Jump to content

Update Again Again: OPACY lease officially official, done and approved, for real this time


spleen1015

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Warehouse said:

Instead of a 30-year combined lease/development deal with a year 10 exit triggered by a development impasse, perhaps they could do a 10-year lease without the development rights which would be put on a separate track.  

For the core lease, a 10-year deal would be in compliance with length of lease needed to unlock the $600MM in the legislation and at parity with Ravens who added 10 new lease years in their recent extension (from year-end 2027 to year-end 2037).  The original expectations from earlier this year were for a 10-15 year lease, but then JA pushed for a longer deal as part of a “public-private partnership”.

The development deal would be fully decoupled from the core lease to address Bill Ferguson’s concerns, but a roadmap would be announced in parallel. This framework would include a commitment from the Orioles to extend by 20 years if development plans pan out.

Substantively, this isn’t much different than the draft agreement that was scuttled at the last minute.  However, it improves the deal optics on two key principles: creates parity with the Ravens deal and decouples the development deal and lease.

I wouldn’t do a 10 year lease. The Orioles are too unstable imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Moshagge3 said:

It's really quite embarrassing that the Ravens have renderings of stadium improvements ready to go while JA continues to crusade for the right to use all the money on a roller coaster and a Pinkberry outside the park. 

A Pinkberry WOULD crush though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just like what an old European leader does before declaring war. He makes a bunch of impossible demands that no other leadership worth their weight would ever agree (appeasement) to, and if he doesn't get his way, the moves.

This might be Angelos's entire strategy.  The Stadium Authority should tell him to go fly a kite. I doubt Nashville would even give that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TradeAngelos said:

Exactly the position Johnny wanted to put him in, which makes it more likely he caves. Moore got played. 

Remember, if they give the Os more money, they have to give it to the Ravens too.

It ain’t happening.

This deal is for improvements to the ballpark. It is not a city revitalization deal. If the state wants to pour money into that and Angelos wants to figure out a way to weasel into that, fine…but it has absolutely zero to do with this.  It’s so obvious what he’s doing and what he’s trying to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Remember, if they give the Os more money, they have to give it to the Ravens too.

It ain’t happening.

This deal is for improvements to the ballpark. It is not a city revitalization deal. If the state wants to pour money into that and Angelos wants to figure out a way to weasel into that, fine…but it has absolutely zero to do with this.  It’s so obvious what he’s doing and what he’s trying to do. 

I mean at this point both parties are going to have egg on their face. But kudos for Legislature for having a backbone to call out bad deal this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Oriolesfan1988 said:

I mean at this point both parties are going to have egg on their face. But kudos for Legislature for having a backbone to call out bad deal this is.

But Angelos doesn't care about egg on his face, only about his bottom line.

Politicians care about their reputation, but Angelos doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SteveA said:

But Angelos doesn't care about egg on his face, only about his bottom line.

Politicians care about their reputation, but Angelos doesn't.

Doubt any of them really care about angelos getting boxed in. It's clear MLB won't let O's move. And john is trying to present a situation where he has no strength. At this point its a big game of chicken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • Btw, i understand what he could mean to the team. He could put a ring on our fingers if he can be healthy and be there where and when we need him in October.    That’s the conundrum.
    • It’s just the up and down roles. I agree the opener aspect is the best way to go(to keep him on routine) but you are going to go from pitching 1-3 innings and then hoping he can go 5-6 again, when he is already likely to wear down because of the total workload. It’s all a big risk. I mean, there is a reason he has whatever deal with the WS he has and that if they went against that, he wanted an extension. Even he understands that it’s a risk.
    • You’re actually making the most sense of just about anyone on here.   Hate to say it.  Lol
    • If you use him as an opener, it’s not really “relieving”.  I guess I don’t get the issue.  If a pitcher gets hurt and misses a period of time, are you saying it’s risky to ramp him back up to a normal innings load?
    • Ah. So you can only get one pick per player? That’s a bummer. Reasonable, I suppose. But a bummer nonetheless 
    • It's true that this has been discussed, and there are differing schools of thought.  Some, like myself, feel that the resources required in a Crochet deal, might be better served addressing a more impactful need for 2024: a ToR starter.  As a starter beginning next season, it's likely Crochet's impact will be higher as a strong ToR starter through the final two years of control.  In the meantime, there are quite a few very solid veteran late inning relievers that we could deal for in order to satisfy that need, and that wouldn't require near the cost of a Crochet.
    • It makes sense to me for multiple reasons. 1) IMO we do not have the requisite pitching talent in order to matchup favorably against the leagues best in a 7 game series in October. That needs to change. 2) We don’t need extra offense IMO. Nor a back up catcher. We will be fine offensively if we don’t have one considering without both we are number one in the sport. 3) We could resign Burnes with that 50 million (not sure where you are getting that number). But so many here believe it will be a bad deal. And having another #1 in house protects us from having to be leveraged against signing him.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...