Could the Orioles Move Out of Baltimore in 2024?

[eddie83]

The very fact that the Nats arrived is the exact reason the Orioles will never leave. MLB would look like fools to approve a team nearby and then the existing team moves away. It would prove Angelos’ argument.  

[weams]

12 hours ago, MDtransplant757 said:

Hi Nestor. How’s WNST doing without all the “talent” you shipped off? 

Post is not Nestor. Who has been banned from this site for trolling repeatedly. 

[Luke-OH]

The league will add two teams in the near future.

There are also a handful of team situations notably worse than the Orioles in Baltimore.

So if you really think the Orioles will move, you must think there are at least 5 viable non-MLB markets that would strong enough to merit a move.

I do not think that is true at all.

[Redskins Rick]

On 6/27/2018 at 4:23 PM, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

MLB would force the Angelos family to sell the team if they tried to pull of such a stunt.  The Orioles problems are self inflicted.  With proper ownership, the Orioles could thrive in this market even if they lost the Nationals' share of MASN revenues.    

Cite one example that MLB has forced an owner to sell.

Been some really really bad baseball owners, Marge Schott for example, and MLB was going to suspend her, but thats it, unless you go back to 1912 and 1943, when MLB forced the Phillies ownership to sell the team.

Lots of suspensions, but that there is nothing that Peter has done that you could suspend him on.

[MDtransplant757]

1 hour ago, weams said:

Post is not Nestor. Who has been banned from this site for trolling repeatedly. 

Wait, seriously? Why does this not shock me at all. Weams, you made my day. That's absolutely hilarious

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

Cite one example that MLB has forced an owner to sell.

Been some really really bad baseball owners, Marge Schott for example, and MLB was going to suspend her, but thats it, unless you go back to 1912 and 1943, when MLB forced the Phillies ownership to sell the team.

Lots of suspensions, but that there is nothing that Peter has done that you could suspend him on.

By 1952-53, Veeck, who then owned the Browns, decided St. Louis couldn't support two teams and that he would be the loser in a contest with the Busches and their beer fortune. Veeck had to move. He couldn't go to the West Coast without a partner, and he proposed a move of the Browns to Baltimore. The owners, seizing the opportunity to get rid of him, turned down the request, effectively forcing him to sell the team.

I expect MLB to turn down a requested transfer of the team to Angelos' sons to get rid of them -- unless they effectively disavow, to MLB's satisfaction, their father's ownership regime.

 

 

[Redskins Rick]

12 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

By 1952-53, Veeck, who then owned the Browns, decided St. Louis couldn't support two teams and that he would be the loser in a contest with the Busches and their beer fortune. Veeck had to move. He couldn't go to the West Coast without a partner, and he proposed a move of the Browns to Baltimore. The owners, seizing the opportunity to get rid of him, turned down the request, effectively forcing him to sell the team.

I expect MLB to turn down a requested transfer of the team to Angelos' sons to get rid of them -- unless they effectively disavow, to MLB's satisfaction, their father's ownership regime.

That was a total different ERA in history, baseball had way more strength then it does now.  Look at Schott, as bad as she was as an owner, as bigoted as she was, all they could do was threatened to suspend her.

MLB doesn't have the balls to do this to the Angelos. (Pun intended).

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

That was a total different ERA in history, baseball had way more strength then it does now.  Look at Schott, as bad as she was as an owner, as bigoted as she was, all they could do was threatened to suspend her.

MLB doesn't have the balls to do this to the Angelos. (Pun intended).

That's true, but this is a totally different situation. Angelos has been a spectacularly unsuccessful owner, has thumbed his nose at MLB and has called his fellow owners a bunch of spoiled rich guys. I believe he has personally offended many of them. 

I'm not talking about MLB suspending or disciplining Angelos. That would be dicey. But the owners have the absolute right to turn down a transfer to his sons, and I believe they will exercise that right, probably explaining that it's based on their inadequate financial resources to field a competitive team and build a viable franchise. 

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

That's true, but this is a totally different situation. Angelos has been a spectacularly unsuccessful owner, has thumbed his nose at MLB and has called his fellow owners a bunch of spoiled rich guys. I believe he has personally offended many of them. 

I'm not talking about MLB suspending or disciplining Angelos. That would be dicey. But the owners have the absolute right to turn down a transfer to his sons, and I believe they will exercise that right, probably explaining that it's based on their inadequate financial resources to field a competitive team and build a viable franchise. 

5 years with the best record in the AL, 1 ALCS and 1 ALDS, sure, no WS, but hard to say spectacularly unsuccessful.

Forbes seams to be believe the franchise is in good shape:

Quote

Profile

The Orioles, who have one of the most lucrative cable deals in baseball, had the fifth-highest local ratings (5.18) last season. That's great for owner Peter Angelos because as the majority owner of the Mid Atlantic Sports Network, he is entitled to dividends from the regional sports network. In general, the higher MASN's ratings, the more revenue and money for Angelos. The bad news for the Orioles and Angelos is that MASN's ratings fell 24% from 2016 as the team posted a 75-87 record. More »

So the ratings fell, but still the 5th highest local ratings.

Forbes says the franchise has grown 8% over the past year, this does not signal to me, something that would warrant MLB to discuss alternative ownerships.

They are several better candidates in the MLB, for the MLB to consider, before looking at the Orioles.

[theocean]

22 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

5 years with the best record in the AL, 1 ALCS and 1 ALDS, sure, no WS, but hard to say spectacularly unsuccessful.

Forbes seams to be believe the franchise is in good shape:

So the ratings fell, but still the 5th highest local ratings.

Forbes says the franchise has grown 8% over the past year, this does not signal to me, something that would warrant MLB to discuss alternative ownerships.

They are several better candidates in the MLB, for the MLB to consider, before looking at the Orioles.

Anything is possible, but I don't see the O's moving anytime soon. Baltimore City has it's problems - but it's still a big city and the surrounding area is affluent. Maryland is one of the wealthiest states in the country. The problem for the Orioles is not to become the Mets to the Nationals' Yankees.

I think Expansion happens in the near future, with my bet on Portland and Nashville getting teams. I think the cities selected end up being the cities that are most willing to build a ballpark - not so much which cities are the best economically or demographically.

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, theocean said:

Anything is possible, but I don't see the O's moving anytime soon. Baltimore City has it's problems - but it's still a big city and the surrounding area is affluent. Maryland is one of the wealthiest states in the country. The problem for the Orioles is not to become the Mets to the Nationals' Yankees.

I think Expansion happens in the near future, with my bet on Portland and Nashville getting teams. I think the cities selected end up being the cities that are most willing to build a ballpark - not so much which cities are the best economically or demographically.

I also dont see the team moving.

I think people are so disgusted with this owner that they are clinging to hope that we get a new owner or move out and bring in a new team.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

4 hours ago, weams said:

Post is not Nestor. Who has been banned from this site for trolling repeatedly. 

Why does this not surprise me.  

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

4 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Cite one example that MLB has forced an owner to sell.

Been some really really bad baseball owners, Marge Schott for example, and MLB was going to suspend her, but thats it, unless you go back to 1912 and 1943, when MLB forced the Phillies ownership to sell the team.

Lots of suspensions, but that there is nothing that Peter has done that you could suspend him on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Los_Angeles_Dodgers_ownership_dispute

Quote

In a statement to the press on April 20, 2011,^[18] owner Frank McCourt responded:

Major League Baseball sets strict financial guidelines which all 30 teams must follow. The Dodgers are in compliance with these guidelines. On this basis, it is hard to understand the commissioner's decision today.

— Frank McCourt

 

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Los_Angeles_Dodgers_ownership_dispute

 

Good point, and that was a royal mess for sure.

McCourt knew exactly what was going on, and was playing his best foot forward to try and keep things, but failed.

 

 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

5 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Good point, and that was a royal mess for sure.

McCourt knew exactly what was going on, and was playing his best foot forward to try and keep things, but failed.

 

 

I just can't see MLB letting the Orioles move when they play in arguably the best ballpark in baseball.  This isn't the Rays or A's (hello raw sewage!).