The 18th ranked market in MLB just signed an RSN deal that will pay them 50m-82m a season. Tell me again how MASN doesn't make any money LOL

[weams]

9 hours ago, TradeAngelos said:

Was wondering what took you so long as the leader of the "MASN makes no money" crowd. I'm sure your "friend" has no interest in making the team and Angelos look as good as possible. Not a bit. 

I don't know what his motivation is. I do know he knows more about these issues than me.

So, unless you are accusing me of having an imaginary friend to knock down your LOL thread, I'll just say my guess is MASN makes little money and would be better off sold. 

[weams]

10 hours ago, eddie83 said:

Couple of thoughts.

The Orioles and Nats get much better ratings than the Caps and Wizards do.  

My DirectTV bill shows a charge of $6.64 for RSN. I get both MASN and NBCW. 

MASN is hurt that they do not have better year round programming but they own the summer months and have a huge inventory of games. 

If MASN wasn’t profitable then why is Angelos’ so desperate to hold onto it? 

If I remember correctly, it was supposed to have value by control of rights fees for the market to compensate for the huge loss that introducing a competitive product in the affluent portion of the area. I do imagine that owning it offsets the "loss" in team value that would have occurred under stagnant market conditions.

I believe that RSN cable rights model is dead/dying.

I believe MASN is not run well regarding programming other than game and game coverage. 

I believe that the profit stream that we suppose should be funneled back into player acquisition is not being used to vastly increase the net worth of the Angelos family, but may well be used to fund charity and support other business/leisure ventures.

 

[eddie83]

4 minutes ago, weams said:

I don't know what his motivation is. I do know he knows more about these issues than me.

So, unless you are accusing me of having an imaginary friend to knock down your LOL thread, I'll just say my guess is MASN makes little money and would be better off sold. 

I agree with what your friend says but disagree on your point.  

I think MASN makes money but it doesn’t change the fact that the Orioles are not a large market team. Overall their revenues even with MASN put them as a middle market team at best. 

It also isn’t like the Rays and Orioles have had similar payrolls. No one can argue the Orioles haven’t spent more in recent years.  

[weams]

4 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I agree with what your friend says but disagree on your point.  

I think MASN makes money but it doesn’t change the fact that the Orioles are not a large market team. Overall their revenues even with MASN put them as a middle market team at best. 

It also isn’t like the Rays and Orioles have had similar payrolls. No one can argue the Orioles haven’t spent more in recent years.  

Fair enough. I hated being the conduit but felt that his assessment had value and chose to share it. 

[Can_of_corn]

What team was it that signed one of these huge deals only to have the RSN come back a couple of years later and go oops we can't really pay you that much?  Was it the Astros?

I don't expect the Rays' to see all that money.

[weams]

5 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I agree with what your friend says but disagree on your point.  

I think MASN makes money but it doesn’t change the fact that the Orioles are not a large market team. Overall their revenues even with MASN put them as a middle market team at best. 

It also isn’t like the Rays and Orioles have had similar payrolls. No one can argue the Orioles haven’t spent more in recent years.  

I think since the social problems of a few years back and the lack of success during their "Window" that the market plays more like a small one. 

Not to say that a better run organization could not have handled all of that better.

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, weams said:

If I remember correctly, it was supposed to have value by control of rights fees for the market to compensate for the huge loss that introducing a competitive product in the affluent portion of the area. I do imagine that owning it offsets the "loss" in team value that would have occurred under stagnant market conditions.

I believe that RSN cable rights model is dead/dying.

I believe MASN is not run well regarding programming other than game and game coverage. 

I believe that the profit stream that we suppose should be funneled back into player acquisition is not being used to vastly increase the net worth of the Angelos family, but may well be used to fund charity and support other business/leisure ventures.

 

If the RSN model is dying then how do you explain the Rays latest contract? How to watch the games will continue to change but teams will still profit off rights fees. It’s 162 days of programming which is significant.

At the end of the day all TV programming is losing viewers compared to the old days.  

MASN does not have a ton of programming outside of baseball but other RSN’s have similar issues. NBCW has no real programming once the Caps and Wizards are done. They have more studio shows and are in bed with the Redskins but that said they can’t be getting decent ratings outside of when those two teams play. And as I said earlier they don’t get the ratings the Nats and Orioles do.  

 

[weams]

Just now, eddie83 said:

If the RSN model is dying then how do you explain the Rays latest contract? How to watch the games will continue to change but teams will still profit off rights fees. It’s 162 days of programming which is significant.

At the end of the day all TV programming is losing viewers compared to the old days.  

MASN does not have a ton of programming outside of baseball but other RSN’s have similar issues. NBCW has no real programming once the Caps and Wizards are done. They have more studio shows and are in bed with the Redskins but that said they can’t be getting decent ratings outside of when those two teams play. And as I said earlier they don’t get the ratings the Nats and Orioles do.  

 

I believe 5G will kill cable. That is what I believe. 

[weams]

I believe a poor cable rights deal was originally bargained for and the next one will be worse. 

[weams]

2 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

If the RSN model is dying then how do you explain the Rays latest contract? How to watch the games will continue to change but teams will still profit off rights fees. It’s 162 days of programming which is significant.

At the end of the day all TV programming is losing viewers compared to the old days.  

MASN does not have a ton of programming outside of baseball but other RSN’s have similar issues. NBCW has no real programming once the Caps and Wizards are done. They have more studio shows and are in bed with the Redskins but that said they can’t be getting decent ratings outside of when those two teams play. And as I said earlier they don’t get the ratings the Nats and Orioles do.  

 

I am astounded by the Rays contract. And have no idea where it might lead.  It shocks me. 

[mrbig1]

4 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I agree with what your friend says but disagree on your point.  

I think MASN makes money but it doesn’t change the fact that the Orioles are not a large market team. Overall their revenues even with MASN put them as a middle market team at best. 

It also isn’t like the Rays and Orioles have had similar payrolls. No one can argue the Orioles haven’t spent more in recent years.  

Yes, We have spent a ton of money on players who can't hit there weight. Davis is 250+ lbs but hits .225. In fact I think he will have more K's than his batting avg.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

I am astounded by the Rays contract. And have no idea where it might lead.  It shocks me. 

If will lead to the RSN losing money and killing the deal.

[Nite]

By total numbers the Rays can be seen by basically 10 million people, in 1 state, or about 3 millionish homes without a special MLB package.

 

The Orioles/Nats can be seen by 30 million people, or about 10 millionish homes over 5 full states, and the middle part of another without special MLB packages. So either MASN really really isn't doing a great job at running its self, or there are MAJOR profits being kept by the owner...

[Going Underground]

3 minutes ago, Nite said:

By total numbers the Rays can be seen by basically 10 million people, in 1 state, or about 3 millionish homes without a special MLB package.

 

The Orioles/Nats can be seen by 30 million people, or about 10 millionish homes over 5 full states, and the middle part of another without special MLB packages. So either MASN really really isn't doing a great job at running its self, or there are MAJOR profits being kept by the owner...

 

So an incentive to keep MASN profits away from the team. 

However, profit from MASN that isn’t paid to the team in broadcast fees is not subject to revenue sharing. This provi

sion that benefits the small handful of teams that get their own RSN and provides clear incentive for the Orioles and for Peter Angelos: keep broadcast fees as low as possible. Where the Astros and Dodgers pay far more in this pocket of revenue sharing because their broadcast rights fees are higher, those teams wouldn’t have any money if it weren’t for broadcast fees. The Orioles, on the other hand, can take just a few dollars in broadcast dollars and keep the rest for themselves.

[weams]

9 minutes ago, mrbig1 said:

Yes, We have spent a ton of money on players who can't hit there weight. Davis is 250+ lbs but hits .225. In fact I think he will have more K's than his batting avg.

Pretty true. I think the Davis deal is universally panned as were the Pujols and second A-Rod deals. The Heyward deal appears to be equally bad. and the new Cabrera deal of course atrocious. The Elsbury deal was a true flop and the Price deal appears to be one. The Orioles sure pick a bad horse to back but I think for the most part the long-term high-value contracts have proved worrisome.

I am positive the Orioles could have done better with the resources they have spent. I'm certain the advertising adage about half the dollars being waited but not knowing which half is outdated in these times of big data but hindsight does allow us a beter vision on just how poor some of the Orioles investment turned out to be. Think how many more mistakes there would have been if the Os fished in those waters for a longer time.