Angelos and Money Thread (Here Be Monsters!)

[DrungoHazewood]

My guess is this:

Angelos is philosophically stuck in the 90s, and sees the increase in player salaries as outrageous.

He's content to spend some money.

But it's not going to be big time deals.

And that's in no way related to the revenue of the team.

Furthermore, he views MASN as a stand alone venture, and it's profitability in no way is going to be "funneled" back into the team.

I can't substantively argue with much of that. It could be. I do think there's been several inflection points, one where payroll went down (way down in real terms) in the early 2000s, then has steadily increased lately.

[Pickles]

I can't substantively argue with much of that. It could be. I do think there's been several inflection points, one where payroll went down (way down in real terms) in the early 2000s, then has steadily increased lately.

I can't argue w you or VAtech either.

I mean we're all just throwing out conjecture.

What we can't argue is though, almost the rest of the entire league has seen HUGE increases in payroll. We haven't.

Why not?

Furthermore, they just offered Davis 150 million dollars. So either they have to kind of money to spend, or Angelos was content to lose money to resign Davis.

I think we all know it's not door #2.

Will they spend it somewhere else?

DD basically said they won't.

Why?

[weams]

We still get the lion's share of the Nats TV market? And we own a regional sports network now that runs from Pennsylvania to North Carolina. That wasn't in place in 2000.

I'm not interested in demonizing him. I'll gladly applaud him for his civic ventures in Baltimore. But I don't think it's assuming irrationality to think he's profiting financially, greatly. In fact, that seems like a pretty rational thing to do.

He PAYs for the Lion's Share of the TV market. I am not sure he has more than the 20 percent profit that the legal exposure revealed. What was it it last year, 8 million? Vlad, Cruz, Trumbo?

[weams]

I can't substantively argue with much of that. It could be. I do think there's been several inflection points, one where payroll went down (way down in real terms) in the early 2000s, then has steadily increased lately.

I can't either. I think it is pretty foolish to even attempt. We don't know. Only folks who want the Nationals set free really even care that much. Just give the fans a good product and make the playoffs sometimes. I think most folks are fine then.

[Pickles]

He PAYs for the Lion's Share of the TV market. I am not sure he has more than the 20 percent profit that the legal exposure revealed. What was it it last year, 8 million? Vlad, Cruz, Trumbo?

It's awfully strange that teams in other markets are getting GIANT pay days from their TV deals.

And this team, which owns it's own station, and a portion of another team's TV rights, isn't seeing that much money.

Strange.

And maybe there's a good reason for it.

Maybe they'd be better off shuttling MASN and just selling their rights.

[weams]

I can't argue w you or VAtech either.

I mean we're all just throwing out conjecture.

Very true.

[Pickles]

I can't either. I think it is pretty foolish to even attempt. We don't know. Only folks who want the Nationals set free really even care that much. Just give the fans a good product and make the playoffs sometimes. I think most folks are fine then.

You caught me.

As always, in your mind, any criticism of PA's ownership means I'm a Nats fan.

[weams]

It's awfully strange that teams in other markets are getting GIANT pay days from their TV deals.

And this team, which owns it's own station, and a portion of another team's TV rights, isn't seeing that much money.

Strange.

And maybe there's a good reason for it.

Maybe they'd be better off shuttling MASN and just selling their rights.

I have no idea why. Maybe it was part of the grand illusion when the market was split. I don't know why. I guess that is why things are being litigated.

[DrungoHazewood]

I can't argue w you or VAtech either.

I mean we're all just throwing out conjecture.

What we can't argue is though, almost the rest of the entire league has seen HUGE increases in payroll. We haven't.

Why not?

Furthermore, they just offered Davis 150 million dollars. So either they have to kind of money to spend, or Angelos was content to lose money to resign Davis.

I think we all know it's not door #2.

Will they spend it somewhere else?

DD basically said they won't.

Why?

As you say, we don't know anything. Including what's up with the Davis situation. Maybe that's butting up against the ceiling Angelos set. Maybe beyond a certain level ($120M?) there's a higher level of approval/scrutiny. Maybe Angelos wants a $40M profit every year, but he's an old softy for Davis and is willing to eat into that. Maybe Duquette really is the guy holding up the payroll expansion. Conjecture. I think it's kind of implausible that Angelos is demanding a huge profit at the expense of the team, but I don't know.

[weams]

I think it's kind of implausible that Angelos is demanding a huge profit at the expense of the team, but I don't know.

And if he is, the appropriate action is to follow a different team with a different owner. Or a different sport. Or amateur athletics below the D1 level. Not to spend your life in distress, complaining at every turn. Life can be so much better than that.

[Pickles]

So, I know you're an intelligent guy which is why you annoy me so much. Once you find a position, you post all your salient posts while blatantly ignoring all the counterpoints which I KNOW you realize.

Stuff like:

- acting like the TV market is expanded since the Nats arrived. You know it isn't.

- ignoring the Nat's effect on market for actual game attendance which you KNOW is much smaller.

- ignoring the fact that that majority of the money in MD is centered around DC, not Baltimore.

- ignoring the teams that don't fit your explosive payroll theories like CWS, Texas, etc...

- ignoring my whole paragraph about him potentially holding back extra profit due to the MASN dispute even though it is not only rational, but also likely prudent.

Basically, you created a scenario by comparing things to 2000 when I KNOW you KNOW that is an inappropriate comparison. You should be in politics. You're more interested in framing debates to win the argument than actually solving the problem. It pisses me off when intelligent people do this crap because the unintelligent stand no chance when people like you do this crap.

Have a nice day.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Haha. Well, thanks for the compliment.

I'll concede that the Nats presence hurts our gate.

But you know what really hurts our gate?

Losing.

14 years of losing did more to hurt out gate than the Nats ever have.

But most of the rest I don't. No sophistry involved.

For one, the TV market for the O's has expanded. Down into NC. It wasn't there 15 years ago. And the rate the O's are getting must be drastically higher per household. Well, MASN at least.

Second, to say the money in MD is centered around DC might be actually true. But if you're in PG country or up 95, basically anywhere outside of 495 on the MD side, it's just as easy to get to Camden as it is Anacostia.

Texas' payroll dwarfs ours. It didn't 15 years ago. The CWS are in a "big" market, which they split, truly, w a much more established, popular team. Of course they outspend us last year. But in 2000? They spent about 40% of what we did.

Lastly, holding back profit w the idea that future profits might not be as great is logical. But it sure isn't "funneling" money back into the ball club, which we were told was the whole point of the RSN. You understand that right? I mean if they made 20 mil in 2012, but fear that might be cut to 12 mil in 2017, there's still nothing stopping you from putting that 20 mil into the ballclub now. Unless, as is my theory, MASN run as a stand alone venture.

Granted, some of the situation has changed from 15 years ago. But basically every other team in MLB, that hasn't seen an ownership change to some NY hedge fund (ATL) has seen a drastic increase in payroll. We haven't.

[Pickles]

And if he is, the appropriate action is to follow a different team with a different owner. Or a different sport. Or amateur athletics below the D1 level. Not to spend your life in distress, complaining at every turn. Life can be so much better than that.

And again, it's silly to suggest that because I question Angelos' ownership, I'm somehow dissatisfied w my life.

That's just silly.

Why don't you tell me what kind of fan to be? I thought that all got knocked off a long time ago.

[Pickles]

As you say, we don't know anything. Including what's up with the Davis situation. Maybe that's butting up against the ceiling Angelos set. Maybe beyond a certain level ($120M?) there's a higher level of approval/scrutiny. Maybe Angelos wants a $40M profit every year, but he's an old softy for Davis and is willing to eat into that. Maybe Duquette really is the guy holding up the payroll expansion. Conjecture. I think it's kind of implausible that Angelos is demanding a huge profit at the expense of the team, but I don't know.

Is it? Is it really?

[Pickles]

Maybe psychologically he's stuck in 1971 when teams retained their identities much longer. In that scenario CD at $22 million AAV is a much different proposition than Justin Upton at $22 million AAV or even $18 million AAV. Obviously I don't have any clue about whether there's anything to that theory, but while we're all throwing out conjecture I'll add that I've always wondered about that with PA.

Oh, I think that's reasonable to assume is part of it.

The problem w Angelos is not in totality that he's "cheap."

The problem w Angelos is he constantly injects himself in baseball decision making.

[weams]

And again, it's silly to suggest that because I question Angelos' ownership, I'm somehow dissatisfied w my life.

That's just silly.

Why don't you tell me what kind of fan to be? I thought that all got knocked off a long time ago.

Not at all. You can be dissatisfied with Peter Angelos. You probably should be. As I have said, I don't find any of those team owners to be particularly great folk. Be the type of fan you choose to be. I was talking about living life in a non-complaining manner. It's good for me that way. I do what I enjoy. And I realize that I am responsible for my own happiness and satisfaction in this all too brief experience.