Cost Cutting Measures

[Roll Tide]

4 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Technically, my comcast package, I dont pay anything.

But, I am sure, COMCAST doesn't get the signal for free from MASN.

Part of your base package goes to MASN. I assume if you buy a sports package they get more.

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, Larry18 said:

MLB held the rights to DC when the Senators2 moved to Texas. Baltimore never had any legal claim to keep a team out of Washington.

What the Orioles had was the DC cable revenue which has always been considered apart from the Baltimore region by the FCC. So Mr. Angelos did a masterful job of obtaining media rights from southern Virginia to Pennsylvania. 

The dispute is more about two billionaires getting into a pissing contest. A pox on both of their houses.

 

 

This is simply not true. The Orioles had territorial rights over the geographical area due to the close proximity. MLB had to give the lopsided cable deal to the Orioles to get Angelos to agree. I believe he was also guaranteed a minimum selling amount. 

Still allowing the Expos in was a monumental mistake and the Os legal team should've fought hard against it IMO. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

This is simply not true. The Orioles had territorial rights over the geographical area due to the close proximity. MLB had to give the lopsided cable deal to the Orioles to get Angelos to agree. I believe he was also guaranteed a minimum selling amount. 

Still allowing the Expos in was a monumental mistake and the Os legal team should've fought hard against it IMO. 

I don't think they could have got a judge to sign off on an injunction.

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think they could have got a judge to sign off on an injunction.

Here's an article from 2012 where the Giants blocked a potential move of the A's to. San Jose.

Quote

No action was taken, and none was expected: MLB owners take territorial issues very seriously, and taking away any territory already controlled by a team simply isn’t done. With no consensus on the issue, the status quo remains in place. Wolff made his appeal on pragmatic grounds — a move to San Jose would decrease the team’s reliance on revenue sharing, thus putting some money back into the pockets of big-market owners. The Giants framed their argument differently: if Bud Selig allows the A’s to move into an existing territory, there’s no reason he wouldn’t allow another team to move into another existing territory — and there’s no doubt big markets like New York/New Jersey, Boston or Philadelphia could support another MLB team.

For the Giants ownership, retaining the area is key to both the team’s financial future and the long-term value of the franchise. The Giants have more debt than the average team after paying for AT&T Park on their own dime, and if plans to develop land across the way from the ballpark come to fruition, they’ll need more cash for investment purposes.

How important is Silicon Valley to the team’s fortunes? Some reports peg more than 35 percent of Giants game-day attendees hailing from Silicon Valley. A large chunk of the team’s major sponsors have ties to Silicon Valley. And being Silicon Valley’s team enhances the value of the team’s cable-TV deal, with advertisers obviously eager to tap into the desirable demographics in San Jose and the rest of the region.

https://ballparkdigest.com/201205184895/major-league-baseball/features/giants-nothing-would-tempt-us-to-give-up-silicon-valley-territory

 

Does anyone think that 35% or more of the Os fan base/TV market came from D.C. And it's suburbs?

So baseball has obviously learned its lesson after making a mistake in Baltimore/Washington 

[Can_of_corn]

Nice research but I think the Baltimore/DC area is large enough for two teams and two teams have shared the market in the past.

[MCO'sFan]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Nice research but I think the Baltimore/DC area is large enough for two teams and two teams have shared the market in the past.

We’ve had threads about this since the move to DC became a thing. Of course DC/Baltimore can support two teams but if there was just one team that team would be better off. PA did give up certain rights by “allowing” the Nats in. It is only logical that the Nats hurt the O’s. I guess the real argument is how much. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

This is simply not true. The Orioles had territorial rights over the geographical area due to the close proximity. MLB had to give the lopsided cable deal to the Orioles to get Angelos to agree. I believe he was also guaranteed a minimum selling amount. 

Still allowing the Expos in was a monumental mistake and the Os legal team should've fought hard against it IMO. 

They did not have territorial rights. Only if they put an AL club there.   The potential lawsuit was all about media rights, which is why MASN was used as the vehicle to settle it.   

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

We’ve had threads about this since the move to DC became a thing. Of course DC/Baltimore can support two teams but if there was just one team that team would be better off. PA did give up certain rights by “allowing” the Nats in. It is only logical that the Nats hurt the O’s. I guess the real argument is how much. 

They questions isn't if it hurt the O's, it is if he had a realistic chance to stop the move.  If you don't think he did he made out very well.

[MCO'sFan]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

They questions isn't if it hurt the O's, it is if he had a realistic chance to stop the move.  If you don't think he did he made out very well.

I don’t have the memory or the expertise on that issue. I will defer

to others who do. 

[Frobby]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

They questions isn't if it hurt the O's, it is if he had a realistic chance to stop the move.  If you don't think he did he made out very well.

That is my opinion.   His legal claims were a stretch IMO.    The bigger concern for MLB wasn’t that they’d lose, but that the process might drag out for years while the Expos festered in Montreal.    And given how long the MASN case has dragged on, that was probably a legitimate concern.   

[Redskins Rick]

15 hours ago, MCO'sFan said:

Well, I guess that could happen but the comparison of Rocker to Hobgood seems really a reach. The only thing they have in common is that they pitch. But, to answer your question... we have gained nothing except a wasted 1-1 pick which is just as likely to happen at 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 etc.... To turn around your question, what have we lost but for a few meaningless games. what's the difference between 100 losses and 110 losses (please don't say 10 losses). 

The example is, even sure fire #1 prospect dont hit.

He isnt the first, and wont be the last to fail.

Sorry, its not in me to lose/tank for anything regardless, but heck, thats me.

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

More like North Carolina to Pennsylvania.  I still can't believe that MASN is making millions from North Carolina cable TV.

It's nice that 88-year-old grandmas in Rocky Mount whose TV hasn't left the RFD channel since 2008 are helping to pay Chris Davis' salary.

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

This is simply not true. The Orioles had territorial rights over the geographical area due to the close proximity. MLB had to give the lopsided cable deal to the Orioles to get Angelos to agree. I believe he was also guaranteed a minimum selling amount. 

Still allowing the Expos in was a monumental mistake and the Os legal team should've fought hard against it IMO. 

It's a mistake from the perspective of wanting the Orioles to be a large-market team able to exploit the revenue potential of DC and the Virginia suburbs, which are 40, 50, 60+ miles away through urban traffic and impractical for people to regularly go to Orioles games in downtown Baltimore.  I understand that was the situation for quite a while, but the Orioles fell into that when the Senators moved to Texas.  

The only reason keeping a team out of DC is even an idea, is that baseball has a monopoly on baseball in North America, an anti-trust exemption, and a group of owners willing to do uncompetitive things to keep their business model intact. I think that there was a somewhat legitimate chance that if Angelos had really fought this Congress might have gotten involved and at least threatened to revoke the anti-trust exemption and that may have opened the doors to challenging the territorial rights. 

The Orioles were in a kind of unique situation where they controlled a big, sprawling multi-city urban area, but are physically located in the smaller 2nd city.  It would be like if Oakland had a team but San Francisco didn't, and Oakland was fighting to keep a team out of San Francisco.  It's hard to see that holding.  Or if Providence had a team, and was going to court to keep one out of Boston.  Or if by some chance of history Newark had a team but NYC didn't, and they claimed ownership over all of the New York metro area.  Logically it couldn't stand.

Or even better... imagine if Jack Kent Cooke fought like crazy to keep the Ravens out of Baltimore and won.  How many folks here would now be Redskins fans and be happy about rooting for DC's team?  I'm sure the Redskins would be thrilled to have their flag officially planted everywhere from York and Deep Creek Lake to the North Carolina line.   I wonder how many would sign off on a big karmic deal where the Nats have to move to Portland, but the Ravens have to go with them?

[Roll Tide]

There was a major issues of the distance between the two park. I remember them mentioning a stadium somewhere in Northern VA

Heres an article from Forbes ...but I couldn't find the relocation rules.

 

Quote

What Are Some Key Considerations For An Owner's Vote?

In every instance, how a club is located in physical proximity and in terms of television territory encroachment is going to be a factor. As an example, a relocation of, say, the Tampa Bay Rays to Portland, Oregon, seems like an exceptional longshot. Why? There would need to be realignment, not only to move the Rays into one of the western divisions but also to address the vacuum in the AL East. Clubs that would be targets for moving divisions, as well as ones impacted within those divisions, would have a keen interest. Millions of dollars, as well as a team's ability to be competitive, would be at stake, through things like fan engagement and travel. This is why relocating the A’s and the Rays really needs to be considered within the divisions they already play in.

Might There Be Some Form Of Indemnification For An Owner If Territory Is Encroached?

This is a nasty issue that came out of the Expos' relocation. As noted, the Orioles voted against the move to D.C., and Angelos threatened to sue the league. To ease that, the teams had an option to create MASN, a regional sports network, in which the Orioles would own the lion’s share and the Nationals would own a minority. The problems with MASN have continued to this day as the Nationals have sought a portion of the rights fees they believe they are owed and the Orioles have fought them along the way. The dispute has dragged on since 2012 and reportedly led to the Orioles' losing the All-Star Game (although Rob Manfred has said that it has not affected them).

The question then becomes, would expansion create a similar problem? When I asked Manfred about that issue in 2016, he brushed it aside.

“As a general proposition, I do not see the television territories for the clubs as a significant issue in considering expansion in domestic markets,” he said.

 

[EricK]

2 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

There was a major issues of the distance between the two park. I remember them mentioning a stadium somewhere in Northern VA

http://www.welovedc.com/2011/02/10/looking-back-the-arlington-nationals/

 

Moving the Expos to Arlington, VA would have helped a little compared to DC (maybe with the Montgomery and PG county areas).

 

The below link  has a rendering of a Norfolk stadium. 

 

http://www.stadiumpage.com/stpages/virginia.html

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Roll Tide said: