Who will pay Burnes $400M this offseason?

[foxfield]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

It weakens what?  Horse hockey.  But sure ok.  It weakens any case.

Well except for the way MLB decides what the tv territory is....and at the time...it required the Orioles to give up territory MLB said was it's exclusive right.  So, without any bias, what would any other team do if the largest part of their territory was taken and given away?  

Under the above, every team moved into someone's territory.  That is pretty weak and it is irrelevant to the time the Orioles are was encroached and because everyone knows you know this, it is kinda stupid.  But of course it is technically correct, if you twist yourself into a pretzel.  

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, foxfield said:

It weakens what?  Horse hockey.  But sure ok.  It weakens any case.

Well except for the way MLB decides what the tv territory is....and at the time...it required the Orioles to give up territory MLB said was it's exclusive right.  So, without any bias, what would any other team do if the largest part of their territory was taken and given away?  

Under the above, every team moved into someone's territory.  That is pretty weak and it is irrelevant to the time the Orioles are was encroached and because everyone knows you know this, it is kinda stupid.  But of course it is technically correct, if you twist yourself into a pretzel.  

When did MLB promise exclusivity?

And yes, if I were the owner I would also seek a payout. 

Remember, he did get a substantial payout. 

The owner, not the fans. 

There was never a scenario in which that team didn't end up in DC.

[foxfield]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

When did MLB promise exclusivity?

You know the MLB sets territories for the teams with the owners.  You acknowledge the fact that the Orioles were owed below for giving that up. 

And yes, if I were the owner I would also seek a payout.  

See above.

Remember, he did get a substantial payout. 

Of course he did, and then the MLB reneged on that payment.  Your earlier argument that the Orioles squandered the payment is true.  I totally agree with that.

The owner, not the fans. 

I don't think anyone is arguing that the fans were owed anything. 

There was never a scenario in which that team didn't end up in DC.

Also agreed, but there was never a scenario that would not require the Orioles to be compensated for losing that territory.  And you have repeatedly argued that the Orioles were due nothing.  So you have basically just argued to argue since you clearly agree that the Orioles were right to seek and receive compensation. 

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, foxfield said:

 

Setting a territory is not a promise of exclusivity.

Were guarantees made?  Probably not as there was no reason MLB would limit itself in such a fashion.

[e16bball]

5 hours 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. 

Good data there.

I like Burnes, and I hope there’s a way he can stick around for a few years. But if the numbers get to 5/$200M or 7/$275M, at least we can walk away with the comp pick in peace, with the knowledge that it was never going to happen.

[foxfield]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Setting a territory is not a promise of exclusivity.

Were guarantees made?  Probably not as there was no reason MLB would limit itself in such a fashion.

No one said it was promised.  You're literally arguing against yourself as I have already shown.  The MLB negotiated payment because they knew their case in court against Angelos was weak and they were not willing to risk being hauled into court.  They did not need to promise exclusivity.  They agreed that it existed and because they did, they could not simply take it.  There is evidence of this exclusivity in every attempt to watch an MLB game on tv, both then and now.  The games are blacked out due to it and until the Nat's landed, that territory was exclusively controlled by the Baltimore Orioles.

I guess the better question is if there was no right to exclusivity, on what grounds were you referring to above when you stated you as owner would have also expected payment to have the Nats planted inside your territory?

I am done. I think I have made my point and you have successfully agreed while still objecting.  So, I will simply agree to agree disagreeingly.  I sincerely wish you and all of your neighbors safety in the face of the hurricane approaching Tampa.

Edited 2 hours ago by foxfield

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, foxfield said:

No one said it was promised.  You're literally arguing against yourself as I have already shown.  The MLB negotiated payment because they knew their case in court against Angelos was weak and they were not willing to risk being hauled into court.  They did not need to promise exclusivity.  They agreed that it existed and because they did, they could not simply take it.  There is evidence of this exclusivity in every attempt to watch an MLB game on tv, both then and now.  The games are blacked out due to it and until the Nat's landed, that territory was exclusively controlled by the Baltimore Orioles.

They paid him off because they didn't want to get tied up in court for an extended period of time.  Something Angelos was known for.

You don't think "exclusive" areas are going to be altered when the A's move to Los Vegas?

 

 

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, foxfield said:

No one said it was promised.  You're literally arguing against yourself as I have already shown.  The MLB negotiated payment because they knew their case in court against Angelos was weak and they were not willing to risk being hauled into court.  They did not need to promise exclusivity.  They agreed that it existed and because they did, they could not simply take it.  There is evidence of this exclusivity in every attempt to watch an MLB game on tv, both then and now.  The games are blacked out due to it and until the Nat's landed, that territory was exclusively controlled by the Baltimore Orioles.

I guess the better question is if there was no right to exclusivity, on what grounds were you referring to above when you stated you as owner would have also expected payment to have the Nats planted inside your territory?

I am done. I think I have made my point and you have successfully agreed while still objecting.  So, I will simply agree to agree disagreeingly.  I sincerely wish you and all of your neighbors safety in the face of the hurricane approaching Tampa.

The only person that can interpret his rubbish is himself, so it makes sense that he’s arguing with himself.  
 

He has to troll and argue.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sports Guy

[foxfield]

20 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They paid him off because they didn't want to get tied up in court for an extended period of time.  Something Angelos was known for.

You don't think "exclusive" areas are going to be altered when the A's move to Los Vegas?

 

 

So why would you have sought payment if you were owner as you previously stated?  Since you are not known for being litigious and all?

Also as I am sure you’re already aware the media exclusivity rights in Vegas are already shared by 6 major league teams. Which clearly was not the situation in DC as the territory was expressly the territory of the Baltimore Orioles.