HHP: MASN/Nats/Orioles case (Inside the Courtroom)

[DrungoHazewood]

The population of the entire state of Montana is about 1.005 million. The population of Washington, DC (the city, not the DC/Metro area, NoVA, etc.) is about 632,000. It wouldn't surprise me if the Mariners reach more homes, but I doubt the margin is huge, and it's probably not made clear by geographic coverage alone.

If you add up Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon you get 14.2M people. Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware are at 15M, so add in some parts of other states and the O's/Nats combination comes out a little bit ahead. But Seattle gets more of their territory to themselves.

[weams]

Did Colts fans feel obliged to root for the Redskins when the Colts moved to Indianapolis? Did they feel like the Redskins were "Baltimore's team"? Did they feel like they owed something to the Redskins in exchange for getting a team?

As much as I like mocking the Natinals, it's perfectly fine to try to understand where they're coming from as fans rather than react with derision.

Baltimore was the Washington team for many years. They could root for the Braves if they wanted to.

[gmelson26]

To their fans or to the Lerners? With the Lerners it's obviously money. But to the fans I think they feel like there shouldn't have been a "cost" to get their team. DC and NoVa are "not Baltimore" in their minds. A lot of the sports talk people talk about this issue from time to time.

If the situation were reversed I'd probably feel the same way. Sometimes it helps to understand multiple sides of an issue, even while disagreeing with those other sides.

There's a part of me that gets this. But on the other hand, there are 30 teams and how many cities? Some states don't even have a team. Was it unreasonable for a city to root for a team that is 40 miles away? Particularly when they had been for decades. My understanding (based on what DCers have said) is that before the Nats moved in, they were solidly Os fans there. It's not like the fans had some loyalty to the Expos.

Way to sweep the rug out from under a team that has to compete with the Yankees, Red Sox, and even Blue Jays (who subsequently were made the only Canadian team following the move). Both parties (Nats and MLB) understood and agreed to the terms it would take to get a team in DC. Said deal doesn't expire simply because a few years have past. If they didn't want to receive their revenues based on an O's friendly scale, they should have moved the team to one of the Carolinas or Tennessee in my opinion.

[Redskins Rick]

I thought it was always the Lerners? Different management. Same ownership.

Your right, my bad, which is why I dont work for MASN or ESPN.

MLB owned the team, when they first came to DC, and then the Lerners took the team over.

[weams]

Did Colts fans feel obliged to root for the Redskins when the Colts moved to Indianapolis? Did they feel like the Redskins were "Baltimore's team"? Did they feel like they owed something to the Redskins in exchange for getting a team?

As much as I like mocking the Natinals, it's perfectly fine to try to understand where they're coming from as fans rather than react with derision.

I can see your point. But it is invalid. They did not have rights for a team, MLB owned a team they wanted to move there and sell it. Three parties made a deal. Now because two of the parties don't like and did not anticipate the results they want to change it? FA!

[gmelson26]

Did Colts fans feel obliged to root for the Redskins when the Colts moved to Indianapolis? Did they feel like the Redskins were "Baltimore's team"? Did they feel like they owed something to the Redskins in exchange for getting a team?

As much as I like mocking the Natinals, it's perfectly fine to try to understand where they're coming from as fans rather than react with derision.

It's not like after 33 years, they were still rooting for the Twins or Rangers.. In 2004, Washington was happily rooting for the Orioles by and large. The move to DC had nothing to do with placating the fans of DC.. it was about business. Plain and Simply. The agreed upon formula was a part of that business agreement.

[DrungoHazewood]

Did Colts fans feel obliged to root for the Redskins when the Colts moved to Indianapolis? Did they feel like the Redskins were "Baltimore's team"? Did they feel like they owed something to the Redskins in exchange for getting a team?

As much as I like mocking the Natinals, it's perfectly fine to try to understand where they're coming from as fans rather than react with derision.

Exactly. I think it's ridiculous to think the Orioles owned all of the TV rights in perpetuity to this whole area.

Yes, I understand the MASN agreement that MLB decided to go forward with and the legalese and all that stuff. But the Browns moved in and took over Senators territory without owing Calvin Griffith their first born son. The Ravens moved in and took back millions of TV households from the Redskins and Modell didn't have to pay tribute to Jack Kent Cooke.

It's a fluke of history that the Senators had two sets of terrible ownership and ceded their territory to the Orioles. Heck, if the Browns had decided to stick it out in St. Louis for another decade, until after the Senators left, maybe the expansion Senators wouldn't have happened and they'd have been paying off the Phillies for stealing their Washington-Baltimore market.

[Mondo Trasho]

There's a part of me that gets this. But on the other hand, there are 30 teams and how many cities? Some states don't even have a team. Was it unreasonable for a city to root for a team that is 40 miles away? Particularly when they had been for decades. My understanding (based on what DCers have said) is that before the Nats moved in, they were solidly Os fans there. It's not like the fans had some loyalty to the Expos.

Way to sweep the rug out from under a team that has to compete with the Yankees, Red Sox, and even Blue Jays (who subsequently were made the only Canadian team following the move). Both parties (Nats and MLB) understood and agreed to the terms it would take to get a team in DC. Said deal doesn't expire simply because a few years have past. If they didn't want to receive their revenues based on an O's friendly scale, they should have moved the team to one of the Carolinas or Tennessee in my opinion.

Obviously NoVa is a big area so opinions may vary. But, in my experience the people down here who were solidly O's fans are either still O's fans or they root for both teams since they don't directly compete with each other on the field 99% of the season. A good friend of mine who lives in DC lives and dies with the O's but still likes the Nats and goes to some of their games.

The people who are now solidly Nationals fans were never really O's fans. They were baseball fans who liked going to Camden Yards because it's a beautiful ballpark and the closest game in town. But they never lived and died with the team. When I was in middle school I was one of the only kids to wear O's shirts or even bother talking about baseball. When I look at facebook now, it's full of people taking pictures of themselves at Nats games decked out in red.

What really got damaged when the Nats came to DC was branding. I remember going to Giant and they'd have free Orioles mini-schedules they would give away, you could go to Target or Walmart and see lots of Orioles stuff to buy, etc. That's changed and justifiably so, but I think it's indisputable that the brand was damaged, simply as a result of not having the same exposure.

The blame really should go to baseball honestly. They messed up the Expos move, and really the entire Expos franchise. Angelos had a duty to defend his brand and he did. Fans are justified in feeling how they feel but sometimes things we don't like happen. There's really no easy answer here unless you put on tinted glasses (be they red or orange).

[Mondo Trasho]

It's not like after 33 years, they were still rooting for the Twins or Rangers.. In 2004, Washington was happily rooting for the Orioles by and large. The move to DC had nothing to do with placating the fans of DC.. it was about business. Plain and Simply. The agreed upon formula was a part of that business agreement.

Some were some weren't. Most people I know who were O's fans in 2004 are still O's fans. Most Nats fans I know today didn't even bother with baseball in 2004.

And I think in addition to being about business, I think it was about MLB trying to correct their screw up with regards to the Expos. The Expos had become an albatross they wanted to rid themselves of.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's not like after 33 years, they were still rooting for the Twins or Rangers.. In 2004, Washington was happily rooting for the Orioles by and large. The move to DC had nothing to do with placating the fans of DC.. it was about business. Plain and Simply. The agreed upon formula was a part of that business agreement.

Happily? I know a number of old Senators fans who ditched the Orioles quickly after the Nats came to town. And the casual fans quickly and naturally migrated to what's easiest - a 20 minute Metro ride over an hour or two in traffic on the BW Parkway.

Of course it was business. MLB lives and dies by their territorial agreements, sometimes at the same time. King Bud granted Count Von Angelos his own little fifedom, and then came to the conclusion that part of his land was more valuable with it's own Count. And nothing is better for the front page of the Enquirer than a royal catfight.

[DrungoHazewood]

And I think in addition to being about business, I think it was about MLB trying to correct their screw up with regards to the Expos. The Expos had become an albatross they wanted to rid themselves of.

MLB made them an albatross, after failing to extort a new stadium out of the governments of Canada, Quebec, and Montreal. Before Loria and crew systematically dismantled Les Expos they were a perfectly viable Major League franchise. They moved to DC because the government there was more willing to fork over $500M.

[Mondo Trasho]

MLB made them an albatross, after failing to extort a new stadium out of the governments of Canada, Quebec, and Montreal. Before Loria and crew systematically dismantled Les Expos they were a perfectly viable Major League franchise. They moved to DC because the government there was more willing to fork over $500M.

Yeah, exactly.

[Mondo Trasho]

Happily? I know a number of old Senators fans who ditched the Orioles quickly after the Nats came to town. And the casual fans quickly and naturally migrated to what's easiest - a 20 minute Metro ride over an hour or two in traffic on the BW Parkway.

Well since I'm coming from Loudoun, if I don't leave by 3 pm it can be close to 3 hours to drive to Baltimore. Traffic on 495 during rush hour is about as fun as sitting on a porcupine.

[Redskins Rick]

Happily? I know a number of old Senators fans who ditched the Orioles quickly after the Nats came to town. And the casual fans quickly and naturally migrated to what's easiest - a 20 minute Metro ride over an hour or two in traffic on the BW Parkway.

Of course it was business. MLB lives and dies by their territorial agreements, sometimes at the same time. King Bud granted Count Von Angelos his own little fifedom, and then came to the conclusion that part of his land was more valuable with it's own Count. And nothing is better for the front page of the Enquirer than a royal catfight.

I am very old Senators fan that didn't ditch the Orioles after changing my fandom.

But, I am sure there are many that did.

By 2004, King Peter had angered some of his fans with his ownership style and the ones that left were probably disgruntled and maybe might have stuck around, if things hadn't been as Tony-OH said, abysmal here.

[DrungoHazewood]

The blame really should go to baseball honestly. They messed up the Expos move, and really the entire Expos franchise. Angelos had a duty to defend his brand and he did. Fans are justified in feeling how they feel but sometimes things we don't like happen. There's really no easy answer here unless you put on tinted glasses (be they red or orange).

There was no good way to do it because they've already divided up the country. Some team has a claim to every last square inch of the United States. Of all of the options Washington was one of the least complicated. Move them to Vegas and they'd have had to pay off six different teams. Move to San Antonio and they're dealing with both the Astros and Rangers. Charlotte is currently split between the Orioles, Reds, and Braves (but curiously not the Nats). Oklahoma City is split between four teams. And probably the most lucrative market, NYC, is already split between two very rich teams that will fight to the death to keep their advantages. Only Portland seems on par with Baltimore-Washington, you'd only have to pay off Seattle. But Portland's political environment was and is not at all inclined to build a free stadium for a baseball team. They actually kicked their AAA team out of town in favor of an MLS team.

Weirdly enough, if you were looking to move or expand baseball today the best market might just be Montreal. If you could find a place to play.