Who will pay Burnes $400M this offseason?

[Sports Guy]

37 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Hold up a second.

I'm not stating that an impact hasn't resulted from the relocation.

I'm stating that Baltimore had no case for keeping the Nationals out of DC and that the market can (and does) support two teams.

The ownership of the Orioles got a heck of a bribe with MASN, which should have resulted additional monies that would have lessened the monetary impact of the Nationals.  I'm sure it did to some extent even if he network was underutilized.

 

They absolutely had a case.  It was going to decimate their attendance and market share.

Now, that said, obviously the area can have 2 teams…I’m not saying it can’t.

But it was an enormous financial hardship to the Os when it happened, which is why the MaSN deal was set up the way it was and why the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They absolutely had a case.  It was going to decimate their attendance and market share.

Now, that said, obviously the area can have 2 teams…I’m not saying it can’t.

But it was an enormous financial hardship to the Os when it happened, which is why the MaSN deal was set up the way it was and why the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.

Why would the Nats have lost?

What precedent would have been cited?

The AFL-NFL merger?  But wait that's Football so that's a stupid comparison.

Let me guess, I should just google it?

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Why would the Nats have lost?

What precedent would have been cited?

The AFL-NFL merger?  But wait that's Football so that's a stupid comparison.

Let me guess, I should just google it?

Who cares bout precedent?  There was an agreement that should have been upheld. 

[AlbNYfan]

16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They absolutely had a case.  It was going to decimate their attendance and market share.

Now, that said, obviously the area can have 2 teams…I’m not saying it can’t.

But it was an enormous financial hardship to the Os when it happened, which is why the MaSN deal was set up the way it was and why the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.

I believe there was a wink, wink to the Nats that basically said, "Don't worry we'll take care of this later."

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Who cares bout precedent?  There was an agreement that should have been upheld. 

What agreement?

Honest question.

The Orioles moved into a territory that they shared with a ML team from Washington.

Are you saying that MLB made an agreement with Baltimore after DC lost their team to never move a team back?

If they did that's the dumbest thing ever.  Why would they do that?  What did Baltimore give up for that concession?

I've never heard of this, I am waiting eagerly for this story.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What agreement?

Honest question.

The Orioles moved into a territory that they shared with a ML team from Washington.

Are you saying that MLB made an agreement with Baltimore after DC lost their team to never move a team back?

If they did that's the dumbest thing ever.  Why would they do that?  What did Baltimore give up for that concession?

I've never heard of this, I am waiting eagerly for this story.

The MASN agreement and the arrangement they had in terms of percentages 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The MASN agreement and the arrangement they had in terms of percentages 

The MASN agreement?

That was the bone MLB threw Angelos to avoid court.

That has nothing to do with what would have happened if it had gone to court.

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The MASN agreement?

That was the bone MLB threw Angelos to avoid court.

That has nothing to do with what would have happened if it had gone to court.

 

I don’t think you are following what I’m saying.

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

I don’t think you are following what I’m saying.

It's hard.

 

You said "the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.".

I want to know why you think that MLB (the Nats) shouldn't have won from a legal standpoint. 

 

Or are you just saying they shouldn't have won because it was unfair to the O's? 

Is that the disconnect?

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's hard.

 

You said "the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.".

I want to know why you think that MLB (the Nats) shouldn't have won from a legal standpoint. 

 

Or are you just saying they shouldn't have won because it was unfair to the O's? 

Is that the disconnect?

I’m saying the Os had an agreement with MLB and that should have held up.  Been pretty clear about that. 

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m saying the Os had an agreement with MLB and that should have held up.  Been pretty clear about that. 

What agreement?

The agreement you are talking about happened as a result of the move.  The MASN agreement would not have existed if Angelos had gone to court to block the move.

[Sports Guy]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What agreement?

The agreement you are talking about happened as a result of the move.  The MASN agreement would not have existed if Angelos had gone to court to block the move.

I’m aware.   You are arguing something im Not.

Edited 9 hours ago by Sports Guy

[Roll Tide]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

You don't think teams like the Cowboys have inherent advantages?

Also, I guess you are just ignoring my baseball example?  Because it's too old?

From a legal standpoint what grounds did the Orioles have to keep the Nats out?

MLB just gave them a fat bribe that they mishandled to expedite the process since they knew how litigious Angelos was.

 

You're also older than me so there!

The Cowboys have an owner with deep pockets. I agree 100% … There is some cap manipulation that happens. At the end of the day they have a $255 million limit they are required to operate under. The Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc can decide each year how much they want to add to the luxury tax fund as opposed to not being able to fit a potential move under the cap. Here are the 2024 payrolls for the NFL and MLB
 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2024/04/03/mlb-team-payrolls-2024-highest-lowest-mets/73139425007/

Highest $305 million vs $60 million 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/_/year/2024/sort/cap_maximum_space

Highest $259.5 million vs $217 million these numbers will likely get tighter once they make additions before the trade deadline. 

If you can’t see the difference I’m just wasting my time.

The biggest driving force in MLB beyond the ability of some to spend lavishly is the tv markets. The club controls so much of their tv revenue that it’s an unfair game. The moved that created the Orioles didn’t have much of an effect on the Senators tv market which was likely nonexistent then. Plus MLB is allowing contract manipulation like Othani’s contract. Instead of $700 divided by length 10 years, Somehow he only counts as like $46 million which is laughable. Plus they are paying $85 million in luxury tax fees in 2024. 
 

The Orioles were a large market team when the Expos moved to DC. They could afford to spend with the Yankees, Red Sox , and Blue Jays. Could the Orioles afford to pay $85 million in luxury tax fees? Could the Yankees? I know the answer to both. 

What grounds ? Who cares ? The impact was astronomical …It made it very difficult to compete in the AL East without tank a thon! It split their tv market in half. Obviously MLB papered over that long enough to get an agreement done. 
 

They turned a large market team into 2 small/mid market teams. The Orioles and Nationals payrolls combined place them only 11th in baseball. Obviously they could afford to spend more. But it’s doubtful either will ever be top 10 for more than a season  or two as they try to hang onto a window. 
 

 

[Can_of_corn]

Cool, nice work there.

 

So?

Are we owed a large market?

Does DC not deserve their own team?

Should the fans of Baltimore just become Redskins fans and not tried to get their own team when the Colts left?  (sorry to bring up football again but come on, that fits).

I laid it all out a couple months ago, MLB has more teams bringing home the hunk of metal than other sports since 2000.  The competitive balance is fine.  It's harder?  Yea?  OK it's harder.

[Can_of_corn]

6 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m aware.   You are arguing something im Not.

I have no idea what you are arguing.