No Expansion Needed
4dtvman
the 1990's has gotten them into. Now, granted, they got alot of money
out of it and they did get into a great market, Denver (which should
have been accomplished via relocating the Oakland A's there in 1977),
but it has really come back to haunt them now. Look at the awful
situations in Florida, Tampa Bay, and even Arizona, depsite that team
having made the playoffs several times and won a World Series during
its short history.
Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this this mess
with relocation, which should have been done a long time ago instead
of expansion. Lets see now, besides the aforementioned Florida and
Tampa Bay, we have Montreal, Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas
City all struggling financially. Montreal will most likely be sold by
the league and relocated to DC/Northern Virginia in 2004. Minnesota
will likely be the next to move if they don't get a commitment for the
new stadium by 2004. Keep in mind that MLB has only committed to
keeping that team in Minnesota through the 2003 season. After that,
all bets are off. Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation. It
would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
with the stadium they are currently playing in.
Now, assuming the DC/Northern Virginia area gets the Expos, that
leaves Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and Northern New
Jersey to compete for the Twins, Marlins, Blue Jays, A's, and Royals.
That's right, five franchises possibly available and only five
non-baseball cities localities (capable of supporting MLB) completing
for them. Supposing all five of those localities get those franchises,
there would be no place left for MLB to expand into. Therefore, we can
safely assume that there will be no more MLB expansion during our
lifetimes (for most of us, anyway). However, considering the folks
currently running MLB, you never know.
4dtvman
Paul Wylie
[...]
> Look at the awful situations in Florida, Tampa Bay, and even Arizona,
> depsite that team having made the playoffs several times and won a World
> Series during its short history.
Fercripessakes. The situation in Arizona is not "awful." The D-Backs
have lost money because of accounting rules which required them to count
deferred money against their books in the years in which the salary was
earned, not the years in which it would be paid out. The D-Backs had a
positive cash flow in 2001 (the year they won the World Series), probably
had a positive cash flow in 2002 and start to get national TV contract
money in 2003. If MLB had allowed the D-Backs to share in national TV
revenue from the first time they made the playoffs, they probably would
have been profitable (or close to it) for the last three seasons.
Factor in that contracts for the likes of Todd Stottlemyre and Jay Bell
won't count against their books in 2003 (although they'll be paying
deferred money to those guys forever) and they will almost certainly show
a profit in 2003 (although salary deferrals could actually cause their
cash flow to go negative).
Also, in the winter between 2001 and 2002, Jerry Colangelo secured $160
million in new investment capital over ten years to be used to pay down
debt. This investment even brought the D-Backs into compliance with Bud
Selig's new interpretation of the 60-40 rule, something most teams could
not claim.
The D-Backs were one of a few teams last year to experience an attendance
increase from the previous season, and they had by far the biggest
increase in attendance. On the road, they were second only to the Yankees
in visiting attendance.
Say what you will about Jerry Colangelo, but one thing he has never been
is stupid. He and his investors have a plan for the Diamondbacks, and so
far, you have to give him credit for it working the way he said it would.
--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
david craven
"4dtvman" <tmitch...@att.net> wrote in message
news:95f90cc2.03010...@posting.google.com...
> Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this this mess
> with relocation, which should have been done a long time ago instead
> of expansion. Lets see now, besides the aforementioned Florida and
> Tampa Bay, we have Montreal, Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas
> City all struggling financially.
Were they? Do we have any real evidence of this? If we look at the "Bud"
numbers given to Congress, these teams appear only to lose money because of
"other" expenses - which often consist of payments to owners as consultants
and the like. On good measure is the "resale" price for franchises. Has
ANY team sold for less than it was purchased for? Consider the windfall
that the owner of the Twins was to receive if he agreed to be "shut
down"....
> Montreal will most likely be sold by
> the league and relocated to DC/Northern Virginia in 2004. Minnesota
> will likely be the next to move if they don't get a commitment for the
> new stadium by 2004.
Why? Is there any evidence that the Twins are losing money? People have
tried to buy the Twins with or without a stadium deal and have been
rebuffed. One guy even offered to buy the Twins AND build a stadium with
Private money... but MLB can't let someone do this without losing their
blackmail scheme.
> Keep in mind that MLB has only committed to
> keeping that team in Minnesota through the 2003 season. After that,
> all bets are off.
Are they? Are the MLB owners that stupid? The Twins, in that "crappy old
stadium" outdrew a number of teams...
> Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
> Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation. It
> would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
> of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
> with the stadium they are currently playing in.
YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the Seattle Pilots
ever filed for Bankruptcy?
> Now, assuming the DC/Northern Virginia area gets the Expos, that
> leaves Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and Northern New
> Jersey to compete for the Twins, Marlins, Blue Jays, A's, and Royals.
> That's right, five franchises possibly available and only five
> non-baseball cities localities (capable of supporting MLB) completing
> for them. Supposing all five of those localities get those franchises,
> there would be no place left for MLB to expand into.
This is, again, assuming that the Minneapolis Market is not appropriate for
baseball which is a faulty assumption, that Buffalo is not an appropriate
Baseball market, which, particularly if the Blue Jays move, is a faulty
assumption, that New England cannot support a second team, which is a faulty
assumption, that the Canadian economy will not recover and that, therefore,
neither Toronto nor vancouver can support a team, which is a faulty
assumption.
> Therefore, we can
> safely assume that there will be no more MLB expansion during our
> lifetimes (for most of us, anyway).
No we can't make that assumption. Populations and demographics change
rapidly. For example, lets say that the NAFTA folk are really right and the
Mexican Economy actually takes off and grows over the next 15 years at the
same rates that the Japanese and German economies grew between 1950 and
1965. Suddenly, several cities in Mexico become prime candidates for teams.
Or the greater LA area continues to grow and, based on population, a third
team can be supported in the San Fernando Valley. Or the State of Hawaii
gets its act together, takes advantage of its natural resources, improves
its economy and Honolulu triples or quadruples in size.
Of the opposite could happen. The US could lose the War on Terrorism.
Americans would become afraid to gather in large crowds. Attendence would
drop so significantly that no team is viable, except as a "media" asset, and
we end up with a league consisting of the Atlanta Braves(AOL/Time-Warner),
Chicago Cubs(Tribune Media Services), Los Angeles Dodgers (Fox), New York
Yankees(?), Boston Red Sox(?), and Seattle Mariners (Nikei).... all playing
before specially selected "studio" audiences in highly secure locations with
all games broadcast in PPV.
Mosey's Sequence
>
>Well, I think MLB owners now realize what a mess all that expansion in
>the 1990's has gotten them into. Now, granted, they got alot of money
>out of it
This
Look at the awful
>situations in Florida, Tampa Bay, and even Arizona, depsite that team
>having made the playoffs several times and won a World Series during
>its short history.
Doesn't match this.
What "awful situation?"
>Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this this mess
>with relocation, which should have been done a long time ago instead
>of expansion.
Why? Besides DC, are teams in any markets they "shouldn't be" by size? Not like
they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
Lets see now, besides the aforementioned Florida and
>Tampa Bay, we have Montreal, Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas
>City all struggling financially.
So? "Struggling" being relative.
PS Three of those teams made money last year (and probably for several years).
The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
Montreal will most likely be sold by
>the league and relocated to DC/Northern Virginia in 2004. Minnesota
>will likely be the next to move if they don't get a commitment for the
>new stadium by 2004. Keep in mind that MLB has only committed to
>keeping that team in Minnesota through the 2003 season. After that,
>all bets are off.
And you get this where?
Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
>Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation.
And to where exactly? New Orleans? Minneapolis?
It
>would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
>of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
>with the stadium they are currently playing in.
Most teams have something like this actually.
>Now, assuming the DC/Northern Virginia area gets the Expos, that
>leaves Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and Northern New
>Jersey to compete for the Twins, Marlins, Blue Jays, A's, and Royals.
>That's right, five franchises possibly available and only five
>non-baseball cities localities (capable of supporting MLB) completing
>for them.
All of which are smaller than the current locale. Which makes no sense. This
isn't the NBA.
Supposing all five of those localities get those franchises,
>there would be no place left for MLB to expand into. Therefore, we can
>safely assume that there will be no more MLB expansion during our
>lifetimes (for most of us, anyway). However, considering the folks
>currently running MLB, you never know.
That is a stupid assumption based on your first point of this entire post. Not
only will there be "expansion in our lifetimes" it will probably happen this
decade.
John Mosey |..X..|....|Brew-o-meter FYBS! <--Translate and get a Brewers card
Exalted Grand Puba: http://www.fantasybaseballnews.com/
Sniveling Numbers Bitch: http://www.rotowire.com/baseball/
"Frankly, no one ever produced as good of projections as Mosey, but he's
gone straight downhill since fatherhood." -- Kevin Virobik
4dtvman
> On 9 Jan 2003 07:53:47 -0800 tmitch...@att.net said some stupid crap like:
> >
> >Well, I think MLB owners now realize what a mess all that expansion in
> >the 1990's has gotten them into. Now, granted, they got alot of money
> >out of it
>
> This
Yes, this.
>
> Look at the awful
> >situations in Florida, Tampa Bay, and even Arizona, depsite that team
> >having made the playoffs several times and won a World Series during
> >its short history.
>
> Doesn't match this.
Sure it does.
>
> What "awful situation?"
Well, in the case of Florida and Tampa Bay, almost no one attends the
games. In the case of Arizona, the team almost went bankrupt
folllowing their 2001 World Series winning season and had to be bailed
out by the league to stay afloat. However, unlike Florida and Tampa
Bay, things in Arizona ARE getting better now and that's why I didn't
include them on my relocation list.
>
> >Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this this mess
> >with relocation, which should have been done a long time ago instead
> >of expansion.
>
> Why? Besides DC, are teams in any markets they "shouldn't be" by size? Not like
> they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
We're not talking size, we're talking fan support here, which Florida,
Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Kansas City aren't getting near enough of
these days. In addition, Minnesota is hurt by the lack of a new
stadium and Toronto is hurt by the weak Canadian dollar.
>
> Lets see now, besides the aforementioned Florida and
> >Tampa Bay, we have Montreal, Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas
> >City all struggling financially.
>
> So? "Struggling" being relative.
>
> PS Three of those teams made money last year (and probably for several years).
>
> The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
I'm going by baseball's definition of "struggling".
>
>
> Montreal will most likely be sold by
> >the league and relocated to DC/Northern Virginia in 2004. Minnesota
> >will likely be the next to move if they don't get a commitment for the
> >new stadium by 2004. Keep in mind that MLB has only committed to
> >keeping that team in Minnesota through the 2003 season. After that,
> >all bets are off.
>
> And you get this where?
From the newspapers. If you bothered to keep up with sports news,
you'd know this, too. Tell 'ya what, call or email your local sports
editor/reporter and ask him how long major league baseball has
offically and legally committed to Minnesota. Remember the terms of
that deal that was made as a settlement to the contraction fiasco?
>
> Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
> >Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation.
>
> And to where exactly? New Orleans? Minneapolis?
I'll say it again: Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and
Northern New Jersey. Got it now?
>
> It
> >would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
> >of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
> >with the stadium they are currently playing in.
>
> Most teams have something like this actually.
No they don't. At least not the ones I mentioned. Most of them have
1-3 year deals.
>
> >Now, assuming the DC/Northern Virginia area gets the Expos, that
> >leaves Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and Northern New
> >Jersey to compete for the Twins, Marlins, Blue Jays, A's, and Royals.
> >That's right, five franchises possibly available and only five
> >non-baseball cities localities (capable of supporting MLB) completing
> >for them.
>
> All of which are smaller than the current locale. Which makes no sense. This
> isn't the NBA.
I'll say it again, market size is not all that matters. You must
factor in things like fan support, new stadium availability, and other
conditions.
>
> Supposing all five of those localities get those franchises,
> >there would be no place left for MLB to expand into. Therefore, we can
> >safely assume that there will be no more MLB expansion during our
> >lifetimes (for most of us, anyway). However, considering the folks
> >currently running MLB, you never know.
>
> That is a stupid assumption based on your first point of this entire post. Not
> only will there be "expansion in our lifetimes" it will probably happen this
> decade.
Expansion this decade? I'd like to have some of what you've been
smoking. :) There's a better chance that Al Sharpton will be elected
president in 2004. My gosh, man, they were just talking about
contraction last year and will revisit this issue in 2007.
david craven
> > Why? Besides DC, are teams in any markets they "shouldn't be" by size?
Not like
> > they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
>
> We're not talking size, we're talking fan support here, which Florida,
> Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Kansas City aren't getting near enough of
> these days. In addition, Minnesota is hurt by the lack of a new
> stadium and Toronto is hurt by the weak Canadian dollar.
But THIS makes no sense. The key is not who comes to the game, its the
question as to who COULD come to the game. And for that, the question is
the size of the market. Using attendence creates "strange" results.
Seattle has gone in less than 10 years from a "small market" team to one of
the largest. Also see San Francisco, which has been one of the closest
teams to moving in the recent past. The size of the market didn't change...
the marketing strategy in the market changed. Even the most zealous fans
and the greatest marketing strategy in the World isn't going to result in a
team drawing 3 million in Rapid City.
And the number of potential fans in FLorida, Oakland, and Tampa Bay is quite
large. That the "marketing" geniuses haven't made it work, doesn't mean it
won't. (See former small markets Seattle, Cleveland, San Francisco and
Atlanta.)
> > The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
>
> I'm going by baseball's definition of "struggling".
And most of us will disagree with "baseball's" definition. Baseball would
love a situation in which players couldn't be free agents, couldn't be paid
more than 1 million dollars per year, and every City would be required, at
the owner's request, replace their stadium. Anything less than that, and
they will "claim" to be struggling...
> I'll say it again, market size is not all that matters. You must
> factor in things like fan support, new stadium availability, and other
> conditions.
You have bought the MLB management line hook, line and sinker. How many
other businesses have:
1. Their places of business provided by the local government;
2. Agreements with others in the same business that they cannot freely
compete for workers;
3. Free Daily Publicity in the local Press
Paul Wylie
[...]
> In the case of Arizona, the team almost went bankrupt folllowing their
> 2001 World Series winning season and had to be bailed out by the league
> to stay afloat.
Wrong. The D-Backs had a cash call in 1999 to their original investors
and in 2000, they got a loan for which MLB co-signed. The team had a
POSITIVE CASH FLOW in 2001, which makes it very difficult for their
financial situation to get worse. They were never near bankruptcy in 2001
and haven't been anywhere near it since. They had significant revenue
increases in 2002, thanks to a huge surge in attendance and a big upswing
in sponsorship dollars.
After the 2001 season ended, Colangelo got a commitment from several
existing investors to pump additional capital ($160 million over ten
years) into the team to pay down debt and bring the team to profitability
sooner.
The team's huge losses since 1999 (they made a profit in 1998) are largely
paper losses due to the accounting requirement that they charge the full
value of a contract in the year when the money is earned, even though most
of their large contracts have large amounts of deferred money.
Please get your facts straight.
Mosey's Sequence
>
>Mosey's Sequence <jo...@mosey.communist> wrote in message
>news:<avkci...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> On 9 Jan 2003 07:53:47 -0800 tmitch...@att.net said some stupid crap like:
>> >
>> >Well, I think MLB owners now realize what a mess all that expansion in
>> >the 1990's has gotten them into. Now, granted, they got alot of money
>> >out of it
>>
>> This
>
>Yes, this.
>
>
>>
>> Look at the awful
>> >situations in Florida, Tampa Bay, and even Arizona, depsite that team
>> >having made the playoffs several times and won a World Series during
>> >its short history.
>>
>> Doesn't match this.
No, it doesn't. The owners got a lot of money, end of conversation. Nor is their
"plenty-o-play offs an awful situation any way you cut it.
>> What "awful situation?"
>
>Well, in the case of Florida and Tampa Bay, almost no one attends the
>games.
So? Did you know they probably still make money?
In the case of Arizona, the team almost went bankrupt
>folllowing their 2001 World Series winning season and had to be bailed
>out by the league to stay afloat.
Right, sure, Bud is this you?
However, unlike Florida and Tampa
>Bay, things in Arizona ARE getting better now and that's why I didn't
>include them on my relocation list.
Oh you are still on that?
>> >Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this this mess
>> >with relocation, which should have been done a long time ago instead
>> >of expansion.
>>
>>Why? Besides DC, are teams in any markets they "shouldn't be" by size? Not like
>> they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
>
>We're not talking size, we're talking fan support here, which Florida,
>Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Kansas City aren't getting near enough of
>these days.
Oh, oh, and smaller cities, they support more. And you *know* Portland et al,
they will support, huh? Because... what was your evidence again?
In addition, Minnesota is hurt by the lack of a new
>stadium and Toronto is hurt by the weak Canadian dollar.
Roger is that you?
>> Lets see now, besides the aforementioned Florida and
>> >Tampa Bay, we have Montreal, Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas
>> >City all struggling financially.
>>
>> So? "Struggling" being relative.
>>
>>PS Three of those teams made money last year (and probably for several years).
>>
>> The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
>
>I'm going by baseball's definition of "struggling".
Exactly. According to them 29 teams didn't make money. And actually Minnesota,
KC and Montreal all made money by "baseball's" definition, so you are still
wrong.
>> Montreal will most likely be sold by
>> >the league and relocated to DC/Northern Virginia in 2004. Minnesota
>> >will likely be the next to move if they don't get a commitment for the
>> >new stadium by 2004. Keep in mind that MLB has only committed to
>> >keeping that team in Minnesota through the 2003 season. After that,
>> >all bets are off.
>>
>> And you get this where?
>
>From the newspapers. If you bothered to keep up with sports news,
>you'd know this, too. Tell 'ya what, call or email your local sports
>editor/reporter and ask him how long major league baseball has
>offically and legally committed to Minnesota. Remember the terms of
>that deal that was made as a settlement to the contraction fiasco?
Yes I do. And you are wrong. Hint, sportswriters are stupid too.
>> Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
>> >Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation.
>>
>> And to where exactly? New Orleans? Minneapolis?
>
>I'll say it again: Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and
>Northern New Jersey. Got it now?
You can say it, but it is still stupid. Yes, the As will get more support in Las
Vegas, right.
>>
>> It
>> >would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
>> >of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
>> >with the stadium they are currently playing in.
>>
>> Most teams have something like this actually.
>
>No they don't. At least not the ones I mentioned. Most of them have
>1-3 year deals.
Uh-huh. I call bullshit, prove it. Tell me which "most" teams have short term
contracts. Here is a kick, it's none of the ones you mentioned.
>> All of which are smaller than the current locale. Which makes no sense. This
>> isn't the NBA.
>
>I'll say it again, market size is not all that matters. You must
>factor in things like fan support, new stadium availability, and other
>conditions.
>
Why "must I"? You aren't. You are just pretending this is talk radio.
>
>Expansion this decade? I'd like to have some of what you've been
>smoking. :) There's a better chance that Al Sharpton will be elected
>president in 2004. My gosh, man, they were just talking about
>contraction last year and will revisit this issue in 2007.
Right, sure they will. Here is a hint, contraction was a white elephant. You'd
know that if you didn't get your sports news from the MLB cronies.
Mosey's Sequence
>You have bought the MLB management line hook, line and sinker. How many
>other businesses have:
>
>1. Their places of business provided by the local government;
>2. Agreements with others in the same business that they cannot freely
>compete for workers;
>3. Free Daily Publicity in the local Press
>
The post office?
4dtvman
> "4dtvman" <tmitch...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:95f90cc2.03010...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> > Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this this mess
> > with relocation, which should have been done a long time ago instead
> > of expansion. Lets see now, besides the aforementioned Florida and
> > Tampa Bay, we have Montreal, Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas
> > City all struggling financially.
>
> Were they?
The question should be "Are they?" and the answer is yes.
> Do we have any real evidence of this? If we look at the "Bud"
> numbers given to Congress, these teams appear only to lose money because of
> "other" expenses - which often consist of payments to owners as consultants
> and the like. On good measure is the "resale" price for franchises. Has
> ANY team sold for less than it was purchased for? Consider the windfall
> that the owner of the Twins was to receive if he agreed to be "shut
> down"....
I understand your point here but, unfortunately, baseball's (Bud's and
the owners) definition of "struggling" is the only one that counts
since they will unltimately decide who stays and who goes.
>
>
> > Montreal will most likely be sold by
> > the league and relocated to DC/Northern Virginia in 2004. Minnesota
> > will likely be the next to move if they don't get a commitment for the
> > new stadium by 2004.
>
> Why?
Because they don't have a new stadium yet.
> Is there any evidence that the Twins are losing money?
Maybe not, but the economics of baseball dictates that teams must have
nice new outdoor stadiums (or is that stadia?). Hey, I personally
don't agree with it but that's just the way things are.
> People have
> tried to buy the Twins with or without a stadium deal and have been
> rebuffed.
Correction, it's always been without a stadium deal.
> One guy even offered to buy the Twins AND build a stadium with
> Private money...
I know which guy you're talking about and he could never prove he had
the wherewithall to do it, so he faded into oblivion. Think about it.
The guy is black. If he could have proved that he really had the money
to do it and was rebuffed, don't you think he would have hit them with
some kind of civil rights/prejudice lawsuit or at least caused alot of
trouble for them? It would have made Trent Lott's comments seem like
child's play. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he just went away
without a fight?
> but MLB can't let someone do this without losing their
> blackmail scheme.
That's not a problem as they could always find another one.
>
>
> > Keep in mind that MLB has only committed to
> > keeping that team in Minnesota through the 2003 season. After that,
> > all bets are off.
>
> Are they?
Yes.
> Are the MLB owners that stupid?
Absolutely.
> The Twins, in that "crappy old
> stadium" outdrew a number of teams...
A nice new outdoor stadium with luxury boxes is all that matters to
them.
>
> > Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
> > Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation. It
> > would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
> > of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
> > with the stadium they are currently playing in.
>
> YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the Seattle Pilots
> ever filed for Bankruptcy?
Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
>
>
>
> > Now, assuming the DC/Northern Virginia area gets the Expos, that
> > leaves Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and Northern New
> > Jersey to compete for the Twins, Marlins, Blue Jays, A's, and Royals.
> > That's right, five franchises possibly available and only five
> > non-baseball cities localities (capable of supporting MLB) completing
> > for them. Supposing all five of those localities get those franchises,
> > there would be no place left for MLB to expand into.
>
> This is, again, assuming that the Minneapolis Market is not appropriate for
> baseball which is a faulty assumption,
Without a new stadium it's not.
> that Buffalo is not an appropriate
> Baseball market, which, particularly if the Blue Jays move, is a faulty
> assumption,
Okay, maybe I forgot one.
> that New England cannot support a second team, which is a faulty
> assumption,
Let's see here....the owners considered moving the Expos to Boston for
this season only but then decided it wouldn't fly. With that in mind,
do you actually think they'd consider moving another team to New
England permanently?
> that the Canadian economy will not recover and that, therefore,
> neither Toronto nor vancouver can support a team, which is a faulty
> assumption.
The Canadian ecomomy will always be inferior to the U.S. economy. As
much as Canadians like and support hockey, 5 of their 6 of NHL are
struggling financially according to a news story I read today. In
fact, one of them, the Ottawa Senators, just filed for bankrupcy
yesterday and will likely relocate to a U.S. city next season if the
franchise actually survives through the end of this season.
>
> > Therefore, we can
> > safely assume that there will be no more MLB expansion during our
> > lifetimes (for most of us, anyway).
>
> No we can't make that assumption. Populations and demographics change
> rapidly. For example, lets say that the NAFTA folk are really right and the
> Mexican Economy actually takes off and grows over the next 15 years at the
> same rates that the Japanese and German economies grew between 1950 and
> 1965. Suddenly, several cities in Mexico become prime candidates for teams.
> Or the greater LA area continues to grow and, based on population, a third
> team can be supported in the San Fernando Valley. Or the State of Hawaii
> gets its act together, takes advantage of its natural resources, improves
> its economy and Honolulu triples or quadruples in size.
I'm sure alot of this stuff will eventually happen. Hey, we'll
eventually put a human on Mars. However, I doubt that any of it will
happen within the next 25 years. This reminds me of a bet I had with a
guy I worked with back in the mid-1980's. He predicted that full
frontal nudity would be a regular occurrence on broadcast network TV
in the U.S. by 1990. I said no way, and bet him $100 bucks it wouldn't
happen by then. Needless to say, I won that bet as we're now in 2003
and still waiting for it to happen. Hell, you still can't even see a
woman's nipple on network TV unless the program has artistic,
historical, or medical significance.
>
> Of the opposite could happen. The US could lose the War on Terrorism.
> Americans would become afraid to gather in large crowds. Attendence would
> drop so significantly that no team is viable, except as a "media" asset, and
> we end up with a league consisting of the Atlanta Braves(AOL/Time-Warner),
> Chicago Cubs(Tribune Media Services), Los Angeles Dodgers (Fox), New York
> Yankees(?), Boston Red Sox(?), and Seattle Mariners (Nikei).... all playing
> before specially selected "studio" audiences in highly secure locations with
> all games broadcast in PPV.
Lose the war on terrorism? Yeah right, and you probably think Iraq
could kick our butts in a war. Get real man.
David Marc Nieporent
>> > Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
>> > Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation. It
>> > would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
>> > of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
>> > with the stadium they are currently playing in.
>> YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the Seattle Pilots
>> ever filed for Bankruptcy?
>Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
Yes. Where do you get your facts from? The Orioles did not file for
bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
--
David Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Doug Norris
>Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
Apparently, then, every major sports news outlet in the country should be
downright ashamed of themselves, since they're all reporting that, in the last
twenty-nine years, the only teams in major North American sports to file
for bankruptcy are the NHL's Senators, Penguins, and Kings.
Alternatively, you could reevaluate your position and quit acting like a
know-it-all.
Doug
Todd Hawley
>I'll say it again: Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and
>Northern New Jersey. Got it now?
Portland doesn't even support its current Triple A team. If a team
tried to move to San Jose, the Giants would pursue legal action of
some kind (even if they had no justification for doing so). How come
you didn't mention Sacramento? That's where the A's are continually
rumored to be heading to. Charlotte had its NBA team move. I don't
think any major sports team has survived in Vegas. Anyone remember the
Posse of the CFL?
I can't speak to Northern New Jersey..maybe the A's or Twins can nmove
there. :))
-th
david craven
>
> I understand your point here but, unfortunately, baseball's (Bud's and
> the owners) definition of "struggling" is the only one that counts
> since they will unltimately decide who stays and who goes.
Well than actually facts are irrelevant as the MLB owners will always claim
that they are struggling unless they have a full reserve clause and an
absolute cap on upper salaries.
> Maybe not, but the economics of baseball dictates that teams must have
> nice new outdoor stadiums (or is that stadia?). Hey, I personally
> don't agree with it but that's just the way things are.
They do? So Bud Selig is going to want his new (domed) Stadium replaced?
And I guess that the Cubs can't possibly make it in that wreck called
Wrigley Field. Yes, no doubt, the Twins are hurt by the Dome. But it is
also clear that Baseball teams (as opposed to Football teams) really can
afford to build their own Stadia, or at least a large part of one..
> > People have
> > tried to buy the Twins with or without a stadium deal and have been
> > rebuffed.
>
> Correction, it's always been without a stadium deal.
Yes. That's the point. The owner of the Twins has been offered many
multiples of his original purchase price for his team WITHOUT the Stadium
that he claims he needs and he doesn't want to sell. IF he was losing
money, you would think that he would be willing to sell at even his original
purchase price...
> > One guy even offered to buy the Twins AND build a stadium with
> > Private money...
>
> I know which guy you're talking about and he could never prove he had
> the wherewithall to do it, so he faded into oblivion. Think about it.
> The guy is black. If he could have proved that he really had the money
> to do it and was rebuffed, don't you think he would have hit them with
> some kind of civil rights/prejudice lawsuit or at least caused alot of
> trouble for them? It would have made Trent Lott's comments seem like
> child's play. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he just went away
> without a fight?
Or, perhaps, he has been told that he will eventually be given a chance to
join the club of owners, but he first needs to prove that he can be quiet
and cooperative.
> > but MLB can't let someone do this without losing their
> > blackmail scheme.
>
> That's not a problem as they could always find another one.
Yes, no doubt. But right now they are blackmailing Stadiums out of local
Governments at the expense of schools and other programs.
> > > Keep in mind that MLB has only committed to
> > > keeping that team in Minnesota through the 2003 season. After that,
> > > all bets are off.
> >
> > Are they?
>
> Yes.
The problem is that they "claim" that Minnesota cannot compete. However,
Minnesota is going to be competive (and may even win the Central) again next
season. And if they try to contract or move, you can bet that Congress will
hold meaningful hearings and will demand REAL data which will show that the
Twins are not, in fact, losing money. And the impact of the Enron and
related scandals will make MLB far less able to cook the books.
> > > Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
> > > Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation. It
> > > would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
> > > of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
> > > with the stadium they are currently playing in.
> >
> > YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the Seattle
Pilots
> > ever filed for Bankruptcy?
>
> Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
Except, of course, that this is wrong. The OWNER of the Orioles filed for
Bankruptcy, not the Orioles. The Orioles were, and are profitable... in
part because they were one of the first of the new wave of blackmailers that
got a new Stadium out of their local government.
> > This is, again, assuming that the Minneapolis Market is not appropriate
for
> > baseball which is a faulty assumption,
>
> Without a new stadium it's not.
Huh. I would swear that the Twins drew more than 3 million fans to the
Dome on season... But gosh, major league owners always are honest and
beyound reproach and if they say that it is not appropriate, its not
appropriate...
> > that Buffalo is not an appropriate
> > Baseball market, which, particularly if the Blue Jays move, is a faulty
> > assumption,
>
> Okay, maybe I forgot one.
As has MLB.
> Let's see here....the owners considered moving the Expos to Boston for
> this season only but then decided it wouldn't fly.
Mostly because of the problems in scheduling two teams into one park.
Consider that the Boston Red Sox have THE MOST EXPENSIVE ticket price in
baseball. That's the law of supply and demand. It says that the demand
exceeds the supply. Add in the fact that large parts of New England are
prosperous and that, on a fan to team basis its relatively underrepresented
(Massachussets and Connecticut are not particularly underpopulated states)
and its pretty clear that the area could easily support a second team....
and it used to....
> With that in mind,
> do you actually think they'd consider moving another team to New
> England permanently?
>
Would they consider it? Probably not. Should they? Yup. Its a vastly
better market than a number of current markets and much much better than
some of the prospective markets you named (Las Vegas isn't going to
happen... the gambling industry will prevent this as it would wipe out a
significant portion of the legal Sports Book Industry... just as they will
never get an NFL team either...)
> > that the Canadian economy will not recover and that, therefore,
> > neither Toronto nor vancouver can support a team, which is a faulty
> > assumption.
>
> The Canadian ecomomy will always be inferior to the U.S. economy.
Hmmm. Guess you are not a believer in NAFTA and the thinking that the US
and Canadian Economies are heading toward such an interdependence that they
cannot be readily distinguished.
> much as Canadians like and support hockey, 5 of their 6 of NHL are
> struggling financially according to a news story I read today
It really must be great to live somewhere with News that is always perfectly
accurate and which never has any spin.
>. In
> fact, one of them, the Ottawa Senators, just filed for bankrupcy
> yesterday and will likely relocate to a U.S. city next season if the
> franchise actually survives through the end of this season.
Hmmm. A Hockey Team that files for Bankruptcy. Guess it only happens in
Canada. Oh, wait, the other two hockey teams to go bankrupt are in LA and
Pittsburg... and they are both still in operation. The franchise will
clearly survive the season. The rest of the NHL cannot allow any other
alternative. As for the future... I have no problem with teams going
Bankrupt and disappearing. In such a proceeding, their financial value, or
lack thereof, is established. But folding up shop and leaving Cities
(with their stadia built for the teams) holding the bag without any real
showing of financial failure is not acceptable.
> > Of the opposite could happen. The US could lose the War on Terrorism.
> > Americans would become afraid to gather in large crowds. Attendence
would
> > drop so significantly that no team is viable, except as a "media" asset,
and
> > we end up with a league consisting of the Atlanta
Braves(AOL/Time-Warner),
> > Chicago Cubs(Tribune Media Services), Los Angeles Dodgers (Fox), New
York
> > Yankees(?), Boston Red Sox(?), and Seattle Mariners (Nikei).... all
playing
> > before specially selected "studio" audiences in highly secure locations
with
> > all games broadcast in PPV.
>
> Lose the war on terrorism? Yeah right, and you probably think Iraq
> could kick our butts in a war. Get real man.
Losing the war on Terrorism doesn't mean that we "lost" the war in Iraq.
(And of course, this also ignores the fact that their is no link between
Iraq and Al Quadea). The problem with a "war" with terrorists is that we
don't really have anywhere "to" attack. Its a similar problem to fighting
a war with an "unconventional" enemy. By any standards, the US and French
Armies in Viet Nam, the Russian Army in Afghanistan, the British Army in
Afghanistan, the British Army in the 13 Colonies, and so forth, were vastly
superior in all areas to their foes. And yet, the ultimate "winners" of
those wars were the weaker forces.
One loses a terrorist war when one gives up freedoms, when one changes ones
conduct, when one stops feeling safe and secure. And, by these tests, the
terrorists are clearly winning the current war, as Americans give up more
and more freedoms, and begin to change their conduct. And if we should
experience another major terrorist incident, it is likely that many more
Americans will feel less safe and secure.... and certainly most Americans
of Middle Eastern Descent are not feeling safe or secure right now...
dvda...@earthlink.net
news:rmau1vk09d7m3d840...@4ax.com...
Las Vegas is growing very rapidly and has probably passed Portland as
metropolitan area without a team that is most able to support one.
(Baltington already has a team.) The problem with Vegas isn't its viability,
it's that the major sports want nothing to do with the Nevada sportsbooks.
Charlotte's loss of their NBA team was only temporary. They are slated to
get a new team quite soon.
Ima Pseudonym
Jacobs paid $70 million for the team in 1989. After he filed for
bankruptcy (thanks to the collapse of the Junk bond market) he sold
the team for $171 million - just 4 years later. That's besides all
the money he took out of the team to try to prop up his business
empire as it collapsed.
C Nick Beaudrot
<dvda...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: "Todd Hawley" <tha...@tdl.com> wrote in message
You can find the CMSA numbers here:
http://www.baseballprimer.com/articles/danwerr_2003-01-07_0.shtml
Portland is at 2.3M and growing at 26% over 10 years (2.34% growth).A
Vegas is at 1.6M and growing at 83% over 10 years (6.23% growth). The
annual figures would probably show Portland growing slower and Vegas
growing faster, but it's not even close. It would take at least 10 years
for Vegas to be larger than Portland.
Another difficulty in Vegas is the "work day" is totally different from
anywhere else. It's entirely possible that a large chunk of the
population is working from 7pm on.
It's also worth pointing out that Oregon is an "extreme democracy"
state. The local economy is apparently very sick too (that's hearsay;
feel free to refute me here). It'd be very difficult to get any sort of
stadium funding, full or partial, in such a place
:
:
: Charlotte's loss of their NBA team was only temporary. They are slated to
: get a new team quite soon.
And the problems appeared to have been with the owner more than anything
else.
Cheers,
Nick
--
bomb Marx president encryption revolution Pat Buchanan unabomber occult
there are better ways to catch the bad guys than snooping tons of email
overthrow 2600 secret service Cornell West extermination satan
Vinay Kumar
: "david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message news:<avkc97$c4b$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
: > > Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this
: > > this mess with relocation, which should have been done a long
: > > time ago instead of expansion. Lets see now, besides the
: > > aforementioned Florida and Tampa Bay, we have Montreal,
: > > Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas City all struggling
: > > financially.
: > Were they?
: The question should be "Are they?" and the answer is yes.
Not Minnesota. Is Oakland struggling?
: > Do we have any real evidence of this? If we look at the "Bud"
: > numbers given to Congress, these teams appear only to lose money
: > because of "other" expenses - which often consist of payments to
: > owners as consultants and the like. On good measure is the
: > "resale" price for franchises. Has ANY team sold for less than it
: > was purchased for? Consider the windfall that the owner of the
: > Twins was to receive if he agreed to be "shut down"....
: I understand your point here but, unfortunately, baseball's (Bud's and
: the owners) definition of "struggling" is the only one that counts
: since they will unltimately decide who stays and who goes.
Well, then I don't understand the point of this thread.
: > One guy even offered to buy the Twins AND build a stadium with
: > Private money...
: I know which guy you're talking about and he could never prove he had
: the wherewithall to do it, so he faded into oblivion. Think about it.
: The guy is black. If he could have proved that he really had the money
: to do it and was rebuffed, don't you think he would have hit them with
: some kind of civil rights/prejudice lawsuit or at least caused alot of
: trouble for them? It would have made Trent Lott's comments seem like
: child's play. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he just went away
: without a fight?
No; I suppose I have a higher opinion of people than you do. There's
no evidence that Watkins was rebuffed due to race. In fact, there's
plenty of evidence that there were other reasons. It's unethical to
play the race card when race is not the real issue.
: > but MLB can't let someone do this without losing their blackmail
: > scheme.
: That's not a problem as they could always find another one.
Well, it's our problem. Or the problem of Minnesota taxpayers.
: > > Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto, Oakland,
: > > and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation. It would
: > > be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
: > > of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their
: > > contract with the stadium they are currently playing in.
: > YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the Seattle
: > Pilots ever filed for Bankruptcy?
: Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
As David N. already posted, this is completely false. The owner of
the Orioles filed for bankruptcy, but the Orioles were one of his most
prized assets.
: > > Now, assuming the DC/Northern Virginia area gets the Expos, that
: > > leaves Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and Northern
: > > New Jersey to compete for the Twins, Marlins, Blue Jays, A's,
: > > and Royals. That's right, five franchises possibly available
: > > and only five non-baseball cities localities (capable of
: > > supporting MLB) completing for them. Supposing all five of those
: > > localities get those franchises, there would be no place left
: > > for MLB to expand into.
: > This is, again, assuming that the Minneapolis Market is not
: > appropriate for baseball which is a faulty assumption,
: Without a new stadium it's not.
It clearly is. They're winning and profitable. Of course the
ownership wants a new stadium. And I want a new Mercedes. That
doesn't mean I'm in poverty or that my salary doesn't support me.
: > that New England cannot support a second team, which is a faulty
: > assumption,
: Let's see here....the owners considered moving the Expos to Boston
: for this season only but then decided it wouldn't fly. With that in
: mind, do you actually think they'd consider moving another team to
: New England permanently?
This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. There are lots of issues that
would come into play if the Expos played in Boston this season. The
fact that MLB decided against it really has nothing to do with whether
the market could support it. By the same token, Washington/NoVA can't
support a team, because MLB considered playing Expos games there and
decided against it.
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Vinay Kumar |
| vi...@baseball.org http://www.baseball.org/~vinay |
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
dvda...@earthlink.net
news:avngp8$p0b$4...@saturn.services.brown.edu...
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:41:47 GMT, <dvda...@earthlink.net>
> <dvda...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : "Todd Hawley" <tha...@tdl.com> wrote in message
> : news:rmau1vk09d7m3d840...@4ax.com...
> : > Portland doesn't even support its current Triple A team. If a team
> : > tried to move to San Jose, the Giants would pursue legal action of
> : > some kind (even if they had no justification for doing so). How come
> : > you didn't mention Sacramento? That's where the A's are continually
> : > rumored to be heading to. Charlotte had its NBA team move. I don't
> : > think any major sports team has survived in Vegas. Anyone remember the
> : > Posse of the CFL?
> : >
> : > I can't speak to Northern New Jersey..maybe the A's or Twins can nmove
> : > there. :))
> :
> : Las Vegas is growing very rapidly and has probably passed Portland as
> : metropolitan area without a team that is most able to support one.
> : (Baltington already has a team.) The problem with Vegas isn't its
viability,
> : it's that the major sports want nothing to do with the Nevada
sportsbooks.
>
> You can find the CMSA numbers here:
> http://www.baseballprimer.com/articles/danwerr_2003-01-07_0.shtml
Yes. As I've posted here before, you can get the complete listings at
http://www.demographia.com/db-usmet2000.htm
> Portland is at 2.3M and growing at 26% over 10 years (2.34% growth).A
> Vegas is at 1.6M and growing at 83% over 10 years (6.23% growth). The
> annual figures would probably show Portland growing slower and Vegas
> growing faster, but it's not even close. It would take at least 10 years
> for Vegas to be larger than Portland.
I didn't say Las Vegas was bigger. I said it had probably passed Portland in
the ability to support a ball club. At any given time, there are many more
than the 1.6M permanent residents inhabiting the area. Las Vegas is one of
the most common tourist destinations in the country and people don't spend
all their time gambling.
> Another difficulty in Vegas is the "work day" is totally different from
> anywhere else. It's entirely possible that a large chunk of the
> population is working from 7pm on.
That's a good point. So the tourists would help a lot, but the scattered
work hours would hurt. However, as the area continues to grow, there are
more and more people employed outside of the service industries.
> It's also worth pointing out that Oregon is an "extreme democracy"
> state. The local economy is apparently very sick too (that's hearsay;
> feel free to refute me here). It'd be very difficult to get any sort of
> stadium funding, full or partial, in such a place
That's also part of why I said Vegas might better support a team. OTOH, the
advantage for Las Vegas could be transient. The water shortage here could
put a big damper on growth and Portland's economy will rebound at some
point.
Dale J. Stephenson
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
> : "david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message news:<avkc97$c4b$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
[on "struggling franchises"]
> : > Do we have any real evidence of this? If we look at the "Bud"
> : > numbers given to Congress, these teams appear only to lose money
> : > because of "other" expenses - which often consist of payments to
> : > owners as consultants and the like. On good measure is the
> : > "resale" price for franchises. Has ANY team sold for less than it
> : > was purchased for? Consider the windfall that the owner of the
> : > Twins was to receive if he agreed to be "shut down"....
>
> : I understand your point here but, unfortunately, baseball's (Bud's and
> : the owners) definition of "struggling" is the only one that counts
> : since they will unltimately decide who stays and who goes.
>
> Well, then I don't understand the point of this thread.
>
It's a philosophical point, apparently. WE all know the owners are
lying, but the owners somehow don't realize they're lying. Pay no
attention to the man behind the curtain.
The economics of baseball stink, literally forcing an intelligent
GM to trade a top-of-the-line starter for a backup catcher. We should
immediately contract the four teams identified by Bud Selig's sworn
testimony as losing the most money in the year 2001:
Atlanta Braves (2001 NL East champs)
Arizona Diamondbacks (2001 World champs)
Toronto Blue Jays
Los Angeles Dodgers
Needless to say, this will open up some prime markets for less
competitive (but profitable) teams like Milwaukee and Minnesota.
Since three of the contracted teams are NL, the Brewers will have
to go back to the AL, but you can't have everything.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
daleste...@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone. 12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
Terrell Miller
news:avngp8$p0b$4...@saturn.services.brown.edu...
> : Charlotte's loss of their NBA team was only temporary. They are slated
to
> : get a new team quite soon.
>
> And the problems appeared to have been with the owner more than anything
> else.
CHarlotte is pretty much exactly where Atlanta was in the early 1980s:
biggish but still very nice, population mushrooming faster than the
infrastructure can be expanded.
Hopefully they won't wind up like Atlanta has.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Winners never talk about glorious victories. That's because they're the
ones who see what the battlefield looks like afterward. It's only the losers
who have glorious victories"
-Terry Pratchett
Terrell Miller
news:u1y3kl...@baseball.org...
> : > One guy even offered to buy the Twins AND build a stadium with
> : > Private money...
>
> : I know which guy you're talking about and he could never prove he had
> : the wherewithall to do it, so he faded into oblivion. Think about it.
> : The guy is black. If he could have proved that he really had the money
> : to do it and was rebuffed, don't you think he would have hit them with
> : some kind of civil rights/prejudice lawsuit or at least caused alot of
> : trouble for them? It would have made Trent Lott's comments seem like
> : child's play. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he just went away
> : without a fight?
>
> No; I suppose I have a higher opinion of people than you do. There's
> no evidence that Watkins was rebuffed due to race. In fact, there's
> plenty of evidence that there were other reasons. It's unethical to
> play the race card when race is not the real issue.
1) he wasn't playing the race card, he was saying exactly what you're saying
2) just because something is unethical doesn't mean it never happens...on
both sides
> : > This is, again, assuming that the Minneapolis Market is not
> : > appropriate for baseball which is a faulty assumption,
>
> : Without a new stadium it's not.
I'm just wondering what it would be like to see a night game in teh Twins'
new outdoor stadium one fine April evening. Anybody here remember the old
Municipal Stadium days adn can shed some light?
John Northey
>The Canadian ecomomy will always be inferior to the U.S. economy. As
>much as Canadians like and support hockey, 5 of their 6 of NHL are
>struggling financially according to a news story I read today. In
>fact, one of them, the Ottawa Senators, just filed for bankrupcy
>yesterday and will likely relocate to a U.S. city next season if the
>franchise actually survives through the end of this season.
I tend to try to stay out of threads that are growing in leaps and
bounds but what the heck. As a Canadian who keeps up on financial
issues I should let you know that for the past year the Canadian
economy has been doing better than any of the Group of 7, a group that
includes the US and other major industrialized nations, in economic
growth and is expected to continue for the next year.
As for the hockey issue, the Montreal Canadians losing money is as
silly a thing as the LA Dodgers losing money. The Toronto Maple Leafs
pretty much can't lose money as they sell out every game with an
average ticket price of over $100 each. Ottawa is a _very_ small
market that never should've had a team (they promised immediate cash
to the NHL and the league grabbed it) yet still has the best or second
best record in the NHL this year and has been fighting for top playoff
slots for a few years now.
>Lose the war on terrorism? Yeah right, and you probably think Iraq
>could kick our butts in a war. Get real man.
Just like the US couldn't lose in Vietnam? Sorry, had to say it.
John Northey.
"Professional baseball is on the wane. Salaries must come down
or the interest of the public must be increased in some way.
If one or the other does not happen, bankruptcy stares every
team in the face."
-- Chicago White Stockings owner Albert Spalding, 1881
4dtvman
> In article <95f90cc2.03011...@posting.google.com>,
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) wrote:
> >"david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message
> >> "4dtvman" <tmitch...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
> >> > Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation. It
> >> > would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
> >> > of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
> >> > with the stadium they are currently playing in.
>
> >> YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the Seattle Pilots
> >> ever filed for Bankruptcy?
>
> >Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
>
> Yes. Where do you get your facts from?
Note the last paragraph in the following article from Washington
Times:
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
> The Orioles did not file for
> bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
4dtvman
Then you have an argument with the guy who wrote the following article:
4dtvman
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>
> >Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
>
> Apparently, then, every major sports news outlet in the country should be
> downright ashamed of themselves, since they're all reporting that, in the last
> twenty-nine years, the only teams in major North American sports to file
> for bankruptcy are the NHL's Senators, Penguins, and Kings.
Oh, I don't know, perhaps the guy who wrote the following article
should be the one who is downright ashamed:
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
Well all know that you're a much better reporter/writer than he. :)
>
> Alternatively, you could reevaluate your position and quit acting like a
> know-it-all.
Absolutely, I wouldn't want to come off as being like Doug Norris, now
would I?
Evan Z
> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:<nieporen-10244D...@news-east.giganews.com>...
> Note the last paragraph in the following article from Washington
> Times:
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
>
>
> > The Orioles did not file for
> > bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>
> Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
> Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
Well, it is the Washington Times. Set your bar a little higher next time.
ezb
Vinay Kumar
: "Vinay Kumar" <vi...@baseball.org> wrote in message
: news:u1y3kl...@baseball.org...
: > : > One guy even offered to buy the Twins AND build a stadium
: > : > with Private money...
: > : I know which guy you're talking about and he could never prove
: > : he had the wherewithall to do it, so he faded into
: > : oblivion. Think about it. The guy is black. If he could have
: > : proved that he really had the money to do it and was rebuffed,
: > : don't you think he would have hit them with some kind of civil
: > : rights/prejudice lawsuit or at least caused alot of trouble for
: > : them? It would have made Trent Lott's comments seem like child's
: > : play. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he just went away
: > : without a fight?
: > No; I suppose I have a higher opinion of people than you do.
: > There's no evidence that Watkins was rebuffed due to race. In
: > fact, there's plenty of evidence that there were other reasons.
: > It's unethical to play the race card when race is not the real
: > issue.
: 1) he wasn't playing the race card, he was saying exactly what
: you're saying
Who is the "he" in your sentence?
I think the OP was saying that Watkins wasn't a serious ownership
candidate, because if he was, he would've raised a ruckus (playing the
race card). I'm saying that Watkins wasn't denied based on race, and
therefore I don't assume that he'd play the race card. And so he
could've been a serious candidate, who was rejected by MLB for not
playing ball, and he didn't make a big stink about it.
: 2) just because something is unethical doesn't mean it never
: happens...on both sides
Well, duh. But the OP was inferring some things strictly because
Watkins didn't turn it into a big racial issue.
4dtvman
Oh really, tell that to the guy who wrote the following article in the
Washington Times:
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
Hey, I'm not an investigative reporter, so all I know about stuff like
that is what I read in the newspapers or on the internet.
I agree. The two are completely unrelated, but I was just using it as
an analogy.
> (And of course, this also ignores the fact that their is no link between
> Iraq and Al Quadea).
I'm not ignoring this fact. Actually, I've argued this fact many times
against all the hawks who want to go to war with Iraq.
> The problem with a "war" with terrorists is that we
> don't really have anywhere "to" attack. Its a similar problem to fighting
> a war with an "unconventional" enemy. By any standards, the US and French
> Armies in Viet Nam, the Russian Army in Afghanistan, the British Army in
> Afghanistan, the British Army in the 13 Colonies, and so forth, were vastly
> superior in all areas to their foes. And yet, the ultimate "winners" of
> those wars were the weaker forces.
>
> One loses a terrorist war when one gives up freedoms, when one changes ones
> conduct, when one stops feeling safe and secure. And, by these tests, the
> terrorists are clearly winning the current war, as Americans give up more
> and more freedoms, and begin to change their conduct.
True, but they will only do so up to a certain point and then the tide
will turn back, especially after several years go by without a repeat
of 9/11. In fact, I doubt any repeats of 9/11 anytime into the
forseeable future.
> And if we should
> experience another major terrorist incident, it is likely that many more
> Americans will feel less safe and secure.... and certainly most Americans
> of Middle Eastern Descent are not feeling safe or secure right now...
True, but I seriously doubt that we'll experience another major
terrorist incident any time into the forseeable future. Personally, I
don't feel any less safe now than I did on Sep 10, 2001.
David Brazeal
> norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Doug Norris) wrote in message
news:<norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu>...
> > tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
> >
> > >Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
> >
> > Apparently, then, every major sports news outlet in the country should
be
> > downright ashamed of themselves, since they're all reporting that, in
the last
> > twenty-nine years, the only teams in major North American sports to file
> > for bankruptcy are the NHL's Senators, Penguins, and Kings.
>
> Oh, I don't know, perhaps the guy who wrote the following article
> should be the one who is downright ashamed:
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
>
> Well all know that you're a much better reporter/writer than he. :)
Actually, when it comes to knowledge of the business of baseball, I'd put
several of this forum's contributors up against anyone. And this Eric
Fisher might not even be a sportswriter--he could just as easily be a
business writer, which would make him less qualified than some of the people
in this forum to comment.
davidb
4dtvman
> : "david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message news:<avkc97$c4b$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> : > "4dtvman" <tmitch...@att.net> wrote in message
> : > news:95f90cc2.03010...@posting.google.com...
>
> : > > Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this
> : > > this mess with relocation, which should have been done a long
> : > > time ago instead of expansion. Lets see now, besides the
> : > > aforementioned Florida and Tampa Bay, we have Montreal,
> : > > Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas City all struggling
> : > > financially.
>
> : > Were they?
>
> : The question should be "Are they?" and the answer is yes.
>
> Not Minnesota. Is Oakland struggling?
According to Cadillac Bud they are.
>
> : > Do we have any real evidence of this? If we look at the "Bud"
> : > numbers given to Congress, these teams appear only to lose money
> : > because of "other" expenses - which often consist of payments to
> : > owners as consultants and the like. On good measure is the
> : > "resale" price for franchises. Has ANY team sold for less than it
> : > was purchased for? Consider the windfall that the owner of the
> : > Twins was to receive if he agreed to be "shut down"....
>
> : I understand your point here but, unfortunately, baseball's (Bud's and
> : the owners) definition of "struggling" is the only one that counts
> : since they will unltimately decide who stays and who goes.
>
> Well, then I don't understand the point of this thread.
For informational purposes only.
>
> : > One guy even offered to buy the Twins AND build a stadium with
> : > Private money...
>
> : I know which guy you're talking about and he could never prove he had
> : the wherewithall to do it, so he faded into oblivion. Think about it.
> : The guy is black. If he could have proved that he really had the money
> : to do it and was rebuffed, don't you think he would have hit them with
> : some kind of civil rights/prejudice lawsuit or at least caused alot of
> : trouble for them? It would have made Trent Lott's comments seem like
> : child's play. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he just went away
> : without a fight?
>
> No; I suppose I have a higher opinion of people than you do. There's
> no evidence that Watkins was rebuffed due to race. In fact, there's
> plenty of evidence that there were other reasons. It's unethical to
> play the race card when race is not the real issue.
You completely missed my point. I'm arguing that he COULDN'T have been
rebuffed because of race or there would have been trouble. My argument
is that he was likely rebuffed because he couldn't prove he had the
assets he said he had. For any other reason, the race card would
likely have been played.
>
> : > but MLB can't let someone do this without losing their blackmail
> : > scheme.
>
> : That's not a problem as they could always find another one.
>
> Well, it's our problem. Or the problem of Minnesota taxpayers.
Unfortunately, it is.
>
> : > > Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto, Oakland,
> : > > and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation. It would
> : > > be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
> : > > of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their
> : > > contract with the stadium they are currently playing in.
>
> : > YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the Seattle
> : > Pilots ever filed for Bankruptcy?
>
> : Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
>
> As David N. already posted, this is completely false. The owner of
> the Orioles filed for bankruptcy, but the Orioles were one of his most
> prized assets.
Once again, you all need to tell that to the guy who wrote the
following article in the Washington Times:
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
>
> : > > Now, assuming the DC/Northern Virginia area gets the Expos, that
> : > > leaves Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and Northern
> : > > New Jersey to compete for the Twins, Marlins, Blue Jays, A's,
> : > > and Royals. That's right, five franchises possibly available
> : > > and only five non-baseball cities localities (capable of
> : > > supporting MLB) completing for them. Supposing all five of those
> : > > localities get those franchises, there would be no place left
> : > > for MLB to expand into.
>
> : > This is, again, assuming that the Minneapolis Market is not
> : > appropriate for baseball which is a faulty assumption,
>
> : Without a new stadium it's not.
>
> It clearly is. They're winning and profitable. Of course the
> ownership wants a new stadium. And I want a new Mercedes. That
> doesn't mean I'm in poverty or that my salary doesn't support me.
But is does mean MLB could move the team if there is no new stadium
soon. If they keep the team there without a new stadium, then everyone
will know their threats are empty and no new stadiums will ever get
built anywhere (at least, one their demand).
>
> : > that New England cannot support a second team, which is a faulty
> : > assumption,
>
> : Let's see here....the owners considered moving the Expos to Boston
> : for this season only but then decided it wouldn't fly. With that in
> : mind, do you actually think they'd consider moving another team to
> : New England permanently?
>
> This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. There are lots of issues that
> would come into play if the Expos played in Boston this season. The
> fact that MLB decided against it really has nothing to do with whether
> the market could support it. By the same token, Washington/NoVA can't
> support a team, because MLB considered playing Expos games there and
> decided against it.
Yeah, but Washington/Northern Virginia is on the permanent relocation
and Boston is not.
David Marc Nieporent
tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> The Orioles did not file for
>> bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
>Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
Almost certainly. But this isn't an issue of intelligence; it's an issue
of knowledge. And the person who wrote that is wrong. If you have access
to Westlaw or the like, do a search on bankruptcy filings. You'll see: Eli
Jacobs filed; the Orioles did not.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Doug Pappas
tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>
>> The Orioles did not file for
>> bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>
>Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
>Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
>
Most of us are smart enough (or have too much self-respect)
to work for a Moonie rag. But so long as we're throwing out
links, try this one:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/10/commentary/column_sportsbiz/bankruptcies/i
ndex.htm:
"The Baltimore Orioles went into bankruptcy following the baseball team's most
financially successful season -- the inaugural season at Camden Yards in 1992
-- when Orioles owner Eli Jacobs was forced into involuntary bankruptcy by
other financial problems."
How the bloody hell could the Orioles have "gone bankrupt" immediately
after opening their 100% publicly-funded, 100% sold out Camden Yards?
Doug Pappas
Business of baseball commentary,
http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/ :
"Absolutely indispensable for today's fan." -- Allen Barra, Salon, 3/20/02
"Lot of statements here that are just wrong." -- Bud Selig, 3/22/02
Paul G. Wenthold
> In article <95f90cc2.0301...@posting.google.com>,
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) wrote:
> >David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>
> >> The Orioles did not file for
> >> bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>
> >Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
> >Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
>
> Almost certainly. But this isn't an issue of intelligence; it's an issue
> of knowledge. And the person who wrote that is wrong. If you have access
> to Westlaw or the like, do a search on bankruptcy filings. You'll see: Eli
> Jacobs filed; the Orioles did not.
>
>
Here's a relevent comment from Bob DePuy, MLB's chief operating
officer, from earlier this year:
"In 1993, Eli Jacobs (who had controlling interest in the Baltimore Orioles)
filed for bankruptcy," he said. "When it sold in the bankruptcy court, it was
subject to (Major League) Baseball's approval. We preinterviewed and reviewed
bidders and then approved Peter Angelos as the next owner.
"A team bankruptcy would be complicated, but I do not agree that baseball would
lose any control (over who buys it)."
IOW, the team was part of Jacobs holdings when _he_ filed
for bankruptcy. However, he distinguishes between that and
a team bankruptcy. This is the first link I found in a search
for "eli jacobs bankruptcy" and it is
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0710/1404343.html
paul
Ima Pseudonym
Yes, because he's wrong. My source was John Helyar's book, Lords of
the Realm. I trust somebody who goes into great detail more than
somebody who puts one line, apparently off the top of his head.
Especially by a sportswriter, who might not understand the difference
between a sports franchise going bankrupt and the owner of a sports
franchise going bankrupt. They are different events - that's sort of
the main point of incorporating a business, after all.
Ima Pseudonym
>Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote in message news:<u1y3kl...@baseball.org>...
>> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>> : "david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message news:<avkc97$c4b$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> : > "4dtvman" <tmitch...@att.net> wrote in message
>> : > news:95f90cc2.03010...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> : > > Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this
>> : > > this mess with relocation, which should have been done a long
>> : > > time ago instead of expansion. Lets see now, besides the
>> : > > aforementioned Florida and Tampa Bay, we have Montreal,
>> : > > Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas City all struggling
>> : > > financially.
>>
>> : > Were they?
>>
>> : The question should be "Are they?" and the answer is yes.
>>
>> Not Minnesota. Is Oakland struggling?
>
>According to Cadillac Bud they are.
According to Bud it's an aberration that teams like Minnesota, Oakland
and Anaheim can compete. Oh wait - those are three of the four
playoff teams from the AL last season, including the World Series
champion.
According to Bud, there was nothing wrong with his taking a loan from
Carl Pohlad without notifying baseball's ruling council, even though
their own rules explicitly prohibit it.
Frankly, using Bud as a source without backup sources is dubious.
Glenn Tanner
No, there's really no argument, because it seems that everyone else in
this newsgroup realizes that the facts in this link is incorrect. It
seems like you would too by now, instead of posting the same link in 5
separate articles. If fact, hopefully this will motivate you to
reconsider one of your previous statements:
>> It really must be great to live somewhere with News that is always
>perfectly
>> accurate and which never has any spin.
>
>Hey, I'm not an investigative reporter, so all I know about stuff like
>that is what I read in the newspapers or on the internet.
Now, I'm to replace a busted Irony-meter.
GT
Steve Grant
>
> Then you have an argument with the guy who wrote the following article:
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
Good grief. I've had arguments with *hundreds* of articles in the
mainstream press. You're patting yourself on the back for finding *one*
example of a mediot?
David J. Grabiner
> 4dtvman <tmitch...@att.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > In the case of Arizona, the team almost went bankrupt folllowing their
> > 2001 World Series winning season and had to be bailed out by the league
> > to stay afloat.
> [...]
>
> Wrong. The D-Backs had a cash call in 1999 to their original investors
> and in 2000, they got a loan for which MLB co-signed. The team had a
> POSITIVE CASH FLOW in 2001, which makes it very difficult for their
> financial situation to get worse. They were never near bankruptcy in 2001
> and haven't been anywhere near it since. They had significant revenue
> increases in 2002, thanks to a huge surge in attendance and a big upswing
> in sponsorship dollars.
>
> After the 2001 season ended, Colangelo got a commitment from several
> existing investors to pump additional capital ($160 million over ten
> years) into the team to pay down debt and bring the team to profitability
> sooner.
>
> The team's huge losses since 1999 (they made a profit in 1998) are largely
> paper losses due to the accounting requirement that they charge the full
> value of a contract in the year when the money is earned, even though most
> of their large contracts have large amounts of deferred money.
In addition, the Diamondbacks paid their expansion fee over six years.
Most of it was paid up front, but they did not get a share in the
national TV revenue for their first five years, and that cost counted as
a loss to the Diamondbacks (and a profit to the other teams). But it's
a cost that the Diamondbacks agreed to pay up front, so it shouldn't be
counted as an operating loss.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@alumni.princeton.edu, http://remarque.org/~grabiner
Baseball labor negotiations FAQ: http://remarque.org/~grabiner/laborfaq.html
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Ivan Weiss
> > >Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
> >
> > Yes. Where do you get your facts from?
>
> Note the last paragraph in the following article from Washington
> Times:
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
>
>
> > The Orioles did not file for
> > bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>
> Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
> Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
The Washington Times???? ROTFL! You'd be better off citing the Onion.
--
Ivan Weiss
Vashon WA http://www.baseball116.com
Proud to sponsor the Smead Jolley, Zeke Bonura, Dale Alexander,
and Bob Fothergill pages at www.baseball-reference.com
4dtvman
I find it quite ironic that most of you guys in this thread have been
attacking the credibility of Bud Selig and company but then you turn
around and quote his right hand man, Bob Depuy, to support your
argument.
4dtvman
> In article <95f90cc2.0301...@posting.google.com>,
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>
> >
> >> The Orioles did not file for
> >> bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
> >
> >Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
> >Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
> >
>
> Most of us are smart enough (or have too much self-respect)
> to work for a Moonie rag.
I don't work for them either.
> But so long as we're throwing out
> links, try this one:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/10/commentary/column_sportsbiz/bankruptcies/i
> ndex.htm:
>
> "The Baltimore Orioles went into bankruptcy following the baseball team's most
> financially successful season -- the inaugural season at Camden Yards in 1992
> -- when Orioles owner Eli Jacobs was forced into involuntary bankruptcy by
> other financial problems."
And CNN has any more credibility than the Washington Times? Hmmmmmm.....
>
> How the bloody hell could the Orioles have "gone bankrupt" immediately
> after opening their 100% publicly-funded, 100% sold out Camden Yards?
How should I know? I'm not the one who wrote that Washington Times article.
Paul G. Wenthold
As I said, that was the first link I found. There were plenty of others
after it. Others have referenced "Lords of the Realm," which is not
written by a friend of Selig. The claims from those learned sources
are the same.
Then there is an unsubstantiated comment by some sports reporter,
and you think it is gospel.
That being said, why would DuPuy be lying? What does he
have to gain?
give it up
paul
4dtvman
> Not like
> > > they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
> >
> > We're not talking size, we're talking fan support here, which Florida,
> > Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Kansas City aren't getting near enough of
> > these days. In addition, Minnesota is hurt by the lack of a new
> > stadium and Toronto is hurt by the weak Canadian dollar.
>
> But THIS makes no sense. The key is not who comes to the game, its the
> question as to who COULD come to the game.
Oh really? Are you serious? In that case, the XFL should have been a
resounding success. Funny how the league folded depite being in large
markets where all of those poeple COULD have come to the games and
being on NBC where all of those people COULD have been watching the
games.
> And for that, the question is
> the size of the market. Using attendence creates "strange" results.
Yeah, strange stuff like how many people paid to see the games.
> Seattle has gone in less than 10 years from a "small market" team to one of
> the largest. Also see San Francisco, which has been one of the closest
> teams to moving in the recent past.
Yeah, but not until they both built new stadiums. Of course, even that
hasn't helped much in places like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Detroit.
> The size of the market didn't change...
> the marketing strategy in the market changed.
Funny how most of the successful "marketing strategies" include new
stadiums. Hmmm.........
> Even the most zealous fans
> and the greatest marketing strategy in the World isn't going to result in a
> team drawing 3 million in Rapid City.
Understood, but it's also true that some large markets like Miami will
never be good baseball markets, even with the best marketing
strategies in the world. For exmaple, Hell is a large market, too, but
I doubt that even the most ingenious marketing strategies to sell
heaters there would meet with much success.
>
> And the number of potential fans in FLorida, Oakland, and Tampa Bay is quite
> large.
So are the number of potential buyers for heaters in Hell, so what?
> That the "marketing" geniuses haven't made it work, doesn't mean it
> won't. (See former small markets Seattle, Cleveland, San Francisco and
> Atlanta.)
Three guesses as to what the "marketing" geniuses in these cities had
in their favor that their counterparts in Florida (Miami), Oakland,
and Tampa Bay didn't? Give up? The answer is: a new stadium. (No,
Virginia, that thing in Tampa Bay (St. Petersurg) is not a "new"
stadium by today's standards; it was several years old before the
first major league game was ever played in it).
Now, with that being said, I'm still not convinced that even a new
stadium would help in Miami or Tampa Bay. Former MLB commissioner
Peter Ueberoth (sp?) warned against going into those markets for a
good reason. See my "selling heaters in Hell" example.
>
> > > The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
> >
> > I'm going by baseball's definition of "struggling".
>
> And most of us will disagree with "baseball's" definition. Baseball would
> love a situation in which players couldn't be free agents, couldn't be paid
> more than 1 million dollars per year, and every City would be required, at
> the owner's request, replace their stadium. Anything less than that, and
> they will "claim" to be struggling...
I mostly agree with this, but the anemic attendance figures I see in
the box scores for games at places like Miami and Tampa Bay don't lie.
>
>
>
> > I'll say it again, market size is not all that matters. You must
> > factor in things like fan support, new stadium availability, and other
> > conditions.
>
> You have bought the MLB management line hook, line and sinker. How many
> other businesses have:
>
> 1. Their places of business provided by the local government;
> 2. Agreements with others in the same business that they cannot freely
> compete for workers;
> 3. Free Daily Publicity in the local Press
The NBA, NFL, and NHL.
Mosey's Sequence
>> >>Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
>> >
>> >Yes. Where do you get your facts from? The Orioles did not file for
>> >bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>>
>> Jacobs paid $70 million for the team in 1989. After he filed for
>> bankruptcy (thanks to the collapse of the Junk bond market) he sold
>> the team for $171 million - just 4 years later. That's besides all
>> the money he took out of the team to try to prop up his business
>> empire as it collapsed.
>
>Then you have an argument with the guy who wrote the following article:
>
>http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
This may be the most classic example of "it was written down, so it must be
true" ever.
John Mosey |..X..|....|Brew-o-meter FYBS! <--Translate and get a Brewers card
Exalted Grand Puba: http://www.fantasybaseballnews.com/
Sniveling Numbers Bitch: http://www.rotowire.com/baseball/
"Frankly, no one ever produced as good of projections as Mosey, but he's
gone straight downhill since fatherhood." -- Kevin Virobik
Mosey's Sequence
>
>"david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message
>news:<avmu8b$p5t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> "4dtvman" <tmitch...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:95f90cc2.0301...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > > Why? Besides DC, are teams in any markets they "shouldn't be" by size?
>> Not like
>> > > they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
>> >
>> > We're not talking size, we're talking fan support here, which Florida,
>> > Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Kansas City aren't getting near enough of
>> > these days. In addition, Minnesota is hurt by the lack of a new
>> > stadium and Toronto is hurt by the weak Canadian dollar.
>>
>> But THIS makes no sense. The key is not who comes to the game, its the
>> question as to who COULD come to the game.
>
>Oh really? Are you serious? In that case, the XFL should have been a
>resounding success.
Given time there is no reasons it shouldn't have been, Than again, are you
talking baseball, because we are too. I don't care if New York has a sole market
tiddlywinks team.
Funny how the league folded depite being in large
>markets where all of those poeple COULD have come to the games and
>being on NBC where all of those people COULD have been watching the
>games.
Yes, they pulled the plug too soon. It actually did much better than people
recognize.
>
>> And for that, the question is
>> the size of the market. Using attendence creates "strange" results.
>
>Yeah, strange stuff like how many people paid to see the games.
Yeah, because 50000 people at $2 a game is better than 30k at $15 a game.
>
>> Seattle has gone in less than 10 years from a "small market" team to one of
>> the largest. Also see San Francisco, which has been one of the closest
>> teams to moving in the recent past.
>
>Yeah, but not until they both built new stadiums. Of course, even that
>hasn't helped much in places like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Detroit.
That would be incorrect on the former, and proving yourself wrong on the latter.
Don't forget Toronto.
>> The size of the market didn't change...
>> the marketing strategy in the market changed.
>
>
>Funny how most of the successful "marketing strategies" include new
>stadiums. Hmmm.........
Yes, Wrigley, Yankee Stadium and Fenway are always empty.
>> Even the most zealous fans
>> and the greatest marketing strategy in the World isn't going to result in a
>> team drawing 3 million in Rapid City.
>
>Understood, but it's also true that some large markets like Miami will
>never be good baseball markets, even with the best marketing
>strategies in the world.
You mean how they were 5th in the league in attendence in 1997. Yeah, that
sucks!
For exmaple, Hell is a large market, too, but
>I doubt that even the most ingenious marketing strategies to sell
>heaters there would meet with much success.
So you are saying no one in Florida likes baseball? Damn, and all these years
Spring Training should have been in Cincy where people show up. (Is Cincy large
market or small market now?)
>> And the number of potential fans in FLorida, Oakland, and Tampa Bay is quite
>> large.
>
>So are the number of potential buyers for heaters in Hell, so what?
Actually there are no potential buyers, it works on supply and demand.
>> That the "marketing" geniuses haven't made it work, doesn't mean it
>> won't. (See former small markets Seattle, Cleveland, San Francisco and
>> Atlanta.)
>
>Three guesses as to what the "marketing" geniuses in these cities had
>in their favor that their counterparts in Florida (Miami), Oakland,
>and Tampa Bay didn't? Give up? The answer is: a new stadium.
Actually, it is "winning."
All these teams won first, than got a new stadium after they had attendence to
support it.
Hey, Florida has a new stadium, so does detroit, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh.
(No,
>Virginia, that thing in Tampa Bay (St. Petersurg) is not a "new"
>stadium by today's standards; it was several years old before the
>first major league game was ever played in it).
New to them. Or did you think Candlestick is what made the Giants winners?
>Now, with that being said, I'm still not convinced that even a new
>stadium would help in Miami or Tampa Bay. Former MLB commissioner
>Peter Ueberoth (sp?) warned against going into those markets for a
>good reason. See my "selling heaters in Hell" example.
If someone said it and you want it ot be true you will believe anythign
apparently.
>>
>> > > The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
>> >
>> > I'm going by baseball's definition of "struggling".
>>
>> And most of us will disagree with "baseball's" definition. Baseball would
>> love a situation in which players couldn't be free agents, couldn't be paid
>> more than 1 million dollars per year, and every City would be required, at
>> the owner's request, replace their stadium. Anything less than that, and
>> they will "claim" to be struggling...
>
>I mostly agree with this, but the anemic attendance figures I see in
>the box scores for games at places like Miami and Tampa Bay don't lie.
So? Attendence isn't money, not even close. It's a fraction.
Florida made money last year, Milwaukee probably made oodles. Minnesota
certainly did.
Ron Johnson
Ivan Weiss <ivan....@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>"4dtvman" <tmitch...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:95f90cc2.0301...@posting.google.com...
>> > >Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
>> >
>> > Yes. Where do you get your facts from?
>>
>> Note the last paragraph in the following article from Washington
>> Times:
>>
>> http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
>>
>>
>> > The Orioles did not file for
>> > bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>>
>> Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
>> Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
>
>The Washington Times???? ROTFL! You'd be better off citing the Onion.
Funny, that was exactly my take. I'd trust my sister's cat as a source
before the Washington Times.
--
RNJ
Eric Opperman
>
> "david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message news:<avmu8b$p5t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > "4dtvman" <tmitch...@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:95f90cc2.0301...@posting.google.com...
> Yeah, but not until they both built new stadiums. Of course, even that
> hasn't helped much in places like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Detroit.
Nor have their clueless GM's.
> > Even the most zealous fans
> > and the greatest marketing strategy in the World isn't going to result in a
> > team drawing 3 million in Rapid City.
>
> Understood, but it's also true that some large markets like Miami will
> never be good baseball markets, even with the best marketing
> strategies in the world.
Why not?
> Now, with that being said, I'm still not convinced that even a new
> stadium would help in Miami or Tampa Bay. Former MLB commissioner
> Peter Ueberoth (sp?) warned against going into those markets for a
> good reason. See my "selling heaters in Hell" example.
Why can't baseball work in Miami or Tampa?
--
Thanks for your time,
Eric Opperman
"Daddy, when did you get good?" -- Alexa Hyzdu, daughter of Pirates' OF
Adam Hyzdu
4dtvman
news:<avn4u...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> On 10 Jan 2003 08:40:01 -0800 tmitch...@att.net said some stupid crap like:
> >
> >Mosey's Sequence <jo...@mosey.communist> wrote in message
> >news:<avkci...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> On 9 Jan 2003 07:53:47 -0800 tmitch...@att.net said some stupid crap like:
> >> >
> >> >Well, I think MLB owners now realize what a mess all that expansion in
> >> >the 1990's has gotten them into. Now, granted, they got alot of money
> >> >out of it
> >>
> >> This
> >
> >Yes, this.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Look at the awful
> >> >situations in Florida, Tampa Bay, and even Arizona, depsite that team
> >> >having made the playoffs several times and won a World Series during
> >> >its short history.
> >>
> >> Doesn't match this.
>
> No, it doesn't. The owners got a lot of money, end of conversation.
....and now they wish they had never made this mistake of going into
markets like Miami and Tampa Bay. They jumped at the money; now they
regret it.
> Nor is their
> "plenty-o-play offs an awful situation any way you cut it.
True, the D-backs have been a success on the field, but (1) their
attendance figures don't reflect that as much as they should and (2)
Colangelo has mortgaged the house in return for that on-field success.
What happens when or if he decides he cannot/will not spend any more?
>
>
> >> What "awful situation?"
> >
> >Well, in the case of Florida and Tampa Bay, almost no one attends the
> >games.
>
> So? Did you know they probably still make money?
If so, it's only because they field crappy, low-salary teams.
>
> In the case of Arizona, the team almost went bankrupt
> >folllowing their 2001 World Series winning season and had to be bailed
> >out by the league to stay afloat.
>
> Right, sure, Bud is this you?
Actually this was reported widely in the press. Hey, if it wasn't
accurate, it wasn't accurate. I don't have to time check up on every
detail that's reported in the media.
>
> However, unlike Florida and Tampa
> >Bay, things in Arizona ARE getting better now and that's why I didn't
> >include them on my relocation list.
>
> Oh you are still on that?
Yep, and I'll stay on it in because Miami and Tampa Bay are not viable
major league baseball markets. Former MLB commissioner Peter Ueberoth
warned the owners back the 1980's not to go into these markets. He
said Orlando would be the only possibly viable MLB market in Florida.
Apparently, they should have listened to him. Trying to sell major
league baseball in Miami and Tampa would be like trying to sell
heaters in Hell.
>
> >> >Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this this mess
> >> >with relocation, which should have been done a long time ago instead
> >> >of expansion.
> >>
> >>Why? Besides DC, are teams in any markets they "shouldn't be" by size? Not like
> >> they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
By market viability, they shouldn't have gone into Miami or Tampa Bay.
Time will prove me right (as if I needed any more proof).
> >
> >We're not talking size, we're talking fan support here, which Florida,
> >Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Kansas City aren't getting near enough of
> >these days.
>
> Oh, oh, and smaller cities, they support more. And you *know* Portland et al,
> they will support, huh? Because... what was your evidence again?
I didn't say smaller cities would necessarily support baseball. MLB is
going to undertake a painstaking process to see if places like
Portland, DC/northern Virginia, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Buffalo, etc.
are truly committed to supporting baseball. If they are, teams will be
relocated there, if not, they won't. At any rate, back to my original
point, there's certainly no need for expansion while they're having
such a hard time finding new homes for some of the existing teams that
need them.
>
> In addition, Minnesota is hurt by the lack of a new
> >stadium and Toronto is hurt by the weak Canadian dollar.
>
> Roger is that you?
No. Who's Roger? One of your communist comrades? I bet you're glad
Sen. McCarthy is dead. :)
>
> >> Lets see now, besides the aforementioned Florida and
> >> >Tampa Bay, we have Montreal, Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas
> >> >City all struggling financially.
> >>
> >> So? "Struggling" being relative.
> >>
> >>PS Three of those teams made money last year (and probably for several years).
Under whose definition of making money?
> >>
> >> The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
> >
> >I'm going by baseball's definition of "struggling".
>
> Exactly. According to them 29 teams didn't make money. And actually Minnesota,
> KC and Montreal all made money by "baseball's" definition, so you are still
> wrong.
Okay, who is the "them" you're referring to in your first sentence? If
it's the baseball owners, then you just contradicted yourself in your
second sentence. How could they say 29 teams didn't make money and
also say Minnesota, KC, and Montreal all made money by "baseball's"
definition. By the way, if Montreal is making money, why are the
owners in such a hurry to unload 'em?
>
>
> >> Montreal will most likely be sold by
> >> >the league and relocated to DC/Northern Virginia in 2004. Minnesota
> >> >will likely be the next to move if they don't get a commitment for the
> >> >new stadium by 2004. Keep in mind that MLB has only committed to
> >> >keeping that team in Minnesota through the 2003 season. After that,
> >> >all bets are off.
> >>
> >> And you get this where?
> >
> >From the newspapers. If you bothered to keep up with sports news,
> >you'd know this, too. Tell 'ya what, call or email your local sports
> >editor/reporter and ask him how long major league baseball has
> >offically and legally committed to Minnesota. Remember the terms of
> >that deal that was made as a settlement to the contraction fiasco?
>
> Yes I do. And you are wrong. Hint, sportswriters are stupid too.
According to you, ESPN, CNN, all the major networks, all the local
sportscasters, and every sports section in every newsaper in the
country is wrong. Sounds to me like you're shirking your duties by not
correcting them, oh master know-it-all of baseball. :)
>
> >> Then, within the next few seasons, Florida, Toronto,
> >> >Oakland, and Kansas City could become candidates for relocation.
> >>
> >> And to where exactly? New Orleans? Minneapolis?
> >
> >I'll say it again: Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and
> >Northern New Jersey. Got it now?
>
> You can say it, but it is still stupid.
Prove it's stupid.
> Yes, the As will get more support in Las
> Vegas, right.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of San Jose for them, if
the Giants will allow that.
>
> >>
> >> It
> >> >would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
> >> >of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
> >> >with the stadium they are currently playing in.
> >>
> >> Most teams have something like this actually.
> >
> >No they don't. At least not the ones I mentioned. Most of them have
> >1-3 year deals.
>
> Uh-huh. I call bullshit, prove it.
Yeah, I'll call what you're saying bullshit too, and I don't have to
prove it.
> Tell me which "most" teams have short term
> contracts. Here is a kick, it's none of the ones you mentioned.
Prove they don't have short term contracts.
>
>
>
> >> All of which are smaller than the current locale. Which makes no sense. This
> >> isn't the NBA.
> >
> >I'll say it again, market size is not all that matters. You must
> >factor in things like fan support, new stadium availability, and other
> >conditions.
> >
>
> Why "must I"? You aren't. You are just pretending this is talk radio.
I think the situations in Miami and Tampa Bay prove my point (large
markets, but not supporting baseball). If you'd remove your head from
where it is now (up your butt), you could see it clearly, too. By the
way, you should listen to talk radio sometime; you might actually
learn something.
>
>
> >
> >Expansion this decade? I'd like to have some of what you've been
> >smoking. :) There's a better chance that Al Sharpton will be elected
> >president in 2004. My gosh, man, they were just talking about
> >contraction last year and will revisit this issue in 2007.
>
> Right, sure they will. Here is a hint, contraction was a white elephant.
Oh really? The folks in Minnesota (who went to court) sure took it
seriously enough and so did the players, who filed a grievance. Of
course, we all know they're nowhere near as smart as you. :)
> You'd
> know that if you didn't get your sports news from the MLB cronies.
Actually, I get my sports news from the mainstream media. But wait,
we've already established the fact that you are so much smarter and
more knowledgeable than they. Sorry. :)
Ron Johnson
John Northey <northeyrem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) wrote:
>>The Canadian ecomomy will always be inferior to the U.S. economy. As
>>much as Canadians like and support hockey, 5 of their 6 of NHL are
>>fact, one of them, the Ottawa Senators, just filed for bankrupcy
>>yesterday and will likely relocate to a U.S. city next season if the
>>franchise actually survives through the end of this season.
>
>bounds but what the heck. As a Canadian who keeps up on financial
>issues I should let you know that for the past year the Canadian
>economy has been doing better than any of the Group of 7, a group that
>includes the US and other major industrialized nations, in economic
>growth and is expected to continue for the next year.
>
>As for the hockey issue, the Montreal Canadians losing money is as
>silly a thing as the LA Dodgers losing money. The Toronto Maple Leafs
>pretty much can't lose money as they sell out every game with an
>average ticket price of over $100 each. Ottawa is a _very_ small
>market that never should've had a team (they promised immediate cash
>to the NHL and the league grabbed it) yet still has the best or second
>best record in the NHL this year and has been fighting for top playoff
>slots for a few years now.
And the Senators make an operating profit outside of the interest on
their mountain of debt. (Accumulated because they didn't actually have
a dime when they were awarded their franchise. The play was to finance
the team by selling the land around the Palladium. When that fell through
they had to scramble and they've been scrambling since.
The Senators do just fine in revenue. But they pay far more in taxes
than any American team (notwithstanding any number of special tax deals
they've been cut)
--
RNJ
Vinay Kumar
: Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
: > tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
: > : "david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote:
: > : > One guy even offered to buy the Twins AND build a stadium
: > : > with Private money...
: > : I know which guy you're talking about and he could never prove
: > : he had the wherewithall to do it, so he faded into
: > : oblivion. Think about it. The guy is black. If he could have
: > : proved that he really had the money to do it and was rebuffed,
: > : don't you think he would have hit them with some kind of civil
: > : rights/prejudice lawsuit or at least caused alot of trouble for
: > : them? It would have made Trent Lott's comments seem like child's
: > : play. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he just went away
: > : without a fight?
: > No; I suppose I have a higher opinion of people than you do.
: > There's no evidence that Watkins was rebuffed due to race. In
: > fact, there's plenty of evidence that there were other reasons.
: > It's unethical to play the race card when race is not the real
: > issue.
: You completely missed my point. I'm arguing that he COULDN'T have
: been rebuffed because of race or there would have been trouble. My
: argument is that he was likely rebuffed because he couldn't prove he
: had the assets he said he had. For any other reason, the race card
: would likely have been played.
No, I understand your point exactly, but I disagree with it. I'm
saying that MLB could have dismissed Watkins because he won't "play
ball" on stadium and labor issues, and it doesn't necessarily follow
that Watkins would play the race card. He certainly could, if he
wanted to, and it would get him some publicity. But it's not certain
that he would. And IMO, it'd be unethical if he did so, so I'm not
really surprised that he didn't.
: > : > YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the
: > : > Seattle Pilots ever filed for Bankruptcy?
: > : Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
: > As David N. already posted, this is completely false. The owner
: > of the Orioles filed for bankruptcy, but the Orioles were one of
: > his most prized assets.
: Once again, you all need to tell that to the guy who wrote the
: following article in the Washington Times:
: http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
Once again, you need to realize that just because something is in the
newspaper, it's not necessarily true. I have no doubt that there are
a dozen people on this group who have more knowledge about baseball
economics than the guy who wrote that article.
: > : > > Now, assuming the DC/Northern Virginia area gets the Expos,
: > : > > that leaves Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and
: > : > > Northern New Jersey to compete for the Twins, Marlins, Blue
: > : > > Jays, A's, and Royals. That's right, five franchises
: > : > > possibly available and only five non-baseball cities
: > : > > localities (capable of supporting MLB) completing for
: > : > > them. Supposing all five of those localities get those
: > : > > franchises, there would be no place left for MLB to expand
: > : > > into.
: > : > This is, again, assuming that the Minneapolis Market is not
: > : > appropriate for baseball which is a faulty assumption,
: > : Without a new stadium it's not.
: > It clearly is. They're winning and profitable. Of course the
: > ownership wants a new stadium. And I want a new Mercedes. That
: > doesn't mean I'm in poverty or that my salary doesn't support me.
: But is does mean MLB could move the team if there is no new stadium
: soon. If they keep the team there without a new stadium, then everyone
: will know their threats are empty and no new stadiums will ever get
: built anywhere (at least, one their demand).
You're starting with the assumption that MLB is going to move 5 teams
because their markets or stadium situations are inadequate. Seeing as
a MLB team has not moved in 30 years, I'm not going to blindly accept
your assertion.
: > : > that New England cannot support a second team, which is a
: > : > faulty assumption,
: > : Let's see here....the owners considered moving the Expos to
: > : Boston for this season only but then decided it wouldn't
: > : fly. With that in mind, do you actually think they'd consider
: > : moving another team to New England permanently?
: > This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. There are lots of issues
: > that would come into play if the Expos played in Boston this
: > season. The fact that MLB decided against it really has nothing
: > to do with whether the market could support it. By the same
: > token, Washington/NoVA can't support a team, because MLB
: > considered playing Expos games there and decided against it.
: Yeah, but Washington/Northern Virginia is on the permanent
: relocation and Boston is not.
So what? That doesn't make your reasoning any less ridiculous. I'm
not saying that MLB is planning on putting a second team in New
England. I'm just saying your reason for dismissing the possibility
is foolish.
Vinay Kumar
[Orioles and bankruptcy]
: > Here's a relevent comment from Bob DePuy, MLB's chief operating
: > officer, from earlier this year:
: > "In 1993, Eli Jacobs (who had controlling interest in the
: > Baltimore Orioles) filed for bankruptcy," he said. "When it sold
: > in the bankruptcy court, it was subject to (Major League)
: > Baseball's approval. We preinterviewed and reviewed bidders and
: > then approved Peter Angelos as the next owner. "A team bankruptcy
: > would be complicated, but I do not agree that baseball would lose
: > any control (over who buys it)."
: > IOW, the team was part of Jacobs holdings when _he_ filed for
: > bankruptcy. However, he distinguishes between that and a team
: > bankruptcy. This is the first link I found in a search for "eli
: > jacobs bankruptcy" and it is
: > http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0710/1404343.html
: I find it quite ironic that most of you guys in this thread have
: been attacking the credibility of Bud Selig and company but then you
: turn around and quote his right hand man, Bob Depuy, to support your
: argument.
I find it hilarious and maddening that there have been numerous
citations explaining the Jacobs/Orioles case, from Westlaw to Helyar
to DuPuy, and you refuse to beleive it, believing a throwaway line
from some schmuck in the Washington Times over all other evidence.
Admit that either you were wrong or that you're a troll.
Vinay Kumar
: doug...@aol.com (Doug Pappas) wrote:
: > tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
: > How the bloody hell could the Orioles have "gone bankrupt"
: > immediately after opening their 100% publicly-funded, 100% sold
: > out Camden Yards?
: How should I know? I'm not the one who wrote that Washington Times
: article.
Yes, but you believe it. You know, some people *don't* believe
everything they read. Actually, you don't either, because you've read
at least half a dozen citations that disagree with the Wa Times
article, and have refused to believe them.
TJNawrocki
: Yep, and I'll stay on it in because Miami and Tampa Bay are not viable
: major league baseball markets.
Miami was perfectly viable before the owner trashed the team following the 1997
season. The 1997 wild-card Marlins outdrew the division champion Giants, the
division champion Astros, the large-market Cubs, and the large-market Mets.
Until the owner started fielding a AAA team, the Marlins had outdrawn the NL
teams in San Francisco and New York every year of their existence. That doesn't
make the New York and San Francisco markets unviable.
The Devil Rays' attendance is miserable, but then again, they haven't come
close to fielding a competitive team. I wouldn't write off that market yet,
unless there was an obviously superior market waiting for a team.
Tom Nawrocki
David Marc Nieporent
[...]
>> Even the most zealous fans
>> and the greatest marketing strategy in the World isn't going to
>> result in a team drawing 3 million in Rapid City.
>Understood, but it's also true that some large markets like Miami will
>never be good baseball markets, even with the best marketing
>strategies in the world. For exmaple, Hell is a large market, too, but
>I doubt that even the most ingenious marketing strategies to sell
>heaters there would meet with much success.
No, Tmitchell, it is not "true" that some large markets like Miami will
never be good baseball markets.
Not only is there zero reason to believe this, but there's strong reason
_not_ to believe this: namely, Florida's attendance before the post-WS
trashing of the team. It did not illustrate any inability to draw fans.
david craven
> >
> > But THIS makes no sense. The key is not who comes to the game, its the
> > question as to who COULD come to the game.
>
> Oh really? Are you serious? In that case, the XFL should have been a
> resounding success. Funny how the league folded depite being in large
> markets where all of those poeple COULD have come to the games and
> being on NBC where all of those people COULD have been watching the
> games.
Being IN a large market does not guarantee success. The reason that the
XFL failed is NOT that they were in markets that were too small, but rather,
they did not market their product to get demand.
>
> > And for that, the question is
> > the size of the market. Using attendence creates "strange" results.
>
> Yeah, strange stuff like how many people paid to see the games.
But, again, the key isn't necessarily how many people are pay to see your
team, its how many people COULD be convinced to pay to see your team.
Let's take a political example. John Smyth takes certain political stands
which are so radical/reactionary/liberal/whatever that he has 75% of the
electorate would NEVER vote for him. However, 10% ALWAYS vote for him. He
can never win because he can never grow beyond 25%. Jane Roe, in contrast,
takes almost no stand at all. Only 15% of the electorate would NEVER vote
for her. However, due to her lack of stands, only 3% of the Electorate
would ALWAYS vote for her (she has a large family). Jane Roe can win,
because she CAN get more than hald of the vote.
> Yeah, but not until they both built new stadiums. Of course, even that
> hasn't helped much in places like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Detroit.
It hasn't helped in Milwaukee? The team that, according to MLB numbers is
one of the most profitable in all of baseball? Stadia are a form of
marketing. But the markets themselves don't change because of them.
>
>
> Funny how most of the successful "marketing strategies" include new
> stadiums. Hmmm.........
And another aspect of "successful marketing strategies" is to put a winning
team on the field.
> Understood, but it's also true that some large markets like Miami will
> never be good baseball markets, even with the best marketing
> strategies in the world.
On what basis do you make this claim? The fact that they haven't been
successful at it yet? Actually, during the first several years they were a
sucess. It just happens that the owner played major "numbers" games with
the books.
> For exmaple, Hell is a large market, too, but
> I doubt that even the most ingenious marketing strategies to sell
> heaters there would meet with much success.
But, no doubt, other products could well be marketed in that market. The
thing is that you need to identify some reason why a market isn't viable...
and merely saying, well people don't come, isn't the "reason" that the
market isn't viable.... it means that EITHER the market isn't viable OR the
wrong marketing strategy is in place.
Ron Johnson
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>
> >
> >> The Orioles did not file for
> >> bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
> >
> >Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
> >Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
> >
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/10/commentary/column_sportsbiz/bankruptcies/i
> ndex.htm:
>
> "The Baltimore Orioles went into bankruptcy following the baseball team's most
> financially successful season -- the inaugural season at Camden Yards in 1992
> -- when Orioles owner Eli Jacobs was forced into involuntary bankruptcy by
> other financial problems."
>
> How the bloody hell could the Orioles have "gone bankrupt" immediately
> after opening their 100% publicly-funded, 100% sold out Camden Yards?
For the record, here's what Michael Ozanian has for 1992.
Major League Franchise Values, Financial World Magazine, 5/25/93, pp. 26-30.
(I got this and other stuff from Rod Fort's sports business site)
Total revenues of 83.5 million. Player costs of 27.4 million. 19.9
million in other costs, for an operating profit of 34.2 million. By
far the largest in MLB.
They made over 20 million in 1991 and 1992 combined and around 29 million
in 1993.
Steve Grant
>
> This may be the most classic example of "it was written down, so it must
be
> true" ever.
I know it's true. I read it on the net.
Dale J. Stephenson
> [...] I don't have to time check up on every
> detail that's reported in the media.
>
Can't argue with this.
[...]
> By market viability, they shouldn't have gone into Miami or Tampa Bay.
> Time will prove me right (as if I needed any more proof).
>
"More" implies you had proof. This should read "(as if I needed any proof)"
[...]
> Yeah, I'll call what you're saying bullshit too, and I don't have to
> prove it.
Back in character.
[...]
> By the
> way, you should listen to talk radio sometime; you might actually
> learn something.
>
Don't ask me how 4dtvman has managed to post occasionally to r.s.b
for most of 2002 without reading any of the economic threads. I
think the bitterness over NoVa not getting a team has finally
unhinged him.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
daleste...@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone. 12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
Doug Pappas
tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>> >Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
>> >Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
>> >
>>
>> Most of us are smart enough (or have too much self-respect)
>> to work for a Moonie rag.
>
>I don't work for them either.
Unfortunately, your chances of working for a newspaper ended
when they installed self-service elevators.
>> How the bloody hell could the Orioles have "gone bankrupt" immediately
>> after opening their 100% publicly-funded, 100% sold out Camden Yards?
>How should I know? I'm not the one who wrote that Washington Times article.
You're the one having an orgasm over having found one source which
appears to support your incorrect statement. Heaven forbid you check
its accuracy or allow your tiny mind to consider whether the statement
makes sense.
Doug Pappas
Business of baseball commentary,
http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/ :
"Absolutely indispensable for today's fan." -- Allen Barra, Salon, 3/20/02
"Lot of statements here that are just wrong." -- Bud Selig, 3/22/02
Doug Pappas
>> No, it doesn't. The owners got a lot of money, end of conversation.
>
>....and now they wish they had never made this mistake of going into
>markets like Miami and Tampa Bay. They jumped at the money; now they
>regret it.
Now you're a mind reader?
>True, the D-backs have been a success on the field, but (1) their
>attendance figures don't reflect that as much as they should
They had MLB's fourth highest attendance in 2002. That's not
high enough for you?
> (2) Colangelo has mortgaged the house in return for that on-field success.
>What happens when or if he decides he cannot/will not spend any more?
Jerry Colangelo is the only owner in MLB who made his ENTIRE
fortune operating professional sports teams. But of course you
know more about his business than he does.
> >Well, in the case of Florida and Tampa Bay, almost no one attends the
>> >games.
>>
>> So? Did you know they probably still make money?
>If so, it's only because they field crappy, low-salary teams.
The Marlins' 2002 Opening Day payroll was higher than Minnesota's
or Oakland's. "Crappy" and "low-salary" are not synonyms.
>> In the case of Arizona, the team almost went bankrupt
>> >folllowing their 2001 World Series winning season and had to be bailed
>> >out by the league to stay afloat.
>
>> Right, sure, Bud is this you?
>Actually this was reported widely in the press. Hey, if it wasn't
>accurate, it wasn't accurate. I don't have to time check up on every
>detail that's reported in the media.
How about ONE citation not yanked from the vicinity of your colon?
>> However, unlike Florida and Tampa
>> >Bay, things in Arizona ARE getting better now and that's why I didn't
>> >include them on my relocation list.
>
>> Oh you are still on that?
>Yep, and I'll stay on it in because Miami and Tampa Bay are not viable
>major league baseball markets.
Miami is more populous than Seattle or Cleveland. Tampa Bay is
larger than Cincinnati, slightly smaller than Denver or St. Louis.
Try again, idiot...
Ima Pseudonym
>
>> Nor is their
>> "plenty-o-play offs an awful situation any way you cut it.
>
>True, the D-backs have been a success on the field, but (1) their
>attendance figures don't reflect that as much as they should
As Doug already has pointed out, they had one of the top attendances
in baseball this past season. How high should their attendance be?
As somebody who lives in Phoenix, I know that all the good, expensive
seats are normally sold out months before the game. Any empty seats
(and there aren't many of them) are the cheap, crappy view seats - the
sort that are saved for walkups. In fact, under their lease one of
the sections CAN'T be sold until the day of the game.
IOW, you are totally wrong here.
and (2)
>Colangelo has mortgaged the house in return for that on-field success.
>What happens when or if he decides he cannot/will not spend any more?
The value of the franchise has significantly increased during his
ownership, as evidenced by what portion of ownership went to the new
investors. The long term debt of the franchise is primarily related
to the initial purchase of the franchise. Even the deferred salaries
have been caused by the ownership's preference to defer salaries at a
low interest rate, and to use the savings to pay down higher interest
loans taken out for the original purchase. Colangelo has repeatedly
said that the Diamondbacks are in good financial shape - and in fact
he was one of the ones pumping more money into the franchise to pay
down debt - oh, btw, an action which increased his ownership stake
while reducing that of some of his silent partners. Not an act of a
franchise in trouble
<snip>
>> You'd
>> know that if you didn't get your sports news from the MLB cronies.
>
>Actually, I get my sports news from the mainstream media. But wait,
>we've already established the fact that you are so much smarter and
>more knowledgeable than they. Sorry. :)
Apparently it was established, since the original citation you used
was flat out wrong. Reminding everybody how you used a source that
was wrong isn't the way to improve your argument, btw.
Ima Pseudonym
wrote:
>On 13 Jan 2003 12:14:35 -0800 tmitch...@att.net said some stupid crap like:
>
>>> >>Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
>>> >
>>> >Yes. Where do you get your facts from? The Orioles did not file for
>>> >bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>>>
>>> Jacobs paid $70 million for the team in 1989. After he filed for
>>> bankruptcy (thanks to the collapse of the Junk bond market) he sold
>>> the team for $171 million - just 4 years later. That's besides all
>>> the money he took out of the team to try to prop up his business
>>> empire as it collapsed.
>>
>>Then you have an argument with the guy who wrote the following article:
>>
>>http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
>
>This may be the most classic example of "it was written down, so it must be
>true" ever.
I love how he took an article that made a brief aside on the matter
with no detail, and then used it repeatedly to back his argument
against a variety of sources.
Mosey's Sequence
>>
>> No, it doesn't. The owners got a lot of money, end of conversation.
>
>....and now they wish they had never made this mistake of going into
>markets like Miami and Tampa Bay. They jumped at the money; now they
>regret it.
Not only are you mindreding, it's not true at all.
>> Nor is their
>> "plenty-o-play offs an awful situation any way you cut it.
>
>True, the D-backs have been a success on the field, but (1) their
>attendance figures don't reflect that as much as they should
That is about the dumbest thing you have said yet. Have you even looked at their
attendence? They were 4th in baseball (up from last year despite higher ticket
prices) with almost 40k per game. Diamonbacks games are on average almost 90%
sold out.
and (2)
>Colangelo has mortgaged the house in return for that on-field success.
>What happens when or if he decides he cannot/will not spend any more?
He doesn't have to, he fixed it. Of course his "whoa is me" is probably crap to
begin with.
So on both points you showed the Diamondbacks were a fine example of successful
expansion.
>> >> What "awful situation?"
>> >
>> >Well, in the case of Florida and Tampa Bay, almost no one attends the
>> >games.
>>
>> So? Did you know they probably still make money?
>
>If so, it's only because they field crappy, low-salary teams.
Yes, the Marlins were crappy. They made money, period, that's good. In fact, I
am positive that is a major goal. Now it is "yes, what i said was wrong but...
uhhhh, I don't like it."
>>
>> In the case of Arizona, the team almost went bankrupt
>> >folllowing their 2001 World Series winning season and had to be bailed
>> >out by the league to stay afloat.
>>
>> Right, sure, Bud is this you?
>
>Actually this was reported widely in the press. Hey, if it wasn't
>accurate, it wasn't accurate. I don't have to time check up on every
>detail that's reported in the media.
No, it was reported widely they were saying that.
Of course you don't have time to check up, you are too busy swallowing it.
So now your stance is "they might have... but I don't know, so I still think the
same."
>>
>> However, unlike Florida and Tampa
>> >Bay, things in Arizona ARE getting better now and that's why I didn't
>> >include them on my relocation list.
>>
>> Oh you are still on that?
>
>Yep, and I'll stay on it in because Miami and Tampa Bay are not viable
>major league baseball markets.
Despite they draw fans, make money and in the Marlin's case are close to
competing (a good choice for the Cinderalla team this year)
Former MLB commissioner Peter Ueberoth
>warned the owners back the 1980's not to go into these markets. He
>said Orlando would be the only possibly viable MLB market in Florida.
Hey, want to look at the 1980 census?
>Apparently, they should have listened to him. Trying to sell major
>league baseball in Miami and Tampa would be like trying to sell
>heaters in Hell.
Yes, you mentioned that. And we pointed out the flaws of it, like the sell
tickets and make money.
>
>>
>> >> >Now they are gonna have to try to get out of from under this this mess
>> >> >with relocation, which should have been done a long time ago instead
>> >> >of expansion.
>> >>
>>>>Why? Besides DC, are teams in any markets they "shouldn't be" by size? Not
>>like
>> >> they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
>
>By market viability, they shouldn't have gone into Miami or Tampa Bay.
>Time will prove me right (as if I needed any more proof).
Wait, wait, are you that guy who spent the entire season saying Miami wouldn't
be any good until they won the Series.
Time will prove you wrong and I've got a bag of donuts and a Jose Hernandez
rookie card that says you aren't here to be told how wrong you were.
>> >
>> >We're not talking size, we're talking fan support here, which Florida,
>> >Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Kansas City aren't getting near enough of
>> >these days.
>>
>> Oh, oh, and smaller cities, they support more. And you *know* Portland et al,
>> they will support, huh? Because... what was your evidence again?
>
>I didn't say smaller cities would necessarily support baseball.
Yes you did. Everyone of hte ones you listed is smaller.
MLB is
>going to undertake a painstaking process to see if places like
>Portland, DC/northern Virginia, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Buffalo, etc.
>are truly committed to supporting baseball. If they are, teams will be
>relocated there, if not, they won't. At any rate, back to my original
>point, there's certainly no need for expansion while they're having
>such a hard time finding new homes for some of the existing teams that
>need them.
None of the teams need a new home, sans the Expos, who don't really just the MLB
heads and cronies have tried everything to get rid of it.
>> >> Lets see now, besides the aforementioned Florida and
>> >> >Tampa Bay, we have Montreal, Minnesota, Toronto, Oakland, and Kansas
>> >> >City all struggling financially.
>> >>
>> >> So? "Struggling" being relative.
>> >>
>>>>PS Three of those teams made money last year (and probably for several years).
>
>Under whose definition of making money?
Fortune magazine? Common sense.
There isn't really a "definition" it either happened or not, yo ucan only lie
about it.
>
>> >>
>> >> The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
>> >
>> >I'm going by baseball's definition of "struggling".
>>
>>Exactly. According to them 29 teams didn't make money. And actually Minnesota,
>> KC and Montreal all made money by "baseball's" definition, so you are still
>> wrong.
>
>Okay, who is the "them" you're referring to in your first sentence?
"Baseball"
You know, for someone who is saying such bold things you don't know squat one
about baseball economics and insist on telling people (not just me) who know
oodles more about the subject than you do, they are wrong.
If
>it's the baseball owners, then you just contradicted yourself in your
>second sentence.
Not at all. Different times. The former is a "report" out earlier this year, the
latter is Selig's report to Congress.
How could they say 29 teams didn't make money and
>also say Minnesota, KC, and Montreal all made money by "baseball's"
>definition.
Ding! And that is why you don't use "baseball's" numbers.
By the way, if Montreal is making money, why are the
>owners in such a hurry to unload 'em?
They are stupid. Actually it is because they are subsidizing themselves, MLB
owns the Expos.
>> >From the newspapers. If you bothered to keep up with sports news,
>> >you'd know this, too. Tell 'ya what, call or email your local sports
>> >editor/reporter and ask him how long major league baseball has
>> >offically and legally committed to Minnesota. Remember the terms of
>> >that deal that was made as a settlement to the contraction fiasco?
>>
>> Yes I do. And you are wrong. Hint, sportswriters are stupid too.
>
>According to you, ESPN, CNN, all the major networks, all the local
>sportscasters, and every sports section in every newsaper in the
>country is wrong.
No, you are wrong. You either read it wrong, read a poor source or didn't
understand it.
Sounds to me like you're shirking your duties by not
>correcting them, oh master know-it-all of baseball. :)
They probably don't need to be corrected as much as you need phonics classes.
>> >I'll say it again: Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas, San Jose, and
>> >Northern New Jersey. Got it now?
>>
>> You can say it, but it is still stupid.
>
>Prove it's stupid.
I did, three posts now, and in fact, as you backtrack you are too.
Or should I argue in your sense. "your mother says it is."
>> Yes, the As will get more support in Las
>> Vegas, right.
>
>Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of San Jose for them, if
>the Giants will allow that.
They don't need permission from the Giants. But either way, you "thought" it ,
so you will present it as fact later.
>> >> It
>> >> >would be practically impossible to move the Tampa Bay franchise (short
>> >> >of bankrupcy) because of the 20+ years remaining on their contract
>> >> >with the stadium they are currently playing in.
>> >>
>> >> Most teams have something like this actually.
>> >
>> >No they don't. At least not the ones I mentioned. Most of them have
>> >1-3 year deals.
>>
>> Uh-huh. I call bullshit, prove it.
>
>Yeah, I'll call what you're saying bullshit too, and I don't have to
>prove it.
Why not? You said something stupid, I called you on it, I say prove it. You just
say "no, I don't have to... I want to to be right."
I think we can be done here if you can't even back up your idiocy.
>> Tell me which "most" teams have short term
>> contracts. Here is a kick, it's none of the ones you mentioned.
>
>Prove they don't have short term contracts.
Any team with a newly built stadium or recently fincenaced stadium or owns their
own.
Chicago (both), LA, Boston, New York (AL) Oakland, San Fran, Cincy, Tampa,
Milwaukee, Detroit, Houston, Seattle, Atlanta, Philly, Arizona, Cleveland,
Colorado, Pittsburgh and St.Louis of the top of my head.
At least 20, hmm, that seems to do it.
>> Why "must I"? You aren't. You are just pretending this is talk radio.
>
>I think the situations in Miami and Tampa Bay prove my point (large
>markets, but not supporting baseball).
Except they HAVE supported baseball. Tampa was 6th in the league in attendence
in 1998, Florida 5th in 1997. That *is* supporting baseball.
If you'd remove your head from
>where it is now (up your butt), you could see it clearly, too. By the
>way, you should listen to talk radio sometime; you might actually
>learn something.
This is funny. (and not for why you think it is funny)
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Expansion this decade? I'd like to have some of what you've been
>> >smoking. :) There's a better chance that Al Sharpton will be elected
>> >president in 2004. My gosh, man, they were just talking about
>> >contraction last year and will revisit this issue in 2007.
>>
>> Right, sure they will. Here is a hint, contraction was a white elephant.
>
>Oh really? The folks in Minnesota (who went to court) sure took it
>seriously enough and so did the players, who filed a grievance. Of
>course, we all know they're nowhere near as smart as you. :)
Yes, they took it to court.... oh boy.
Yes, white elephant, was never going to happen.
>> You'd
>> know that if you didn't get your sports news from the MLB cronies.
>
>Actually, I get my sports news from the mainstream media. But wait,
>we've already established the fact that you are so much smarter and
>more knowledgeable than they. Sorry. :)
Well, we have more established you can't read.
Chuck Van Den Corput
wrote:
>Of course his "whoa is me" is probably crap to
>begin with.
Unless he thinks he's Fonzie.
dvda...@earthlink.net
news:b01qas$h...@gcpdb.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca...
> And the Senators make an operating profit outside of the interest on
> their mountain of debt. (Accumulated because they didn't actually have
> a dime when they were awarded their franchise. The play was to finance
> the team by selling the land around the Palladium. When that fell through
> they had to scramble and they've been scrambling since.
To be successful, a business must have enough profit to justify any capital
investment. If they are unable to cover the interest on the debt, then they
must not be generating that profit. If the investment wasn't funded by debt,
then they might not go bankrupt, but buying into the league would still be
viewed (in hindsight) by the investors a mistake.
Roger Moore
>To be successful, a business must have enough profit to justify any capital
>investment. If they are unable to cover the interest on the debt, then they
>must not be generating that profit. If the investment wasn't funded by debt,
>then they might not go bankrupt, but buying into the league would still be
>viewed (in hindsight) by the investors a mistake.
That depends on the exact details of the debt. A business that's funded
by borrowing money from loansharks must have a much higher profit margin
to justify the interest than one that's funded from municipal bonds. If
the Senators borrowed foolishly, they might have trouble covering their
interest payments even though the team might be a reasonable investment
for somebody who could buy them for cash. Of course if that's the case
they should probably be able to refinance their debts somehow.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
Terrell Miller
> > Seattle has gone in less than 10 years from a "small market" team to one
of
> > the largest. Also see San Francisco, which has been one of the closest
> > teams to moving in the recent past.
>
> Yeah, but not until they both built new stadiums. Of course, even that
> hasn't helped much in places like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Detroit.
here's teh difference: while teh Giants and Mariners have been busy signing
(and re-signing) guys like Bonds and Olerud and Ichiro, the other three you
mention have been busy signing (and being stuck with) guys like Hammonds and
Palmer and Meares.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Winners never talk about glorious victories. That's because they're the
ones who see what the battlefield looks like afterward. It's only the losers
who have glorious victories"
-Terry Pratchett
Ima Pseudonym
wrote:
>On 14 Jan 2003 12:10:57 -0800 tmitch...@att.net said some stupid crap like:
>>True, the D-backs have been a success on the field, but (1) their
>>attendance figures don't reflect that as much as they should
>
>That is about the dumbest thing you have said yet. Have you even looked at their
>attendence? They were 4th in baseball (up from last year despite higher ticket
>prices) with almost 40k per game. Diamonbacks games are on average almost 90%
>sold out.
>
>and (2)
>>Colangelo has mortgaged the house in return for that on-field success.
>>What happens when or if he decides he cannot/will not spend any more?
>
>He doesn't have to, he fixed it. Of course his "whoa is me" is probably crap to
>begin with.
Well, his "whoa is me" was that the Dbacks had been paying off their
initial loans on an accelerated basis, they are about to start getting
national TV revenue, so it was time for Colangelo to buy a greater
percentage of the team before it became blatantly obvious to even
casual observers that owning the Dbacks is like a license to print
money.
Craig Richardson
wrote:
The lurkers support him in e-mail.
--Craig
--
Managing the Devil Rays is something like competing on "Iron Chef",
and having Chairman Kaga reveal a huge ziggurat of lint.
Gary Huckabay, Baseball Prospectus Online, August 21, 2002
Craig Richardson
Stephenson) wrote:
>tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>> By the
>> way, you should listen to talk radio sometime; you might actually
>> learn something.
>>
>Don't ask me how 4dtvman has managed to post occasionally to r.s.b
>for most of 2002 without reading any of the economic threads.
You answered your own question. He posts. He doesn't _read_.
4dtvman
> 4dtvman wrote:
>
> > "Paul G. Wenthold" <p...@purdue.edu> wrote in message news:<3E232C18...@purdue.edu>...> > > > tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) wrote:
> > > > >David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > > >> The Orioles did not file for
> > > > >> bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>
> > > > >Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
> > > >
> > > > of knowledge. And the person who wrote that is wrong. If you have access
> > > > to Westlaw or the like, do a search on bankruptcy filings. You'll see: Eli
> > > > Jacobs filed; the Orioles did not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Here's a relevent comment from Bob DePuy, MLB's chief operating
> > > officer, from earlier this year:
> > >
> > > "In 1993, Eli Jacobs (who had controlling interest in the Baltimore Orioles)
> > > filed for bankruptcy," he said. "When it sold in the bankruptcy court, it was
> > > subject to (Major League) Baseball's approval. We preinterviewed and reviewed
> > > bidders and then approved Peter Angelos as the next owner.
> > >
> > > "A team bankruptcy would be complicated, but I do not agree that baseball would
> > > lose any control (over who buys it)."
> > >
> > > IOW, the team was part of Jacobs holdings when _he_ filed
> > > for bankruptcy. However, he distinguishes between that and
> > > a team bankruptcy. This is the first link I found in a search
> > > for "eli jacobs bankruptcy" and it is
> > >
> > > http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0710/1404343.html
> > >
> >
> > I find it quite ironic that most of you guys in this thread have been
> > attacking the credibility of Bud Selig and company but then you turn
> > around and quote his right hand man, Bob Depuy, to support your
> > argument.
>
You would have done well to have left that one out. If you didn't need
it, then why did you list it?
> There were plenty of others
> after it. Others have referenced "Lords of the Realm," which is not
> written by a friend of Selig. The claims from those learned sources
> are the same.
And the operative word here is "claims".
>
> Then there is an unsubstantiated comment by some sports reporter,
> and you think it is gospel.
But you guys seem to think "Lords of the Realm" is gospel and won't
even consider any other point of view.
>
> That being said, why would DuPuy be lying? What does he
> have to gain?
But why would he lie about other things (as you guys like to claim)?
He, Selig, and the owners are either liars or they're not. Which is
it? You guys can't have it both ways.
>
> give it up
Sorry, but truth and right never give up.
4dtvman
> In article <95f90cc2.03011...@posting.google.com>,
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>
> >> >Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
> >> >Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Most of us are smart enough (or have too much self-respect)
> >> to work for a Moonie rag.
> >
> >I don't work for them either.
>
> Unfortunately, your chances of working for a newspaper ended
> when they installed self-service elevators.
..and your chances ended when they started requiring perpective
employees to read and write above a 6th grade level.
>
> >> How the bloody hell could the Orioles have "gone bankrupt" immediately
> >> after opening their 100% publicly-funded, 100% sold out Camden Yards?
>
> >How should I know? I'm not the one who wrote that Washington Times article.
>
>
> You're the one having an orgasm over having found one source which
> appears to support your incorrect statement.
...and you're the one having a an orgasm over having found an old copy
of "Playgirl" magazine.
> Heaven forbid you check
> its accuracy or allow your tiny mind to consider whether the statement
> makes sense.
...and heaven forbid you check....ooops...sorry, I don't think that's
possible with an IQ of 60.
Paul G. Wenthold
Why bother? It is a source that is familiar with the
technical workings of MLB who tells us that the team
did not declare bankruptcy, despite it being in his
best interest to do so. You have given no reason
to disregard his claim.
> If you didn't need
> it, then why did you list it?
>
Because it was the first site on the list.
> > There were plenty of others
> > after it. Others have referenced "Lords of the Realm," which is not
> > written by a friend of Selig. The claims from those learned sources
> > are the same.
>
> And the operative word here is "claims".
Well, yeah, you are making claims, they are making claims.
Some claims are being backed up by facts. Yours aren't.
>
> >
> > Then there is an unsubstantiated comment by some sports reporter,
> > and you think it is gospel.
>
> But you guys seem to think "Lords of the Realm" is gospel and won't
> even consider any other point of view.
It's not a point of view, it is a matter of fact. Whether the
Orioles or Eli Jacobs declared bankruptcy is not a matter of
opinion.
Now, we have provided references and descriptions by everyone
from sports economists to MLB administration that refutes your
claim that the Orioles declared bankruptcy. You have a single
link to a statement by a random reporter. Why don't you
check into his claim before accepting it at face value?
And if you think that the folks here haven't done the same
with LOTR, then you are wrong.
>>
>> give it up
>
> Sorry, but truth and right never give up.
Show us the bankruptcy claim filed by the Baltimore Orioles.
Case number? etc?
You have a trivial task to show everyone wrong, here.
(HINT: a bankruptcy claim by Eli Jacobs is not the same thing)
paul
4dtvman
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>
> [Orioles and bankruptcy]
>
> : > Here's a relevent comment from Bob DePuy, MLB's chief operating
> : > officer, from earlier this year:
>
> : > "In 1993, Eli Jacobs (who had controlling interest in the
> : > Baltimore Orioles) filed for bankruptcy," he said. "When it sold
> : > in the bankruptcy court, it was subject to (Major League)
> : > Baseball's approval. We preinterviewed and reviewed bidders and
> : > then approved Peter Angelos as the next owner. "A team bankruptcy
> : > would be complicated, but I do not agree that baseball would lose
> : > any control (over who buys it)."
>
> : > IOW, the team was part of Jacobs holdings when _he_ filed for
> : > bankruptcy. However, he distinguishes between that and a team
> : > bankruptcy. This is the first link I found in a search for "eli
> : > jacobs bankruptcy" and it is
>
> : > http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0710/1404343.html
>
> : I find it quite ironic that most of you guys in this thread have
> : been attacking the credibility of Bud Selig and company but then you
> : turn around and quote his right hand man, Bob Depuy, to support your
> : argument.
>
> I find it hilarious and maddening that there have been numerous
> citations explaining the Jacobs/Orioles case, from Westlaw to Helyar
> to DuPuy, and you refuse to beleive it, believing a throwaway line
> from some schmuck in the Washington Times over all other evidence.
You've been hanging out with politicians way too much. You dodged my
statement better than Slick Wille dodged the draft. :) If you're going
to a respond to a statement I made (even to someone else, i.e., Paul),
then please address what I actually said. Let me repeat it in the form
of a question so perhaps you'll get a clue: Why is it that most of you
guys in this thread have been attacking the credibility of Bud Selig
and company but then one of you turns around and quotes his right hand
man, Bob Dupuy, to support your arguments?
If you don't have an answer (which is what I suspect, since you didn't
provide one this time around), then don't bother to respond.
Now, contrary to your tactics, I WILL address what you said. First,
I'm glad I could made you laugh but I think that you and your cronies
are well beyond maddening. As far as refusing to believe your sources
is concerned, you must be a mind reader as I never once said I didn't
believe them. Go ahead, make my day, see if you can find any place
where I said I didn't believe them. I dare 'ya. I doube-dare 'ya. And
yes, I did believe that so-called "throwaway line" at first, but
please see my response below.
>
> Admit that either you were wrong or that you're a troll.
I'm not going to admit that I was wrong because I didn't write that
article. Which part of "I didn't write that article" do you not
understand? However, I will say that it's likely, based on all the
stuff you guys have cited, that the guy who wrote that article was
inaccurate about the statement he made regarding the Orioles'
bankrupcy in 1993. Are you satisfied now?
By the way, for your information, the reason I kept quoting this
article is because you guys kept implying that I made the whole thing
up (about the Orioles) and I wanted to show you that I didn't.
Doug Pappas
> Unfortunately, your chances of working for a newspaper ended
>> when they installed self-service elevators.
>
>..and your chances ended when they started requiring perpective
>employees to read and write above a 6th grade level.
>
"perspective" employees? Geez, this is like shooting fish in a barrel...
>...and you're the one having a an orgasm over having found an old copy
>of "Playgirl" magazine.
That's me. Were you the pseudonymous writer of "Heaven Is
Touching Bud Selig's Prostate Gland"?
>> Heaven forbid you check
>> its accuracy or allow your tiny mind to consider whether the statement
>> makes sense.
>...and heaven forbid you check....ooops...sorry, I don't think that's
>possible with an IQ of 60.
Probably not. Witness your own inability to do anything more than
point and yell "SEE? SEE???"
Glenn Tanner
> doug...@aol.com (Doug Pappas) wrote in message news:<20030114162556...@mb-bd.aol.com>...
>
>>In article <95f90cc2.03011...@posting.google.com>,
>>tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>>
>>
>>>>>Oh really? Tell that to the person who wrote that article in the
>>>>>Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Most of us are smart enough (or have too much self-respect)
>>>>to work for a Moonie rag.
>>>>
>>>I don't work for them either.
>>>
>>Unfortunately, your chances of working for a newspaper ended
>>when they installed self-service elevators.
>>
>
> ..and your chances ended when they started requiring perpective
> employees to read and write above a 6th grade level.
Yet another Irony-meter all busted to hell.
GT
4dtvman
> In article <QRNU9.130$3P1....@feed2.centurytel.net>,> >news:95f90cc2.0301...@posting.google.com...
> >> > >Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
> >> >
> >> > Yes. Where do you get your facts from?
> >>
> >> Times:
> >>
> >> http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> > The Orioles did not file for
> >> > bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
> >>
> >> Washington Times. You're obviously alot smarter than he is.
> >
>
> Funny, that was exactly my take. I'd trust my sister's cat as a source
> before the Washington Times.
Sounds like you're getting way too intimate with that cat. :)
4dtvman
> On 14 Jan 2003 20:56:46 GMT, "Steve Grant" <ACE...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Mosey's Sequence" <jo...@mosey.communist> wrote in message
> >news:b01o5...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> This may be the most classic example of "it was written down, so it must
> be
> >> true" ever.
> >
> >I know it's true. I read it on the net.
>
> The lurkers support him in e-mail.
Hey, how did you know that? Oh, but then again, I guess it was easy to
figure out that lurkers would likely support the argument that makes
the most sense, even though the person making this argument is greatly
outnumbered by those who subscribe to the conventional foolishness.
4dtvman
>
> >> >>Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
> >> >
> >>
> >> bankruptcy (thanks to the collapse of the Junk bond market) he sold
> >> the team for $171 million - just 4 years later. That's besides all
> >> the money he took out of the team to try to prop up his business
> >> empire as it collapsed.
> >
> >Then you have an argument with the guy who wrote the following article:
> >
> >http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
>
> true" ever.
Actually, you guys have aleady topped me by believing all those
articles/books that you have quoted and put up links for. Hey, I can't
blame you, "it was written down (or posted on the internet), so it
must be true".
4dtvman
And I love how you guys took a variety of sources (including
statements by Selig's right-hand man, Bob Dupuy), selected out the
parts in them that you agreed with, and used them to support your
argument. How c-o-n-v-e-n-i-e-n-t !!!
By the way, the only reason I "used it repeatedly" was to combat your
implying that I made up that stuff about the Orioles going bankrupt in
1993. Someone even demanded my source, so I provided it.
Mosey's Sequence
>> Admit that either you were wrong or that you're a troll.
>
>I'm not going to admit that I was wrong because I didn't write that
>article.
Doesn't matter. You not only used it as evidence, you defended and used it as a
basis of your argument. Hence, if it is wrong, you are wrong.
Which part of "I didn't write that article" do you not
>understand?
The part where you put your weight on it and it collapsed. Nice try passing hte
buck.
"I wasn't wrong, all my facts were!"
Perry Sailor
> doug...@aol.com (Doug Pappas) wrote in message
news:<20030114162556...@mb-bd.aol.com>...
> > In article <95f90cc2.03011...@posting.google.com>,
> > tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
> >
> > Unfortunately, your chances of working for a newspaper ended
> > when they installed self-service elevators.
>
> ..and your chances ended when they started requiring perpective
> employees to read and write above a 6th grade level.
"Perspective"? Why does it seem to be a law of the universe that reading-
and writing-ability flames inevitably contain hilarious language errors?
Perry
4dtvman
> On 14 Jan 2003 10:53:44 -0800 tmitch...@att.net said some stupid crap like:
> >
> >"david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message
> >news:<avmu8b$p5t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...> >> news:95f90cc2.0301...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> > > Why? Besides DC, are teams in any markets they "shouldn't be" by size?
> Not like
> >> > > they expanded to Oklahoma City and skipped Denver.
> >> >
> >> > Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Kansas City aren't getting near enough of
> >> > stadium and Toronto is hurt by the weak Canadian dollar.
> >>
> >> But THIS makes no sense. The key is not who comes to the game, its the
> >> question as to who COULD come to the game.
> >
> >Oh really? Are you serious? In that case, the XFL should have been a
> >resounding success.
>
> Given time there is no reasons it shouldn't have been,
One big reason: there was no demand for it, despite the size of the
markets involved. That's my point. Sheer size of a of a market doesn't
mean jack, despite a belief that some of you seem to stubbornly want
to hold on to.
>Than again, are you
> talking baseball, because we are too. I don't care if New York has a sole market
> tiddlywinks team.
Yeah, but the principle of market size (and how much it matters or
doesn't matter) is still the same whether we're talking baseball or
tiddlywinks.
>
> Funny how the league folded depite being in large
> >markets where all of those poeple COULD have come to the games and
> >being on NBC where all of those people COULD have been watching the
> >games.
>
> Yes, they pulled the plug too soon. It actually did much better than people
> recognize.
Oh, give me a break. It was doomed after week 2, and unlike you, those
owners (including NBC and the WWF) were smart enough to see that. If
fact, the WWF (now WWE) is still feeling the pain financially from
their little venture into so-called football.
>
>
> >
> >> And for that, the question is
> >> the size of the market. Using attendence creates "strange" results.
> >
> >Yeah, strange stuff like how many people paid to see the games.
>
> Yeah, because 50000 people at $2 a game is better than 30k at $15 a game.
Oh really? That must be fuzzy math. 30K at $15 a game is much better.
>
> >
> >> Seattle has gone in less than 10 years from a "small market" team to one of
> >> the largest. Also see San Francisco, which has been one of the closest
> >> teams to moving in the recent past.
> >
> >Yeah, but not until they both built new stadiums. Of course, even that
> >hasn't helped much in places like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Detroit.
>
> That would be incorrect on the former, and proving yourself wrong on the latter.
Correct on former and showing that you need more than just a new
stadium in the latter.
>
> Don't forget Toronto.
What about Toronto?
>
> >> The size of the market didn't change...
> >> the marketing strategy in the market changed.
> >
> >
> >Funny how most of the successful "marketing strategies" include new
> >stadiums. Hmmm.........
>
> Yes, Wrigley, Yankee Stadium and Fenway are always empty.
I was talking about marketing strategies that made teams go from near
the bottom to near the top in attendence.
>
> >> Even the most zealous fans
> >> and the greatest marketing strategy in the World isn't going to result in a
> >> team drawing 3 million in Rapid City.
> >
> >Understood, but it's also true that some large markets like Miami will
> >never be good baseball markets, even with the best marketing
> >strategies in the world.
>
> You mean how they were 5th in the league in attendence in 1997. Yeah, that
> sucks!
That was an aberration because (1) the team was still fairly new and
(2) the salaries were articially inflated to get a one-season-wonder
team.
>
>
> For exmaple, Hell is a large market, too, but
> >I doubt that even the most ingenious marketing strategies to sell
> >heaters there would meet with much success.
>
> So you are saying no one in Florida likes baseball? Damn, and all these years
> Spring Training should have been in Cincy where people show up. (Is Cincy large
> market or small market now?)
>
> >> And the number of potential fans in FLorida, Oakland, and Tampa Bay is quite
> >> large.
> >
> >So are the number of potential buyers for heaters in Hell, so what?
>
> Actually there are no potential buyers, it works on supply and demand.
According to your principle, simply having people there means that
there are automatically potential buyers, regardless of the product.
>
> >> That the "marketing" geniuses haven't made it work, doesn't mean it
> >> won't. (See former small markets Seattle, Cleveland, San Francisco and
> >> Atlanta.)
> >
> >Three guesses as to what the "marketing" geniuses in these cities had
> >in their favor that their counterparts in Florida (Miami), Oakland,
> >and Tampa Bay didn't? Give up? The answer is: a new stadium.
>
> Actually, it is "winning."
>
> All these teams won first, than got a new stadium after they had attendence to
> support it.
>
> Hey, Florida has a new stadium, so does detroit, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh.
>
> (No,
> >Virginia, that thing in Tampa Bay (St. Petersurg) is not a "new"
> >stadium by today's standards; it was several years old before the
> >first major league game was ever played in it).
>
> New to them. Or did you think Candlestick is what made the Giants winners?
>
> >Now, with that being said, I'm still not convinced that even a new
> >stadium would help in Miami or Tampa Bay. Former MLB commissioner
> >Peter Ueberoth (sp?) warned against going into those markets for a
> >good reason. See my "selling heaters in Hell" example.
>
> If someone said it and you want it ot be true you will believe anythign
> apparently.
You do the same thing.
>
> >>
> >> > > The Dodgers are "struggling" more.
> >> >
> >> > I'm going by baseball's definition of "struggling".
> >>
> >> And most of us will disagree with "baseball's" definition. Baseball would
> >> love a situation in which players couldn't be free agents, couldn't be paid
> >> more than 1 million dollars per year, and every City would be required, at
> >> the owner's request, replace their stadium. Anything less than that, and
> >> they will "claim" to be struggling...
> >
> >I mostly agree with this, but the anemic attendance figures I see in
> >the box scores for games at places like Miami and Tampa Bay don't lie.
>
> So? Attendence isn't money, not even close. It's a fraction.
Yeah, it's amazing how much money those empty seats produce.
Tom MacIntyre
I refer to it as "Tom's Law". :-)
Tom
Ima Pseudonym
>Ima Pseudonym <akra...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<2d192v0k6handf1ht...@4ax.com>...
>> On 14 Jan 2003 11:24:19 -0800, Mosey's Sequence <jo...@mosey.communist>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 13 Jan 2003 12:14:35 -0800 tmitch...@att.net said some stupid crap like:
>> >
>> >>> >>Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Yes. Where do you get your facts from? The Orioles did not file for
>> >>> >bankruptcy. Eli Jacobs did. The Orioles were very profitable.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jacobs paid $70 million for the team in 1989. After he filed for
>> >>> bankruptcy (thanks to the collapse of the Junk bond market) he sold
>> >>> the team for $171 million - just 4 years later. That's besides all
>> >>> the money he took out of the team to try to prop up his business
>> >>> empire as it collapsed.
>> >>
>> >>Then you have an argument with the guy who wrote the following article:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030110-79749350.htm
>> >
>> >This may be the most classic example of "it was written down, so it must be
>> >true" ever.
>>
>> I love how he took an article that made a brief aside on the matter
>> with no detail, and then used it repeatedly to back his argument
>> against a variety of sources.
>
>And I love how you guys took a variety of sources (including
>statements by Selig's right-hand man, Bob Dupuy), selected out the
>parts in them that you agreed with, and used them to support your
>argument. How c-o-n-v-e-n-i-e-n-t !!!
And what part of the citation I used - Helyar's book "Lords of the
Realm" did I take out of context?
The answer is none of it - it very directly refuted your point, which
you still haven't admitted was false. I guess in your world if you
attack and slightly change the subject that means that you aren't
incorrect.
>
>By the way, the only reason I "used it repeatedly" was to combat your
>implying that I made up that stuff about the Orioles going bankrupt in
>1993. Someone even demanded my source, so I provided it.
And yet you've yet to admit that your source (which was a casual aside
in a brief article) was wrong, rather choosing to change the subject
and protest that you're being unfairly ganged up on.
Ima Pseudonym
Pathetic. Multiple respectable sources write in depth providing
evidence that you were incorrect, and you equate that with your
believing one source that makes a casual reference to something as an
aside.
Ima Pseudonym
Yes, because if somebody who has a vested interest in saying that the
Orioles declared bankruptcy, and who is in a position to know, says
that the Orioles didn't declare bankruptcy, that is evidence, even if
there are reasons to doubt other statements he would make. It's not a
complex concept, except to you.
>> There were plenty of others
>> after it. Others have referenced "Lords of the Realm," which is not
>> written by a friend of Selig. The claims from those learned sources
>> are the same.
>
>And the operative word here is "claims".
Of course, David actually cited Westlaw, the definitive source. And
Lords of the Realm has gone through multiple editions, with thorough
fact checking. Your source was a newspaper column written on a
deadline, almost certainly not revised since 30 minutes or so after
the reporter finished the article in the first place. And your
information was a freakin' aside in the article, not even central to
the article and likely done out of the reporters' (incorrect) memory.
>
>
>>
>> Then there is an unsubstantiated comment by some sports reporter,
>> and you think it is gospel.
>
>But you guys seem to think "Lords of the Realm" is gospel and won't
>even consider any other point of view.
What other point of view? What should be believed, an exhaustively
researched book that has gone through multiple editions, written by an
expert on the field, or an article that briefly comments on something
and has not been revised since the day it was written?
>
>>
>> That being said, why would DuPuy be lying? What does he
>> have to gain?
>
>But why would he lie about other things (as you guys like to claim)?
>He, Selig, and the owners are either liars or they're not. Which is
>it? You guys can't have it both ways.
So, either somebody lies about everything, or he never lies? That is
what your position implies. In fact, DuPuy has lied in the past, but
he made his statement about bankruptcies even though it was in his
advantage to say the opposite.
>
>>
>> give it up
>
>Sorry, but truth and right never give up.
What would you know about that? You haven't given any truth. When
confronted with evidence that your position is false, you attack the
bearers of the evidence and/or change the subject. You have no
concern with truth and rightness.
TJNawrocki
: > >> The size of the market didn't change...
: > >> the marketing strategy in the market changed.
: > >
: > >
: > >Funny how most of the successful "marketing strategies" include new
: > >stadiums. Hmmm.........
: >
: > Yes, Wrigley, Yankee Stadium and Fenway are always empty.
: I was talking about marketing strategies that made teams go from near
: the bottom to near the top in attendence.
Which marketing strategy made the Cubs go from 10th (out of 12) in the league
in attendance in 1982 to 2nd in 1984?
Which marketing strategy made the Yankees go from 11th in the league in
attendance in 1992 to 6th in 1993?
I think the Marlins and the Devil Rays ought to try whatever strategy those
teams used.
Tom Nawrocki
Ima Pseudonym
>Why is it that most of you
>guys in this thread have been attacking the credibility of Bud Selig
>and company but then one of you turns around and quotes his right hand
>man, Bob Dupuy, to support your arguments?
>
>If you don't have an answer (which is what I suspect, since you didn't
>provide one this time around), then don't bother to respond.
I've addressed it above already, but again, if somebody with a history
of lying to support the interests of his cause says something which
goes against his interests, then there is reason to believe it. All
the more so if it is supported by numerous impartial experts.
>
>Now, contrary to your tactics, I WILL address what you said. First,
>I'm glad I could made you laugh but I think that you and your cronies
>are well beyond maddening. As far as refusing to believe your sources
>is concerned, you must be a mind reader as I never once said I didn't
>believe them. Go ahead, make my day, see if you can find any place
>where I said I didn't believe them. I dare 'ya. I doube-dare 'ya. And
>yes, I did believe that so-called "throwaway line" at first, but
>please see my response below.
No, you just attacked each poster who offered evidence. You acted as
if you didn't believe them, now you try to weasel out of the
implications of arguing for a position, offering evidence in favor of
it, and attacking counter-evidence. Well, sorry, but the implications
of all of your actions is that you believed that the Orioles had
declared bankruptcy. You were wrong. No big deal being wrong, but
continuing to argue about it after you had ample evidence that you
were wrong is pathetic, and your weaseling doesn't fool anybody.
>
>>
>> Admit that either you were wrong or that you're a troll.
>
>I'm not going to admit that I was wrong because I didn't write that
>article. Which part of "I didn't write that article" do you not
>understand? However, I will say that it's likely, based on all the
>stuff you guys have cited, that the guy who wrote that article was
>inaccurate about the statement he made regarding the Orioles'
>bankrupcy in 1993. Are you satisfied now?
More weaseling.
You cited that article, used it as evidence for your position, and
attacked counter-evidence against it. You were wrong, and you keep
making yourself look worse with your actions, if that is even possible
at this point.
Ron Johnson
No. The cat's never lied to me. Mind you, all it's ever told me is
"I'm hungry.", but it's been a reliable source of that particular
information for year.
--
RNJ
Ron Johnson
Perry Sailor <perry....@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>"Perspective"? Why does it seem to be a law of the universe that reading-
>and writing-ability flames inevitably contain hilarious language errors?
>Perry
>
--
RNJ
Roger Moore
>One big reason: there was no demand for it, despite the size of the
>markets involved. That's my point. Sheer size of a of a market doesn't
>mean jack, despite a belief that some of you seem to stubbornly want
>to hold on to.
Except that you seem to have this backward. Other people are saying that
the size of a market is largely irrelevant once it gets to be large enough
to support a major league team. Once it passes some kind of major league
range, the number of fans depends more on the team's ability to draw fans
to their games, rather than on the absolute size of their market. So the
fact that, as an example, the Twins managed to draw 4 million fans back
when they were winning the World Series suggests that financial problems
that the Twins face today are related to their failing to get fans into
the ballpark, rather than any inherent difficulty with their market.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
david craven
>
> No, you just attacked each poster who offered evidence. You acted as
> if you didn't believe them, now you try to weasel out of the
> implications of arguing for a position, offering evidence in favor of
> it, and attacking counter-evidence. Well, sorry, but the implications
> of all of your actions is that you believed that the Orioles had
> declared bankruptcy. You were wrong. No big deal being wrong, but
> continuing to argue about it after you had ample evidence that you
> were wrong is pathetic, and your weaseling doesn't fool anybody.
All I can say is "Rosetta Stone".
Vinay Kumar
: Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote in message news:<ubs2jm...@baseball.org>...
: > tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
: > : I find it quite ironic that most of you guys in this thread have
: > : been attacking the credibility of Bud Selig and company but then
: > : you turn around and quote his right hand man, Bob Depuy, to
: > : support your argument.
: > I find it hilarious and maddening that there have been numerous
: > citations explaining the Jacobs/Orioles case, from Westlaw to
: > Helyar to DuPuy, and you refuse to beleive it, believing a
: > throwaway line from some schmuck in the Washington Times over all
: > other evidence.
: You've been hanging out with politicians way too much. You dodged my
: statement better than Slick Wille dodged the draft. :) If you're going
: to a respond to a statement I made (even to someone else, i.e., Paul),
: then please address what I actually said. Let me repeat it in the form
: of a question so perhaps you'll get a clue: Why is it that most of you
: guys in this thread have been attacking the credibility of Bud Selig
: and company but then one of you turns around and quotes his right hand
: man, Bob Dupuy, to support your arguments?
If it it was *only* a quote from DuPuy, you may have a point. But
there have been many citations saying that the Orioles did not file
for bankruptcy. Including one from somebody with limited credibility.
You, OTOH, cited just one source. Which also has limited credibility.
: If you don't have an answer (which is what I suspect, since you didn't
: provide one this time around), then don't bother to respond.
Whatever.
: > Admit that either you were wrong or that you're a troll.
: I'm not going to admit that I was wrong because I didn't write that
: article.
Of course you were wrong, you idiot. You wrote that the Orioles filed
for bankruptcy in 1993. In message
95f90cc2.03011...@posting.google.com:
> YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the
> Seattle Pilots ever filed for Bankruptcy?
Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
I rarely resort to name-calling here. But either you don't know the
meaning of the word "wrong" or you're a troll, so I think it's OK
here.
: Which part of "I didn't write that article" do you not
: understand? However, I will say that it's likely, based on all the
: stuff you guys have cited, that the guy who wrote that article was
: inaccurate about the statement he made regarding the Orioles'
: bankrupcy in 1993. Are you satisfied now?
Yes. And before you cited that article, you yourself wrote that the
Orioles filed for bankruptcy. Do you know what "wrong" means?
: By the way, for your information, the reason I kept quoting this
: article is because you guys kept implying that I made the whole
: thing up (about the Orioles) and I wanted to show you that I didn't.
Fine. I can understand doing that once or twice. But you *kept*
doing it, even when it was laughably clear that your source was
wrong.
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Vinay Kumar |
| vi...@baseball.org http://www.baseball.org/~vinay |
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
Mosey's Sequence
I'm ashamed to say I know why that is funny.
Mosey's Sequence
>> >Oh really? Are you serious? In that case, the XFL should have been a
>> >resounding success.
>>
>> Given time there is no reasons it shouldn't have been,
>
>One big reason: there was no demand for it, despite the size of the
>markets involved. That's my point. Sheer size of a of a market doesn't
>mean jack, despite a belief that some of you seem to stubbornly want
>to hold on to.
You know, repeating something stupid doesn't make it right, it just makes you
look foolish.
There actually *was* demand for it.
>
>>Than again, are you
>>talking baseball, because we are too. I don't care if New York has a sole market
>> tiddlywinks team.
>
>Yeah, but the principle of market size (and how much it matters or
>doesn't matter) is still the same whether we're talking baseball or
>tiddlywinks.
>
Yes, and that is the part you don't get. Even though yu have yet to say one true
thing this entire thread.
In case you haven't noticed you have been thwarted by not only authors but a
good number of lawyers and college professors who specialize in this thing
(Am I the only one who laughed my ass off when he went toe to toe with Pappas?)
>> Funny how the league folded depite being in large
>> >markets where all of those poeple COULD have come to the games and
>> >being on NBC where all of those people COULD have been watching the
>> >games.
>>
>> Yes, they pulled the plug too soon. It actually did much better than people
>> recognize.
>
>Oh, give me a break. It was doomed after week 2, and unlike you, those
>owners (including NBC and the WWF) were smart enough to see that.
Really? Your evidence of this is what? That is since it's LOWEST ratings were
still higher than any game in the WNBA ever, ice skating (non olympics) and I
think almost all nationally broadcast hockey games.
Talk about making up a reason after the fact.
If
>fact, the WWF (now WWE) is still feeling the pain financially from
>their little venture into so-called football.
Of course it is... According to you, who I have no doubt knows all about
wrasslin, and nothing about the economics of the company past what The Rock
tells you.
>>
>> >
>> >> And for that, the question is
>> >> the size of the market. Using attendence creates "strange" results.
>> >
>> >Yeah, strange stuff like how many people paid to see the games.
>>
>> Yeah, because 50000 people at $2 a game is better than 30k at $15 a game.
>
>Oh really? That must be fuzzy math. 30K at $15 a game is much better.
DING!.... and you don't get the point. Or the sarcasm, or that you defended "how
many people" and not "value."
Do you always run into brickwalls and then blame the wall?
>>
>> >
>>>> Seattle has gone in less than 10 years from a "small market" team to one of
>> >> the largest. Also see San Francisco, which has been one of the closest
>> >> teams to moving in the recent past.
>> >
>> >Yeah, but not until they both built new stadiums. Of course, even that
>> >hasn't helped much in places like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Detroit.
>>
>>That would be incorrect on the former, and proving yourself wrong on the latter.
>
>Correct on former and showing that you need more than just a new
>stadium in the latter.
But you said you did need one, so you are still wrong on both counts (hint:
saying "I am correct" doesn't make it so. Even less so than quoting the
Washington Times.)
>>
>> Don't forget Toronto.
>
>What about Toronto?
There is a shock, you didn't get it. Wasn't that part spoonfed to you by some
rauckus DJ?
>> >Funny how most of the successful "marketing strategies" include new
>> >stadiums. Hmmm.........
>>
>> Yes, Wrigley, Yankee Stadium and Fenway are always empty.
>
>I was talking about marketing strategies that made teams go from near
>the bottom to near the top in attendence.
"but, but, but...."
So what you want to say is "it's always true, except when it's not true, I don't
count those, and the ones i want to count I'd like to ignore, which leaves me
with these, but I am wrong about them because it didn't even happen that way."
>> >> Even the most zealous fans
>>>> and the greatest marketing strategy in the World isn't going to result in a
>> >> team drawing 3 million in Rapid City.
>> >
>> >Understood, but it's also true that some large markets like Miami will
>> >never be good baseball markets, even with the best marketing
>> >strategies in the world.
>>
>> You mean how they were 5th in the league in attendence in 1997. Yeah, that
>> sucks!
>
>That was an aberration because (1) the team was still fairly new and
>(2) the salaries were articially inflated to get a one-season-wonder
>team.
So you are saying (let me get this right since is is obcscenely dumb) high
salaries, and "new" teams, like say 5 years old, mean more attendence? So you
don't want to count them?
Even though you said the Marlins will never draw fans, you want to ignore that
they did?
>>>> And the number of potential fans in FLorida, Oakland, and Tampa Bay is quite
>> >> large.
>> >
>> >So are the number of potential buyers for heaters in Hell, so what?
>>
>> Actually there are no potential buyers, it works on supply and demand.
>
>According to your principle, simply having people there means that
>there are automatically potential buyers, regardless of the product.
More or less. Potential being the main word. Like "more colleges means more
potential for you to get educated, but somethings are impossible."
>> >> That the "marketing" geniuses haven't made it work, doesn't mean it
>> >> won't. (See former small markets Seattle, Cleveland, San Francisco and
>> >> Atlanta.)
>> >
>> >Three guesses as to what the "marketing" geniuses in these cities had
>> >in their favor that their counterparts in Florida (Miami), Oakland,
>> >and Tampa Bay didn't? Give up? The answer is: a new stadium.
>>
>> Actually, it is "winning."
>>
>>All these teams won first, than got a new stadium after they had attendence to
>> support it.
>>
>> Hey, Florida has a new stadium, so does detroit, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh.
>>
>> (No,
>> >Virginia, that thing in Tampa Bay (St. Petersurg) is not a "new"
>> >stadium by today's standards; it was several years old before the
>> >first major league game was ever played in it).
Gee, that's funny, you skipped my main point. You know the one that you rested
all of your arguments on, than ws proven wrong.... that one.
TO make up something about Tampa's stadium, which isn't really true, and doesn't
fit your "model."
>> If someone said it and you want it ot be true you will believe anythign
>> apparently.
>
>You do the same thing.
No, your mother does.
And you have poopy breathe.
>> So? Attendence isn't money, not even close. It's a fraction.
>
>Yeah, it's amazing how much money those empty seats produce.
Actually it is. Tht wooshing sound was the entire enconomic structure of the MLB
, which you are arguing about, flying over your head.
David Marc Nieporent
Mosey's Sequence <jo...@mosey.communist> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:15:23 -0600 "david said some stupid crap like:
>>"Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> No, you just attacked each poster who offered evidence. You acted as
>>> if you didn't believe them, now you try to weasel out of the
>>> implications of arguing for a position, offering evidence in favor of
>>> it, and attacking counter-evidence. Well, sorry, but the implications
>>> of all of your actions is that you believed that the Orioles had
>>> declared bankruptcy. You were wrong. No big deal being wrong, but
>>> continuing to argue about it after you had ample evidence that you
>>> were wrong is pathetic, and your weaseling doesn't fool anybody.
>>All I can say is "Rosetta Stone".
>I'm ashamed to say I know why that is funny.
And well you should be. That's the penultimate sign of...
oh, nevermind. Ty Cobb could have finished that joke if he wanted to.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Ron Johnson
Roger Moore <r...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
><dvda...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>To be successful, a business must have enough profit to justify any capital
>>investment. If they are unable to cover the interest on the debt, then they
>>must not be generating that profit. If the investment wasn't funded by debt,
>>then they might not go bankrupt, but buying into the league would still be
>>viewed (in hindsight) by the investors a mistake.
>
>That depends on the exact details of the debt. A business that's funded
>by borrowing money from loansharks must have a much higher profit margin
>to justify the interest than one that's funded from municipal bonds. If
>the Senators borrowed foolishly, they might have trouble covering their
>interest payments even though the team might be a reasonable investment
>for somebody who could buy them for cash. Of course if that's the case
>they should probably be able to refinance their debts somehow.
The Senators had to borrow a ton of money in a big hurry when their
financing plan fell apart (the province wouldn't allow them to sell
the land around the stadium. That was actually the whole point to
their bid -- real estate speculation. The land just happened to be
deemed to be prime farmland and it couldn't be used for commercial
purposes without permission.)
They got lousy terms on their loans.
--
RNJ
4dtvman
> tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
> : Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote in message news:<ubs2jm...@baseball.org>...
> : > tmitch...@att.net (4dtvman) writes:
>
> : > : I find it quite ironic that most of you guys in this thread have
> : > : been attacking the credibility of Bud Selig and company but then
> : > : you turn around and quote his right hand man, Bob Depuy, to
> : > : support your argument.
>
> : > I find it hilarious and maddening that there have been numerous
> : > citations explaining the Jacobs/Orioles case, from Westlaw to
> : > Helyar to DuPuy, and you refuse to beleive it, believing a
> : > throwaway line from some schmuck in the Washington Times over all
> : > other evidence.
>
> : You've been hanging out with politicians way too much. You dodged my
> : statement better than Slick Wille dodged the draft. :) If you're going
> : to a respond to a statement I made (even to someone else, i.e., Paul),
> : then please address what I actually said. Let me repeat it in the form
> : of a question so perhaps you'll get a clue: Why is it that most of you
> : guys in this thread have been attacking the credibility of Bud Selig
> : and company but then one of you turns around and quotes his right hand
> : man, Bob Dupuy, to support your arguments?
>
> If it it was *only* a quote from DuPuy, you may have a point.
Doesn't matter, I have a point anyway.
> But
> there have been many citations saying that the Orioles did not file
> for bankruptcy.
That still doesn't excuse the inconsistency of quoting someone whose
credibility you've been attacking. Your explanation has come up short
once again. You're welcome to take another whack at it (since that's
something you're probably quite experienced with). :)
> Including one from somebody with limited credibility.
Oh, I can see your strategy session now..."while we're quoting folks
with lots of credibility to refute 4dtvman's claims, let's throw in a
quote from someone with limited credibility to strengthen our
argument". LOL !!!!
>
> You, OTOH, cited just one source. Which also has limited credibility.
Nothing like keeping up the Joneses on those sources with limited
credibility, now is it?
>
> : If you don't have an answer (which is what I suspect, since you didn't
> : provide one this time around), then don't bother to respond.
>
> Whatever.
What's the matter? Couldn't you think of any comeback for that? That's
okay, I didn't think so.
>
> : > Admit that either you were wrong or that you're a troll.
>
> : I'm not going to admit that I was wrong because I didn't write that
> : article.
>
> Of course you were wrong, you idiot. You wrote that the Orioles filed
> for bankruptcy in 1993. In message
> 95f90cc2.03011...@posting.google.com:
>
> > YOu mention "bankruptcy". Has a single MLB team since the
> > Seattle Pilots ever filed for Bankruptcy?
>
> Baltimore Orioles, 1993. Next question?
Sorry, wrong answer !!! Thanks for playing the game. All I did was
quote a source that may or may not have been wrong. It's not like I
made that up myself or just pulled it out of my ass.
Here's an analogy to help your challenged little mind to understand
this concept a little better. Suppose all the weather forcasters in
your area were predicting a major snowstorm for tomorrow morning and
then you told someone (based on that information) that it was going to
snow tomorrow morning. Then, you wake up tommorrow morning only to
find no snow. Were you wrong? Hell no. The weather forcasters were
wrong.
>
> I rarely resort to name-calling here. But either you don't know the
> meaning of the word "wrong" or you're a troll, so I think it's OK
> here.
I'm not a troll and YOU'RE the who has proven himself not to know the
meaning of the word "wrong". By the way, I don't appreciate the
name-calling and it is NOT okay under ANY curcumstances (EXCEPT when
someone has physically assaulted you or called you a name). I thought
several times about using some very derogatory terms against you (some
that are often used against people of Indian descent), but I decided
not to do it because it was in bad taste and totally inappropriate.
However, now I'm starting to reconsider and the next time you call me
a name, I'm probably going thow decorum to wind and let them fly.
>
> : Which part of "I didn't write that article" do you not
> : understand? However, I will say that it's likely, based on all the
> : stuff you guys have cited, that the guy who wrote that article was
> : inaccurate about the statement he made regarding the Orioles'
> : bankrupcy in 1993. Are you satisfied now?
>
> Yes. And before you cited that article, you yourself wrote that the
> Orioles filed for bankruptcy.
I wrote it based on what I had already found in that article. Is that
so difficult to comprehend?
> Do you know what "wrong" means?
Yes, but I'm starting to wonder if you do.