Who will pay Burnes $400M this offseason?

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

No but Angelos should’ve fought the relocation. Between MASN which was temporary and the sale guarantees he caved.

I’ll just say that the TV markets and cap situation make it very different. And they only need to draw 70000 people 8-9 times per year.

Want it to be an even comparison….. Make the tv money total revenue sharing. Then the differences are just gate and memorabilia driven, The Dodgers abd Yankees would still have more …but not 100s of millions more.

We complain but Oakland was a good example of a good baseball town crushed by their limited tv market. 
 

Your not sorry

 

Doesnt matter … it’s not a level playing field. Spending lavishly doesn’t always work. Just wait and tell me how you feel when Bradish and Gunnar are wearing large market uniforms and the ability to tank has been diminished. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Roll Tide

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

No but Angelos should’ve fought the relocation. Between MASN which was temporary and the sale guarantees he caved.

I’ll just say that the TV markets and cap situation make it very different. And they only need to draw 70000 people 8-9 times per year.

Want it to be an even comparison….. Make the tv money total revenue sharing. Then the differences are just gate and memorabilia driven, The Dodgers abd Yankees would still have more …but not 100s of millions more.

We complain but Oakland was a good example of a good baseball town crushed by their limited tv market. 
 

Your not sorry

 

Doesnt matter … it’s not a level playing field. Spending lavishly doesn’t always work. Just wait and tell me how you feel when Bradish and Gunnar are wearing large market uniforms and the ability to tank has been diminished. 

As I asked SG what grounds would they have had to fight it?

 

[Roll Tide]

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

As I asked SG what grounds would they have had to fight it?

 

I’m not a lawyer … perhaps @Frobbymight know. Loss of income, future revenues? Damage to their franchise….Even with MASN the Orioles lost a ton on annual tv revenues

[Too Tall]

Have you not noticed, Frobby is not among us and I don't blame him one bit. Has been absent since last Wednesday evening.  By the way, I long lost track of any point and particularly relevance this discussion has to Burnes and 400 million.  Seems we are revisiting a lot of he should have - they could of - why can't we now. Great tangent though!

Again, for the record, I believe no one is going to give Burnes anything close to 400 million. So my answer to the OP is again - No One!!!!

[Can_of_corn]

28 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I’m not a lawyer … perhaps @Frobbymight know. Loss of income, future revenues? Damage to their franchise….Even with MASN the Orioles lost a ton on annual tv revenues

When the Orioles moved into the market their was a team in DC.

I don't see how they can make a case that they deserve sole control of the area.

I think MASN was a great bribe, just the Angelos family mishandled it.  Properly run and sold off at the right time they could have cleaned up.

As it is they went as low energy and cheap as they could and I'm sure still made bank.

Don't forget, MASN revenue wasn't subject to revenue sharing like a cable deal would have been.

[LookitsPuck]

Largest contracts for starting pitchers (not including Shohei who is a dual player):

• Yamamoto - 12 years, $325 ($27m AAV), 25 years old at time of signing
• Gerrit Cole - 9 years, $324 ($36m AAV), ~29 years old
• Stephen Strasburg - 7 years, $245 ($35m AAV), ~31 years old 
• Jacob deGrom - 5 years, $185 ($37m AAV), ~35 years old
• Aaron Nola - 7 years, $172 (~$25m AAV), ~31 years old
• Carlos Rodon - 6 years, $162 ($27m AAV), ~31 years old

Burnes will be 30 this month. He's not getting $400m. And he's too old to sniff the type of long-term contract that Yamamoto received. If we look at the longer term signings of comparable age (call it 30-31 y/o), he's probably looking at a 5-7 year deal. And I reckon he'd want ~$30m AAV. My guess is it's a 5 year deal, he'll want deGrom money on AAV, maybe higher since he isn't 35 and doesn't have the injury issues.

My gut is he'll get $200m if it's 5 years and it'll be closer to $275 if 7 years. 

[Roll Tide]

58 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

When the Orioles moved into the market their was a team in DC.

I don't see how they can make a case that they deserve sole control of the area.

I think MASN was a great bribe, just the Angelos family mishandled it.  Properly run and sold off at the right time they could have cleaned up.

As it is they went as low energy and cheap as they could and I'm sure still made bank.

Don't forget, MASN revenue wasn't subject to revenue sharing like a cable deal would have been.

[gamiliel]

59 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

Largest contracts for starting pitchers (not including Shohei who is a dual player):

• Yamamoto - 12 years, $325 ($27m AAV), 25 years old at time of signing
• Gerrit Cole - 9 years, $324 ($36m AAV), ~29 years old
• Stephen Strasburg - 7 years, $245 ($35m AAV), ~31 years old 
• Jacob deGrom - 5 years, $185 ($37m AAV), ~35 years old
• Aaron Nola - 7 years, $172 (~$25m AAV), ~31 years old
• Carlos Rodon - 6 years, $162 ($27m AAV), ~31 years old

Burnes will be 30 this month. He's not getting $400m. And he's too old to sniff the type of long-term contract that Yamamoto received. If we look at the longer term signings of comparable age (call it 30-31 y/o), he's probably looking at a 5-7 year deal. And I reckon he'd want ~$30m AAV. My guess is it's a 5 year deal, he'll want deGrom money on AAV, maybe higher since he isn't 35 and doesn't have the injury issues.

My gut is he'll get $200m if it's 5 years and it'll be closer to $275 if 7 years. 

Boras will hold out to beat Cole's deal.....but I think it lands around 250m. If Cole opts out, it will be interesting to see if Yanks pivot to Burns. 

[Warehouse]

11 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

No but Angelos should’ve fought the relocation. Between MASN which was temporary and the sale guarantees he caved.

Angelos did fight the relocation.  He voted against, lobbied against it, withheld permission to adjust TV territories, and threatened to sue if not fairly compensated.  As long as the team was compensated for the loss of broadcast exclusivity, I don’t think he had any other case.

From all reports, he drove a hard bargain and it took like 9 months to negotiate a compensation and settlement agreement. There was a wide discrepancy among various parties about what constituted just compensation with Angelos taking more pessimistic views of the impact of the Nats franchise and less optimistic view on MASN. Also, MASN was in perpetuity not temporary. 

In hindsight, MASN probably didn’t provide the revenue protection intended because of how the dispute played out and how the RSN market collapsed, but that’s in hindsight. Overall, Angelos “won” the MASN dispute (at least the RSDC process) more than he lost it - the Nationals advocated for rights fees intentionally designed to bankrupt MASN but the RSDC didn’t use their comps.

Overall, I think it’s fair to say that relocating a team to DC has hurt the Baltimore club’s market size and ability to fund a top-10 payroll.  

HOWEVER, had the Nats not come to DC, the specter of an Orioles relocation to DC would have been hanging over our heads especially as Peter’s health declined, the stadium aged, and the lease approached. Peter would never have moved, but are we sure JA would turn down a higher offer of say $2.3BN offer from Ted Leonsis or someone with the intent to move the club to DC?

I think as an Orioles fan it’s probably best to have another team in DC than have to worry about the Orioles ever relocating there.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Warehouse said:

In hindsight, MASN probably didn’t provide the revenue protection intended because of how the dispute played out and how the RSN market collapsed, but that’s in hindsight. Overall, Angelos “won” the MASN dispute (at least the RSDC process) more than he lost it - the Nationals advocated for rights fees intentionally designed to bankrupt MASN but the RSDC didn’t use their comps.

 

If the RSN had been developed properly and sold when the market was still high they would have made a ton of profit.

The did a poor job of running it, they just ran it on a shoestring and skimmed as much cream as they could.

[Warehouse]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If the RSN had been developed properly and sold when the market was still high they would have made a ton of profit.

The did a poor job of running it, they just ran it on a shoestring and skimmed as much cream as they could.

I’m sure the millions they spent on litigation, which ultimately had minimal effect on the RSDC decision, didn’t help. 

[eddie83]

21 minutes ago, Warehouse said:

Angelos did fight the relocation.  He voted against, lobbied against it, withheld permission to adjust TV territories, and threatened to sue if not fairly compensated.  As long as the team was compensated for the loss of broadcast exclusivity, I don’t think he had any other case.

From all reports, he drove a hard bargain and it took like 9 months to negotiate a compensation and settlement agreement. There was a wide discrepancy among various parties about what constituted just compensation with Angelos taking more pessimistic views of the impact of the Nats franchise and less optimistic view on MASN. Also, MASN was in perpetuity not temporary. 

In hindsight, MASN probably didn’t provide the revenue protection intended because of how the dispute played out and how the RSN market collapsed, but that’s in hindsight. Overall, Angelos “won” the MASN dispute (at least the RSDC process) more than he lost it - the Nationals advocated for rights fees intentionally designed to bankrupt MASN but the RSDC didn’t use their comps.

Overall, I think it’s fair to say that relocating a team to DC has hurt the Baltimore club’s market size and ability to fund a top-10 payroll.  

HOWEVER, had the Nats not come to DC, the specter of an Orioles relocation to DC would have been hanging over our heads especially as Peter’s health declined, the stadium aged, and the lease approached. Peter would never have moved, but are we sure JA would turn down a higher offer of say $2.3BN offer from Ted Leonsis or someone with the intent to move the club to DC?

I think as an Orioles fan it’s probably best to have another team in DC than have to worry about the Orioles ever relocating there.

The Orioles were never moving to DC once Camden Yards was opened. Never. 

[Warehouse]

10 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

The Orioles were never moving to DC once Camden Yards was opened. Never. 

Probably not, but it would have been a much scarier bogeyman than Nashville. 

[AlbNYfan]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

When the Orioles moved into the market their was a team in DC.

I don't see how they can make a case that they deserve sole control of the area.

I think MASN was a great bribe, just the Angelos family mishandled it.  Properly run and sold off at the right time they could have cleaned up.

As it is they went as low energy and cheap as they could and I'm sure still made bank.

Don't forget, MASN revenue wasn't subject to revenue sharing like a cable deal would have been.

Are you really comparing 1954 to 2005??  50 years. Really? No National tv revenue, local radio only, attendance was nearly 100% local (people wouldn't travel 40 miles to see games, interstates didn't exist, air travel barely). At that time the majority of the population were born, raised, lived, and died in or near the city of birth. Fans were loyal and didn't jump ship to other franchises.

[Can_of_corn]

16 minutes ago, AlbNYfan said:

Are you really comparing 1954 to 2005??  50 years. Really? No National tv revenue, local radio only, attendance was nearly 100% local (people wouldn't travel 40 miles to see games, interstates didn't exist, air travel barely). At that time the majority of the population were born, raised, lived, and died in or near the city of birth. Fans were loyal and didn't jump ship to other franchises.

Yes.

The Orioles moved into another team's territory.  That's weakens any case they might later have that they should have sole control over that territory.

The only reason to think the O's somehow deserve sole control of the territory is if you have are biased toward the Orioles.