Bundy traded to Angels for Isaac Mattson, Kyle Bradish, Zach Peek, and Kyle Brnovich

[Going Underground]

10 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Nobody mentions the 500,000 dip in attendance in 2005 and Looking back at the previous three years despite finishing 4 out of 5 in the division they drew 2.5 million fans. We never reached 2.5 million between 2012-2016 despite a division, 2 2nds, and a 3rd place finish. The last time the Orioles were competitive enough to get into the playoffs they drew 3.6 & 3.7 in 1996 and 1997 respectively.

So not counting the 60 million +/- that they have to pay the Nationals, one could reasonably argue the impact was 500,000 fans per year in attendance.

 

I'm sure someone will tell me that this is flawed math ... and even acknowledging that MLB attendance has been declining. I'd say  the 500,000 number impact is probably fair.

At an average of $100 per fan to include tickets, Orioles controlled parking, and concessions. Thats $50 Million in revenue! Add to that the $60 million in broadcast money to the Nationals and its pretty obvious what the move did to our franchise,

$110 Million per year out of Orioles resources and into the Nationals revenue

But the Orioles went from around 3.3 to 2.5 in four years even before the Nationals came. They were run poorly and people were starting not to come. Now they are really terrible and some people don't like to come downtown. How much more would the Orioles have drawn with no Nationals team?

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, Going Underground said:

But the Orioles went from around 3.3 to 2.5 in four years even before the Nationals came. They were run poorly and people were starting not to come. Now they are really terrible and some people don't like to come downtown. How much more would the Orioles have drawn with no Nationals team?

I think you can see the 1/2 million dip. That's what I'm sticking with as folks that immediately stopped supporting the Orioles and went to Gnats games.

I think they draw between 2.5-3 million fans between 2012-2016 if not for the Gnats.  Obviously there is no way to prove it. It's easy to point the declining attendance...but fans always came back when the team was competitive. I think you can look at the attendance and see that it didn't really happen during that time.

[weams]

Quote

Dylan Bundy was in the news this week. On Wednesday, the 27-year-old right-hander was traded from the Baltimore Orioles to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in exchange for four prospects. His repertoire includes five pitches, most notably a slider, and a changeup that he described the evolution of in a recent installment of our Learning and Developing a Pitch series. Bundy also features a curveball, and four- and two-seam fastballs.

How often will fans of the team with the unbecomingly-long name see the two-seamer? That largely depends on how it’s coming out of his hand. When I talked to him in late September, the erstwhile Oriole told me it had been a bit of a mystery pitch for him over the course of the campaign.

“I completely canned it for pretty much the whole first half,” Bundy said of his two-seamer. “I didn’t like where it was at. But then I said, ‘screw it’ and started throwing it again. It started consistently moving — it’s a runner, not really a sinker — whereas before it hadn’t been. Sometimes it would run like I wanted it to, and I’d be like, ‘Awesome.’ But then, in my next start, it would just stay straight.”

Based on a quick perusal of his game logs, Bundy indeed put the pitch in his back pocket for a period of time. It began creeping back into his mix in late July, and come August he was sometimes throwing it upwards of 20 times a game. Unlike before, it was doing what it was supposed to do.

...

“I don’t know if I can explain it,” admitted Bundy. “I didn’t change the grip. I mean, I’ve tried every single grip there is for a two-seamer, or for a sinker, and not one of them was consistent. Now I just hold it in between two seams and let it rip, and for whatever reason it’s been consistently moving a couple of inches, in to a righty. Hopefully it’s going to continue to do that.”

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/sunday-notes-dayton-moores-royals-arent-the-flintstones/

[PeteCanes]

not going to quote that, but I've always liked that dude.  Hope he does well.

[DrungoHazewood]

On 12/7/2019 at 12:06 PM, Roll Tide said:

I think you can see the 1/2 million dip. That's what I'm sticking with as folks that immediately stopped supporting the Orioles and went to Gnats games.

I think they draw between 2.5-3 million fans between 2012-2016 if not for the Gnats.  Obviously there is no way to prove it. It's easy to point the declining attendance...but fans always came back when the team was competitive. I think you can look at the attendance and see that it didn't really happen during that time.

Just look at the 2000s Orioles' W/L records, the 2005 Raffy/Sosa debacle, the end of the OPACY honeymoon and Cal's retirement, and the 1998-2005 collapse and chaos.  A 500k fall in 2006 completely fits in that narrative.  They were a miserable, losing team.  Sure, the Nats hurt some, but it would have been astonishing if the O's didn't have a large attendance hit in that period, Nats or not.

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Just look at the 2000s Orioles' W/L records, the 2005 Raffy/Sosa debacle, the end of the OPACY honeymoon and Cal's retirement, and the 1998-2005 collapse and chaos.  A 500k fall in 2006 completely fits in that narrative.  They were a miserable, losing team.  Sure, the Nats hurt some, but it would have been astonishing if the O's didn't have a large attendance hit in that period, Nats or not.

I don’t disagree with your points. But anybody that thinks that the Orioles didn’t lose fans and corporate sponsors from the DC metro likely off target.

Look I admit that the mismanagement and poor performance have hurt the Orioles. 

[Frobby]

On 12/7/2019 at 11:48 AM, Roll Tide said:

Nobody mentions the 500,000 dip in attendance in 2005 and Looking back at the previous three years despite finishing 4 out of 5 in the division they drew 2.5 million fans. We never reached 2.5 million between 2012-2016 despite a division, 2 2nds, and a 3rd place finish.

So not counting the 60 million +/- that they have to pay the Nationals, one could reasonably argue the impact was 500,000 fans per year in attendance.

***

I'm sure someone will tell me that this is flawed math ... and even acknowledging that MLB attendance has been declining. I'd say  the 500,000 number impact is probably fair.

 

On 12/7/2019 at 12:06 PM, Roll Tide said:

I think you can see the 1/2 million dip. That's what I'm sticking with as folks that immediately stopped supporting the Orioles and went to Gnats games.

I think they draw between 2.5-3 million fans between 2012-2016 if not for the Gnats.  Obviously there is no way to prove it. It's easy to point the declining attendance...but fans always came back when the team was competitive. I think you can look at the attendance and see that it didn't really happen during that time.

The problem is, the 500,000 fan drop did not occur the year the Nats arrived.   That year (2005), attendance dropped only 120,000. It was the following year — after Raffygate and the O’s midseason collapse — that the O’s attendance declined by 500,000 (actually, 470,000).   And while it would be convenient if the Nats had shown an increase corresponding to the O’s decrease, the fact is that the Nats’ attendance also dropped by 580,000 fans that year.

So, while I am not necessarily saying that the Nats didn’t cost the O’s 500,000 fans/year in attendance over the long run, the numbers from 2005-06 certainly don’t prove that.    In fact, the O’s drew more fans the year the Nats arrived than they have in any year since then.    And, total attendance for the two teams combined has never been higher than it was in 2005.     

In short, I think it’s overly simplistic to say the O’s loss of attendance is entirely due to losing or entirely due to the Nats.   It is mostly due to the losing, but certainly the Nats are a substantial factor.    And the two factors interact: however many fans the O’s have lost to the Nats, there’s a good chunk of those they wouldn’t have lost if they hadn’t been losing so much.    
 

[LookinUp]

On 12/7/2019 at 8:55 AM, Roll Tide said:

I blame MLB....I acknowledge Angelos being a bad owner. My thoughts on Peter are well know OH Lore! 

But MLB forced the Expos into D.C. And turned a large market team into 2 mid market teams or 1 mid and 1 small depending on who you talk to.

I think if you want to blame MLB, you need to blame the revenue sharing model, not the fact that they gave one of the richest markets in the country (DC) a team.

Teams like the O's tank and rebuild because their revenues simply don't support paying a large premium for talent. They can do so, but it has to be just right. The Yankees can have bad years, but they can always justify a thread like the one another poster put out there re: winning the world series. They're always "only" 2-3 major free agents away. The only constraints they face in this revenue model is the soft cap that taxes their payroll. 

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

 

The problem is, the 500,000 fan drop did not occur the year the Nats arrived.   That year (2005), attendance dropped only 120,000. It was the following year — after Raffygate and the O’s midseason collapse — that the O’s attendance declined by 500,000 (actually, 470,000).   And while it would be convenient if the Nats had shown an increase corresponding to the O’s decrease, the fact is that the Nats’ attendance also dropped by 580,000 fans that year.

So, while I am not necessarily saying that the Nats didn’t cost the O’s 500,000 fans/year in attendance over the long run, the numbers from 2005-06 certainly don’t prove that.    In fact, the O’s drew more fans the year the Nats arrived than they have in any year since then.    And, total attendance for the two teams combined has never been higher than it was in 2005.     

In short, I think it’s overly simplistic to say the O’s loss of attendance is entirely due to losing or entirely due to the Nats.   It is mostly due to the losing, but certainly the Nats are a substantial factor.    And the two factors interact: however many fans the O’s have lost to the Nats, there’s a good chunk of those they wouldn’t have lost if they hadn’t been losing so much.    
 

Sure ... my guess is you lost the newer (early 20s fam almost immediately). The older fans have probably have moved over more slowly.

I can’t prove any of it but it just seems to reason

[sportsfan8703]

17 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Sure ... my guess is you lost the newer (early 20s fam almost immediately). The older fans have probably have moved over more slowly.

I can’t prove any of it but it just seems to reason

Also factor in how much that area around Nats stadium has grown recently.  That area has blown up.  

[Roll Tide]

5 hours ago, LookinUp said:

I think if you want to blame MLB, you need to blame the revenue sharing model, not the fact that they gave one of the richest markets in the country (DC) a team.

Teams like the O's tank and rebuild because their revenues simply don't support paying a large premium for talent. They can do so, but it has to be just right. The Yankees can have bad years, but they can always justify a thread like the one another poster put out there re: winning the world series. They're always "only" 2-3 major free agents away. The only constraints they face in this revenue model is the soft cap that taxes their payroll. 

The teams with Alomar, Palmeiro, Surhoff, etc competed just fine. The money issues are post Nationals

[TonySoprano]

On 12/5/2019 at 9:10 AM, TonySoprano said:

His salary jumped to $9.35M last season.  What kind of deal does anyone think he will get this year?

 

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

 

$9 million?     I’m amazed by that.   To think a few days ago people were talking about us signing him for about one-fifth of that.   

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

$9 million?     I’m amazed by that.   To think a few days ago people were talking about us signing him for about one-fifth of that.   

What was it you said about the Giants a couple of hours ago?

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What was it you said about the Giants a couple of hours ago?

At least this only costs 7 figures, not 9.    And, there is a chance he earns it.