Jon--there's *A LOT* of Stockholm syndrome among Orioles fans these days. Those rushing to defend their paltry payroll is something I'll never understand.
Having the second lowest payroll in the league is indefensible in my opinion. If you can't afford baseball players, then don't own a baseball team.
This is like when someone buys an expensive luxury sports car, and complains incessantly about the cost of maintenance, or gas.
Given that the Angelos family is extraordinarily wealthy outside of their baseball interests, and that owning a team is basically a billionaire's vanity project, why is there this need to squeeze every last dollar out of the organization by keeping "profit" a top priority over "winning championships"? Winning is always secondary with the Angelos family. If you're looking for an investment, go buy bonds.
This is especially true for teams like the Orioles who receive, near as I can tell, somewhere around $75MM per year in revenue sharing, national contracts, etc. before they even sell their first ticket, jersey, beer, or luxury box.
Why they bother to own a team in the first place is beyond me. They don't know the press that covers the team, don't seem to be all that interested in winning, unless it can be done cheaply, and get huffy the second anyone dares to ask how the team is run.
I'd much prefer an owner like the owner of the Phillies who just said: "Nobody cares about whether I make money or not [on the Phillies]. If my legacy is that I didn't lose money owning a baseball team on an annual operating basis, that's a pretty sad legacy. It's about putting trophies in the cases."
Jon, first, I really enjoy your publication. Everyday that I see one of your posts in my email, is a great start to the day.
But I have become disappointed with the narrative that is emerging from the press coverage of the Orioles when it comes to John Angelos’ role.
In my view, we finally have an owner who is willing to leave the baseball decisions to baseball people. Why isn’t that something to celebrate rather than constantly trying to ridicule the fact that he is not more disruptive to what Elias is doing.
Would we rather have a return to Peter’s clumsy micromanagement of the baseball operation?
What I see here is that Elias has a plan that he is implementing. He has said it was not yet the right time to make potentially bad long term commitments. He is not departing from his plan just because the press and part of the fan base read more into ‘liftoff’ than he meant.
I personally am very happy with John being the representative of the ownership group. He hired Elias and clearly promised him wide latitude in running the team. As someone who has run businesses, it is not “impossible” for me to see that John is not meddling in payroll decisions. We have a far better chance of retaining Elias for the long term if John continues to give him a lot of latitude.
It seems that people think that an owner establishes the budget and then management figures out what to do with the money budgeted. What I am seeing here is that the management team presented a long term plan that includes annual budgets. That the owner has approved that plan and as each year unfolds the management team updates the owner on what they want to do for the new year. And so far the owner has approved their annual plan. I welcome the fact that ownership sees their job as figuring out how to fund what management wants to do.
I will acknowledge that John’s over-reaction to Connelly’s long winded question was awkward. But I also share his frustration with the fact that at an announcement of a $5M commitment to education for at risk youth, the press ignored the purpose of the occasion and chose to change the agenda to answering multiple questions that have been constantly answered about the future of the team.
Anyone who read the pleadings in the lawsuit could see that it was going nowhere. Allegations in lawsuits are often overstatements of facts that have just a minimal basis of attachment to reality. My goodness, one of the things alleged is that John got rid of Brady. I can see the reality is that John gave Elias total control of his management team and Elias determined that there was no credible role for Brady. I like Brady also, but never really understood what he did as a VP in the organization.
I think it is time to see a new narrative that we have an owner who is committed to Baltimore and is giving the baseball people that he selected the wide latitude to run the team. I for one am pleased with that.
Connolly didn't ask some long winded, crazy question.
That situation was not Dan's fault, in any way. If Angelos specifically did not want baseball questions, then please--why did he invite a bunch of baseball reporters? Why on Earth would have invite sports reporters if that topic was off-the-table?
Second, Angelos had *a lot* of nerve trying to shame Dan for asking questions on MLK day, as if Angelos himself wasn't using the day to highlight his philanthropic bonafides. Gimme a break!
Look, $5MM to a worthy cause is a laudable thing to do. Congrats to Angelos to doing that. Calling a press conference on MLK day so that you get props for it is somewhat less laudable, but we're used to that kind of mildly cynical usage in this day and age. He wanted the attention, called a press conference, and made sure it happened on a day when it would get noticed. This is an important point, let's not forget it.
Then, Angelos completely hosed himself with his VERY LONGWINDED answer.
Dan Connolly has been covering the Orioles for a long, long time, and it's not only mind-boggling that Angelos did not appear to know this, but then he also went out of his way to question whether Dan was "from here." And remember, Dan was *invited* to this press conference, yet here is Angelos treating him like an interloper. Why would that ever matter, where Dan was from? If he's not from Baltimore, does that mean Dan can't ask an Orioles question? Never mind that yes, Dan is from the area. Angelos himself doesn't even live in Baltimore. He lives in Nashville.
Next, his assertion that Dan was somehow disrespecting MLK day is laughable in the extreme, especially since Angelos himself was using the day to highlight himself. And frankly, if ever there was a person who would celebrate speaking truth to power, it was the great Martin Luther King.
Finally--and totally unprovoked--Angelos went off the deep end and said that he would open the books and show the Orioles governance and the financials. Again, completely unprovoked. That was HIS offer to the press, not some fever dream of a rogue reporter. Those were the words from his own mouth.
And of course, he didn't follow up on them, because he realized how badly he had stepped in it. Now, he stands up yesterday and offers up a bunch of qualifiers that--surprise!--did not exist in in his original rant.
So yes, I agree with your point that I'm happy Angelos has hired smart baseball people and has largely gotten the heck out of the way. I'm happy that the team is in better shape--at least, on the field--that it has been in a long time.
But no, blaming a reporter for John Angelos' mini-meltdown--I won't tolerate that, and neither should anyone else.
Jon--there's *A LOT* of Stockholm syndrome among Orioles fans these days. Those rushing to defend their paltry payroll is something I'll never understand.
Having the second lowest payroll in the league is indefensible in my opinion. If you can't afford baseball players, then don't own a baseball team.
This is like when someone buys an expensive luxury sports car, and complains incessantly about the cost of maintenance, or gas.
Given that the Angelos family is extraordinarily wealthy outside of their baseball interests, and that owning a team is basically a billionaire's vanity project, why is there this need to squeeze every last dollar out of the organization by keeping "profit" a top priority over "winning championships"? Winning is always secondary with the Angelos family. If you're looking for an investment, go buy bonds.
This is especially true for teams like the Orioles who receive, near as I can tell, somewhere around $75MM per year in revenue sharing, national contracts, etc. before they even sell their first ticket, jersey, beer, or luxury box.
Why they bother to own a team in the first place is beyond me. They don't know the press that covers the team, don't seem to be all that interested in winning, unless it can be done cheaply, and get huffy the second anyone dares to ask how the team is run.
I'd much prefer an owner like the owner of the Phillies who just said: "Nobody cares about whether I make money or not [on the Phillies]. If my legacy is that I didn't lose money owning a baseball team on an annual operating basis, that's a pretty sad legacy. It's about putting trophies in the cases."
Jon, first, I really enjoy your publication. Everyday that I see one of your posts in my email, is a great start to the day.
But I have become disappointed with the narrative that is emerging from the press coverage of the Orioles when it comes to John Angelos’ role.
In my view, we finally have an owner who is willing to leave the baseball decisions to baseball people. Why isn’t that something to celebrate rather than constantly trying to ridicule the fact that he is not more disruptive to what Elias is doing.
Would we rather have a return to Peter’s clumsy micromanagement of the baseball operation?
What I see here is that Elias has a plan that he is implementing. He has said it was not yet the right time to make potentially bad long term commitments. He is not departing from his plan just because the press and part of the fan base read more into ‘liftoff’ than he meant.
I personally am very happy with John being the representative of the ownership group. He hired Elias and clearly promised him wide latitude in running the team. As someone who has run businesses, it is not “impossible” for me to see that John is not meddling in payroll decisions. We have a far better chance of retaining Elias for the long term if John continues to give him a lot of latitude.
It seems that people think that an owner establishes the budget and then management figures out what to do with the money budgeted. What I am seeing here is that the management team presented a long term plan that includes annual budgets. That the owner has approved that plan and as each year unfolds the management team updates the owner on what they want to do for the new year. And so far the owner has approved their annual plan. I welcome the fact that ownership sees their job as figuring out how to fund what management wants to do.
I will acknowledge that John’s over-reaction to Connelly’s long winded question was awkward. But I also share his frustration with the fact that at an announcement of a $5M commitment to education for at risk youth, the press ignored the purpose of the occasion and chose to change the agenda to answering multiple questions that have been constantly answered about the future of the team.
Anyone who read the pleadings in the lawsuit could see that it was going nowhere. Allegations in lawsuits are often overstatements of facts that have just a minimal basis of attachment to reality. My goodness, one of the things alleged is that John got rid of Brady. I can see the reality is that John gave Elias total control of his management team and Elias determined that there was no credible role for Brady. I like Brady also, but never really understood what he did as a VP in the organization.
I think it is time to see a new narrative that we have an owner who is committed to Baltimore and is giving the baseball people that he selected the wide latitude to run the team. I for one am pleased with that.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
Connolly didn't ask some long winded, crazy question.
That situation was not Dan's fault, in any way. If Angelos specifically did not want baseball questions, then please--why did he invite a bunch of baseball reporters? Why on Earth would have invite sports reporters if that topic was off-the-table?
Second, Angelos had *a lot* of nerve trying to shame Dan for asking questions on MLK day, as if Angelos himself wasn't using the day to highlight his philanthropic bonafides. Gimme a break!
Look, $5MM to a worthy cause is a laudable thing to do. Congrats to Angelos to doing that. Calling a press conference on MLK day so that you get props for it is somewhat less laudable, but we're used to that kind of mildly cynical usage in this day and age. He wanted the attention, called a press conference, and made sure it happened on a day when it would get noticed. This is an important point, let's not forget it.
Then, Angelos completely hosed himself with his VERY LONGWINDED answer.
Dan Connolly has been covering the Orioles for a long, long time, and it's not only mind-boggling that Angelos did not appear to know this, but then he also went out of his way to question whether Dan was "from here." And remember, Dan was *invited* to this press conference, yet here is Angelos treating him like an interloper. Why would that ever matter, where Dan was from? If he's not from Baltimore, does that mean Dan can't ask an Orioles question? Never mind that yes, Dan is from the area. Angelos himself doesn't even live in Baltimore. He lives in Nashville.
Next, his assertion that Dan was somehow disrespecting MLK day is laughable in the extreme, especially since Angelos himself was using the day to highlight himself. And frankly, if ever there was a person who would celebrate speaking truth to power, it was the great Martin Luther King.
Finally--and totally unprovoked--Angelos went off the deep end and said that he would open the books and show the Orioles governance and the financials. Again, completely unprovoked. That was HIS offer to the press, not some fever dream of a rogue reporter. Those were the words from his own mouth.
And of course, he didn't follow up on them, because he realized how badly he had stepped in it. Now, he stands up yesterday and offers up a bunch of qualifiers that--surprise!--did not exist in in his original rant.
So yes, I agree with your point that I'm happy Angelos has hired smart baseball people and has largely gotten the heck out of the way. I'm happy that the team is in better shape--at least, on the field--that it has been in a long time.
But no, blaming a reporter for John Angelos' mini-meltdown--I won't tolerate that, and neither should anyone else.