Waiving/non-tendering Villar: pro or con?

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

MASN is required to pay to the Nationals a certain amount of money to broadcast the games. That amount per season was a reported $59 million per season”

”

 

×

 

 

 

Search Modes

 

ALL

NEWS

SHOPPING

VIDEOS

IMAGES

MAPS

BOOKS

FLIGHTS

SEARCH TOOLS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search Results

Featured snippet from the web

 

Broadcast rights fees

The committee issued awritten decision on June 30, 2014, that MASNshould pay the Nationals an average of $59 million per year for2012 through 2016.

Thanks for clarifying.   The award you are quoting was overturned and never paid.    The second award, for about the same amount of money, is on appeal now and hasn’t been paid.   If and when it is paid, the O’s profits per Forbes’ methodology will go up, but their actual profits will go down because MASN will be less profitable and paying less money to the O’s.

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Pushmonkey said:

Man Roch is ramping up the Angelos propaganda. He is Saying saving 10 mil is a good thing and waiver is good because it saves money. However, if the dead zombie owner really cared about just cutting costs he would cut Davis. That’s a cost cutting move that everyone would support, this is just a dumb business move. 

Lol, why of course he is. When your boss is firing everyone and giving away players to cut costs, you start toeing the company line real hard. I could see MASN just replacing Roch with a cheaper option real easy. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Tony-OH said:

Lol, why of course he is. When your boss is firing everyone and giving away players to cut costs, you start toeing the company line real hard. I could see MASN just replacing Roch with a cheaper option real easy. 

Roch can be replaced by some social media wiz fresh out of college for half the money  by Tuesday (longer because of the holiday).

[Roll Tide]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Thanks for clarifying.   The award you are quoting was overturned and never paid.    The second award, for about the same amount of money, is on appeal now and hasn’t been paid.   If and when it is paid, the O’s profits per Forbes’ methodology will go up, but their actual profits will go down because MASN will be less profitable and paying less money to the O’s.

I don’t care about the profitability of MASN!

All I care about is the amount paid to the Orioles for their broadcast rights.

Money they would be receiving from Comcast or other provider if MASN had not been created.

Im sure you don’t possibly believe that number is 0

[Tony-OH]

50 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

That’s fine. You SHOULD be upset. You should hold onto your money. If the Orioles were a restaurant you wouldn’t take your family there!

I didn’t go to any games or watch them on TV this past season (cord cut). I’m not mad about it, I have much in my life to do and be passionate about. I think, personally, the on field product of this team has been terrible for 35 years save for twelve scattered winning seasons and 5 playoff teams.

I trust that Elias has a plan, and I’ve seen evidence of those things; international scouting and signings, analytics team hirings, old guard employees being removed. This is all stuff we’ve begged for. This was a fundamentally broken organization that started with the people running the show and ended on the field and permeated the culture. I am extremely excited to see the new machine start winning games, because I think it was built to win games for a long time.

The Jonathan Villar move is so “whatever” it’s hard to imagine why anyone cares who’s going to help us win 50-60 games next year. And I’ve said it before, if you’re only NOW threatening to hold onto your money because of the on field product, what exactly have you been watching for 35 years? 

 

From what I'm reading and understanding is that fans are upset that this is the first obvious money only decision (if he's just non tendered or claimed). The Orioles have never just given away their top player to save money. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

From what I'm reading and understanding is that fans are upset that this is the first obvious money only decision (if he's just non tendered or claimed). The Orioles have never just given away their top player to save money. 

Trading away draft picks to pay teams to pick up bad contracts is just as bad in my book.

[JanJaap]

Look at the bright side, getting rit of Villa, Bundy and perhaps Mancini too wil guarantee the first pick in the 2021 draft. 

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I don’t care about the profitability of MASN!

All I care about is the amount paid to the Orioles for their broadcast rights.

Money they would be receiving from Comcast or other provider if MASN had not been created.

Im sure you don’t possibly believe that number is 0

I don’t really understand your point.   

Currently, the O’s and Nats are paid about $40 mm/yr each for their broadcast rights.    Those payments are part of the $251 mm in revenue that Forbes reports.   If the RSDC decision holds, those payments will increase by about $20 mm/yr, retroactive to 2012 and presumably into the future.    But MASN will be less profitable by  twice that amount (O’s fees + Nats fees), and since the O’s own more than half of MASN, it’s a net loss for the O’s side.    That’s why MASN and the O’s keep appealing the rulings.   
 

[Spl51]

34 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I think this is the key difference. I see this as a major warning sign. A profitable team is just cutting their best player by WAR, who also happens to be in his prime, because they don't want to pay him around $3 million more than last year? this when they're 25-man roster is littered with major league minimum guys? 

 

If they trade away these guys for future talent then we get it, but to just jump them for nothing when the guy just put up a 4-win season at 28-years old is ridiculous and it does send a very bad signal to their fans and baseball.

How can you trust this ownership/management team when we do develop a few stars but then they get expensive. Is this the new norm for those organization. the second a player becomes too expensive and they don' think they can compete the next year they just release the player? 

Maybe it doesn't concern you, but it majorly concerns me.

What does too expensive mean though? Too expensive for one player or too much spent on overall payroll?

In Villar's case, no one seems to value him at that price point or else we would have gotten a few lotto tickets for him. I certainly hope we don't overpay for sentimental fan favorites when we're good, that seems to have been a hallmark of what went wrong with that last regime.

Ownership showed the ability to raise payroll when they thought we could win in 2016-2018, but one roster move when we're at the bottom of a rebuild is somehow indicative of what future decisions en perpetuity?

Of course this is all assuming the worst of all intentions, and that we get nothing for Villar, which hasn't actually happened yet. The math just doesn't nearly subtract from the positive developments that have happened for the organization for me.

[Tony-OH]

28 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I’m giving Elias the benefit of the doubt. I think he took control of the situation and created a deadline. Deadlines get deals done. The only deadline out there before was the non tender deadline. I think it’s an aggressive move, that forces trade talks, without us having the risk of getting “stuck” with Villar. 

At least Elias isn’t sitting back. He’s creating the action. 

Perhaps, but I don't see us being "stuck" with Villar this year. He could be traded at any time. Even in the worse case scenario that we kept him and regressed, we don't have a player in our system ready to replace him. It's not like he's a 1B/LF who is blocking Mountcastle.

[Tony-OH]

44 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Interesting take. Putting him on waivers gives us 7-10 days to trade him?  Creating a deadline. Deadlines get deals done. 

It’s actually pretty smart by Elias. No team was going to trade for him before the non tender deadline. Now they have to if they want him?

But it also creates a lot of risk to get nothing for him. We'll see. I hope Elias proves to be right!

[7Mo]

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Perhaps, but I don't see us being "stuck" with Villar this year. He could be traded at any time. Even in the worse case scenario that we kept him and regressed, we don't have a player in our system ready to replace him. It's not like he's a 1B/LF who is blocking Mountcastle.

Have they tried to trade him in July and presently?

[Tony-OH]

2 minutes ago, Spl51 said:

What does too expensive mean though? Too expensive for one player or too much spent on overall payroll?

In Villar's case, no one seems to value him at that price point or else we would have gotten a few lotto tickets for him. I certainly hope we don't overpay for sentimental fan favorites when we're good, that seems to have been a hallmark of what went wrong with that last regime.

Ownership showed the ability to raise payroll when they thought we could win in 2016-2018, but one roster move when we're at the bottom of a rebuild is somehow indicative of what future decisions en perpetuity?

Of course this is all assuming the worst of all intentions, and that we get nothing for Villar, which hasn't actually happened yet. The math just doesn't nearly subtract from the positive developments that have happened for the organization for me.

I'm not sure that true yet. I just have a hard time believing a 28-year old 2B who can fill in at SS, coming off a 4-win season,  has no value. I think teams were waiting around to see if the team would just non tender him.  

[mdbdotcom]

38 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

So you are fine with a MLB team just non tendering a 28-year old 4-win player to make room for a younger worse player? Let's just say I deeply disagree with you.

You have the right to your opinion, even when it's wrong.

 

[weams]

2 hours ago, Pushmonkey said:

Man Roch is ramping up the Angelos propaganda. He is Saying saving 10 mil is a good thing and waiver is good because it saves money. However, if the dead zombie owner really cared about just cutting costs he would cut Davis. That’s a cost cutting move that everyone would support, this is just a dumb business move. 

Please don't call him a dead zombie owner. Aging can be real rough. Thanks and happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.