Dan's Offseason Moves Part One: Cruz

[Can_of_corn]

Are you sure that they did not do it again recently? Without the fanfare?

I would not be in a position to know.

After the hubbub the first time it would surprise me a bit if they repeated that transgression.

[weams]

I don't care about shame. I'm also not interested in tiptoeing around discussing front office moves. I don't have an issue complimenting moves and critiquing others, and I'm not apologetic about that. I don't believe the Orioles front office is a collection of sacred cows above reproach, and I don't think they should be whipping boys, either.

I agree that the moves have been sub optimum. And that the technique bears criticism.

[weams]

I don't care about shame. I'm also not interested in tiptoeing around discussing front office moves. I don't have an issue complimenting moves and critiquing others, and I'm not apologetic about that. I don't believe the Orioles front office is a collection of sacred cows above reproach, and I don't think they should be whipping boys, either.

This is a pretty balanced statement. It feels like it is a good way to look at things.

[Stotle]

When the league extends a team a loan with the understanding that the loan will be paid back when the league finds in favor of said team in regards to their dispute with a second team I have to wonder.

"Baseball, which says the process was fair, had left it to its Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee — composed of the owners of the New York Mets, Pittsburgh Pirates and Tampa Bay Rays — to settle the dispute. The committee decided on June 30 to award the Nationals about $60 million in TV rights fees per year — an amount MASN believes is too high. MASN now pays the club $40 million annually."

Maybe I have this wrong (please correct me if I do), but wasn't the issue that the committee believed the Nationals were entitled to money and the Orioles refused to pay it? Then MLB extended a loan to cover that amount and allow extra time for the dispute to be resolved?

If the roles were reversed I would think Baltimore should be entitled to the loan -- why should they have to go without cash that, according to the committee, they were entitled to? I have to be missing something so if it isn't too cumbersome/inconvenient definitely feel free to set me straight.

[Stotle]

I do agree that by 2013, the Cubs were again focusing on returning to fielding a competitive MLB team in the future. I just hope for your children's sake that you have not decided to raise them as Cubs fans. Because. Well. We all know how that story ends. Pick St Louis. It will be less painful for them in their middle age.

I don't get to pick, haha. Orioles baseball is what is on in the house, also Brewers. I won't really care who they end up following/cheering for. Or if they decide they'd rather watch golf/tennis/women's soccer/whatever. I can always put the Orioles game on the iPad.

[Can_of_corn]

"Baseball, which says the process was fair, had left it to its Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee — composed of the owners of the New York Mets, Pittsburgh Pirates and Tampa Bay Rays — to settle the dispute. The committee decided on June 30 to award the Nationals about $60 million in TV rights fees per year — an amount MASN believes is too high. MASN now pays the club $40 million annually."

Maybe I have this wrong (please correct me if I do), but wasn't the issue that the committee believed the Nationals were entitled to money and the Orioles refused to pay it? Then MLB extended a loan to cover that amount and allow extra time for the dispute to be resolved?

If the roles were reversed I would think Baltimore should be entitled to the loan -- why should they have to go without cash that, according to the committee, they were entitled to? I have to be missing something so if it isn't too cumbersome/inconvenient definitely feel free to set me straight.

It is my understanding that a loan was offered before the binding arbitration hearing took place.

If I am mistaken you have my apologies.

[weams]

It is my understanding that a loan was offered before the binding arbitration hearing took place.

If I am mistaken you have my apologies.

You are correct. Not Stotle In this case.

[weams]

Maybe I have this wrong (please correct me if I do), but wasn't the issue that the committee believed the Nationals were entitled to money and the Orioles refused to pay it? Then MLB extended a loan to cover that amount and allow extra time for the dispute to be resolved?

The loan occurred before the three individuals helping loan the money made their decision. That is one of the premises of the law suit.

[Stotle]

It is my understanding that a loan was offered before the binding arbitration hearing took place.

If I am mistaken you have my apologies.

I don't know; I was seriously asking. If the loan was given before I guess I would say it was still potentially appropriate so long as the decision-making was sound (that is, if the Nationals were pointing to a formula that showed a reliable estimate of increased revenues, I could see the league office approving). We have done lending work w/r/t MLB and NBA -- there are a lot of hard fast rules as to how it all works. That's not to say that a league couldn't do something shady. Just that I believe it would be pretty evident to the teams involved and also to the rest of the league. Even if it were true that the rest of MLB didn't like Baltimore, most teams recognize that sort of thing is destructive and could target them next time around.

But I really don't know.

[Stotle]

The loan occurred before the three individuals helping loan the money made their decision. That is one of the premises of the law suit.

That's odd that three individuals in charge of making a loan would also be in charge of deciding an arbitration case involving television rights. Who are the three individuals?

[weams]

I don't know; I was seriously asking. If the loan was given before I guess I would say it was still potentially appropriate so long as the decision-making was sound (that is, if the Nationals were pointing to a formula that showed a reliable estimate of increased revenues, I could see the league office approving). We have done lending work w/r/t MLB and NBA -- there are a lot of hard fast rules as to how it all works. That's not to say that a league couldn't do something shady. Just that I believe it would be pretty evident to the teams involved and also to the rest of the league. Even if it were true that the rest of MLB didn't like Baltimore, most teams recognize that sort of thing is destructive and could target them next time around.

But I really don't know.

Bud Selig said emphatically and publicly that no member of his old boys club of owners would be permitted to take legal action to defend their rights as internal arbitration was the only acceptable method of resolving differences. He stated that every method available to him to punish an owner who defied his order would be used. I'd say that there have been a few things that fit this definition that have occurred, including tacit approval for tampering and pressure to give in to that tampering. I guess the courts will decide this.

[weams]

That's odd that three individuals in charge of making a loan would also be in charge of deciding an arbitration case involving television rights. Who are the three individuals?

New York Mets COO Jeff Wilpon, Pittsburgh Pirates President Frank Coonelly and Tampa Bay Rays Owner Stuart Sternberg

[Stotle]

Bud Selig said emphatically and publicly that no member of his old boys club of owners would be permitted to take legal action to defend their rights as internal arbitration was the only acceptable method of resolving differences. He stated that every method available to him to punish an owner who defied his order would be used. I'd say that there have been a few things that fit this definition that have occurred, including tacit approval for tampering and pressure to give in to that tampering. I guess the courts will decide this.

I don't really follow the specifics with respect to what you are citing, but I agree a court will decide if the matter is before it.

[weams]

New York Mets COO Jeff Wilpon, Pittsburgh Pirates President Frank Coonelly and Tampa Bay Rays Owner Stuart Sternberg

Each one responsible for funding 1/30 of the loan.

[Stotle]

New York Mets COO Jeff Wilpon, Pittsburgh Pirates President Frank Coonelly and Tampa Bay Rays Owner Stuart Sternberg

Those three were also in charge of deciding whether MLB should extend a loan? That would be odd for three owners of clubs to have that say. The commissioner's office has finance and compliance folks that generally decide these things.