431 replies to this topic

[weird-O]

I am skeptical that they actually made an offer, but this was an organization for years that was real good at making an offer good enough to get noticed but not good enough to get the player 

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.

 

I'm calling window dressing. Didn't they do something similar with Carlos Delgado? 

 

Like others have said, I'll believe it when he signs. Until then, it's a mythical offer

[BSLChrisStoner]

Not a chance this offer was made, and not a chance it's accepted even if it was.

And if they are going to spend this much, why do it on an oft-injured player at a position where they have lots of promising young players? Why not some freaking pitching?

My guess is the Elias-Astros connection was low hanging fruit for speculation on a slow news day.

 

IDK if the offer was made or not.  Reporter heard what he heard, so... maybe? 

Even if it was not offered, the O's have the ability to offer a contract like this to Correa or otherwise because of how they are being built (most of the roster home grown, under long-term team control). 

It's what I've argued about for years as their capability... but I agree with Ricker that you don't get points for offering. You get points if you close the deal. And if that deal falls through, having and working an alternative plan.

 

As for why you would offer it to Correa? 

 

- He can augment what you have.  The talent is significant.  He's been a 5+ win (fWAR) player 3x in his career already, including '21.

- He'll be 27 all of 2022. First 5 years of the deal would be his prime, and at-least 3 years where you expect to contend. 
 

- By signing a SS or 3rd baseman... then you don't have to have everyone internally (Westburg, Henderson, Mayo) hit, and the 'depth' there could be used to target something else (pitching if need be).

 

- Familiarity as you mentioned.  Elias scouted him, there is a relationship. You are going to naturally gravitate to the guys you directly know. 

 

- Just because you aren't able to contend in '22, doesn't mean you can't add pieces now who can be part of your next contending team.

 

- He's got a healthy chip on his shoulder, competitive. 

 

Why Wouldn't You Offer This To Correa?

 

- What you mentioned primarily... talent is real, but he's been oft-injured.  '21 was only the 2nd time he played over 148 games.  Since playing 153 games in '16, he had 4 seasons where he played 110 games or less. 

 

- 10 years is long time for anyone... and while the first 5 years would figure to be productive, the second 5 years would be scary. 

 

- Dude mentioned immaturity issues.  IDK about that, but reading Correa's quotes in '21, he certainly came across as having a large ego.  Will he remain competitive after he's received this contract?

 

 

Other Arguments / Thoughts:

 

- If you were going to offer Correa this, why not Baez (before he signed) for cheaper? Or Story?  Or Bryant for 3rd as cheaper alternatives? One argument could be they (Elias and Mejdal) are familiar with Correa, and valued him higher.  Another argument could be..  if they did make this offer, and Correa said no... maybe they would yet get involved with Bryant or Story.  

 

- I mentioned above I'd be a little perplexed about offering this deal to Correa... but showing no interest in a Wood or E. Rodriguez? (Two viable starting pitchers who signed affordable deals, and would have provided some upside.) 

 

- Even with the flexibility they've created, I don't see the Orioles playing at the top of the market.  But I do believe after the '22 season, they will spend some money on the middle market and augment what they have.  (Elias was quoted earlier in the off-season as saying expect spending to rise next year, that they will look to augment what they have, it's part of the reason why they've built like this. Astroball has numerous points of discussion about not spending money on the ML roster until the 'right' moment.) 

 

- Another year of information on Westburg, Henderson, and Mayo... it's possible the O's will end '22 believing all can be part of the '23 team at some point.  Westburg should get ML time in '22.  Henderson should split the year between AA and AAA.  Mayo can reach AA in '22, and be positioned to join the O's at some point in '23.   A mid '23 O's team with Mayo at 3rd, Henderson at SS, and Westburg at 2nd is possible... or... 

 

- The O's may target someone like Dansby Swanson after next year to take over at SS. 

 

- I don't love the FA SP after the '22 season.  There are a couple of high end vets you could maybe sign on 1-2 year deals for a lot of money...  but a first causal glance at the SP available, I don't see guys like Wood, and Rodriguez.  So if the O's identify they want to go target a significant SP addition after '22, maybe it will be via trade with the growing depth the O's have in their system, and again... the payroll flexibility they have to absorb a large contract.  

 

- If Means isn't traded in '22, you'll end '22 with Means and G. Rodriguez as two of your starters.   Hopefully Hall stays healthy and gets innings in '22, and is in position to join the O's in '23.  It's not unrealistic to think out of Bradish / Rom / Baumann / Akin / Kremer / Lowther , etc that the O's might find another starter there.   I think it's plenty realistic though to think that if the O's are going to make a leap in '23 and be a contender in '24... they're going to have to add a significant starter external to the organization; but I think they have the ability to make that happen.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Its gonna happen

[Mike B]

Its gonna happen

Correa?  I like your confidence, but as others have said, I will believe it right after he passes the Orioles physical.

[Mackus]

I'm not wasting much time thinking about them actually signing Correa because I think it's wildly unlikely, but I will say that it would be absolutely confounding to my opinion regarding the intentions of ownership.

[JeremyStrain]

Extremely skeptical but it's possible.

 

When we kicked off our big run in the 90's after coming to Camden, signing Palmeiro. Everyone knew we were in on a 1B, it was going to be going after McGriff, or signing Clark or Raffy. So that one wasn't a big shock.

 

But when they pulled in Robbie Alomar, Randy Meyers, BJ Surhoff and were the first runners up on David Cone it was pretty surprising.

 

Do they have the clout and money to spend like they did back then? Not without the owners eating some losses, and the Nats getting part of the revenue.

 

This area is a major market for solo teams, but if you have two competing teams it turns into a double minor market cause they cannibalize each other to a degree. BUT that being said...they are so at the bottom of the liability market that they could swing and hit on one BIG signing and still stay reasonable. It would just be wise if it were a position player that could eventually move positions and still be valuable with the bat, and one young enough that you'd have productivity for 10 years. I would have said Manny was a good candidate a couple years ago, but he would have lost some time cause they had to rebuild a young core, but right now a guy like Correa makes as much sense as anyone. 

 

Possible. Not likely. Not when other teams with more resources are willing to give him the same money.

[weird-O]

I'm just never going to believe the O's and Nats can't both exist in this market. Living proof is how well the Nats have done while receiving the same media money as the O's, but a lesser portion of the MASN revenue. If both teams couldn't flourish, MLB wouldn't have moved the Expos to DC. 

 

But, if it is true that the two teams can't coexist in both a competitive and profitable state, the O's have only themselves to blame. They were the ones who decided to forego being competitive after the 1998 season.     

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'm just never going to believe the O's and Nats can't both exist in this market. Living proof is how well the Nats have done while receiving the same media money as the O's, but a lesser portion of the MASN revenue. If both teams couldn't flourish, MLB wouldn't have moved the Expos to DC. 

 

But, if it is true that the two teams can't coexist in both a competitive and profitable state, the O's have only themselves to blame. They were the ones who decided to forego being competitive after the 1998 season.     

 

The O's have largely been inept of their own doing '84 on... but the Nationals arrival, absolutely negatively impacted their max profitability (that doesn't mean, they aren't still profitable). 

 

Montreal moved to DC, because DC was a better situation than for that franchise (and MLB) than Montreal.   

As far as both teams being able to flourish? Maybe.     More importantly, both franchises are capable of being sustainable, profitable, and good if run right.

[weird-O]

The O's have largely been inept of their own doing '84 on... but the Nationals arrival, absolutely negatively impacted their max profitability (that doesn't mean, they aren't still profitable). 

 

Montreal moved to DC, because DC was a better situation than for that franchise (and MLB) than Montreal.   

As far as both teams being able to flourish? Maybe.     More importantly, both franchises are capable of being sustainable, profitable, and good if run right.

I'm not sure how that can be supported. Had the Expos moved to DC and the O's media market been stopped before you got into Montgomery County, that would have been bad. But they didn't lose any of that market range, O's games are still available down into the Carolinas. And they control the media rights to a second MLB team while receiving a larger share of the RSN revenue. If anything, it would appear that their revenue is better than it was without the Nats. 

 

MLB wasn't going to cannibalize one of their own, when there were other relocation options. 

[Nigel Tufnel]

I'm not sure how that can be supported. Had the Expos moved to DC and the O's media market been stopped before you got into Montgomery County, that would have been bad. But they didn't lose any of that market range, O's games are still available down into the Carolinas. And they control the media rights to a second MLB team while receiving a larger share of the RSN revenue. If anything, it would appear that their revenue is better than it was without the Nats. 

 

MLB wasn't going to cannibalize one of their own, when there were other relocation options. 

 

Was MASN able to increase its carrying fees for cable companies because of the Nats?  I wasn't aware of that.  Otherwise, you have the same income coming in, except that now you have to pay rights fees to two teams, and because of the lawsuit, those rights fees are a lot higher than you had planned.

 

I think the Ravens also had a negative impact on the O's revenues, which isn't mentioned as much.

[JeremyStrain]

I'm just never going to believe the O's and Nats can't both exist in this market. Living proof is how well the Nats have done while receiving the same media money as the O's, but a lesser portion of the MASN revenue. If both teams couldn't flourish, MLB wouldn't have moved the Expos to DC. 

 

But, if it is true that the two teams can't coexist in both a competitive and profitable state, the O's have only themselves to blame. They were the ones who decided to forego being competitive after the 1998 season.     

There's a lot of overlap in fan base and money spent. There's some hardcore base for each, but a lot of that extra that pushes you to the top revenue category are more fair weather. They will go watch either if they are competing or not watch baseball at all if neither is.

 

With DC coming here, finishing their rebuild and then being competitive for a decade or so, it put a major cramp on people willing to go to BAL.

 

DC is not a baseball town. You see it when you go to games. So many of the seats are corporate seats and people there are going for free. There are people there working on their laptops not watching the game cause it's a good way to wait out traffic. There are people that never touch their seats, getting food, having a beer or two and leaving before it gets close to metro close.

 

BUT in the absence of decent baseball you saw a lot of people that only have to make a 30-40 min drive showing up, that would have gone to BAL, especially if they were decent.

 

To Chris' point there was a small window of both teams being good and the combined attendance was better than BAL did when it was just them in the mid 90s. But it's like a Venn Diagram. There's some DC circle...a lot of Nova people im sure. There's some BAL people, especially North and West of the city. And then there's a large overlap in the middle that will support either, or both or neither depending on their mood and how the product is.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Don't forget that Angelos's efforts to keep a team out of DC ended up poisoning the well with a lot of Nats' fans to the extent where they would never go to an O's game ever again.  They feel about Angelos basically like how Ravens fans feel about Tagliabue. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'm not sure how that can be supported. Had the Expos moved to DC and the O's media market been stopped before you got into Montgomery County, that would have been bad. But they didn't lose any of that market range, O's games are still available down into the Carolinas. And they control the media rights to a second MLB team while receiving a larger share of the RSN revenue. If anything, it would appear that their revenue is better than it was without the Nats.

MLB wasn't going to cannibalize one of their own, when there were other relocation options.

The Nationals existing took 1/3 of season tickets and individual game sales. Took 1/3 of skybox revenue. Reduced their advertising. Did effectively reduce their territory. (DC Orioles store closed, York opened, being one example.)

MASN certainly leveled that out, by design, but the Nats did hurt.

That said... its 2022, and the revenue streams of teams have changed and the Orioles are plenty profitable. Money is not an issue. They arent NY or LA... but they aren't Tampa either.

(And if they want to operate like Tampa its fine... but a actually do that.)

Know you feel the Orioles spending has historically been an issue. I dont.
I think allocation was a larger issue.

[JeremyStrain]

I'm not sure how that can be supported. Had the Expos moved to DC and the O's media market been stopped before you got into Montgomery County, that would have been bad. But they didn't lose any of that market range, O's games are still available down into the Carolinas. And they control the media rights to a second MLB team while receiving a larger share of the RSN revenue. If anything, it would appear that their revenue is better than it was without the Nats. 

 

MLB wasn't going to cannibalize one of their own, when there were other relocation options. 

The MLB ASSUMED that the market could support two like NY or LA. But turns out it couldn't.

 

The problem is the speculation from there assumes that they aren't supporting two because one was good and the other awful. But even when the O's were winning during their run, they weren't getting back to their previous numbers.

 

And there was no RSN before, but the O's also had all of the market share and got SOME kind of money from it, I just don't know how much, and they didn't have to share any of it. Basically a market from central PA to OH down to Carolina all to themselves.

 

It's apples to oranges until both teams are good at the same time and you can compare side by side and see how many show up to what. But the limited run shows if all those fans showed up for the O's like the 90s attendance tracks cause CY was always selling out and tops in the league in attendance. Adding them both together is enough to clear that number and leave some leftover % that you can assume wouldn't travel from say NOVA to BAL.

 

I dunno. it's a debate likely never solved, but strong chance that yeah DC hurt BAL's market JUST by way of the fair weather fans having another option if that's the only factor.

[weird-O]

Was MASN able to increase its carrying fees for cable companies because of the Nats?  I wasn't aware of that.  Otherwise, you have the same income coming in, except that now you have to pay rights fees to two teams, and because of the lawsuit, those rights fees are a lot higher than you had planned.

 

I think the Ravens also had a negative impact on the O's revenues, which isn't mentioned as much.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Unless I'm not remembering correctly, MASN hit the air the same year the Nats started playing in DC. So I would say, no they didn't raise their fees. Rather, they started getting RSN revenue that didn't exist prior to the MASN and the Nats. So it isn't as if they started out only paying media fees to the O's and later had to start paying the Nats as well. Plus, MLB gave Angelos a big sack of cash as a thank you for allowing the Nats to come to town (AKA, stopped his litigation that would have resulted in MLB's worst nightmare. They would have had to open their books to the courts, had the case gone to trial). So you have MASN paying the O's, presumably more than HTS/Comcast were paying the team. Otherwise, why start up your own RSN? You're also getting revenue for Nats games, that exceeds what they were paying the Nats. Again, otherwise, why would they do it if they were losing money or just breaking even. What ever that profit was, the O's got 90% of it at the time of the start up. As for increased expense to broadcast the Nats, the O's get the same amount as the Nats. 

 

side note: I don't like the whole O's, Nats, MASN arrangement, but I have to admit, it was brilliant of Peter to protect himself with that clause that said both teams must receive the same revenue to their respective broadcasts.  

 

[weird-O]

Don't forget that Angelos's efforts to keep a team out of DC ended up poisoning the well with a lot of Nats' fans to the extent where they would never go to an O's game ever again.  They feel about Angelos basically like how Ravens fans feel about Tagliabue. 

True, but only for fans that viewed the O's as a substitute until they got their own team. Living in NoVA for a long time, I knew both types of fans. The ones who rooted for the O's, because they didn't have their own team, and those who were O's fans. To this day, those fans still root for the O's and don't care what the Nats are doing.  

[bmore_ken]

The Nationals existing took 1/3 of season tickets and individual game sales. Took 1/3 of skybox revenue. Reduced their advertising. Did effectively reduce their territory. (DC Orioles store closed, York opened.)

MASN certainly leveled that out, by design, but the Nats did hurt.

That said... its 2022, and the revenue streams of teams have changed and the Orioles are plenty profitable. Money is not an issue. They arent NY or LA... but they aren't Tampa either.

(And if they want to operate like Tampa its fine... but actually do that.)

Know you feel the Orioles spending has historically been an issue. I dont.
I think allocation was a larger issue.

Yep way past time to stop blaming the Nats on how the O's spend their money. The O's aren't broke. never have been.

[weird-O]

The Nationals existing took 1/3 of season tickets and individual game sales. Took 1/3 of skybox revenue. Reduced their advertising. Did effectively reduce their territory. (DC Orioles store closed, York opened, being one example.)

MASN certainly leveled that out, by design, but the Nats did hurt.

That said... its 2022, and the revenue streams of teams have changed and the Orioles are plenty profitable. Money is not an issue. They arent NY or LA... but they aren't Tampa either.

(And if they want to operate like Tampa its fine... but a actually do that.)

Know you feel the Orioles spending has historically been an issue. I dont.
I think allocation was a larger issue.

I think you did a great job of breaking down the impact of the Expos coming to town. I have a subtle disagreement here and there, but this seems like a really good explanation.   

[Nigel Tufnel]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Unless I'm not remembering correctly, MASN hit the air the same year the Nats started playing in DC. So I would say, no they didn't raise their fees. Rather, they started getting RSN revenue that didn't exist prior to the MASN and the Nats. So it isn't as if they started out only paying media fees to the O's and later had to start paying the Nats as well. Plus, MLB gave Angelos a big sack of cash as a thank you for allowing the Nats to come to town (AKA, stopped his litigation that would have resulted in MLB's worst nightmare. They would have had to open their books to the courts, had the case gone to trial). So you have MASN paying the O's, presumably more than HTS/Comcast were paying the team. Otherwise, why start up your own RSN? You're also getting revenue for Nats games, that exceeds what they were paying the Nats. Again, otherwise, why would they do it if they were losing money or just breaking even. What ever that profit was, the O's got 90% of it at the time of the start up. As for increased expense to broadcast the Nats, the O's get the same amount as the Nats. 

 

side note: I don't like the whole O's, Nats, MASN arrangement, but I have to admit, it was brilliant of Peter to protect himself with that clause that said both teams must receive the same revenue to their respective broadcasts.  

 

 

You start your own RSN so you can collect carrying fees from the cable companies (based on the number of subscribers with MASN in their cable package) and then pay a lower rights fees to the team (i.e. yourself) to show the games.  The difference between the two numbers isn't subject to revenue sharing.

 

Without the Nats, it seems like the O's TV territory would have been the exact same, so I don't see where the extra revenues from adding the Nats would have come from.  And with the Nats, you not only have to pay rights fees to two teams, you also have to pay higher rights fees because of the Nats' lawsuit.  So not only do the fees paid to the Nats come out of your profits, but also the increased rights fees that you pay to yourself are now subject to revenue sharing.  Both things are bad.

[Nigel Tufnel]

True, but only for fans that viewed the O's as a substitute until they got their own team. 

 

But there were a LOT of these people.