Peter Angelos...Good owner or Bad owner.

[Brendan25]

All I can say is that it shouldn't take any team, in any sport, 15 years just to have a winning season, let alone make the playoffs. Eight GM's, seven managers, one constant throughout it all.

Age, bad free agent signings, awful drafting, awful player development.

I guess we could blame Angelos for not paying more or for hiring the wrong people?

[crowmst3k!]

Somewhere in between. The Peter Angelos today is a MUCH better owner than the Peter Angelos of a decade ago when Tony wrote his expos?, and that's largely because he's stayed out of the way. The problem I have with Angelos is that he largely doesn't understand how to maximize his resources, or is unwilling to maximize his resources in owning an RSN.

We're looking at an age where Fox, Comcast are trying to pay mega bucks just to own, or buy out the rights from MASN. This is a paradigm where teams in large markets, with large territories are being paid $80-100 million a year for their television rights...money which sits on top of gate fees, ballpark advertising, MLB revenue sharing, merchandising, and capitalizing on a brand. We're talking about money that could support payrolls of $120 million sustainably.

This is what MASN should have. I'm willing to bet that they do. If they don't, then MASN is severely mismanaged. I'm willing to work under the assumption that the money is there, and MASN is hugely lucrative.

Still, only ~$30ish million is earmarked to be paid from MASN, the corporation to both the Nationals and the Orioles. Any remainder of MASN's profits are not being reinvested into the club. I think Angelos views each as a very distinct corporation, with separate budgets, rather than an extension of the Orioles' revenue.

In a market as big as the Baltimore, DC, I95 south of Philly corridor, as far south as NC with all cable/sat providers in that area paying MASN rights fees on top of purchased advertising, the revenue for MASN has to be there.

The Baltimore market has ~820,000 wired households for cable, the DC Market is ~1.6 million cable subscribers. That's 2.42 million alone without accounting for Virginia, NC, and Satellite customers. Without doing anymore armchair research, it gives an idea of the scope of household penetration that MASN has.

This is not a small market, not by that measure, and with Angelos largely controlling that revenue, the Orioles could easily inflate payroll. Significantly. The problem is, the only actual earmarked money for the Orioles are the rights fees that MASN has negotiated with the Orioles.

MASN money does not equal Orioles money, and this is where the Orioles are not properly capitalizing on such a significant resource like MASN.

The Yankees, Red Sox both dip directly into the coffers of YES and NESN, respectively to increase their payrolls. Teams like the Dodgers and Angels have TV deals with real, available revenue numbers. There's transparency there, and the locals would not stand for that money to be pocketed. This is where MASN is different.

.

The Orioles will argue that they are reinvesting their rights fees back into payroll--and they are, but that number has the capacity to be much, much bigger, and until that number is re-negotiated with both the Orioles and Nationals, it should not be expected to see any large jumps in Oriole payroll, despite the lucrative entity that is MASN.

Until Angelos really begins reinvesting the profits of MASN to the club to help sustain this success, he still has a long way to improve as an owner.

[Roll Tide]

I can actually agree with this to an extent. To me he is better than Loria of the Marlins. Unfortunately to me he is worse than the majority of the owners out there.

No! He's a bad baseball team owner. The charitable stuff he's done could've been done with the billions he made off Asbestos and Tobacco. He was a good owner back when he purchased the team. He is a bad owner as far as handcuffing the team by limiting payroll and splitting MASN as a separate business to serve his and the other owners best interest above the team. He also made a deal with the devil (Bud Selig) that allowed the Expos to move to DC. This deal seems to be getting worse by the day as the Gnats owners are unhappy with the deal that allowed them here in the 1st place. Shrinking the tv market for the Orioles and removing them from the list of large market teams. The deal keeps his ownership group from serious damage ...but the harm to the teams ability to play with the big boys is permanent.

[NATTYBO's]

The question is a very simple one brought on by all the accusations I see on here that this board loves and defends Peter Angelos.

Is Peter Angelos a good owner of a Major League Baseball team, specifically the Orioles owner.

Answers are just as easy.....

YES--He is a good owner

NO--He is not a good owner

Before you blast me for starting this, I have met Peter many times at charity events mostly and know many people who do speak highly of him as a man, an attorney and a philanthropist. I do know he cares about Baltimore but that is not part of the question. I don't care about those Pete's just Peter the owner.

I voted no but I think the problem is we really don't know the resources that he's working with or if the stories we hear in the media are completely factual....We will never know that until we get a new owner

[ShaneDawg85]

Age, bad free agent signings, awful drafting, awful player development.

I guess we could blame Angelos for not paying more or for hiring the wrong people?

Who hired the GM's who allowed the farm to rot and nothing to grow? Who hired and kept the senile old fool who almost singlehandedly set the franchise back five years, at least, with his asinine deals that were terrible then and just as terrible now? Who threw money at guys like Albert Belle, Will Clark, and Delino Deshields, and resigned Scott Erickson to a five year contract when he wouldn't do the same for Rafael Palmeiro and Mike Mussina? Who has been responsible, per insiders, for allowing deals to linger and get held up for what feels like eternity, wasting time and by the time he acts nixes them or other teams lost interest? Who tied the hands of his GM wanting to blow up an underachieving team that fortunately made the playoffs? Who told his scouting director to take a college pitcher in the first round of the draft when that player had no intention of signing with the Orioles?

I could go on for hours, and yes there are some things far out of his control that effected the team. But, the managers have changed, the pitching coaches and GM's have changed, and everyone knows the players have changed, but one man was responsible for bringing all of them in at some level or another, and he is the one factor at play for the entire duration from 1998-2011, and it's not Richie Bancells.

[Brendan25]

Who hired the GM's who allowed the farm to rot and nothing to grow? Who hired and kept the senile old fool who almost singlehandedly set the franchise back five years, at least, with his asinine deals that were terrible then and just as terrible now? Who threw money at guys like Albert Belle, Will Clark, and Delino Deshields, and resigned Scott Erickson to a five year contract when he wouldn't do the same for Rafael Palmeiro and Mike Mussina? Who has been responsible, per insiders, for allowing deals to linger and get held up for what feels like eternity, wasting time and by the time he acts nixes them or other teams lost interest? Who tied the hands of his GM wanting to blow up an underachieving team that fortunately made the playoffs? Who told his scouting director to take a college pitcher in the first round of the draft when that player had no intention of signing with the Orioles?

I could go on for hours, and yes there are some things far out of his control that effected the team. But, the managers have changed, the pitching coaches and GM's have changed, and everyone knows the players have changed, but one man was responsible for bringing all of them in at some level or another, and he is the one factor at play for the entire duration from 1998-2011, and it's not Richie Bancells.

And that is why we are not signing top free agents right now.

I agree with everything that you said. I just think he is better now then he was in 1998.

[foxfield]

This will be interesting I am sure. I voted he is not a good owner. I think that is a petty easy call. He is not without good qualities however so I will mention two. First at the time he purchased the Orioles it was not a given that they stayed in Baltimore. His purchase assured that they did. Second he could have joined the common move of other owners and brought us home games played at Bank of America Park at Camden Yards brought to you by the United Auto Workers or something just as obscene.

I would agree with those who long for an owner committed to winning, but I would also caution to add that in most things we should be careful what we wish for. Daniel Snyder is committed to winning, how has that worked? I do think that things could be worse. I just know that they could be much better.

[notyourbuddy]

Yes good. Without Petey we don't make the playoffs last year. And he told Joe Saunders "Pitch well in New York" and he did. We won that game. That was no coincidence Angelos has proven leadership and motivational skills. Bet if we go back to the tapes we would learn Pete gave Davis some hitting tips in Spring Training that led to his breakout year. And don't forget. Many visits to Camden Yards and not once has anyone gotten asbestos poisoning. That is all thanks to Pete. I sent him a Thank You card signed "On Behalf of all Oriole Fans" after we made the playoffs to appreciate all his years of Oriole ownership and wished him good health and many more years of Oriole's leadership. Angelos very successful businessman Baltimore is lucky to have him.

[Palmoripken]

I voted bad owner but there are certainly worse owners. I think he's gotten better over the years. There are still more team owners I'd rather have than him when push comes to shove but sometimes I understand his reluctance on free agents. I still would prefer some aggression in that market but I don't see going after big name FA's as the solution either. I want smart management. As much as I'd like to have a Greinke or Hamilton on this team, I don't know if they would be worth it especially for the money they'd get.

[crowmst3k!]

No! He's a bad baseball team owner. The charitable stuff he's done could've been done with the billions he made off Asbestos and Tobacco. He was a good owner back when he purchased the team. He is a bad owner as far as handcuffing the team by limiting payroll and splitting MASN as a separate business to serve his and the other owners best interest above the team. He also made a deal with the devil (Bud Selig) that allowed the Expos to move to DC. This deal seems to be getting worse by the day as the Gnats owners are unhappy with the deal that allowed them here in the 1st place. Shrinking the tv market for the Orioles and removing them from the list of large market teams. The deal keeps his ownership group from serious damage ...but the harm to the teams ability to play with the big boys is permanent.

The Orioles countered that shrinking TV market by largely owning the Nationals' TV deal, keeping the households reached largely intact. Moreover, with more people cutting cable in favor of online, more money is going into MLB.TV, which is being distributed among all MLB clubs. I don't think the Nats gripes will get teeth anytime soon, and the deal that he cut with Selig largely saved the Orioles from being a truly small market team. DC would have eventually gotten a team anyway.

I complain that much of the MASN profit is not being reinvested into the Orioles, but I'm very happy with the terms of the MASN deal with regards to the Nationals and market share.

[ShaneDawg85]

And that is why we are not signing top free agents right now.

I agree with everything that you said. I just think he is better now then he was in 1998.

Oh no doubt he's better, but that doesn't mean that he's good now, and it certainly doesn't forgive things like what I highlighted. I believe when looking at his ownership the totality of everything has to be taken into consideration, so even though he's better now than he was then, I can't in good conscious say he's a good baseball owner.

[Brendan25]

Oh no doubt he's better, but that doesn't mean that he's good now, and it certainly doesn't forgive things like what I highlighted. I believe when looking at his ownership the totality of everything has to be taken into consideration, so even though he's better now than he was then, I can't in good conscious say he's a good baseball owner.

I can't either. I voted bad.

The whole point of me making the points that I am making is because of the bitter old posters on this site that still want to bash him for not spending 50M more on the payroll this year then last year just because it's available. That's never going to happen, it's not what he wants to do, and I agree with it. He wants to win by drafting and developing and trading and filling holes in free agency. And I like that.

[UpstateNYfan]

He is a typical owner in most ways. If the definition here tends to be does he spend money like the Sox, Yankees, Angels and the Dodgers. The answer then is no. I really don't think he is cheap. He has spent money, rarely working out. He's never learned how to compete with the high spenders. He neglected the minors, IMO his biggest mistake. Demanded loyalty, that's how Thrift remained. I think he believes in players' rights and their union. He is better than EBW and Eli Jacobs....He is what he is.

[Mayor McCheese]

Even if he did spend on Hamilton and a TOR there is still

no guarantee the team will make the playoffs. The Dodgers

spent

but they didn't make the playoffs.Giants didn't spend

but the won the WS.

They did make moves around the trade deadline which helped them win the WS.

We got OMAR

[Frobby]

Bad owner but not as bad as some on here make him out to be.

That sums it up pretty well.