T. Rowe Price O's new jersey sponsor

[Ripken]

Inevitable things are inevitable.  Major League Baseball will never welcome gambling, MLB will never have uniform advertisements, MLB will never have an electronic strikezone, and so on and so forth.  Selling OP@CY naming rights is coming soon.  

Can't wait to see this dumbass logo, on our LFs ugly City Connect jersey, standing in front of that eyesore wall.  

Still waiting to see a player extended though.  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem inevitable at all. 

[mall-O-cup]

I really dislike corporate logos on any jersey and that promotional video is weird.

Tacky move but not unexpected.

 

[Explosivo]

1 hour ago, Ripken said:

Inevitable things are inevitable.  Major League Baseball will never welcome gambling, MLB will never have uniform advertisements, MLB will never have an electronic strikezone, and so on and so forth.  Selling OP@CY naming rights is coming soon.  

Can't wait to see this dumbass logo, on our LFs ugly City Connect jersey, standing in front of that eyesore wall.  

Still waiting to see a player extended though.  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem inevitable at all. 

As to the O’s, whatever it takes to sign these young guys long term so they can play on the same team together for the next ten years. I don’t care if we look like a nascar car. What I care about is prolonging this era of the best baseball Baltimore has seen since the late 60s/ early 70s.

[SemperFi]

22 hours ago, .500_OR_BETTER said:

In a few years the jerseys will look like soccer unis with sponsorship ads all over.  It was only a matter of time.

I would rather get a large long-term stadium naming rights deal. 

Perhaps but experience tells me otherwise.  The patch is governed by MLB and I'm pretty sure given the size and committments those are exclusive deals not brand or competitive.  Most are just a part of a larger deal for signage, game time exposure, and tickets or suites-there is much more leverage in selling an exclusive.  

[NashLumber]

4 hours ago, Ripken said:

Inevitable things are inevitable.  Major League Baseball will never welcome gambling, MLB will never have uniform advertisements, MLB will never have an electronic strikezone, and so on and so forth.  Selling OP@CY naming rights is coming soon.  

Can't wait to see this dumbass logo, on our LFs ugly City Connect jersey, standing in front of that eyesore wall.  

Still waiting to see a player extended though.  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem inevitable at all. 

I think we should just get it over with, and take the money to extend some young stars. I can live with this as OPACY primary name rights owner. 

 

 

[SemperFi]

19 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think they should get Target as a sponsor and put their insignia right on the back of the uniform pants.  

I worked for Target's Indy/NASCAR teams for many years and sometimes the team issue jacket and pit shirts had the bullseye logo on the front/back.  You would be shocked at the amount of gun enthusiasts that wanted them without the sponsor logos!!

[SemperFi]

18 hours ago, Nite said:

We all knew this was going to happen. Every team will get one eventually. I just wished whoever it was played ball like Motorola did with SD and allowed the logo to be changed to at the least black and white. Orange optional. The fact they obviously insisted with their blue scheme is the only thing that has me roll my eyes. 

I agree asthetically but companies protect their logo and colors fiercely and all want a recognizable brand, don't forget Motorola has a B/W logo.  Most of these deals are not necessarily done for eyeballs-we all know who TRP is-they are done for entertaining, access and politics. 

[Moose Milligan]

6 hours ago, Anziyan said:

So some inside baseball on the deal:

- Valued at ~$75 Million over the life of the deal; my source didn't have have the length other than "multi year" but based on what other teams get for the jersey patch and everything else that's coming with it I would think it has a 3-5 year term.

-Includes a ton of stadium signage; you will the Sheep in the dugouts, on the wall behind press conferences, on the outfield wall, on the scoreboard.  Source couldn't confirm my suspicion that they are going where "The Sun" used to be.

-Is a rework of the deal they had with Angelos for stadium naming.  This is all conjecture on my part but with the huge amount of signage and TV visibility that comes with this I can't see them selling the stadium naming.

-TRP employees get a 20% discount and an Orioles hat

About what I thought it'd be.  Not enough money to make a real impact and it's not going to stop at the jerseys.  

I hope the people at T Rowe Price are reading this thread and I hope they realize that no one asked for this and no one thinks this is a great addition to the Orioles.  

 

[CallMeBrooksie]

4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

About what I thought it'd be.  Not enough money to make a real impact and it's not going to stop at the jerseys.  

I hope the people at T Rowe Price are reading this thread and I hope they realize that no one asked for this and no one thinks this is a great addition to the Orioles.  

 

If we take this info at face value, it's a good bit more than I expected. It's not enough in a vacuum to sign or retain a star player, but if you can get $15-25 million a year in pure profit just by sewing a patch (and some signage, yada yada), I can't blame them for doing so. It's enough to make a difference in personnel decisions imo. Doesn't mean that it will, but that's not chump change.

Now the info given above could be way off. The source didn't actually know the length of agreement, which could make a huge difference and water this down to almost nothing. 

The annoying part to me other than the butt-ugly patch is that the O's make enough money as a going concern to add a couple of BIG contracts regardless of who owns the team. So even if they go out and extend Gunnar and sign Burnes, it doesn't necessarily mean that this deal made any difference at all. If they are making moves like this in their first year of ownership, I really hope they're prepared to dramatically increase payroll in the coming years.

I'm going to try to just enjoy this season and put my pitchfork in the closet until this off-season when I re-visit this move.

 

[Too Tall]

I sign on to my computer - ADS. I come to OH - ADS. I try to watch a ball game - ADS even during at bats. I see my favorite players - ADS. I don't watch regular TV anymore because of ADS. If I happen to look at anything I get ADS for that item all the time. Can't buy the wife anything on the computer because it will keep coming back at us as ADS. So yes, I hate the damn patch and figure next they'll give players commissions for tattoos. 

[AdamK]

Uni-watch has been covering the ads on sleeves bit for a while. Here's an editorial for those who care to read it: https://uni-watch.com/2023/09/23/baseball-uni-ads-threat-or-menace-oh-yes-he-went-there/?utm_source=post_related

As for our recent patch, here's their article: https://uni-watch.com/2024/06/10/baltimore-orioles-add-sleeve-ad/

Quote

This means we’re now down to 10 ad-free teams (a numberlikely to lower as the season progresses): the A’s, Cubs, Mariners, Nationals, Phillies, Pirates, Rays, Rockies, Twins, and White Sox. (The other 19 teams who’ve sold out their uniforms to advertisers, aside from the Orioles, are the Padres, Red Sox, D-backs, Angels, Astros, Reds, Marlins, Mets, Cardinals, Tigers, Guardians, Yankees, Blue Jays, Brewers, Dodgers, Giants, Atlanta, Royals and Rangers).

 

[jabba72]

7 hours ago, Anziyan said:

So some inside baseball on the deal:

- Valued at ~$75 Million over the life of the deal; my source didn't have have the length other than "multi year" but based on what other teams get for the jersey patch and everything else that's coming with it I would think it has a 3-5 year term.

-Includes a ton of stadium signage; you will the Sheep in the dugouts, on the wall behind press conferences, on the outfield wall, on the scoreboard.  Source couldn't confirm my suspicion that they are going where "The Sun" used to be.

-Is a rework of the deal they had with Angelos for stadium naming.  This is all conjecture on my part but with the huge amount of signage and TV visibility that comes with this I can't see them selling the stadium naming.

-TRP employees get a 20% discount and an Orioles hat

$75m yeah, unfortunately it sounds like these are here for good. I really dont like them. Aren't ads on the outfield walls good enough?

[SemperFi]

35 minutes ago, CallMeBrooksie said:

If we take this info at face value, it's a good bit more than I expected. It's not enough in a vacuum to sign or retain a star player, but if you can get $15-25 million a year in pure profit just by sewing a patch (and some signage, yada yada), I can't blame them for doing so. It's enough to make a difference in personnel decisions imo. Doesn't mean that it will, but that's not chump change.

Now the info given above could be way off. The source didn't actually know the length of agreement, which could make a huge difference and water this down to almost nothing. 

The annoying part to me other than the butt-ugly patch is that the O's make enough money as a going concern to add a couple of BIG contracts regardless of who owns the team. So even if they go out and extend Gunnar and sign Burnes, it doesn't necessarily mean that this deal made any difference at all. If they are making moves like this in their first year of ownership, I really hope they're prepared to dramatically increase payroll in the coming years.

I'm going to try to just enjoy this season and put my pitchfork in the closet until this off-season when I re-visit this move.

 

But as you stated it is PURE profit-the only cost the Orioles bear is the signage and some tickets/boxes no one was using anyway.  And if your OI is ~$99m adding another $15m with very little cost basis is rather consequential.

To me every indication prior to the sale was that JA was doing all he could to put the team in a favorable position for sale and every indication now is that DR will increase payroll/spending in a meaningful way.

[interloper]

At a certain point, if the majority of teams are doing this, isn't a competitive disadvantage to not also do it? 

I mean even the Mets are doing it and they have the richest owner in the sport who is ALSO the most pro spend-it-if-you-got-it owner. No penny pinching there. 

It is what it is. 

Edited June 11 by interloper

[CallMeBrooksie]

4 minutes ago, interloper said:

At a certain point, if the majority of teams are doing this, isn't a competitive disadvantage to not also do it? 

I mean even the Mets are doing it and they have the richest owner in the sport who is ALSO the most pro spend-it-if-you-got-it owner. No penny pinching there. 

It is what it is. 

Makes me skeptical of the $75m report. If it's that lucrative then how are there 10 teams who haven't done it yet? Are they stupid?