445 replies to this topic

[Chris B]

http://msn.foxsports... ... als-041812

[Adam Wolff]

I'm very uneducated in anything relating to this, but it appears this is definitely going to end up better for the Nats.

[NewMarketSean]

As it should. Angelos got a sweetheart deal when the Nats came to DC and it shouldnt last forever at the expense of the Nats.

[You Play to Win the Game]

As it should. Angelos got a sweetheart deal when the Nats came to DC and it shouldnt last forever at the expense of the Nats.

If that's what the agreement was, then yes it should.

But I thought it was like a 20 year agreement or something, so it won't last forever.

Either way, they're messing with Pete the lawyer... good luck with that one.

[Oriole85]

As it should. Angelos got a sweetheart deal when the Nats came to DC and it shouldnt last forever at the expense of the Nats.

He did, but I will bet anything he still wishes there was no team in DC. He is the only one who voted against the deal. MLB did this to appease Angelos, last thing in the world they wanted was a long-drawn out legal battle. It will not go on forever, I believe it's a 25 year deal.

This is just part of the business. The same reason you see San Francisco blocking Oakland from moving to San Jose. The Redskins tried to block a Baltimore football team. If Baltimore wanted to try to get an NBA or NHL team, you can bet Leonsis would try to block it.

All-in-all it's a small price to pay for the DC area to have a baseball team, considering they didn't have one for ~35 years.

[SportsGuy]

Let's see how much the Nats get. If they get their revenues doubled or even tripled and the Orioles remain the same or more, it will tell us all a lot about what PA is making and how little he is putting into the organization.

[JeffLong]

Let's see much the Nats get. If they get their revenues doubled or even tripled and the Orioles remain the same or more, it will tell us all a lot about what PA is making and how little he is putting into the organization.

The Nats have the lowest viewership in baseball so their argument that they should get more than the O's is ludicrous IMO.

The O's might not be better than the Nats, but we get better viewership, and that's all that matters when it comes to TV deals.

[NewMarketSean]

As it should. Angelos got a sweetheart deal when the Nats came to DC and it shouldnt last forever at the expense of the Nats.

If that's what the agreement was, then yes it should.

But I thought it was like a 20 year agreement or something, so it won't last forever.

Either way, they're messing with Pete the lawyer... good luck with that one.

Contracts are re-written or changed all the time. I agree Angelos is licking his chops...I am sure he's going to make it very difficult.

But the Nats have been here for 7 years now and they are starting to create their own legacy. As viewership rises, and it will as long as they win, they should get a larger portion of the MASN pie.

[DJ MC]

Contracts are re-written or changed all the time. I agree Angelos is licking his chops...I am sure he's going to make it very difficult.

But the Nats have been here for 7 years now and they are starting to create their own legacy. As viewership rises, and it will as long as they win, they should get a larger portion of the MASN pie.

They already are as their ownership stake increases.

[Oriole85]

The Nats have the lowest viewership in baseball so their argument that they should get more than the O's is ludicrous IMO.

The O's might not be better than the Nats, but we get better viewership, and that's all that matters when it comes to TV deals.

A few things in the Nats favor despite their bad ratings, I would like to point out- bigger market & higher income area.

[Oriole85]

Contracts are re-written or changed all the time.

Why would Angelos want to re-write the contract that favors him? Unless there's something unconstitutional here, I don't see that changing. Even though it's a bad deal for the Nats, they do have those 5-year "resets" to give them what the market will allow.

[DJ MC]

A few things in the Nats favor despite their bad ratings, I would like to point out- bigger market & higher income area.

Something in the Orioles' favor: the Nationals squatting on MLB-approved territorial rights

The Nationals and MLB decided that being in Washington under the terms of the agreement with the Orioles was preferable to Montreal or another city. They should live up to those terms.

[Oriole85]

Something in the Orioles' favor: the Nationals squatting on MLB-approved territorial rights

The Nationals and MLB decided that being in Washington under the terms of the agreement with the Orioles was preferable to Montreal or another city. They should live up to those terms.

The MLB territorial rights if I recall were in dispute to begin with. I think the big thing was no AL team could move within a certain distance, didn't quite apply the same to an NL team. But the big thing of course was that Orioles had the tv rights from Harrisburg to Charlotte or something, so that's why MASN was created to "share" those rights.

I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I think DC was the only option. It's so hard to find a viable baseball city to begin with, DC had a temporary MLB-ready facility which many other cities didn't have. It's not like football or basketball, where you can play at a college venue if necessary that is capable of hosting a pro team.

I think Selig would've gone to Charlotte, Portland or Vegas if he thought baseball could've succeeded in one of those cities. I don't think Monterrey or San Juan were that logical given their distance from other cities. DC was a last resort given the proximity to Baltimore. It had already been passed over by six cities since baseball had left DC the 2nd time. Of the last four teams that have been given franchises, only Colorado seems stable both on-and-off-the-field.

[DJ MC]

The MLB territorial rights if I recall were in dispute to begin with. I think the big thing was no AL team could move within a certain distance, didn't quite apply the same to an NL team. But the big thing of course was that Orioles had the tv rights from Harrisburg to Charlotte or something, so that's why MASN was created to "share" those rights.

I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I think DC was the only option. It's so hard to find a viable baseball city to begin with, DC had a temporary MLB-ready facility which many other cities didn't have. It's not like football or basketball, where you can play at a college venue if necessary that is capable of hosting a pro team.

I think Selig would've gone to Charlotte, Portland or Vegas if he thought baseball could've succeeded in one of those cities. I don't think Monterrey or San Juan were that logical given their distance from other cities. DC was a last resort given the proximity to Baltimore. It had already been passed over by six cities since baseball had left DC the 2nd time. Of the last four teams that have been given franchises, only Colorado seems stable both on-and-off-the-field.

I think the rule involves teams moving in within 75 miles of another team. So basically anywhere else in the country that was a (reasonably) serious suggestion would have been OK. I think a team in North Carolina could work, for example--maybe put them in Greensboro or High Point, so they can draw from both Charlotte and the Triangle.

Also, I think Arizona is pretty stable at this point. It's the two Florida clubs that have serious issues.

[DBean]

I think Selig would've gone to Charlotte, Portland or Vegas if he thought baseball could've succeeded in one of those cities. I don't think Monterrey or San Juan were that logical given their distance from other cities. DC was a last resort given the proximity to Baltimore. It had already been passed over by six cities since baseball had left DC the 2nd time. Of the last four teams that have been given franchises, only Colorado seems stable both on-and-off-the-field.

I think the Diamondbacks are starting to show some stability. Rays are doing okay on the field. Very interested to see how the Marlins do and if all this free spending pans out.

[Domenic]

In a way it's almost as if Angelos has outsmarted himself because you could in theory have operating revenue that was meant for one team going to another. That might be a fairly simplistic way of putting it, but it's a very real possibility. Honestly, while I do think the Nats will get some extra revenue I don't think that it'll be as much as they want to think it'll be. And then the Nationals and their fans can all cry foul about how evil Angelos and the Orioles are. (Cry me a river.) As has been pointed out, their viewership is atrocious. Similar to the O's they draw good crowds on weekends but during the week their attendance is pretty lousy, so I'm not sure the demand is quite what the Nationals want to think it is. However one would also think that this could in theory be an open-and-shut case in their favor. The fact that it's going to arbitration is a good thing for Angelos in my opinion. This whole argument came into the public light a few months ago at a time when the Nats were expecting to sign Prince Fielder at any moment. (In reality, once the offers were released to the media it seems that the O's were more "in" on Fielder than the Nats in terms of the money involved.) They were in effect leveraging what they assumed would be higher viewership on the Fielder-led Nationals and thinking that they could get a better deal. My fear at that point was that the O's would indirectly be paying for Fielder if the Nats won their case. Had the Nats won their case right then and there (before the Fielder thing was even settled), that would have been better for them. However with no Fielder and the above-mentioned low viewership, I think that the fact that it's gone to arbitration is a good sign for Angelos. (I'm no Angelos fan, however it would be naive of Oriole fans to be rooting against him in this case because MASN paying more money to the Nationals has the potential to lessen the amount of operating revenue that the Orioles have to play with.)

On a side note, I saw a post on this topic on another board and someone said that this could be the final stake in the Orioles' heart in the region. Something to the effect that kids growing up in the area would eventually start rooting for the Nats over the O's. I do find that hard to believe because while DC families are probably going to root for the Nats, I would seriously doubt that "Johnny USA" from Columbia is going to grow up with a Washington Nationals penant on his wall. Then you have folks such as myself (live in VA but from a Baltimore family...and I talk like it hon!) who fall somewhere in the middle. I suppose my point is that both teams will have their fan bases and so forth, however I could never imagine "Baltimore people" trending towards the Nationals and in essence turning their backs on their home team (the same with "DC people"). I guess the true test is how the crowds trend when the two teams play. I've attended every game in DC between the two teams, and there have been days where it's been 45% O's fans. On a bad day, 25-30% of the crowd is rooting for the Orioles (evidenced by the huge O! during the national anthem). I've also attended many games at the yard between the two teams, and out of a crowd of 35K I'd say there are maybe 2-3K Nationals fans at best. So it seems to me that the Orioles are still the more popular of the two teams, and I highly doubt that all of that orange at Nats Park is going to magically turn to red "just because."

[Oriole85]

I think the Diamondbacks are starting to show some stability. Rays are doing okay on the field. Very interested to see how the Marlins do and if all this free spending pans out.

Diamondbacks couldn't sell out playoff games last year and play in a much easier NL West, still credit where it is due. The Rays on-field success doesn't get enough credit IMO, but their owner has been very vocal in saying their situation is unsustainable. The Marlins are the big mystery, but so far plenty of empty seats.

[Oriole85]

I think the rule involves teams moving in within 75 miles of another team. So basically anywhere else in the country that was a (reasonably) serious suggestion would have been OK. I think a team in North Carolina could work, for example--maybe put them in Greensboro or High Point, so they can draw from both Charlotte and the Triangle.

Also, I think Arizona is pretty stable at this point. It's the two Florida clubs that have serious issues.

I think if MLB thought baseball had a good chance of success in NC, they would've done it. They kept delaying putting a team in DC after all. Many thought 2002 would be the "last year"(along with contraction), then 2003, and finally 2004, they even put games in San Juan to see if that was viable. As I said Arizona has trouble selling tickets, not like the Rays though. And they had one good year, hardly stable.

This article (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... cleid=3854), the big thing as I mentioned was the TV rights. If the Nats weren't able to be televised or even on a weaker basis, it would be much harder for them to be successful.

[Oriole85]

On a side note, I saw a post on this topic on another board and someone said that this could be the final stake in the Orioles' heart in the region. Something to the effect that kids growing up in the area would eventually start rooting for the Nats over the O's. I do find that hard to believe because while DC families are probably going to root for the Nats, I would seriously doubt that "Johnny USA" from Columbia is going to grow up with a Washington Nationals penant on his wall. Then you have folks such as myself (live in VA but from a Baltimore family...and I talk like it hon!) who fall somewhere in the middle. I suppose my point is that both teams will have their fan bases and so forth, however I could never imagine "Baltimore people" trending towards the Nationals and in essence turning their backs on their home team (the same with "DC people"). I guess the true test is how the crowds trend when the two teams play. I've attended every game in DC between the two teams, and there have been days where it's been 45% O's fans. On a bad day, 25-30% of the crowd is rooting for the Orioles (evidenced by the huge O! during the national anthem). I've also attended many games at the yard between the two teams, and out of a crowd of 35K I'd say there are maybe 2-3K Nationals fans at best. So it seems to me that the Orioles are still the more popular of the two teams, and I highly doubt that all of that orange at Nats Park is going to magically turn to red "just because."

Simply put I expect "DC people" (who didn't grow up rooting for the O's) to stay loyal to the Nats and likewise Baltimore people to the O's. I think there's some crossover since they are in different leagues and it's not exactly the same market(the whole can't root for both the Yanks/Mets or Cubs/White Sox doesn't apply).

Like Dom, I got connections to both cities (family from Baltimore/still lives there, but I grew up in the DC suburbs), so I think my position in this debate is pretty unique. Not to mention a DC baseball club didn't come until I was 19 and living 2000 miles away.

What I do think is that the Orioles will lose younger fans in the DC area, especially whose parents didn't grow up rooting for the O's. I think if the Nats do truly take off, while the O's slide continues I expect this to continue to the "border areas." You already see this with the Ravens taking fans from the fringe areas in the DC area. Many Redskins fans have the Ravens as their "AFC team," although the reverse isn't mostly true. I have noticed more Orioles fans seem to be paying attention to the Nats.

I've got to say, I find it laughable on some of the explanations of O's fans who've "converted" to the Nationals. I get it in many cases, most of all supporting the "hometown team." "I hate Angelos," is another common one, basically a fancy way of saying I'm not going to root for a chronically losing team. "I stopped once Cal retired." is also a popular one. The biggest fraud is, "I stopped rooting for them once Davey left," funny I had never heard that one until the Nats made him manager, coincidence?

Do I think the two teams, can co-exist, yes. But I do think the Orioles are at more of disadvantage now. If anything this should be an incentive for the O's to put a better product on the field.

[Domenic]

Simply put I expect "DC people" (who didn't grow up rooting for the O's) to stay loyal to the Nats and likewise Baltimore people to the O's. I think there's some crossover since they are in different leagues and it's not exactly the same market(the whole can't root for both the Yanks/Mets or Cubs/White Sox doesn't apply).

Like Dom, I got connections to both cities (family from Baltimore/still lives there, but I grew up in the DC suburbs), so I think my position in this debate is pretty unique. Not to mention a DC baseball club didn't come until I was 19 and living 2000 miles away.

What I do think is that the Orioles will lose younger fans in the DC area, especially whose parents didn't grow up rooting for the O's. I think if the Nats do truly take off, while the O's slide continues I expect this to continue to the "border areas." You already see this with the Ravens taking fans from the fringe areas in the DC area. Many Redskins fans have the Ravens as their "AFC team," although the reverse isn't mostly true. I have noticed more Orioles fans seem to be paying attention to the Nats.

I've got to say, I find it laughable on some of the explanations of O's fans who've "converted" to the Nationals. I get it in many cases, most of all supporting the "hometown team." "I hate Angelos," is another common one, basically a fancy way of saying I'm not going to root for a chronically losing team. "I stopped once Cal retired." is also a popular one. The biggest fraud is, "I stopped rooting for them once Davey left," funny I had never heard that one until the Nats made him manager, coincidence?

Do I think the two teams, can co-exist, yes. But I do think the Orioles are at more of disadvantage now. If anything this should be an incentive for the O's to put a better product on the field.

I grew up a Skins fan because they were the only team in the region at the time (Colts left when I was four). My Dad and my Uncles were huge Colt fans and in fact they kind of soured on the whole football thing in general after the team left because it ripped their hearts out. (I've only seen my old man cry three times; when both of his parents died, and when the Colts left.) However when the Ravens came to town I definitely pulled for them as my "Jr. team," while keeping the allegiance to the team I grew up with. I root against the Ravens only when they play the Skins. (FYI-there was a time when Peter Angelos was interested in buying the Redskins but of course Daniel Snyder's offer trumped everyone.)

When the Nats came to town I tried to look at it the same way...I REALLY tried. I suppose I don't wish them ill per se, however I do find myself rooting for their opponents more and more. Their fans DESPISE the Orioles; the worst of the bunch appear to be the ones that were Oriole fans at one point. Granted they probably dislike Angelos more than the team itself, however there came a point where I realized that I was trying to at the very least be diplomatic with a group that literally wanted the Orioles to go 0-162. Some of them even say that they'd like nothing more than to see the O's move away, and they'd view it as justice. In writing my Birds Watcher column I feel an obligation to be as unbiased as I can, however there comes a point where you bad-mouth the team I grew up loving too much and I can't tolerate that. In truth I don't hate the team by any means (although they could stand to learn a lesson in celebrating too much), but why should I support them when they wish the Orioles and the Oriole fans ill? While the Redskins might not be the most popular team in Baltimore, I don't sense that same level of fervor among Ravens fans.

As for who people root for, I agree that there is some overlap. Furthermore, the cities aren't as far apart as they used to be; my mother grew up in Bethesda but her family was still all in Baltimore and they used to go back very frequently. It was a daylong event for them to go there back in the 50's and 60's. Now I can go from Bethesda and be in the Inner Harbor in 30 minutes (give or take). Contrary to what Nationals' fans say and want to believe, there's no way that fans in Baltimore would ever choose them as their primary team. Might people pay attention to them and watch from afar? Sure, and one would think that with the bandwagon nature of DC many Nats fans will probably do the same (they'd never admit it). However I just don't ever see anyone north of Laurel ever taking the Nationals as their "home team" as opposed to the O's. (Lol, some Nats' fans claim Columbia as their "territory," but I would disagree.)