Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

[spiritof66]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

This Jeter farce is going to end up with him being repaid his investment and him keeping his ownership stake.

BUt Jeter gets only about 2 percent. It's a great -- ridiculously great -- deal for him financially, but he has authority over what happens with the team only to the extent and for as long as Sherman wants him to have it. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Beetlejuice said:

How is paying fair market value unfair to MASN?  It was Angelos who insisted that the FMV fees be the same for both teams.  Picking an award fee number so that MASN can remain profitable probably doesn’t (nor shouldn’t) concern MLB in the slightest.  They want each team to get as much as possible.  They also want their cut coming back to MLB coffers.  The primary function of the RSDC is to make sure teams aren’t cutting the league out of what is rightfully theirs.  In the case of MASN, the RSDC is also there to protect the interests of the teams, not Angelos.  Whether it’s the RSDC or another arbitral body setting the fees isn’t probably going to make a whit of difference. 

The question of course is what is a fair market value?

I think it is very possible that MLB and the Nationals colluded to award a large figure in the hopes that Angelos sells MASN to a third party.

[weams]

7 hours ago, MDtransplant757 said:

Kevin Plank and Ripken will probably buy the O's. I don't see the Angelos boys taking over unless there really isn't a god afterall. He's been the old, slimy version of Dan Snyder. Nestor from WNST wrote a book on him, and while I think Nestor is a jackass and I have my issues with him, the book is great. I'll post a link to chapter 1. http://wnst.net/free-the-birds/the-peter-principles-chapter-1-so-just-how-did-angelos-become-king-of-baltimore-baseball/

Kevin Plank is not buying anything anytime soon. Kelly has half of what Cal had. 

[MDtransplant757]

12 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Probably?

Where do you get probably?

My bad. I meant to put hopefully. Their both Baltimore businessmen, and Plank is loaded. Local guy who made it huge. Hard not to root for him to buy the team. Same with Cal. 

[MDtransplant757]

6 hours ago, weams said:

Kevin Plank is not buying anything anytime soon. Kelly has half of what Cal had. 

Why do you say that about Plank? How do you know that about Cal too? I know that's common in divorce settlements, but normally when things are split evenly are when there are kids involved. 

[weams]

5 hours ago, MDtransplant757 said:

Why do you say that about Plank? How do you know that about Cal too? I know that's common in divorce settlements, but normally when things are split evenly are when there are kids involved. 

Nevermind. I won't debate it. Have a great day. 

[Redskins Rick]

5 hours ago, MDtransplant757 said:

My bad. I meant to put hopefully. Their both Baltimore businessmen, and Plank is loaded. Local guy who made it huge. Hard not to root for him to buy the team. Same with Cal. 

Keep in mind, that while Cal is well off, he is not "loaded" like today players are.

He never raked in it like they do now adays.

MLB is about as worthless as an organization can be, I honesty doubt they will do anything here about the transfer of the ownership.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Keep in mind, that while Cal is well off, he is not "loaded" like today players are.

He never raked in it like they do now adays.

True.    Just like Frank, Brooks and Palmer never made anything close to the money Cal made.    Salaries only go one direction, and that’s up.    Still, Cal has made way more money off the field than most players.   (“Got Milk?”)  Here’s a Forbes article that describes his business ventures in some detail.    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2013/07/16/cal-ripkens-30-million-baseball-brand/amp/.    

Cal almost certainly doesn’t have enough money to be the majority owner of a major league team, but he certainly could contribute more than just his name.    

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, Frobby said:

True.    Just like Frank, Brooks and Palmer never made anything close to the money Cal made.    Salaries only go one direction, and that’s up.    Still, Cal has made way more money off the field than most players.   (“Got Milk?”)  Here’s a Forbes article that describes his business ventures in some detail.    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2013/07/16/cal-ripkens-30-million-baseball-brand/amp/.    

Cal almost certainly doesn’t have enough money to be the majority owner of a major league team, but he certainly could contribute more than just his name.    

Good point, back in his era, he did make a ton in off the field money, again, nothing like they rake in today.

I think Cal would bring in some very good business smarts, but, honestly, I think there is less than 10% chance he will get a chance to buy into the team, again, IMO

[MDtransplant757]

On 11/3/2017 at 7:24 AM, Redskins Rick said:

Keep in mind, that while Cal is well off, he is not "loaded" like today players are.

He never raked in it like they do now adays.

MLB is about as worthless as an organization can be, I honesty doubt they will do anything here about the transfer of the ownership.

I never had any illusions on him being a major owner. He would be a massive name to the group though 

[Redskins Rick]

On 11/4/2017 at 11:43 PM, MDtransplant757 said:

I never had any illusions on him being a major owner. He would be a massive name to the group though 

I dont disagree with that.

I just dont see the Angelos family welcoming him into the organization in any manner.

 

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

I dont disagree with that.

I just dont see the Angelos family welcoming anyone into the organization in any manner.

 

Isn't that the point? Why would you need to bring in anyone new (or any new money) when you already know everything you need to know about how to run  the franchise, and when the team built to your specifications is so close to winning it all?  

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Isn't that the point? Why would you need to bring in anyone new (or any new money) when you already know everything you need to know about how to run  the franchise, and when the team built to your specifications is so close to winning it all?  

I didnt say it was a bad thing. I love Cal, always have.

My opinion is, I have a better chance of getting laid by Kate Upton, then Ripken being accepted into the org.

T

[spiritof66]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

I didnt say it was a bad thing. I love Cal, always have.

My opinion is, I have a better chance of getting laid by Kate Upton, then Ripken being accepted into the org.

T

I may be missing some relevant information about you or Kate, but I would guess the odds are about the same. 

But speaking of odds, during the World Series John Smoltz opined that the Astros and Dodgers are so evenly matched that if they played 50 games, it's probable neither team would ever win three in a row.  (Smoltz's point was that the teams are so evenly matched that who would win each game is random. That itself makes no sense: if the two teams are perfectly evenly matched with today's starting pitchers, how can that perfect balance be maintained when you change those starters tomorrow?)

I knew that Smoltz's statement was ridiculous. If you repeat a random event with two outcomes, like flipping a coin,  just three times, the odds are one in four that you'll have three heads or three tails. I fell asleep trying to figure out how to calculate the likelihood of not having three consecutive coin flips come out the same way in 50 flips.  I never figured it out, but Bill James did. It's one in 608, about 1/6 of 1 percent, which is well under the > 50 percent Smoltz was asserting. 

https://www.billjamesonline.com/hey_bill/

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I may be missing some relevant information about you or Kate, but I would guess the odds are about the same. 

But speaking of odds, during the World Series John Smoltz opined that the Astros and Dodgers are so evenly matched that if they played 50 games, it's probable neither team would ever win three in a row.  (Smoltz's point was that the teams are so evenly matched that who would win each game is random. That itself makes no sense: if the two teams are perfectly evenly matched with today's starting pitchers, how can that perfect balance be maintained when you change those starters tomorrow?)

I knew that Smoltz's statement was ridiculous. If you repeat a random event with two outcomes, like flipping a coin,  just three times, the odds are one in four that you'll have three heads or three tails. I fell asleep trying to figure out how to calculate the likelihood of not having three consecutive coin flips come out the same way in 50 flips.  I never figured it out, but Bill James did. It's one in 608, about 1/6 of 1 percent, which is well under the > 50 percent Smoltz was asserting. 

https://www.billjamesonline.com/hey_bill/

Cold day in Hades, when they bring Cal back, if they was going to do it, it would have been long before now.

He is the epitome of the Oriole way, and he has shown a shrewd business sense.