get all MLB games in HD. There are websites where you can pretty much watch any sporting event out there.

I hear more and more people talk about dropping cable/satellite but there are still people who are happy to pay the monthly fees for their TV. As more people opt for paying less and using the internet I imagine we will eventually see internet providers charging for data usage, much like cell phone companies are starting to do.

When "they" figure out how to charge individuals for the air they breath we will be paying for that as well.

[Hooded Viper]

I don't feel like reading through 11 pages. Has this story been coroborated by a credible source other than a tweet from one of the sports junkies?

[lovetoaster]

This was brought up in the comments section of Roch's blog post about Britton. His response:

A very reliable source tells me there's absolutely no truth to it. For what it's worth.

http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2012/02/dan-duquette-issues-statement-on-zach-britton.html

It does not shock me at all that this appears to be a false rumor. But at least it gave us a glimmer of hope and some wishful thinking for a few days.

[connja]

If the Dodgers are going to be sold for at least 1.5 billion (number I heard last night on MLB Network). What would be Orioles be worth? I would think less than that.

LA is the second biggest TV market in the country, and Baltimore is in the bottom quartile of MLB. Much, much less than the Dodgers. Just my swag, but I would guess somewhere between 400-500m.