Per Gammons: "Orioles culture... back to reality."

[BradyBunch]

Cubs are reportedly paid $60m annually between their deal with WGN and their Comcast SportsNet Deal...source.

$25m more then the O's. So that's strike one for you.

They don't get a piece of WGN national tv cable dues because they don't own any of WGN. Now they do own a piece of ComcastSportsNet Chicago.

No, they get a larger audience and $25m then the O's. Strike two.

Cubs are currently in the process of dumping WGN which is a leverage move to get their rights fees bumped up either from WGN or another source.

They aren't going to dump WGN. It's leverage to up their rights fee. Cubs will never leave WGN as it's been a partnership for over 50 years.

Correct, Hagerstown is absolutely part of the DC DMA - because DMA's aren't built to be only city-specific, they oftentimes branch out well beyond the direct metro area.

But I also didn't count Charlotte, Harrisburg (two medium sized-DMAs) or the Norfolks, Newport News, of the area etc that aren't in the DC DMA and they are small-mid size as well.

I never said it wasn't. But Chicago sports teams unlike Baltimore and DC have several large markets. You know, Champaign, South Bend, and even Indy. Claiming Charlotte, and Harrisburg as exclusively DC/Baltimore area is absolutely incorrect. Charlotte and Harrisburg fall in that gray area. Braves and Cincy fight it out part of the Charlotte area, Braves and Nats and O's fight it out for the other half. Harrisburg is a 4 team market (even 5 teams if you start moving a bit Northeast of Harrisburg).

Btw, Time Warner doesn't carry MASN in North Carolina. And you'd be hard press to watch O's and Nats games in North Carolina at all, unless you live on the shore and near Norfolk.

So Strike three on understand TV markets.

And all those cable subscribers are kicking in every month to Angelos/Os group who own the biggest chunk of all of MASN.

How much does it cost to re-broadcast/broadcast ESPN content. Give you a clue it's more then free. How about Georgetown games? Raven's stuff? O's and Nat's fees? Then other content? Pay on air-talent, upkeep, travel, transmission fees?

Adding those up.. it's over $100m plus (and that's a low estimate) for MASN to run (hard numbers are the O's and Nats fees). If the DC/Baltimore exclusive zone is 7 million. That's $14m a month or $168m a year.

The Os are a large market team with MASN.

Nobody in their right mind is saying the Os are Yankees/Dodgers large. I'm not sure anybody ever has on here. I certainly haven't. But they ain't small.

For number of subscribers for MASN, it's small. Ranking 15th or lower in baseball. It's less then half of YES, for example.

But the MASN deal created a wide wide wide wide indentured viewership for millions of people who could care less about the O's, but still kick back every month to them. It's the greatest buffer against terrible attendance.

But that's true of all teams. But in reality is just exchanging one form of income for another that's spread out among more people.

It's a numbers game. We can suck every year - attendance can go down the toilet.

It's a numbers game you don't understand tho. 1 fan coming to a game spending $50 (more like $100, with food, parking, ticket, beer and such). That is still more collected then that 1 fan paying $2 something for 12 months. You need two subscribers for each fan that went to a game to break even.

3m fans spending $50 at a game.. is $150m in revenue before advertising and tv money (which is "forced".. 3m staying at home watching TV, is $72m in revenue per year.

Angelos can cry poverty, cash a rev share check, keep the MASN profits off the Os books with the low TV fees thus keeping the small market myth alive.

MASN is jointed owned. You have no clue what the MASN contract with MLB/Nats is. Maybe the contract states the Angelos can't move MASN money to the O's. Maybe that money is forced to be held as cash for future right fees. Lots of unknowns. But jumping to conclusions what Angelos is doing is based out of fantasy.

We know MASN has around $200m in cash on the books. MASN has been around for about 7 years (if I remember correctly).. MASN didn't always have 7 million subscribers. So that $200m might be all that profit you claim Angelos is putting in his pocket.

Keep a big chunk of your profits in your RSN and not the team = RSN as a separate business entity = Profits not part of team's books = less team profits = less rev share liability (or in the case of the Os the ability to reap rev share money).

Or it could be the Dodgers were just bought for $2.15 billion and that's a way to recapture their investment money without harming the teams accounts? Hmmmmmm.. maybe.. just maybe, right?

The really interesting scenario to reference your post is what happens when Angelos IS forced to pay the Os a higher tv fee when the Nats get it.

Nats aren't gonna get a big increase. Their viewership is horrible. Something like 40k in the DC DMA. But if that does happen, Angelos will just sell MASN for a cool $600m - $1b. Then collect another $60-80m in TV rights for the O's.

So my guess is we will still be an impoverished team who can't afford top international amateurs or posting fees for premium Japanese players...or more scouts...or more legit free agents.

You do realize the reason why the O's don't buy top international amateurs, right? Because most of them were Cubans and Angelos always had that policy of not paying defectors huge sums of money or even getting them. He's lighted up lately since the O's do have some Cuban defectors in the farm system. But I actually agree with not pouring huge amounts of money into foreign players who haven't played a lick of American baseball.

Just like I don't like posting fees. This isn't soccer with transfer fees. You play out your contract or you get TRADED.

We'll just be doggypaddling in this murky water between needing to rebuild or invest in established veterans to move us forward. The appearance of being "competitive" play.

Like I told many here before.. got a problem with it? Find some money laying around and go buy them team and the RSN. Until then watch or don't watch.

[BradyBunch]

But your pulling statistics to support your argument. As wariole pointed out, after taking the first two games of the Red Sox series, we were one game out.

Johnson struggled this year, but to suggest that he is the reason we did not make the playoffs is silly. The inability for the starting rotation to string together good starts and go deep into games, Markakis' terrible second half, and the struggles of our bullpen were also all causes of the downfall. You just choose to point to Johnson because as a closer, he is under more or a microscope.

As I said before, trading Johnson was a smart move (and as Frobby correctly pointed out) ONLY if that $10M is reinvested into making the team better.

And I am gonna point out you. O's ended up 5 games back. He blew 6 more saves, had one less save then 2012 while appearing in 3 more games. If you are closer and can't close 1 run games, which is his problem, you shouldn't be closing.

[Frobby]

You do realize the reason why the O's don't buy top international amateurs, right? Because most of them were Cubans and Angelos always had that policy of not paying defectors huge sums of money or even getting them. He's lighted up lately since the O's do have some Cuban defectors in the farm system. But I actually agree with not pouring huge amounts of money into foreign players who haven't played a lick of American baseball.

I don't think Bruno was talking just about the Cuban guys. The O's don't pay for the top-tier Dominican talent, either. I'm not necessarily advocating the strategy of going after the highest-priced Dominican talent, but it's certainly true that the Orioles have stayed away from that market for years. Of course, the game has changed now. Before there was no limit on international spending, and now every team has a set maximum.

[Rene88]

And I am gonna point out you. O's ended up 5 games back. He blew 6 more saves, had one less save then 2012 while appearing in 3 more games. If you are closer and can't close 1 run games, which is his problem, you shouldn't be closing.

I love all these statistical arguments for support of JJ. That is super but momentum plays a BIG part in sports that this doesn't take into account. You only blow so many games before destroying your team's momentum and chance of putting an actual win streak together. That Arizona series was like watching a car crash. Is JJ soley to blame? No, but you are using stats to support your argument, so I guess it is. The truth is Buck had no place in bringing him in past the first ineffective outing in Arizona. He clearly was going through a rough patch.

All for nothing though because Balfour was our hope for improving the role....oh well.

[Frobby]

And I am gonna point out you. O's ended up 5 games back. He blew 6 more saves, had one less save then 2012 while appearing in 3 more games. If you are closer and can't close 1 run games, which is his problem, you shouldn't be closing.

Using JJ's 2012 season as a starting point is holding him to too high a standard. It is probably more accurate to say that the Orioles made the playoffs in 2012 because JJ blew so few saves, than it would be to say the Orioles missed the playoffs in 2013 because he blew so many.

[BradyBunch]

Everyone knows Jim Johnson played a role in the Orioles not making the playoffs. But as I've said 100 times at least, every closer is going to blow some games. Johnson's 84.7% save rate was a bit below league average for a closer. When you are asked to close 59 games, you can expect 6-7 blown saves from a league average closer. Look around the league:

Holland 94%

Janssen 94%

Nathan 93%

Balfour 93%

Benoit 92%

Frieri 90%

Perkins 90%

Uehara 88%

Rivera 86%

Johnson 85%

Veras 84%

Perez 83%

Reed 83%

Wilhelmsen 83%

Rodney 82%

The save rate for the entire group was 88%. Apply that to 59 save opportunities, and you get 52 saves, 7 blown saves. So, JJ was 2 saves below average, and 5 below the most elite guys, if you consider the number of opportunities he had. Neither would have been enough to get us into the playoffs.

Another way to look at it: JJ closed the season with 11 saves in 11 opportunities, and yet the Orioles went 17-19 in that stretch. They had their opportuinities, but didn't take advantage. It's a team game, and JJ gets some of the blame for the O's missing the playoffs, but so do lots of other guys.

So Jim Johnson is league average and not an All-Star.. okay we agree on that. His closing duties didn't rise dramatically from 2012 to 2013. Just 3 games more. But his blown saves increased by 300%.

Those 5 make the O's 90 and 72. 1 game back going into the last week. Now not saying those 5 put us in. But those 6 blown saves over 2012 does.

2 games below .500 over 36 games stretch that included AL east teams. A blooper hit by Boston and a 16 or 17 inning game against Tampa. I don't mind that as much. That's dumb luck, but going into the 9th with the lead and losing it 6 times more then you did the year before. That BUGS me.

[Can_of_corn]

I love all these statistical arguments for support of JJ. That is super but momentum plays a BIG part in sports that this doesn't take into account. You only blow so many games before destroying your team's momentum and chance of putting an actual win streak together. That Arizona series was like watching a car crash. Is JJ soley to blame? No, but you are using stats to support your argument, so I guess it is. The truth is Buck had no place in bringing him in past the first ineffective outing in Arizona. He clearly was going through a rough patch.

All for nothing though because Balfour was our hope for improving the role....oh well.

Earl didn't agree with you.

[Can_of_corn]

The good news is that everyone who thinks JJ was awful and blew last season and 2012 play-offs are going to get a chance to experience life without that awful player. I hope it works out, but I'm skeptical simply because I remember the choices and results during the prior decade.

I had no issue with us losing JJ, but I can't imagine how anyone who has watched this team for years doesn't realize that JJ was part of the solution, not part of the problem. I thought that, but more importantly his teammates, manager, and GM all thought that. They didn't lose faith in him IMHO and I think their reaction when he was traded supports that opinion.

I think he was a perfectly adequate player to use in that role but I am categorically opposed to any member of the bullpen using up more then about 3% of a team's budget.

[waroriole]

I think he was a perfectly adequate player to use in that role but I am categorically opposed to any member of the bullpen using up more then about 3% of a team's budget.

I would agree that number is too high to pay, unless the money is going back into the owner's pocket. If you're not gonna reallocate, just give it to the player.

[Frobby]

I love all these statistical arguments for support of JJ. That is super but momentum plays a BIG part in sports that this doesn't take into account. You only blow so many games before destroying your team's momentum and chance of putting an actual win streak together. That Arizona series was like watching a car crash. Is JJ soley to blame? No, but you are using stats to support your argument, so I guess it is. The truth is Buck had no place in bringing him in past the first ineffective outing in Arizona. He clearly was going through a rough patch.

I wonder if you realize that JJ did not blow the first game in Arizona. I've read many posts on this board erroneously stating that JJ blew thre straight games against Arizona. The first game was blown by Hunter in the 7th inning, then Patton allowed a tie-breaking run in the 8th, and after the O's tied the game again, O'Day lost the game in the 9th. Jim Johnson had nothing to do with that one. He did blow one-run leads in the two following games, which were then lost by other pitchers in extra innings after the Orioles failed to score any more runs in those games.

JJ seems to get 100% of the blame for that series, but I don't see it that way. Obviously, game 1 had nothing to do with him. Game 2, he allowed the tying run, but the hitters did nothing to help the cause in extra innings and McFarland lost it in the 10th. Game 3, JJ again allowed a tying run, but the O's then failed to score in five straight innings before Norris finally coughed up a run. So for me, the offense had opprotunities to salvage games 2 and 3 and failed to do so, and other pitchers also allowed runs. It doesn't fall exclusively on JJ.

[Can_of_corn]

I would agree that number is too high to pay, unless the money is going back into the owner's pocket. If you're not gonna reallocate, just give it to the player.

Sure, of course I would much rather players get it then the owner. That is like saying I am opposed to folks kicking puppies.

[Rene88]

I wonder if you realize that JJ did not blow the first game in Arizona. I've read many posts on this board erroneously stating that JJ blew thre straight games against Arizona. The first game was blown by Hunter in the 7th inning, then Patton allowed a tie-breaking run in the 8th, and after the O's tied the game again, O'Day lost the game in the 9th. Jim Johnson had nothing to do with that one. He did blow one-run leads in the two following games, which were then lost by other pitchers in extra innings after the Orioles failed to score any more runs in those games.

JJ seems to get 100% of the blame for that series, but I don't see it that way. Obviously, game 1 had nothing to do with him. Game 2, he allowed the tying run, but the hitters did nothing to help the cause in extra innings and McFarland lost it in the 10th. Game 3, JJ again allowed a tying run, but the O's then failed to score in five straight innings before Norris finally coughed up a run. So for me, the offense had opprotunities to salvage games 2 and 3 and failed to do so, and other pitchers also allowed runs. It doesn't fall exclusively on JJ.

Point taken, he blew the final 2. Allowing the tieing run is as good as a blown save.

Offense did not help out, but the closers job is not to allow the tieing or go-ahead runs.

Blame the hitters all you want, but bottom line is we could have had the W in both of those games.

[MrOrange82]

The good news is that everyone who thinks JJ was awful and blew last season and 2012 play-offs are going to get a chance to experience life without that awful player. I hope it works out, but I'm skeptical simply because I remember the choices and results during the prior decade.

I had no issue with us losing JJ, but I can't imagine how anyone who has watched this team for years doesn't realize that JJ was part of the solution, not part of the problem. I thought that, but more importantly his teammates, manager, and GM all thought that. They didn't lose faith in him IMHO and I think their reaction when he was traded supports that opinion.

And I don't understand at all why someone would think that.

Despite all those people who rightly de-emphasize the "save" as a mostly meaningless counting statistic, it surprises me that a substantial number of those same people say "well, he didn't blow that many, especially compared to all those he did save."

If you watched JJ pitch last season, you know that a substantial number of his appearances took on the characteristics of a tight rope act, and the fact that he didn't blow more games is a product of good fortune, given the number of times he put himself and the team into serious trouble in the late innings. He was not a shut-down "closer." He put a lot of runners on base, and the O's in a lot of tough situations.

It's fine to say, "OK, but who do we have that's better?" That's a worthwhile question. But it's not a credit to Jim Johnson or what he did for the O's. It's an indictment of the Orioles' bullpen talent.

[Can_of_corn]

I'd go as high as 7% for the right guy / situation, but 10+% is outrageous.

Kimbrel/Chapman on a contender.

That is about it.

[Frobby]

And I don't understand at all why someone would think that.

Despite all those people who rightly de-emphasize the "save" as a mostly meaningless counting statistic, it surprises me that a substantial number of those same people say "well, he didn't blow that many, especially compared to all those he did save."

If you watched JJ pitch last season, you know that a substantial number of his appearances took on the characteristics of a tight rope act, and the fact that he didn't blow more games is a product of good fortune, given the number of times he put himself and the team into serious trouble in the late innings. He was not a shut-down "closer." He put a lot of runners on base, and the O's in a lot of tough situations.

It's fine to say, "OK, but who do we have that's better?" That's a worthwhile question. But it's not a credit to Jim Johnson or what he did for the O's. It's an indictment of the Orioles' bullpen talent.

JJ had a few "tightrope games," but so do most closers. In any event, when I analyze what to expect JJ to do in 2014, I don't just look at 2013, I look at his entire career for the Orioles. I wouldn't expect him to blow 9 saves (or 15% of his opportunities) in 2014, even knowing he wasn't that great in his most recent season.